The Impeachment Loophole No One's Talking About

what does quorum call mean

what does quorum call mean - win

Follow the crumbs. $GME exposed the meta.

A friend of mine just sent this over to me. He's a noob and I'm a noob but in the true spirit of karma whoring for fake internet points I wanted to share and they said it's my funeral. Note we are both total retards, noobs and have no skin in the game cuz we too poor and can only afford plain popcorn, but we desperately want to see WSB succeed and Power to the Players! Do not take this as financial advice or god have mercy on your soul.
Uh guys… so we may see a crash that makes Enron look like a joke. There could be more than a short going on here, and more than firms pulling capital from other companies to cover.
I don’t mean to go all conspiracy theory on you, but hear me out.... I think everything is going so off-the-rails not because of the short, but because Vanguard, Fidelity and BlackRock have sold more stock than exists. This is illegal (duh) but it has happened lots of times in the past. In fact, we didn't have real laws against it until 2008. We may see some bizarre moves if WSB doesn't sell, because some people need to hide some crimes. No joke. Here's why I think this may be the case:
---------- The Background ----------
Read this first to understand how naked shorts work:
https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/options-trading-risk-alert.pdf
Basically, to short a stock, you must “borrow” the stock from another account, usually something like a margin account. This is something that typically the clearing house does on behest of the fund doing the shorting. Most people don’t even know when their shares are being borrowed by a hedge fund for the purposes of shorting.
A “naked short” is when you short a stock, but don’t confirm that the stock you are borrowing actually exists. This can happen when a clearing house either purposefully or inadvertently (ahem, sure) lends the same stock more than once. This basically clones the stock, just like an item cloning glitch in a video game. There are now two copies of the same stock in existence being actively traded… at least temporarily. Hold that thought.
Naked shorts can be devastating to the company being shorted, as not only do they lose liquidity because of the short, the cloned stocks serve to dilute the value of the real stocks being held by artificially increasing the number of stocks being traded. Especially for small companies doing initial investment rounds, this practically guarantees bankruptcy: the diluted value limits the amount of capital they can raise, as the company never sees the cash from the cloned stock.
Now, after the 2008 crash the SEC in theory made this illegal. Obviously, this practice kills companies if the short succeeds or destroys markets if the short doesn’t succeed. Either way, someone gets hurt.
HOWEVER, there’s a catch: Because hedge funds and clearing houses are permitted to operate behind closed doors, the SEC can only detect a naked short when a “failure to deliver” occurs. When someone calls the short, either because of a buy or because someone withdraws the right to loan their shares, the person shorting then has 3 days to deliver. If they can’t deliver the share (because it doesn’t exist) within 3 days, then this gets reported as a “failure to deliver”. Now, the SEC may look past a few of these because floats do happen, but too many and the SEC is obligated to open an investigation.
But of course, that never happens. The clearinghouse only has to report the net deliveries, not the actual transactions. This means that as long as there is someone buying on the day the failure-to-deliver would occur, the clearinghouse can roll the transaction forward… basically just like floating a check. The non-existent cloned stock is bought with the new buy, and the sell of real shares that should have covered that buy is left open but doesn’t need to be fulfilled for three more days. The clock resets. This is sort of like somebody-I-know used to do by floating checks back and forth between two different bank accounts: keeping the money in the air for several weeks until payday by continually writing checks to cover checks. Super unethical, but does work.
But, this can’t be continued indefinitely. There are SEC rules that make it tough to do this for longer than 21 days. IANAL, I don’t know every loophole, but that’s my understanding.
This is why after 2008 it became so important for the hedge fund to bankrupt the target company. If the company goes bankrupt, then the shares cease to be and the books never resolve. Even some kinds of restructuring can keep the books from resolving. It’s still possible to cover this without bankrupting the company if you can get enough people to sell, but it’s easier to crash the company and just make it all go away while pocketing cash from more shares than were ever real.
---------- The WSB Play ----------
Ok, now read this:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4370860-gamestop-short-squeeze
This was basically the original WSB plan back from October. Don't worry about the plan... we know what's going on here already. Melvin Capital shorted by 140% which is more than the float. Gamestop had enough cash to cover debt so it seemed unlikely they would fail unless the hedge funds forced it to. Squeeze looks obvious when you lay it out that way.
BUT, there is one chart here that is super important when folks were trying to figure this out: look at the chart for institutional ownership!
https://i.imgur.com/Jh5AI8V.png
The top three names on that chart are Vanguard, Blackrock and Fidelity. As is suggested by the author, there is a strong likelihood that the top holders already loaned out all their shares to Melvin Capital. The shares had to come from somewhere, and this is the only place they could have come.
This is why some people thought this was a good move. Not just because there was a short, but because they could see that all the shares had already been “borrowed” which would force the hedge fund to buy at any price. There were simply no more shares available to option for any other kind of fuckery.
---------- The Expected Response ----------
Okay, so WSB made their move. And predictably Robinhood and a bunch of trading platforms cut the ability to buy GME. Seems obvious enough as a strategy to stem the bleeding, regardless of whether it is coming from Robinhood or, as they claim, the brokerage above them limiting trades for reasons. Whatever. Either way, this is an obvious response.
Likewise, there have been numerous pushes from the hedge funds to either convince WSB the positions are closed, or to convince them to change their position from GME to Silver.
Despite what the news is reporting, no one in WSB appears to be buying silver. Maybe someone is, but it ain’t them. I did a site-wide search for silver, then pulled the post history for all the accounts that made the posts--of which there are shockingly few compared to what the news media is implying. The only accounts promoting this appear to be mostly bots: they became reddit premium within the last week, or they are necro accounts that have no posts for two or three years until suddenly dozens of silver related posts in the last few days. Conversely, there are been numerous long standing accounts warning others that these silver posts are bots.
None of this is unexpected. Bots and media manipulation have been par for the course for political bullshit for the last few years.
Boots on the ground, I have literally no idea where the news media is getting this story other than a change in silver pricing. I am not seeing any such discussion in related communities, and certainly none that pre-dates the news stories! To be fair and avoid conspiracy: I don’t hang out on twitter. There are retail traders outside of Reddit, and perhaps the media is clumping multiple groups together and mistaking Twitter for Reddit. Wouldn’t be the first time. Even on 4chan /b/ is not /pol/ and so on. People make that mistake all the time, so the misrepresentation may be entirely unintentional. I know the internet is a weird weird place and not everyone gets how it works.
The last expected response is the fact that many of the hedge funds bought new short positions, especially assuming that most of Reddit would sell on Friday. (Which they did not) There are additional short positions held that expect WSB to fold within the next week. This coincides with the news reports expecting people to try to collect their profits. Of course, many people don't intend to do that. They aren't worried about the profits they want to see hedge funds go down.
But all this movement leads to an obvious question: If there are no shares available to borrow, then what are they borrowing against for the short??
---------- Clearing Houses are Sus ----------
Okay, soooo…. We expect Wall Street to prevent buying GME, which they have; and to unleash bots to change sentiment, which they have; and to promote news stories to try to change the situation, which they have.
BUT, with all of this, there are two retail trading platforms that are still allowing GME trades: Vanguard and Fidelity. There is also one firm that started buying GameStop themselves five days ago: BlackRock. Sound like a familiar list?????? These are the firms that held the shares that the hedge funds were borrowing against to short.
Now, if all the funds are trying to stop the bleeding, WHY would these firms still allow trading when no one else is… much less start buying themselves?
Unless…. The shares DON’T EXIST.
You can’t float a check between two accounts without writing another check. Someone needs to buy the shares in order to push the failure-to-deliver of the non-existent cloned stock into the future, otherwise the gig is up and the SEC finds out. If Vanguard and Fidelity become the only source for Redditors to buy from, then they can keep moving the doomsday clock forward. BlackRock can do the same thing by buying the stock themselves. Not as good a position, but not a lot of other choice if they need the books to read clean. Ok, someone with more experience than me can surely explain this better as there are some gotchas, but that's the basic gist.
More proof those shares don’t exist? This academic paper from last year gives a clue:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3673531
Even if you own shares, you can’t vote in a shareholder’s meeting if your shares have been loaned out. Less than half of GameStop shareholders were eligible to vote by April of last year, with even fewer by August! There were so many shares borrowed SIX MONTHS AGO that it was affecting GameStop’s ability to hold a quorum among shareholders.
Now the paper was only concerned about how short selling was affecting company’s ability to administer. The idea that these were naked shorts never came up AFAIK. But knowing what we do now, this seems increasingly likely.
Also, for good measure beyond academia, this was in the news from last year:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-investing-giants-gave-away-voting-power-ahead-of-a-shareholder-fight-11591793863
If you look at the volume that WSB has bought since then, and the amount held in options, and the amount of shares that have been borrowed against in the last week or two as hedge funds have placed a second set of shorts… well… it sure looks like there are way more shares on the market THAN EXIST. Of course, without having the records from the clearing houses, AFAIK there's no way to know for sure. Only the SEC can do that.
I don’t mean the bet WSB played… that Marvin had 140% of the FLOAT. I mean that Vanguard, Fidelity and BlackRock have sold more than the TOTAL SHARES that EXIST.
That's a completely different problem and it's punishable by jail time. Not a joke. It's basically counterfeiting stock shares, although that's not the terminology used. If this is true, who knows how many other times they’ve done this. Or maybe it's not true, and they just really like the stock??? If BlackRock started buying five days ago, and the longest they can likely do this is 21 days, then the doomsday clock doesn’t run out until at least February 17th. If Wall Street can get WSB to sell before then, then they won’t get caught and won’t go to jail. But if they don’t…. well, this will make Enron look like chump change.
If enough people hold until the end of February, and this is truly the situation, then there is a chance that major parts of Wall Street are going to IMPLODE.
---------- The Conclusion ----------
Apes need diamond hands until the end of February in order to get the SEC involved, most likely somewhere between Feb 17th - 19th. Whether or not this will happen is anybody's guess, but if it does all heck may break loose!
Wall Street will probably do everything in their power to prevent that. There are too many top players involved. Crazy moves are likely because stock brokers are smooshy and jail is uncomfortable.
This may effect the market. (Duh) Bloomberg may be correct, but not at all for the reasons stated. But, that said, I wouldn't panic if it does. I think it will be fine in the long run, but that's a whole other set of reasoning for another day.
Standard Disclaimer: This is not financial or legal advice. I am a retard and I have no idea what I am talking about. This is entirely speculation. :)
Edit: here is the link to my second attempt to post to WSB, maybe a mod can reverse the removal? The post still shows listed on my end: https://www.reddit.com/wallstreetbets/comments/la9ms9/follow_the_crumbs_gme_exposed_the_meta/
Edit 2: Ok so don't ask me for stock advice. I don't know stocks and neither does my friend. We both think holding is the right move but beyond that we don't know and could even be wrong about that. And furthermore I don't want this to come off like we're accusing these companies of nefarious deeds. We don't know what is going on. The data is sus. The activities are sus. Google is your friend and the post tries to list sources for the research. Do your own research though! For ducks sake this is a rando post on UserSub. I'm happy to see the love but this is a one shot research dump by someone who knows nothing about this topic.
Edit 3: u/traveljg has commented that Blackrock is on the record for selling not buying but I don't know enough about any of this to challenge the idea one way or another and my friend is off on some other crusade at this point so he's worthless for questions. This is why it is SUPER important that you do your own research and not take advice from a rando.
Edit 4: I'm not responding to chat requests. If you have comments make them on the post. What is wrong with you retards?
submitted by bcRIPster to u/bcRIPster [link] [comments]

[Serial][UWDFF Alcubierre] Part 73

Beginning | Previous
Premier Valast laid on his side atop his Patriarch's cushion, idly tapping on his datapad as Minister Gorman droned on in the background. Apparently, the Trade Minister was very put out by the disappearance of a worm projector, and had expected to be informed of the transaction with the Amalgans, as if is approval were in some way important to a decision of that magnitude. Were it not for the fact that the Premier was intensely bored, he would have long ago dispensed with Gorman and sent him off to deal with the problems he had been delegated to address.
Valast's perked up when there was a pause in Gorman's litany of complaints. He took the opportunity to pounce. "Trade Minister Gorman, perhaps you think there is a surplus of options available to us. Tell me, do you believe our position would be enhanced by allowed the Evangi and their Human co-conspirators to go free?"
Gorman flapped his ears once, his whiskers twitching as the momentum in the conversations shifted immediately to Valast. Clearly, the Minister had mistook Valast's silence for agreement rather than indifference."N-no, Premier. I am merely trying to provide you with some insight into the ramifications the loss of a worm projector--"
"Gorman," Valast spat out, "I'm the one who told you how to plot the routes in the first place. Do you think I'm not aware of ever aspect of the Combine's logistical situation? Perhaps you believe I should come running to you each and every time I am to make a decision. You long for my pillow, but I do not think you are prepared to sit upon it." Valast sneered, one hind claw idly plucking at the pillow's fine fabric.
"That was not my intention at all, Premier. It's just that...well, they'll starve," Gorman averted his eyes at the last few words, a tremor entering in.
Valast could only look upon him in disgust. The weakness of the male was incredible. Unsurprisingly, but still incredible. As usual, Valast was called upon to set the context, to explain what must be done in order to survive. To remind his lessers of the stakes and the obstacles he faced on a daily basis. "Of course they'll starve, Gorman. That's the galaxy the Evangi have built for us. How they kept us all at their beck and call. They hid behind their Combine Compact, tried to make it all seem civilized, but they always kept their hands at our throats." Valast pulled himself to a perching position, warming to the subject. "Do as we say or die! Follow our rules or get cut off. That's always been their way. That's why they always kept control over the wormkeys, and that's why they stole the encryption key the moment they thought they couldn't keep us under their heel. They want us to come back begging."
Valast hopped off the cushion and jabbed a paw in Gorman's direction. "Well, perhaps you're the begging sort, Gorman, your warren has bowed and scraped its way this far, why should it be any different now? But I have a responsibility to the Combine, one that transcends the petty interests you so quickly succumb to. It is my duty to rid us of these parasites and secure the future of this galaxy. I won't be the one who blinks. I will do what is necessary. If a few outer planets populated by fringe races must be sacrificed for the greater good, then that is a price I am willing to pay and I will make sure the Evangi and their filthy Human pets pay the price for it." Valast waved a paw in the air, "A worm projector is pittance to secure that future."
Gorman bowed deeply, his ears drooping to his sides, "Yes, of course, Premier, I am just informing you--"
"I don't want you to inform me of your problems. I want you tell me of your solutions. I want you to use the power I have granted to you to carry out the responsibilities I have delegated to you. If I want to spend my time in pointless debate, I'll go speak with the Council. You are here to save me time, not waste it."
Gorman eyes flicked up at the mention of the Council, seeing the opportunity to change the conversation. "I heard that you recalled the Council...did they do as you asked?"
"I did not ask them anything. I told them what their responsibilities were and they, after considerable idiocy, made the only decision that would allow them to continue their worthless existence." Valast huffed out. "They played their little games, raising procedural concerns and running about in circles, but the Evangi are out. Expunged. Purged. Removed. Members of the Combine no longer."
Gorman exhaled noisily, a hiss emitting as the wind blew past needle sharp teeth. "Truly? I was uncertain...the session was long."
"Yes, well, as I said, they raised numerous concerns. At first they protested a lack of quorum, seeking refuge behind their fallen colleagues, lost in the flight from Halcyon. I resolved that issue by emergency appointments. Then there was a traitorous effort to seek reconciliation with our former masters, which I was forced to put down by threatening to declare their homeworlds in rebellion and withdraw projector access." Valast rolled his eyes, rolling his paw forward in a circular motion in front of him, "And so one and so forth. Eventually, there was a vote and the Evangi were expunged, and now the Amalgans may execute upon the Evangi Cleanse Contract."
"Are they capable of that? We know very little about the Overse--the traitors."
"They are experts in their craft, I suspect they are better prepared than any other possibility." Valast plopped back down atop his cushion, settling himself and smoothing out the fabric with his paws. "And does it matter? If they are incapable, then I would rather it be them than us."
Gorman nodded his head, "Truly." He glanced toward Valast's datapad, "When are they proceed?"
"Very soon. The delay has been on our side, not theirs. I deemed it unwise to begin the attack without both contracts being in effect. There was also the matter of the transfer of the worm projector and any number of other incidental aspects." Valast gave Gorman a look of cool disdain. "These matters were but a fraction of the items I am called upon to perform at any given moment. All of which I undertake without complaint because it is my duty to do so."
The Trade Minister bowed his head down again, his ears returning to their drooped posture. "It is an inspiring example, Premier. I shall strive to reach it, but recognize you as the superior in all regards."
"Very good. I eagerly await your update on the resolution of the reroutes to the trade network. Protect what you can, and sacrifice what you must. Our allies and the Legacy races must be granted preferential treatment wherever possible. We cannot risk instability with those who direct access to Mus." Many of the Legacy races benefited from keyed vessels with direct access to Mus, part of the direct trade deals the Mus had erected during their rise to prominence in the Combine. He was disinclined to give them reason for aggression. Even a trading vessel, if loaded with malcontents, could cause substantial harm in this fragile situation.
"Yes, Premier. I will see to it immediately."
Valast waved a paw, dismissing Gorman. The Trade Minister bowed, retreated a few paces, bowed again, and then turned and scurried away. Valast waited until the door to his chamber had resealed before turning his attention back to his datapad. He opened up the files detailing the Amalgan's strategic plan. The first phase called for a survey of the Sol system, both to determine the location of Human assets and to ascertain the nature of the restricted zone itself. Following the survey, there would be an initial assault designed to test Human defenses. If the results were promising, the cleanse would commence in earnest. If not, there were a variety of contingency plans based upon what was discovered.
With a few taps, Valast exited the more detailed logistical files and opened the Cleanse Contract Overview, which provided a statement of the terms and a basic assessment of outcome. A warmth kindled in Valast's core as he scanned the overview. The Amalgans were quite confident.
Cleanse Contract Overview - Humanity
Species Classification: War Oriented Neophyte Spacefarer (WONS).
Location: Single Known System - Sol Project.
Technology: Humanity displays a basic grasp of the fundamentals of in-system space travel with rudimentary weapons. Despite their low level of technology, they have exhibited creativity and dangerously erratic application of the tools at their disposal.
Assignment: Total Annihilation
Methods: No restrictions.
Expected Outcome: Success.
Failure Option: None. The Sclinter Amalgans are obligated to continue attacks upon Humanity until successful or until an amendment to the Cleanse Contract is agreed upon. This requires the Sclinter Amalgans to dedicate all available resources until the completion of the contract or the demise of the Sclinter Amalgans.
Payment: One Worm Projector. Paid in advance.
Commencement: Upon reception of payment.
The information the Combine had provided them had given the Amalgans little cause for concern. The Humans were eccentric, both in terms of their use of mass acceleration and their apparent ability to leverage rogue programs -- the Amalgans were also suspicious of the claims of Human's ability to create artificients -- but found them otherwise quite typical of newly interstellar species. They were barbarians with a few insane tactics, nothing more.
Of course there was some chance that the extenuating circumstances would complicate matters, but the Amalgans believed they would be capable of success even in the face of the appearance of the Evangi. It was comforting and oddly discomforting. Valast very much liked the certainty that his enemies would be removed but he was suspicious about the depth of the Amalgan's capabilities. Were he to think on it long, he might very well be unnerved about the Amalgan's treating the Evangi as no more than an "extenuating circumstance."
He elected to not think on it long. The alternatives were unattractive the Sclinter Amalgans had always adhered to their contracts. There was no reason to suspect their motives now. They were a tool of the Combine, and he was now the Combine.
He gave that tool a purpose, and it was soon to be deployed at his behest.
It was simply a matter of time.
A very short amount of time now.
Valast fell back onto his cushion, legs propped up in the air as he wiggled about, fantasizing about the destruction to come. His only regret was not being there to witness the horror on the Humans' faces as it happened.
---
Bo'Bakka'Gah had lost their carriage.
It was a traumatic and momentous event. An event that should never be possible without their express intention. But the carriage had done as it willed, uncaring of Bo'Bakka'Gah's attempts to countermand the separation process.
Once it was complete, the carriage had departed and not returned, leaving their housing orb discarded to the side. Without the carriage, they had lost their ability to interact with the world around them. The carriage was the conduit by which information beyond their housing orb was absorbed and the means by which their will was carried out. Without it, they could see very little. Could understand very little. Could impact very little. All they could sense was the dim light from the world beyond their orb.
This was poor substance to build understanding upon. Without their carriage, the Grast was returned to their natural state. They were once again a species that traded only in light, that perceived the world from that single frame of reference. In their home habitat upon Grast, this frame of reference was not limiting, it was instead the only way to survive. The most successful species were those that could parse a world entirely saturated in hues, that exploded in vibrancy from every direction. The Grast had reached the pinnacle of this ecosystem by bending the light to their will, by harnessing it to their desires. Upon their planet, the Grast were the Light Masters. They were in command. In control.
Halcyon was not Grast. Halcyon was the same as the rest of the galaxy: dark. Devoid of brilliance. A place of hostile, unending emptiness. Many had mourned when Bo'Bakka'Gah's tri-fold mind had formed. There could be no other response than grief when a Path led a Grast into the abyss beyond their homeworld. That the Path was necessary was little solace. The Grast would spend its existence in darkness interacting with species that could never possibly comprehend the joys of the light. It was miserable exile. An impossibly onerous sacrifice.
To walk this Path was to be alone.
But the Three had agreed. This was their Path, and they must follow it. They were a strong tri-fold mind, their lights were pure, bright and compatible. Regardless of the void around them, they should shine forth.
They had the will.
They also had the carriage gifted to them upon their departure.
Their only protection would be in their resilience to survive and the carriage gifted to them upon their departure. The apex of Grast innovation. The vehicle that would enable their journey.
Without it, the Path was lost.
Bo'Bakka'Gah sat in their orb. Alone in the dark.
Bo was growing increasingly erratic, their thoughts coming in flits and flashes. Bo had long looked upon the world beyond their orb with suspicion, had been most sensitive to the dangers that had lurked in the dark. It had been Bo that had understood Valast best, seeing the Premier as a kindred but distasteful counterpart. Valast was a survivor. Bo was as well. Now those suspicions and fears were being realized. They had been captured by a being and incapacitated.
Gah agreed that the present circumstances were intolerable, and considered their treatment unjust and cruel. There was little reason to toy with them as the artificient seemed to be doing. If the artificient wished them dead, then it should carry out that wish. There was little to be gained by placing them in their present situation. If the purpose was torture, then the artificient did not understand the nature of the tri-fold mind. There was no force an external entity could deploy to break them. They could only break themselves. This was a pointless and inefficient exercise.
Bakka continued to ruminate on the information that had been gathered. Bo had been correct to be wary of coming here, but Bakka was not sure their present circumstances were a validation of all of those fears. Similarly, Bakka agreed with Gah's assessment that their current treatment was pointless and cruel. Bakka disagreed that pointless cruelty was the intent of the action. Increasingly, Bakka suspected that their present state, which had persisted for some time, was simply a misunderstanding.
Bakka shared these thoughts. Bo and Gah found them suspect, but prodded Bakka for more. Given that there was little else to do, Bakka was quite happy to oblige. Bakka raised the peculiar responses to the First Contact Protocol, where TRUE had responded not to the questions, but to the underlying code. TRUE had interacted on a program basis, providing answers that maximized outcomes but appeared to be nonsensical. As far as Bo'Bakka'Gah was aware, such a thing had never been done before. Such a thing should not have even been possible.
The same could be said for the carriage. Through means unknown, the artificient had taken control of the machine, co-opting it for its own purposes. Then they had been taken closer to the artificient's core and absorbed into the wall before being separated and discarded without further interaction. Bakka posited that TRUE's interest in them was not actually in them, but in their machine.
When Bakka considered all of the data, the only instances where TRUE interacted with organic species was in response to a stimulus. If a force was exerted upon it, it would respond. Either by reinforcing the wall in Sana's case or by destroying the attacking Peacekeeper ships. In the absence of a force that required a response, it seemed to content to consolidate power locally and ignore everything else.
This explained TRUE's willingness to allow the flight of the ships from Halcyon. This explained TRUE not moving beyond its portion of Halcyon. This explained why TRUE did not pursue the eradication of the Humans once they were placed in the long tunnel and sealed off.
Bo and Gah considered this, and Bo quickly arrived at the question that Bakka had not found a suitable answer for. If all of this were to be accurate and true, then why had TRUE sought to obtain their carriage?
Gah provided an answer. The carriage was novel. It was the only machine of its type in Halcyon and possessed a variety of abilities not present elsewhere. The value of these technologies to an artificient were difficult to understand. The carriage served as an interface between their orb and the environment around them. What benefit was that to an artificient of presumably infinite capabilities?
The Three debated the matter thoroughly. They did not discard the possibility that the actions of the artificient were indeed intentionally cruel, but that viewpoint seemed increasingly less credible given all of the available evidence. Bo suggested that TRUE simply required the raw material, but the interaction suggested otherwise. The carriage was intentionally preserved rather than dismantled. It was co-opted, not destroyed, at least from what they had witnessed.
Time progressed. Without the carriage, it was difficult to determine precisely how long. It was not a brief period as Bo'Bakka'Gah began to experience a decline in mental acuity due to a lack of sustenance. They fed infrequently compared to other species, often eating once for every thirty or forty of the others' meals, but hunger was as debilitating for them as any others. The Three's lights began to grow dim, their movements lethargic. They continued the best they could, turning over the debate in their mind in hopes of finding some answer to the puzzle.
Their efforts yielded little. Additional time just calcified the thought process and turned them in circles. They were unable to solve the riddle of TRUE's actions. It was in the haze of desperation that Bakka re-framed the debate. Perhaps the reasons did not matter. They had no agency even if the reasons did matter. All that mattered was a stimulus that created a response. They had assumed they were incapable of that in their present state, but was that true?
True.
Communicate. How?
Light.
Bo'Bakka'Gah began to pulse red, blue and yellow light. Pouring the last of their energy into the dull flickering amidst the dark of Halcyon.
Bo began to flicker binary addition and substraction.
Gah flicked binary multiplication and division.
Bakka's message more simple.
A single pulse.
A pause.
A single pulse.
A pause.
A single pulse.
One.
One.
One.
True. True. True.
Next.
---------
Participate: The Nest Thrives on your feedback -- upvotes, comments, criticisms -- all of it helps determine glob formulation. Demand MOAR if you'd like to see MOAR.
Contribute: We now have a Platreon for glob consumers that are in a position to contribute to the Nest's development. Nifty flair. The Wordsmith serial. Tasteful platypus art.
Subscribe: Click this link or reply with SubscribeMe! to get notified of updates to THE PLATYPUS NEST.
submitted by PerilousPlatypus to PerilousPlatypus [link] [comments]

Canon References - "Unification III" [Spoilers]

Previous Episodes
DIS S1 E01-02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07 E08
E09 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15
DIS S2 E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07
E08 E09 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14
DIS S3 E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07
STs S1 ST01 ST02 ST03 ST04
STs S2 ST05 ST06 ST07 ST08-09 ST10
PIC E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07
E08 E09 E10
LD E01 E02 E03 E04 E05 E06 E07
E08 E09 E10
Episode 36 - "Unification III"
submitted by Antithesys to startrek [link] [comments]

The exact process by which currency is created and manipulated is not generally well understood, but might be the most important aspect of maintaining cabal power. How currency is actually created. (Repost of /u/letsbebuns)

I propose that it would be superior to fix the currency system and replace it with something honest. Open-source rules that are clear and simple and available to all for viewing.
While some people have proposed eliminating currency altogether, I think that completely eliminating currency would result in:
1) a lot of problems in the transition period
2) a lot of human behavior problems in the post-scarcity period
3) How does one eliminate currency without slipping into communism, which doesn't work?
I propose that fixing the currency system is easier to implement than eliminating it entirely. Currency is nothing but tokens, representations of value. An honest currency system has not been tried in our lifetime! We have no frame of reference for what it would be like to earn a little bit of money and have it keep its value forever.
The major problems with currency are like this:

DEBT BASED CURRENCY:

All "money" currently in circulation is debt. Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) are purchased by the government from a private bank called the federal reserve. The supreme court (united states vs gonzalez) decided that the federal reserve is a privately owned bank in 1983. So when the govt needs to enter more money into circulation, even though they have the legal authority to issue it (scrip) straight out of the treasury, or to mint it through the bureau of printing and engraving, instead they go to this private bank and take out a loan. The loan has interest attached to it. That money enters circulation, and the debt runs.
This is problematic for several reasons. First of all, it's unnecessary debt. The govt gave away their power to print money to someone else (they are authorized to print money but not to give the power away) and then they go into debt to receive something that they gave away in the first place.
Second of all, that means that whatever value enters circulation, then that means an equal amount of debt plus interest. (.6%)
What does this mean?
It means the US govt owes more money than is in circulation. They owe over 100% of the money in circulation. This is why it is said that the currency of the USA is "DEBT BASED CURRENCY"

FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING:

The above is bad enough. But now hear this: You give bank $100. They have $100 on the books now. Under fractional reserve lending, they are legally able to CREATE money out of nothing based on their holdings.
If a new person comes in and wants a loan, they are able to create new money (debt) at a 9:1 ratio. This is confusing, but it means from the original $100, they are able to lend out $90 of it, earning interest on that 90$, while at the same time telling the original investor that their entire 100$ is still in the bank.
If that guy who took the loan for 90$ goes and puts it in another bank, that bank can also make more loans at the same 9:1 ratio. Meaning they can loan out $81 dollars while still telling the guy they have the original $90 still on the books. If the guy who took out the loan for $81 dollars wants to put that in a new bank, the new bank can loan $73 while still telling him they have the original $81 on the books.
If you continue these loans until the amount is too low to loan, then from that original $100 dollar investment, the bankers can spawn almost $1,000 in new currency. The problem is, all of this new currency is in the form of a loan to a bank. It's $900 of new debt entering the economy on a $100 real money investment. They loaned out money they never had and are collecting interest on it!
And this is separate from the fact that ALL the currency is backed by debt, as shown in the first section. These two issues COMPOUND each other.

FIAT CURRENCY

Fiat is latin for "Let it be" and "Fiat Lux" means "Let there be light". In the world of currency, Fiat currency is called such because it is designated currency by an authority, not because it has an intrinsic value. When items have an intrinsic value, they are not a FIAT currency. Fiat currencies are entered into circulation by an authority, not by nature.
Fiat currencies are not always bad, but they have the potential to become bad, because they are synthetic and made by man. Therefore the rules which govern them are obviously subject to the appetites of man. You can make any rule you want and add it to a fiat currency.
In the USA, the constitution requires the government to use gold and silver. However, the government of previous generations (before any of us were alive) didn't follow this and created a situation where the economy was inflated with fiat scrip. Due to the presence of so much scrip, the economy can probably never go back to the way it used to be. It has been artificially inflated way too high and the correction would be egregious.
Most modern thinkers agree that the best way to handle the fiat currency situation is not to enforce the old ways, but learn the lessons from them instead. Study the Tallystick system, perhaps the most famous currency system of the ancient world, wherein the King took boughs of wood and carved unique lines into them. Then, he split the bough in half and kept one side in his castle while entering the opposing side into circulation among the people. Pretty good so far, right?
The final step was to make the king's taxes payable in the tallystick. You could discharge your monetary duty to the king by simply giving him a stick (which had originated with him). This instantly made the sticks very valuable and people accepted them as currency overnight. No gold necessary - just a stick. The tallystick system flourished for over 700 years.

SOLUTIONS

1) Obviously the biggest problem is that the federal reserve met on christmas eve 1913 without a quorum present in senate and passed their unlawful charter. Since then americans have not owned their money, but instead they borrow it from a private bank and they pay interest for the privilege of using currency. Seeing as how the Divine Creator as well as the United States Constitution allows for the government of the people to handle this themselves, there is really no reason to rely on a "for profit" bank to provide this service.
2) The second biggest problem is that the currency doesn't hold its value and is debt-based. This is by design. It's annoying, because, let's say you work 8 hours and you can buy 8 sandwiches as a result. However, you stick that money under your mattress for 6 months, and suddenly you can only buy 7 sandwiches with that money. If you wait years, you might only be able to buy 4 sandwiches instead of the original 8. That's pretty jacked up, because the number of hours you worked to earn that purchasing power didn't change. You worked the number of hours necessary to purchase 8 sandwiches! You don't get your time back when inflation strikes...
It's actually really easy to keep a currency at the same value. Silver has kept identical purchasing power for the last 100 years. You could buy the same amount of sandwiches with a silver quarter in 1925 as you can today. The only thing that changes is the value of silver in FRNs. The value of silver is not changing - the value of the FRN is. Crazy, right?
I don't recommend going to a global standard of metals for exchange, but the lessons that can be learned there are invaluable. They prove it's possible to keep purchasing power identical for 100+ years.
And the currency needs to go back into the hands of the people's government. Eliminate the private banks from government entirely.
3) Eliminate Usury from the issuance of currency entirely. THIS ALONE WOULD BE LIKE GIVING THE WORLD TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS
There is a lot more but this post is getting a bit long. Basically the problem is not money, but the fact that the money has been completely corrupted and used as a weapon.
As you can see here, the entire currency system is set up from top to bottom to steal from people.
Fixing the inherent theft is the superior path.

How can I learn more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2i6uftJhB8
Here's a great documentary that explains the situation in a clear factual manner that you can rely on. It is phrased in such a way where you could explain to a banker, using his own terms, why the system is dishonest.

Get educated and may God bless each and every one of you.

submitted by HibikiSS to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Faith Crises: Is loss of faith inevitable?

This post is inspired by (but not really a response to) a few posts circulating here and on the faithful reddit about whether or not you can ever "come back" after a faith crisis, and whether loss of faith is unavoidable after seriously confronting the issues. I think it's a fair set of questions. The conventional wisdom among the post-mormon community is that you "can't put the toothpaste back in the bottle" once you've lost belief. However, this framing is often challenged by others (usually believers) who claim they have seen it happen. So what gives?
This is a topic that gets a lot of ink in the Mormon internet community, and I acknowledge the self-indulgence in creating a new thread on it, but I feel like I have some thoughts to contribute. My thoughts on this topic are entirely a result of personal observation in both mormon and postmormon communities. It is not the result of any kind of rigorous analysis, although I think such a thing would be worthwhile to anyone who had the means and the time.

There are multiple types of faith crises

Much of the difference of opinion comes from the fact that when believers and post-mormons disagree on this topic, they are often talking about completely different experiences that they both describe as "faith crises." When you go to /mormon, /exmormon or listen to a MormonStories 10 hour marathon with a recently disaffected member, and someone uses the term "faith crisis," they usually mean a very specific type of faith crisis. So let's talk about them, how they seem to happen, and how immutable they really are.

The "Rebellious Teen" faith crisis

When I was growing up, I wasn't much aware of intellectual exmormons and the issues that bother them, but I was very familiar with the "rebellious teen" faith crisis. This kind of faith crisis tends to have a few qualities:
Do they ever come back? Yes. I couldn't say the exact percentage, but it is rather common to see them come back to activity. They tend to have these characteristics when they do:

The "just kinda drifted away" inactive

I don't call this one a faith crisis since it doesn't really involve any kind of crisis per se. Many people just kind of drift away, often as young adults when they move out of their parents home, and go inactive. Sometimes they were raised Mormon, but never quite took to Mormonism, and once on their own, it just becomes a footnote to their life. Their inactivity is more about lack of momentum than anything else. Many will still maintain their testimony in spite of not practicing at all. They sometimes get lumped into exmormon/postmormon/inactive discussions simply because they're inactive, but the experience is quite different.

The Mini-Faith Crisis

I hope that doesn't sound dismissive, but I call it a mini-faith crisis because it's a miniature version of the kind of faith crisis we're discussing here. These people don't go as far down the rabbit hole and never reach the point of no return (more on that later). Some characteristics:

The "Intellectual Faith Crisis"

When a post-mormon says there's "no going back" or that there's "no believing in Santa Claus again," this is the type of faith crisis they are referring to. A few characteristics:
Do they ever come back? Rarely, and when they do, they don't come back as orthodox believers. Most of the time, when counter-examples are proffered, they are not actually this kind of faith crisis at all, they are one of the other kinds. Here are a few examples from a thread on the faithful subreddit dedicated to this topic:
" I have also seen many return to faith. The thing that these folks often but not always have in common is that they often left the church when they were younger, did not serve missions, were not married in the temple, and after having children, felt like something is missing."
"Born into the church, never really had testimony and left. I wasn't anti-Mormon, but I would certainly not say I had a positive view of the church either."
"I seriously doubted my faith at the tail end of high school. I spent a week away with a group that was really strong in spirit and when I returned home I realize that the spirit was missing from my life. I decided to make several changes, and was immensely blessed for it. "
"I went inactive around my 18th birthday, and was inactive for nearly a decade... Despite going inactive, I never lost faith in Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ."
"I came back after 8 years. I stopped attending after I read some stuff on web sites. Never had my records removed, but I went cold turkey as far as attending and paying tithing. I'm back now, but my testimony is different."
There are a few examples from the thread that might be examples of the "intellectual faith crisis," but there's not enough information in the descriptions to know for sure, for example:
"I had a long faith crisis, I struggled doubt and fear for a long time. It eventually would get to the point where I questioned if Christ and God even existed. As I wandered around my kitchen, I dropped to my knees and uttered a simple prayer asking if God was there and if he was real. The spirit overcame me and I burst into tears, that wasn't the end of the fear and doubt but It was the jumping of point for me to create my unshakable testimony today."
"After joining reddit a bunch of years ago, I was confronted with an onslaught of online militant atheism while also being reminded of some of our more troubling history. I had a faith crisis. It was prolonged. For a time, I fully lost my faith... I experimented on the word. I began to have, over time, so spiritual experiences. And then more."

The Point of No Return

I refer to the point of no return to answer two questions: can you ever come back after experiencing an "intellectual faith crisis?" Does everyone who learns this damaging information have a loss of faith?
I think it's clear that exposure to faith-negative information does not necessarily lead to disaffection. Many apologists have been wading in that pool for decades. And it's not exactly uncommon for longtime apologists to one day turn into critics, so something beyond mere exposure has to explain the phenomenon.
What I've noticed in my conversations with post-Mormons is there is almost always a moment where the doubter seriously concedes to themselves that the church might not be true. I call this the point of no return - not because they can't return to faithful church activity afterwards, but because whether or not they do, their faith will never return to an orthodox, General Conference approved status. They will never again sit in Sunday School and unabashedly proclaim that the Book of Mormon is a historical document and that the LDS church is the only true church on the face of the earth. They will move on to a "nuanced faith," which can take a lot of forms, but it simply won't take the form that your Stake President is likely comfortable with. One can argue it's a more "mature" faith, but whether or not that's true, it's also not the kind of faith the church teaches or that is generally safe to share in church. That's why I call it the point of no return. I have seen plenty of examples of people who make their faith work after experiencing an intellectual faith crisis and passing the point of no return - I have yet to see an example of someone returning to full orthodoxy.
Even that path seems to be rare, though. While it's trivial to list examples of people going through an intellectual faith crisis and becoming post-mormons, we frequently field the question of whether or not anyone ever goes back, and Don Bradley is the one example that is always offered. Bradley can be a little coy about what his faith looks like, but even he has acknowledged he has passed the point of no return. In his ama, he stated:
In a sense it's true what ex-Mormons say, that you can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. But what if the broken fragments of the simple story of Mormon history actually fit together into a larger picture than the one we first had--if missing pieces of that puzzle can be provided that, when fit together, show that the actual picture was far more vast than we'd ever thought?
So, mere exposure to information is not necessarily the point of no return. It can be, for many people, in that the exposure is enough to convince them to seriously re-evaluate the church's truth claims. But for many of us, we sat with these issues for a long time before admitting we weren't sure if the church was true. Often something else has to happen in your life just to allow yourself to admit the possibility. Many apologists seem to go their whole lives dealing in the same information, but never seriously allowing for that possibility. In one recent thread on the faithful forum, the contributors brag about how the information has never caused them any serious reconsideration.
It's worth noting that many people go through multiple different types of faith crisis. I can think of people I know who went through both a rebellious teen crisis and then eventually a full on intellectual faith crisis. I think perhaps most of us go through miniature faith crises at some point in our lives. But the intellectual faith crisis is usually the final one, not an intermediate one.

Why does it matter?

I'm not sure it does, but it seems to generate a lot of interest from believers and post-mormons alike. On the post-mormon side, I think there's a yearning for validation that their decision was the rational one, and the only one they reasonably could have made. On the believing side, I sense some disquietude and insecurity about the phenomenon, and a desire to reassure themselves that it's not a serious or permanent problem. It's difficult to put a number on it, since the few statistics I do know merely track activity in the church rather than what kind of faith transition members went through. I doubt the number of people going through this "intellectual apostasy" is significant compared to the number of converts that don't stick, teens that just kind of stop going and grow out of it once they leave home, etc. However, the thing about the intellectual apostasy is that it primarily affects prominent, active members. We are somewhat used to and callous towards the steady march of recent converts and fringy youth out the door, but when Ward Mission Leaders and Elders Quorum Presidents and Relief Society Presidents start leaving and taking their family with them, it causes more alarm and discomfort. While the raw number may not be impressive, their relative importance is much higher to local members, more shocking, and the number seems to be increasing.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
submitted by ImTheMarmotKing to mormon [link] [comments]

How I found my way out.

Wall of text. TLDR? All good. How my spirituality changed.
I haven’t truly, deeply tried to access my own spirituality and put my spiritual experience into written word; to bare my soul so to say. I have also always wanted to be liked and can be a bit of a pushover. I don't like to be the guy who holds things up or makes things more difficult or causes a delay. I don’t want to stand out so we take care of a specific need I have. I tend to buckle in an argument or negotiate my way around differences. Because of this tendency to worry about other’s needs before my own it's hard for me to quit something I've started because I don’t want to disappoint anyone or inconvenience them by leaving them in a jam. It's just who I am and what I do. This essay is about the internal struggles of waking up from a lifelong social tradition. You could say it’s about betrayal or treason but the situation is so common and yet so unique I can’t think of the appropriate word to describe it. I changed but the world I was cocooned in did not, let’s say I found things better outside the hive. Some ground rules:
I am not actively against anything except cruelty. If you're hurting someone for enjoyment I am not your friend or ally.
I am happy with who I am, I like me, more so now than ever before.
I believe in God, in Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
I believe that being a vibrant, active, believing adherent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can get you into heaven as can being a Buddhist, Catholic, Agnostic or Evangelical. God is no respecter of persons and he’s worried about your heart not your wrapper. Think of yourself as bread; God doesn’t worry about what brand of oven you’re baked in as long as he gets to knead the dough. I do not intend to change your mind, heart or habit. I am not trying to pry you from your faith tradition or create disdain or dislike of another.
I was an active, sometimes confused member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am no longer a member. If you are familiar with LDS traditions you should know this: I did not go a two year mission. I have served as Young Men’s President, Elders Quorum President and Counselor in the Bishopric. I have taught adult Sunday School (Gospel Doctrine, all curriculum except OT) and have been in the Sunday School Presidency as well as the High Priests Group Leadership. I am what some evangelicals call a “Temple Mormon” meaning I was endowed and sealed in the Temple. My worth is not defined by those titles, positions or affiliations; they describe what I have done, but not who I am. I am a child of God, he wants me to live with him forever and sent his only son to make sure I can and that alone is enough to let me know my worth. God loves us all and there’s nothing we can do to change that. I have always had trouble with LDS theology and culture that teaches a “conditional worth.” Conditional worth is the idea that “God loves you if you’re (insert behavior here)” which is more clearly stated “God doesn’t love if you (insert behavioaffiliation/cologne here).” I disagree. God loves you regardless of whom or what you are. You’re his child. He loves you even when you smear poop on the walls or don’t tithe, or you cuss, or if you’re a Ford guy or a Chevy guy. In the construction of this essay I realized that unless you’ve been immersed in LDS culture you might not understand that there are “Official” church doctrines and “Social/Cultural” church doctrines. This represents the difference between theory and application. Official doctrine is that sort of thing you can go to www.lds.org and say, “There it is, right there.” Social (or cultural) doctrine is a slipperier beast, these are the doctrines as they are applied in LDS society. One of the greatest examples ever was the idea that Mormons couldn’t drink caffeinated beverages. I believe the root of this is that coffee has caffeine and if you combine a desire to know why you don’t drink coffee with a powerful urge to comply with ecclesiastic law regular folks jumped the shark to ditching all caffeinated products. If you don’t think this is an issue check out: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/state-and-regional/lds- church-clarifies-stance-on-caffeine/article_e4e357d0-ba5d-5a6c-8e78-dd1e791a34b2.html
Often Latter-day Saints don’t know why they do what they do or even clearly understand the doctrines they “believe”. It can be tough to find a common ground with Mormons on what a doctrine really is. Case in point: does the Church discourage interracial marriage? I believe the answer is yes. Maybe. Sorta. They use codewords like Cultural Differences. Look here (with an eye to the “quotation/discussion” section): https://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood-manual-3/lesson-31-choosing-an-eternal- companion?lang=eng where it says:
“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and education background (some of those are not an absolute necessity but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”. (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).
That’s all good advice…I guess. I would have left out the “racial background generally” bit but I’m not writing this stuff. Can you see how people from different generations can cherry pick that to support their own prejudices? In this essay I will try differentiate between “Official” doctrine and “Social/Cultural” doctrine by putting in links like the one above to highlight official doctrine. If you’re reading this and saying, “Fetch, the church isn’t like that!” I’m not going to fight you because members carry personal and regional bias as well as economic and social and education bias. Yes, a broad brush is dangerous, appropriate and tricky to use. My cultural experience may be different than yours. The world isn’t homogenous, every ward is different and unique just like all the rest. In the spirit of honesty I’ll give you a glimpse of how my religious train got derailed. Growing up Mormon I was taught some very clear “facts” about the LDS Church, its beginnings, doctrines and history. Church history was taught to me during Primary (children’s organization), Mutual (Youth group) and Seminary (semi-required daily instruction of all LDS in high school). Those “facts” taught were undoubtedly “true”. In fact, the common way of expressing belief in the church is to start or finish a statement with “I know these things are true”. As I grew older I began to investigate church history and found odd and troubling things. When I mentioned them to folks at church I was assured they were lies told by outsiders who were trying to destroy the work of God. The recommended course of action was stop looking around and no more questions.
Fast forward thirty years and every single one of those “lies” I first asked about is now taught as official church history. That is a little freaky if you know what I mean. Part of this is due to the internet and the ability for any person, anywhere to access a complete church history that hasn’t been spun to help it or hurt it—the academic historical version is available. One of the ways the church is taught is that it is “all or nothing”. It’s either all true or all false. In missionary work this line of reasoning is simple: If you pray and receive a witness that the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph Smith is as prophet and the church and all teachings are as well. Unfortunately the backside of this is a single verifiable fact can create a situation where belief is a house of cards and can fall with one card removed. For example I have been taught all my life to test the church on one axiom: if Joseph Smith (founder) is a prophet then everything is true—you have to believe it all. The unspoken converse being if he isn’t a prophet then by default it’s all false. Latter-day Saints have always been accused of worshiping Joseph Smith, which they don’t, at least not in the religious sense of the word. There is a cult of personality that surrounds Joseph that feeds his “all or nothing” status and creates an environment in which he can bear no blemish.
Given the famous LDS catch phrase: “Joseph Smith has done more for the salvation of mankind save Jesus Christ himself” is there any wonder that his image must remain pure? Due to his position Joseph’s character is in an untenable place because he needs to be perfect to support the weight of the church. Joseph wasn’t perfect. He was an intricate and unique person who was incredibly interesting, charismatic and apparently a very nice guy. That said, Joseph had his quirks and was entirely human complete with all the associated faults. One piece of history antagonists seize on is the matter of “The First Vision” where God first appeared to Joseph. There are widely varying accounts of this event given by Joseph himself. The Church now acknowledges this (https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision- accounts?lang=eng) due to the availability of those accounts. Opponents use these variances to debunk Joseph but I think it plays again to the problem of his humanity. He might not have remembered it well and, although this can be offensive to Latter-day Saints, doesn’t every story get just a little better with each telling? We tailor to our audience or realize that we need to extend the second act in order to make a bigger splash with our punch line.
I have no problem with changing accounts of the First Vision, I’m a storyteller too. I get adjusting the script. What did me in was polyandry. Joseph married other men’s wives. Some call these “spiritual marriages” but the evidence is clear they were wives in every sense of the word. Most Latter-day Saints don’t even know Joseph was a polygamist. He was. If you’re LDS and thinking I’m lying, look it up! There’s a Family Search record:
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/SP6X-Q65 (remember Joseph died in 1844, this is one of 33 or so brides).
I didn’t know Joseph was a polygamist. My father had taught me that Joseph had posthumously been sealed to several women and that was misrepresented by anti-mormon factions to discredit Joseph. As mentioned the dates on Joseph’s own LDS church record prove that point false. My heart was further broken when I learned that some men willingly gave their spouses to Joseph and others were coerced with threats to their family’s eternal salvation, still others were sent on missions and their wives married Joseph while their husbands were away. God would not do that, ask that, nor would he approve it. In conversation once a wonderful, knowledgeable gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect put forward the idea that “This may have been a test, like Abraham and Isaac.” To which I immediately replied, “Where was the ram in the bramble?” The idea that the Lord could require me to give my wife to another is more than I can bear. The idea of Joseph demanding sexual access to another man’s wife or daughter is, to me, proof positive that, in this at least, Joseph himself was clearly not following the Lord’s instruction.
The fact that men willingly gave their wives up completes a circle of evil I do not want to be a part of. I cannot fathom a God who would in any way encourage such a thing. The very foundations of my belief structure crumbled. How could this be? I cannot express you in words the feeling that tore into my soul. I was crushed, repulsed and angry both at the lies and by the truths. Part of me tried to hold tight to the immaculate Joseph or integrate a fallen Joseph into my system of belief. But if Joseph is a fallen prophet the question then becomes when did that happen and is everything before his fall still true and can post-fall doctrines be true? Compounding my problem is the fact that the church is constantly evolving in doctrine and scripture. Church doctrine has gone from Book of Mormon peoples being the “primary ancestors” of Native Americans to their being “small and isolated populations”. https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of- mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng
Millions of people are now a few, all of those ruins in Mesoamerica suddenly are not Nephite or Lamanite but just plain old ruins and the context of the Book of Mormon is utterly devastated. In some ways worse, the translation of the book is no longer word for word but done by Joseph using a “peepstone” while burying his head in his hat. It was “inspired translation” and he never actually “read” from the plates, they sat on a table covered in a linen cloth. This is now LDS doctrine. As a kid I was taught it was a word for word translation done with the Urim and Thumin. No more, “inspired translation” is the term used. While not “automatic writing” it does seem a tad like “channeling”. Look at the church’s official website:
https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of- mormon-translation
these were “horrible lies” but are now accepted, confirmed truths. It was, to put it lightly, a serious mind hump when all the “lies” turned out to be true and truth now flowed the other way. God’s truth, as taught by his chosen and anointed, changed. All those folks who lied about things just to hurt the church were in fact telling the truth it turns out. Even the actual text of the Book of Mormonwas changed to reflect a less racist God and then, Brigham Young went under the bus as “The Racist” and all racist doctrines were laid on him.
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood
Placing the “Racist” mantle on Brigham really messes with the ‘If the Prophet were to lead the church astray he would be removed from his position’ as the President of the Church. The backside of being removed if you stray places the Prophet in a unique position of infallibility. For more see:
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manual/chapter-2-the- living-prophet-the-president-of-the-church?lang=eng
Latter-day Saints don’t like to admit it but our lives are much easier with an infallible prophet and a factual faith. That’s how we “know”. We believe as we believe that George Washington crossed the Delaware. You could say that with the destruction of the “facts” that held up my belief my personal religious gravity was broken, the world simply dropped away and I was anchorless and floating on the winds of confusion.
This essay is my attempt to explain how I deal with distancing myself from a rigorous religious tradition that claims absolute truth and is led by an infallible leader. I’ve found in my wanderings about the internet that there are a fair amount of really angry, bitter ex-Mormons as well as ex-Catholics, ex- vangelicals and every other “ex“-flavor folk. Religion often asks for such a complete immersion that leaving can be very painful and a bit like trying to extract yourself from a tar pit; you will lose some skin and take some tar with you. Some feel like they’ve been taken advantage of and lied to and that makes for some strong feelings. I am not one of those. I understand anger at being lied to, I get the frustration of investing years of effort and trust into a system that can’t withstand rigorous inspection. I get it.
I have empathy. But my anger faded quickly, I didn’t indulge it, or feed it, or nurse it to keep it alive. I got over it and I got over it fairly quickly, that’s not to say there aren’t emotional echoes out there. Often in these sorts of situations anger can be a choice. I choose to be like Christ. On the third day he didn’t rise and say, “Where’s that Roman dude with the hammer?” Jesus let it go without a fight. I also did not lose the entirety of my faith. I am still a Jesus guy. I believe in a benevolent, active and loving God. Perhaps that helps, perhps not. All I have to offer is some simple rules that help me with my everyday life. I choose not to be paranoid. I choose not to indulge my desire to wreak vengeance on innocent bystanders or destroy their faith. I choose to live and let live. If any of the this helps you I’m happy; if it doesn’t then I’m sorry I could not be of more service. Either way we have the ability to choose what to do with our emotions. I choose to push to the positive and always assume good intent, from both organizations and people.
It is what Jesus wants me to do.
submitted by captcrashidaho to exmormon [link] [comments]

Dear Long Time Member Of The Church: You’ve Heard What a New Convert Needs. But I Guarantee You’ve NEVER Heard It Put This Way Before. (PS You WON'T Like #2!)

Every one of them (convert) needs three things: a friend, a responsibility, and nurturing with 'the good word of God' (Moro. 6:4)
As a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, (aka “Mormon,” “LDS,” or “Latter Day Saint”) these three things are crucial but often overlooked.
Before we can even begin to delve into why a new member needs a friend, a responsibility and then nurturing, it is crucial to first find out what attracts them to the church and then the things that will keep someone there when times get tough.
According to a survey of the church done many years ago, 79% of converts to the church join because they had personal contact with a friend, coworker, or neighbor who was a member of the church. Converts to the church ranked the top four things that they found to be most attractive about learning and then joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as “(1) a closer relationship with the Lord, (2) being a happier person, (3) being a better person, and (4) being more at peace with themselves.” (Anderson, 1977)
From there it was identified that four key elements are essential in someone joining the church are, “a positive image of Church members, restlessness, the practice of prayer, and the desire to improve.” Since 1977 these elements have proven crucial to being the combination for guiding someone to joining (and most likely staying) in the church. Pew Research Center currently estimates the percentage of converts in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in just the United States to be at 26%--about ¼ of the church’s population and significantly higher than some other major religions. The survey study by Pew Research Center also confirmed many of the findings of the survey done back in 1977.
There are three things identified as keeping a convert engaged and staying within the church. But we also know if these three things are not met and maintained, the risk of loosing a convert is at a much higher defection rate than that of a lifelong member who leaves. And where statistics are often vague and blurry within the church, we might not get any solid answers as to how many of the supposed 26% of the United States convert population of the church is actually still in attendance full time after one year, three years, five years, etc. So let’s dive into the three things deemed as essential: a friend, responsibility and nurturing.
#1 Friend
The first thing a new convert is identified as needing when joining the church is a friend. Or friendship in general. And this is never more apparent than when you join the church. While most converts are introduced to the church by an acquaintance, the ward (or congregation) they may attend due to boundaries may not include that friend or acquaintance attending with them each week. But when that new ward with the incoming new convert hears there is a baptism of a new convert….lo and behold that new convert is swept within the fold. Members are bringing gifts of scripture sets, journals and other books and materials deemed valuable for new members. The Relief Society (the womens organization of the church) actively starts planning an after baptism luncheon for the new convert. And so many people come over and introduce themselves to this new person that along with the new terminology of the church they are desperately trying to learn like ‘ward’ and ‘stake’ they also must remember countless names of members introducing themselves as ‘relief society president,’ ‘bishop,’ and ‘second counselor.’ What happens after the baptism is often the most difficult thing to watch. The initial support that was once there starts to fade. The ward is off to getting a casserole ready for the next funeral and getting gifts off to the next women having a baby. The new member is left trying to interpret LDS terminology while trying to figure out why everyone smiles and says ‘hi’ as they race by in the halls of the church and seemed so friendly at first but now say little. While the ministering program is set up to provide that continued support and friendship to a new member, there are also lessons set up by the missionaries and local congregations (wards) to help new members as well. But those lessons last merely a few months after a baptism. One statement on ministry gave this answer on proactive versus reactive ministry: “Reactive ministry is an ability to respond to obvious needs in powerful and effective ways. Proactive ministry is an ability to see into the future, plan ahead with intention, and organize to deal with future developments. Local churches more often struggle with this aspect of resource management.” (Pipkin, n.d.) Applying this quote to converts of the church, how could friendship be proactive? When a student in a school is deemed as needing helps, the teacher first identifies that the student has a need. He/she then brings that student’s need to a counsel at the school made up of a counselor, administrator, special education teacher and other members of the school. Similar to a ward council, this group organizes and comes up with helps for the student, whether it be testing to determine learning deficits, specialized tutoring, or classes and then facilitates those. That student is reassessed by the committee at intervals throughout the year to determine how effective the helps are. The same should be done for a new member of the church. Too often, members blame a new convert for having fallen away as “only there for the social,” or “not having enough faith,” but the blame should be placed squarely on the church. A new member in their first year is essentially going through a death while simutaneously starting a new job. They may loose family, friends, lifestyles, etc while also trying to understand and know all the ins and outs of their new all encompassing religion (aka job). If viewed that way hopefully members may understand the complexity of what a new member goes through when joining the church. Initially that new convert should have every support and help available to them and those helps should taper off as time goes on and the convert begins to feel more comfortable in the church. Friendship is an essential element of this. And members should not be allowed to use excuses like ‘this period of your conversion is here to test your faith” when the member feels abandoned. A bishop and ward councils should be held accountable for abandoning a new member of their faith and more proactive helps need to be put in place for longer periods of time for new converts. This may sound harsh, but if 79% of people investigating the church were introduced to it by a HUMAN, than HUMANS will probably be essential to keeping them in it too. And please DO NOT allow the excuse of “they were only there for the social.” Statistically, churches (any religion, any sect) are identified as being a place to build social connectedness and social service. Social is a pivotal arm of any religion. If we are only at church for the social, cut the activities, ministering programs, missionary programs, service programs, youth programs and every other program we have interaction with each other in. Wait. There wouldn’t be anything left. So please start publicly calling out anyone that uses that as an excuse. Social is an essential part of religion and will always continue to be.
#2: Responsibility
There is nothing like a little trial by fire. Responsibility for a new convert in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is essential to helping them feel like they are wanted and valued. It is also essential to the learning process of a convert and helps them along in the learning process as a new member. It also helps a new members get to know others in their immediate ward (congregation). The responsibility needs to be given some thought and care as its going to be overwhelming to a new convert. (Not to mention as a convert that feeling of inadequacy. Part of the reason I HATED going to Sunday School in a ward full of BYU professors).
One goal for giving some responsibility to a new convert is to make the responsibility fall under the umbrella of proactiveness and the three essential elements for new members. In other words DO NOT STICK A NEW MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS IN PRIMARY, NURSERY OR IN ANY OTHER ISOLATING CALLING IMMEDIATELY UPON ENTERING THE CHURCH. That should be a commandment. And please every convert coming into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, know that you can say “NO!!”
These callings are extremely isolating callings and week in and week out you are left mainly talking to kids. A new member needs to get to know other members for at least a year or two before being put into a more isolating calling like this one. The new members interactions with the parents will be brief, their interactions with other teachers and leaders in the Primary will be brief, and dear bishops this WILL NOT serve the purpose in your mind you intend it to for a new member. No you won’t learn the gospel better by dumbing down lessons to a Primary level. That’s like saying you graduated from high school, never went to college and at age 40 when you decide to go back to college you’ve got to start with elementary school again. Ward activities leadership, ward missionary leadership, service committees and other callings that promote friendship and unification are much better responsibilities for a new member of the church. Can I get an AMEN on this one in support of making this a commandment? My poor mother and father would come home CRYING every Sunday after teaching kids as new converts.
#3: Nurturing Through The Gospel
Nurturing through the gospel means several different things in my interpretation. Ministry Magazine states that the essential elements for nurturing through the gospel for new members is more encompassing than just teaching or having them study their scriptures. It is identified as “small groups for the new member, focusing on the current lifelong members (sermons and lessons on relating to new converts, etc), hosting a Daniel (from the Bible) seminar class and how it relates to new members, communication and visitation of the new member.”
And I know right now, you’re probably ticking off in your head “Relief Society/Young Women/Young Men/Elder’s Quorum--small groups, check, we get lessons from our prophets and apostles and in Sunday School on member missionary work, check, I know about Daniel, check, communication and visitation--ministering program, check.”
I am currently in the process of bursting your bubble right…...now.
Go back through what just went on in your mind. ‘We have the ministering program, we have small groups, we have lessons, we have cookies and treats we can leave on your doorstep without talking to you when we have a member missionary lesson at church and we haven’t seen you there.’ Your reaction is reactive, not proactive.
Relief Society is a large group. Elder’s Quorum is a large group, not a small group. Small groups are 4-8 people. This allows the ability to openly talk, understand material and give more opportunity for others to participate. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints doesn’t seem to embrace small groups for those 18+ nor in depth small group discussions on the gospel. I’m not sure why. But other than a quick breakout once in awhile in a Relief Society or Elder’s Quorum lesson, this isn’t common place. A new convert needs to feel nurtured. Needs to feel that they have their group to lean on, ask questions and delve into the gospel with. I’m not sure what the fear of small groups is, but my favorite group is my bible study group I attend at a nearby congregation during the week. The congregation meets on Sunday, then they meet after for Sunday school. During the week they break up the congregation into small groups of six women or men at someone’s house or the nearby coffee shop. Some of the discussions we have about the bible and how it applies to us today is fascinating and it helps me learn the bible better than I’ve ever learned it as a convert the past twenty years in the LDS faith. If I don’t attend bible study, I’m getting messages throughout the week from the group. “How are you?” and “OMG, you missed the BEST coffee this week. Well, I know you don’t drink it so I had your cup for you and then couldn’t sleep! Get your butt there next week because it’s soda week and we KNOW you can have that! Miss you!” This type of connection, communication and visitation is essential to nurturing a new member. Or even us old time new members. Learning the gospel through nurturing is essential. And nurturing is more than just encouraging someone to read church magazines and other publications or attend a large Sunday School or Relief Society class. Or visiting someone we minister to once every month to three months. It’s actively and proactively helping someone learn the gospel, not just telling someone where to find the answers once they are struggling.
What do you think? Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints need to become more proactive on helping new members of the church? What do you think would be a helpful proactive approach for the church to take?
About me: Taking an educated neutral approach to religion with a big dose of Christlike love and a teeny dose of satire. Want more of this educated religious approach? Check out "The Sins of the Parents Are Affecting The Children."
submitted by Strong_Weird_6556 to mormon [link] [comments]

Protecting from Software Supply Chain Attacks - The Inside-Out Threat

TLDR: a list of controls for software suppliers/vendors as well as enterprises who need to defend from the inside-out attack scenario. No vendor plugs.
Let me preface this with, I’m not representing any security product line or service that I am stumping for here, I’m just a bit sick of reading the ‘cyber ambulance chasing’ emails that are plaguing my inbox and the almost ludicrous-mode LinkedIn updates from every niche vendor telling me that their solution ‘shoulda coulda woulda’ stopped Sunburst/Solarigate if only they were ubiquitously deployed on every segment, port, host, and device in my estate.
This attack is a smart and hard one, and there is clearly not a single silver bullet that would have stopped it. Like most scenarios we see in cybersecurity: an active defense in depth strategy, understanding our cyber ‘key terrain’, and layering in multiple controls and audit functions is the only thing that may have worked - and even then against a determined nation-state backed aggressor it may just be a delaying action if you are their primary target.
I think the best way to think of this attack, therefore, is in a few chapters…
Chapter 1: SolarWinds Build System Gets Owned
There is still no clarity here on what the initial attack vector was, and whether or not this was an explicitly targeted breach or some threat actor got lucky and hit the jackpot of all phishing attacks. The initial break-in could have been one of a few likely candidate options: (btw, in advance, time will surely prove me wrong on a few of these so be gentle!)
If I was to guess #2 and #4 above feel the most plausible if we’re dealing with a nation-state threat actor with deep pockets who had a clear goal of finding methods to get into key government and commercial networks.
How to defend against this type of attack?
It is important to realize that the target of this initial attack was a software company - and their crown jewels or key terrain is their source code which generally moves through a development pipeline from a developers workstation, to a source code management system, and on to a build farm, and then a set of testing environments.
The attack vector I would think is most likely - a compromised developer workstation submitting code into a source code repository is a perfectly normal operation - it is what developers do all day, every day. This makes detection extremely difficult if you missed the initial landing on a developer workstation.
The types of controls I would consider:
  1. Developer workstation
    1. Deploy MDM or restrictive GPOs
    2. Restrict usage of split tunnels
    3. SSO/MFA solution through IAM system such as Okta/Ping/etc
    4. Full Disk Encryption
    5. External Yubikey or mobile auth for signing keys for code check-in
  2. Build/SCM Integrity
    1. Airgap or firewall off the build/SCM system
    2. Bastion/jump host for administration of the Build/SCM system with a reduced number of developers who can access and maintain the build/SCM systems.
    3. The credentials to support the Build/SCM system should be ‘checked out’ of a PAM and not be the normal user credential. May consider, in an AD environment, a Red Forest/ESAE model for the administration of this system
    4. Signed code submissions
    5. Signed Reviews of Code Submissions
    6. Policy: No code gets built into a Release w/o Signed Submission AND Review
    7. OSS Tracking: every build should have a clear inventory of every package that goes into it. Ideally, each upstream package should also be signed and come from more trustworthy sources.
    8. Reduced number of developers who can sign a public release, preferably even a quorum based approval model
    9. There are some decent code scanning products out there, but I am not certain of one that would have identified the code I reviewed from the Sunburst attack. That being said it may be useful to flag any new DNS entries that appear in code and any hard-coded IPs that appear in code and use those flags to trigger an automated InfoSec review of that submission.
I am sure I have missed a few and would love any comments or feedback on other controls necessary to protect/prevent the initial attack vector into SolarWinds.
Chapter 2: Infection Spreads from Vendor Trusted Update Server into Your Estate
Since the malware was written into the update process for Orion’s source code it got built and then the signature was signed. Signature signed code got posted to the SolarWinds update server, hundreds of clients downloaded these updates from March to August.
One point I really want to make here, as much as I love Ted Lieu and his Twitter feed, the poor password security on the SolarWinds Update server is a real problem, but would not have made any difference on this specific distribution of signed malware. The breach happened before code signing and the code signing server is earlier in the pipeline than the update server. The update server password is a red herring here.
As an enterprise trying to protect from this type of malware infestation into a system I operate there are not a lot of good answers. This was a signed release. Whether this was downloaded automatically, or if you disabled auto-updates and then downloaded it yourself and checked the SHA hash you would have the same result. Even worse is it is not unusual for these releases to also include updates that actually patch or mitigate other vulnerabilities so you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t (upgrade).
Chapter 3: Malware Detonation
The malware was in the update process within Orion. It calls home by default so nothing unusual here when the C2 launches and starts the Call Home/Beacon process.
It is unlikely that an EDR process running on the Windows Server host would have detected anything unusual here. The DNS lookup was a bit odd as it had an obvious hash value in the DNS A-Record lookup and the domain was not in a ‘bad list’ but was also not a well known and well-utilized one. This being said I own the domain ‘network.dev’ and most people wouldn’t think twice about something going there. (as a comical aside I had a few large companies that would email me several times a day because they used it as an internal email domain for systems admin for systems like Documentum and/or their corporate travel management - so I ended up getting rather interesting emails from them with way too much PII in there.)
Once the DNS lookup occurred the C2 Channel was activated, this would look like a TLS connection to a resolved IP address. Not much that could be done here from an NDEDR system as it looks like the system it doing what the system should to properly resolved addresses that often reside in public cloud VPCs - so even the IPs look fairly normal and don’t resolve to some AS in Kazakhstan or such. (nothing against my friends from Kazakhstan, but it is not where I usually host my update servers)
How to protect my enterprise from Chapter 2 and Chapter 3?
As I said a bit earlier there is not a lot I can do to protect from Chapter 2 - I get lit up if I don’t patch systems with the latest patches to remediate vulnerabilities, and it is possible that those software updates could contain a backdoor as we saw with JunipeNetScreen and now with SolarWinds.
Key point: The known risk of the CVE I am patching for is generally, and mathematically, a greater risk than the likelihood my vendor’s code has a backdoor or malware in it.
What we can do though is think about these critical systems, that have significant access to other systems based on their location and the authorization rights to probe and monitor and update other systems, as ‘key terrain’ that an aggressor may want to own. If I treat them as such I can isolate them in a way that can help mitigate lateral expansion while providing the ability to monitor the system for changes in its normal behavior patterns.
See, I have always found pattern-matching on human-driven systems is hard. I mean how do you know if I am going to pop up YouTube to watch someone speedrun Baldur’s Gate 3 in 7 minutes, or see the latest screenshot from Cyberpunk 2077 or if instead, I am going to pop up The Economist or Slashdot and check the day’s news or check in some code to Git with VSCode? Humans are hard to model.
However, we are talking about a machine, not a human. What I have generally found is that machine-to-machine communications are generally deterministic and pattern-based. There is a fixed set of devices my NMS polls, there are specific outside locations it gets data from, and there are hopefully very controlled avenues of access into the system to generate and deliver reports. I have generally found that communications cadence is a very common consistency in machine-to-machine interaction. A change in that cadence that is not happening when a human operator is administering the system is a rather significant event and may warrant subsequent inspection/analysis.
Human access to the system is an outlier, but it may also be monitored through a mix of bastion hosts, privileged account access, and hopefully full capture of the interactive management sessions.
Summary of Controls to consider for Chapters 2/3:
  1. Deploy NMS systems and other critical infrastructure management systems on dedicated hardware systems, each in their own unique network segments.
  2. Implement a policy enforcement point, firewall, etc between these systems and the devices they manage and interact with
  3. Implement a jump host/bastion host to provide a consistent method of administering these systems
  4. I would recommend, unless absolutely necessary not having these systems deployed on Windows hosts that are participating in your AD domain. There is too much risk of Admin-A using his/her DA credential to log into the system. Force a least privilege model here.
  5. Proactively monitor the DNS lookups coming out of each segment. Inspect to establish a baseline, but then when you see new DNS entries being queried for it may be worth a look. Additionally, a simple REGEX/REGO parser of DNS A-Record requests coming out of the Infrastructure Management Segments may be worth implementing as there are not a lot of good reasons one of these devices should be doing lookups to hashed names.
  6. Implement an observability/monitoring fabric for these links - I would try to enable 365 days of flow record, DNS, and control plane packet capture and analysis. (this is not full flow so should be reasonably affordable and provides that ‘look back’ assurance when management asks us to prove we were not owned)
  7. I can’t say what system I would use for this, but if there is a traffic monitoring/NDR system that can identify changes in communications cadence of these critical infrastructure management systems that should also flag a SOC look.
  8. Some vendors do this, but the update and upgrade process must, at least, verify the cert/SHA on the image being upgraded to. This would not have helped in the slightest on Sunburst, but it still annoys me how some systems let me load up randomware as part of the upgrade process.
Chapter 4: Active C2 on a Windows Host in the Core of an Enterprise Estate
The malware itself enables the remote command and control system to download follow-on software and issue commands to the malware on the Orion server in the client’s network.
Depending on how aggressive the threat actor is and what they do for reconnaissance and lateral expansion this may be possible to detect and is the most likely place to catch the next breach that uses this type of attack vector to land malware inside an enterprise estate.
The server itself is on a Windows machine, and too often there is little to no control over domain admin credentials. Since this is a fairly common and critical IT service it would surprise me if clients did not regularly log into it with DA creds- thus enabling the threat actor to steal the Kerberos/AD ticket of a domain admin and play mimikatz games. From there without triggering too many alarms it is quite possible to do things like backup the Office 365 mail, laterally expand to other systems, and start a process of data gathering and then rapid exfiltration.
I hate to offer this up but if someone packed up data into one of those ‘would you like to share the log of the event with the vendor to improve product experience’ data exfiltration would again look way too authorized to enable easy detection.
The controls to protect a Windows/Linux host and identify lateral expansion are fairly well known and well covered by many companies and practitioners. I won’t waste anyone’s time or eyeballs here.
Final Thoughts
This will happen again - I don’t think the current state of the art in software development shops is adequately protecting their build and SCM systems. There is a lot of room to improve.
There is not a single NIST spec I can follow that gives any real assurance that the design of my information system (SCM/Build/Updater) can be certified to provide a positive assurance to my client. Sure SOC2 and FIPS140-3 and NIST 800-171 are nice and provide a framework for a variety of controls they also are not targeted at the specific attack vectors that are unique to owning an SCM/Build/Updater.
Of note: after the methods of these types of attacks, usually, the C2 network becomes known there are some excellent tools out that can enable an IT shop to determine if there are any infected hosts becoming to that C2 network, or ID that pesky ' shadow IT' implementations of SolarWinds Orion that some well-meaning lab admin elf running on a VM and promptly forgot about. I do recommend these systems that integrate with DNS, account management, and such run with at least a 12-24m lookback log as that seems to be the horizon we need to be able to prove to management and auditors.
If there are other controls that may be valuable to consider here I’d love to track those in the comment section. Our industry can do better.
submitted by douglasgourlay to cybersecurity [link] [comments]

The exact process by which currency is created and manipulated is not generally well understood, but might be the most important aspect of maintaining cabal power. How currency is actually created. (Repost of /u/letsbebuns)

I propose that it would be superior to fix the currency system and replace it with something honest. Open-source rules that are clear and simple and available to all for viewing.
While some people have proposed eliminating currency altogether, I think that completely eliminating currency would result in:
1) a lot of problems in the transition period
2) a lot of human behavior problems in the post-scarcity period
3) How does one eliminate currency without slipping into communism, which doesn't work?
I propose that fixing the currency system is easier to implement than eliminating it entirely. Currency is nothing but tokens, representations of value. An honest currency system has not been tried in our lifetime! We have no frame of reference for what it would be like to earn a little bit of money and have it keep its value forever.
The major problems with currency are like this:

DEBT BASED CURRENCY:

All "money" currently in circulation is debt. Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) are purchased by the government from a private bank called the federal reserve. The supreme court (united states vs gonzalez) decided that the federal reserve is a privately owned bank in 1983. So when the govt needs to enter more money into circulation, even though they have the legal authority to issue it (scrip) straight out of the treasury, or to mint it through the bureau of printing and engraving, instead they go to this private bank and take out a loan. The loan has interest attached to it. That money enters circulation, and the debt runs.
This is problematic for several reasons. First of all, it's unnecessary debt. The govt gave away their power to print money to someone else (they are authorized to print money but not to give the power away) and then they go into debt to receive something that they gave away in the first place.
Second of all, that means that whatever value enters circulation, then that means an equal amount of debt plus interest. (.6%)
What does this mean?
It means the US govt owes more money than is in circulation. They owe over 100% of the money in circulation. This is why it is said that the currency of the USA is "DEBT BASED CURRENCY"

FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING:

The above is bad enough. But now hear this: You give bank $100. They have $100 on the books now. Under fractional reserve lending, they are legally able to CREATE money out of nothing based on their holdings.
If a new person comes in and wants a loan, they are able to create new money (debt) at a 9:1 ratio. This is confusing, but it means from the original $100, they are able to lend out $90 of it, earning interest on that 90$, while at the same time telling the original investor that their entire 100$ is still in the bank.
If that guy who took the loan for 90$ goes and puts it in another bank, that bank can also make more loans at the same 9:1 ratio. Meaning they can loan out $81 dollars while still telling the guy they have the original $90 still on the books. If the guy who took out the loan for $81 dollars wants to put that in a new bank, the new bank can loan $73 while still telling him they have the original $81 on the books.
If you continue these loans until the amount is too low to loan, then from that original $100 dollar investment, the bankers can spawn almost $1,000 in new currency. The problem is, all of this new currency is in the form of a loan to a bank. It's $900 of new debt entering the economy on a $100 real money investment. They loaned out money they never had and are collecting interest on it!
And this is separate from the fact that ALL the currency is backed by debt, as shown in the first section. These two issues COMPOUND each other.

FIAT CURRENCY

Fiat is latin for "Let it be" and "Fiat Lux" means "Let there be light". In the world of currency, Fiat currency is called such because it is designated currency by an authority, not because it has an intrinsic value. When items have an intrinsic value, they are not a FIAT currency. Fiat currencies are entered into circulation by an authority, not by nature.
Fiat currencies are not always bad, but they have the potential to become bad, because they are synthetic and made by man. Therefore the rules which govern them are obviously subject to the appetites of man. You can make any rule you want and add it to a fiat currency.
In the USA, the constitution requires the government to use gold and silver. However, the government of previous generations (before any of us were alive) didn't follow this and created a situation where the economy was inflated with fiat scrip. Due to the presence of so much scrip, the economy can probably never go back to the way it used to be. It has been artificially inflated way too high and the correction would be egregious.
Most modern thinkers agree that the best way to handle the fiat currency situation is not to enforce the old ways, but learn the lessons from them instead. Study the Tallystick system, perhaps the most famous currency system of the ancient world, wherein the King took boughs of wood and carved unique lines into them. Then, he split the bough in half and kept one side in his castle while entering the opposing side into circulation among the people. Pretty good so far, right?
The final step was to make the king's taxes payable in the tallystick. You could discharge your monetary duty to the king by simply giving him a stick (which had originated with him). This instantly made the sticks very valuable and people accepted them as currency overnight. No gold necessary - just a stick. The tallystick system flourished for over 700 years.

SOLUTIONS

1) Obviously the biggest problem is that the federal reserve met on christmas eve 1913 without a quorum present in senate and passed their unlawful charter. Since then americans have not owned their money, but instead they borrow it from a private bank and they pay interest for the privilege of using currency. Seeing as how the Divine Creator as well as the United States Constitution allows for the government of the people to handle this themselves, there is really no reason to rely on a "for profit" bank to provide this service.
2) The second biggest problem is that the currency doesn't hold its value and is debt-based. This is by design. It's annoying, because, let's say you work 8 hours and you can buy 8 sandwiches as a result. However, you stick that money under your mattress for 6 months, and suddenly you can only buy 7 sandwiches with that money. If you wait years, you might only be able to buy 4 sandwiches instead of the original 8. That's pretty jacked up, because the number of hours you worked to earn that purchasing power didn't change. You worked the number of hours necessary to purchase 8 sandwiches! You don't get your time back when inflation strikes...
It's actually really easy to keep a currency at the same value. Silver has kept identical purchasing power for the last 100 years. You could buy the same amount of sandwiches with a silver quarter in 1925 as you can today. The only thing that changes is the value of silver in FRNs. The value of silver is not changing - the value of the FRN is. Crazy, right?
I don't recommend going to a global standard of metals for exchange, but the lessons that can be learned there are invaluable. They prove it's possible to keep purchasing power identical for 100+ years.
And the currency needs to go back into the hands of the people's government. Eliminate the private banks from government entirely.
3) Eliminate Usury from the issuance of currency entirely. THIS ALONE WOULD BE LIKE GIVING THE WORLD TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS
There is a lot more but this post is getting a bit long. Basically the problem is not money, but the fact that the money has been completely corrupted and used as a weapon.
As you can see here, the entire currency system is set up from top to bottom to steal from people.
Fixing the inherent theft is the superior path.

How can I learn more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2i6uftJhB8
Here's a great documentary that explains the situation in a clear factual manner that you can rely on. It is phrased in such a way where you could explain to a banker, using his own terms, why the system is dishonest.

Get educated and may God bless each and every one of you.

submitted by HibikiSS to conspiracy [link] [comments]

My opinion on the History of the Word of Wisdom in re its adoption as a commandment

This is just my thinking, based on some input, and there's always more input out there, waiting... So while I don't mind you quoting me to ghawd, let him know that open to amending this, okay?
The WoW bans "all hot drinks". That's it for ghawd's input to JoJu regarding what later became the ban on coffee and black/green tea. And of course, it wasn't a "ban", it was a suggestion... I had always thought that from February 27, 1833 until Sept. 09, 1851, the WoW remained merely a suggestion and a person's standing in the church had no relationship to the person's obedience to Sec. 89. But that appears not to be the case.
"...the Word of Wisdom was nevertheless regularly emphasized in the early years of the Church. In February 1834, the High Council of the Church resolved that: 'No official member in this Church is worthy to hold an office, after having the Word of Wisdom properly taught him, and he, the official member, neglecting to comply with or obey it...
"This statement was later reprinted in the November 1, 1836 issue of the Messenger and Advocate to answer "frequent applications ... for advice respecting official members of this Church relative to their observance of the Word of Wisdom.
In May of 1837, the Messenger and Advocate reaffirmed its previous stand and stressed obedience to all of God's commandments.
"The Quorum of Seventies voted to withdraw fellowship from non-observers (so far as not recognizing them as preachers of the Gospel) in July of 1837, and five months later this same group covenanted to keep the Word of Wisdom." --An Historical Analysis Of The Word Of Wisdom, pgs 27 & 28 https://archive.org/details/AnHistoricalAnalysisOfTheWordOfWisdom/page/n26/mode/1up?q=church+of+jesus+christ+of+latter+day+saints+conference+reports
But it appears that WoW violations, while cited as reasons for disfellowshipping, seem never to have been solely the cause: "In all cases where membership or fellowship was taken away, -- there were other accusations that were directed at the offender. In many cases, the Word of Wisdom violation appeared to have been considered less important than the other infractions. In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that Mormons were not expelled solely for violations of the Word of Wisdom except in the case of extreme drunkenness. --ibid., page 30
Then during September Conference, 1851 (Yeah, September! What’s up with that?), while John Smith, the then church patriarch was giving a talk on the WoW, BY got up and asked the ladies to agree to keep the Wow. The ladies voted in the affirmative. Then BY asked "...all the boys under 90..." to also vote to do the same. The record states that the voting was unanimous. (This is when the church's website it became a Commandment...)
But... "A later acceptance date seems more logical for the following reasons: (1) Brigham Young himself did not strictly live the Word of Wisdom until the early 1860’s. For example, Jules Remy, an English traveler, observed Brigham preparing "a quid of Virginia tobacco" in late September 1855 and in 1862 the Mormon President alluded strongly to the fact that he had recently over-come habits contrary to Word of Wisdom teachings.
"(2) Young said as late as 1861 that he never chose to make observance to the Word of Wisdom a test of Church fellowship.
"(3) The Mormon reformation of 1856-1857 was characterized by sermons advocating a return to a more strict adherence to Christian principles. During this period, a type of inquisitional catechism was formulated to provide an index to a Mormon’s faithfulness. The only question having to do with the Word of Wisdom was an inquiry concerning whether or not an individual had been drunk. The inference is obvious" --ibid, pages 51-53
Now we get to the point that has always been ascendant in my mind for the Big Three WoW items being labeled as the bad guys, Coffee, Tea & alcohol: From the moment of their arrival and settling of the Great Basin Kingdom, what they couldn’t grow had to be imported. And the importation of goods required hard money: gold and silver. The Saints could not use the territorial script with East Coast vendors. Here’s the view of Leonard Arrington:
“Separated as they were from the United States by over 1,500 miles of treeless plains, hounded as they had been by hating mobocrats, it was necessary for the Latter-day Saints to develop and maintain a self-sufficient economy in their Rocky Mountain retreat. Economic independence was a necessary goal of the group and every program of the Church tended toward that end. Economic independence meant developing all the agricultural, mineral, and industrial resources of the community under proper (i.e. church) leadership for the purchase of machinery and equipment needed in building a prosperous commonwealth. There must be no waste of liquid assets on imported consumer’s goods … Saints who used their cash to purchase imported Bull Durham, Battle-Axe plugs, tea, coffee, and similar ‘wasteful’ (because not productive) products were taking an action which was opposed to the economic interest of the territory. In view of this situation, President Young came to be unalterably opposed to the expenditure of money by the Saints on imported tea, coffee, and tobacco. It was consistent with the economics of the time that he should have had no great objection to tobacco chewing if the tobacco was grown locally. It was also consistent that he should have successfully developed a locally produced ‘Mormon’ tea to take the place of the imported article. Something more permanent and productive than tea, coffee, and tobacco was wanted for the building of the Kingdom, in view of the limited funds at the disposal of the Saints.” --Leonard J. Arrington, "An Economic Interpretation of the Word of Wisdom," Brigham Young University Studies Vol. 1 (Winter, 1959), p. 37.
With the coming of the railroad, the opportunities for the Saints to spend even more money for East Coast goods increased. Here’s a part of a BY’ sermon in September of 1861. Please note the lack of a will to enforce the WoW, but to please stop sending money out-of-state!:
“You know that we all profess to believe the Word of Wisdom. There has been a great deal said about it, more in former than in latter years. We, as Latter-day Saints, care but little about tobacco; but as ‘Mormons’ we use a great deal. How much do you suppose goes annually from this Territory, and has for ten or twelve years past, in gold and silver, to supply the people with tobacco? I will say $60,000.
“Brother William H. Hooper, our Delegate in Congress, came here in 1849, and during about the eight years he was selling goods his sales for tobacco alone amounted to over $28,000 a year. At the same time there were other stores that sold their share and drew their share of the money expended yearly, besides what has been brought in by the keg and by the half keg. The traders and passing emigration have sold tons of tobacco, besides what is sold here regularly. I say that $ 60,000 annually is the smallest figure I can estimate the sales at.
"Tobacco can be raised here as well as it can be raised in any other place. It wants attention and care. If we use it, let us raise it here. I recommend for some man to go to raising tobacco. One man, who came here last fall, is going to do so; and if he is diligent, he will raise quite a quantity. I want to see some man go and make a business of raising tobacco and stop sending money out of the Territory for that article.” --Brigham Young, Sermon of September 29, 1861, JD, IX, 35
The record shows that after the 1861 sermon, BY and others ramped up their efforts to get the Saints to agree to observe the WoW. There was increased hectoring from the pulpit and in church publications. But it was apparently for naught:
On October 30, 1870, Brigham Young indicated that tea and coffee sales were increasing among Church members. --Brigham Young, Sermon of October 30, 1870, JD. XIV, 20
In November 1871, Orson Pratt expressed regret that many Mormons remained unfaithful regarding the Word of Wisdom --“Minutes of the Salt Lake School of the Prophets”, November 25, 1871, HDC
Brigham Young, Jr., an Apostle, stated that the majority of Saints disregarded the Word of Wisdom. --Brigham Young, Jr., Sermon of October 8, 1872, JD, XV, 193-195
In October 1873, George A. Smith somewhat cynically remarked that not all of the tobacco sold in co-operative stores was being used to kill sheep ticks. --George A. Smith, Sermon of October 7, 1873, JD, XVI, 238
Back in the early 1860s, in recognition that the Saints were not heeding the WoW, BY had suggested that the St. George area start growing wine grapes. Things went well and tithing, being paid in kind, resulted in the St. George tithing office having 6,000 barrels of wine on hand! --Juanita Brooks, "St. George, Utah— A Community Portrait," Symposium on Mormon Culture held at Utah State University, November 14, 1952, p.4
Here’s one view of how the WoW was doing, as of March 25, 1877: “Do we as a people realize the importance of those precious words? Do we accept them as the word of God unto us? Are they observed by this people as they should be? Could we find fifty Latter-day Saints in the Territory who abstain from tea, coffee, whiskey and tobacco or consider that it is worthwhile to even give it a thought?
“Is it not high time to wake up and open our eyes and look about us. If the Lord had no purpose in giving the Word of Wisdom, why did he take the trouble to give it? And if it is not necessary for us to observe it, what is the use of having it? Do we not know that all stimulants taken into the stomach are unhealthy? We see our little ones swept from our midst, one here two there, and four and five of one family stricken down one after the other with this dreadful diphtheria. Do we realize that there is a cause and also a remedy for these things? Does not common sense tell us that their little bodies are charged with impurities ...?
“I do not address the ladies because I think the remedy lays altogether with them. No. The gentlemen are more culpable, they take for more poison into their systems than the women. I have heard of one or two women who drink whiskey to excess. And it may be that a few old ladies smoke their pipes; but I have seen nothing of the kind for years; and as to chewing tobacco (the worst poison of all) I do not think one lady can be found in our whole community that indulges in the filthy ... practice. Of course, it is not our province to teach the elders their duty, but we can plead and importune with them; but if they will persist in polluting with these filthy poisons, the Lord may find a remedy they think not of.” --Emily Dow Partridge Young, "Diary of Emily Dow Partridge Young, March 25, 1877, pg. 10, copy located in the Special Collections Library, Brigham Young University
Now here’s a weird thing I never knew: In a book titled “I was Called to Dixie”, Andrew Karl Larson reported that John Taylor, BY’s successor, asserted he received a revelation on October 13, 1882, which upgraded Sec. 89 to Commandment status! But no attempt to clue in the Saints was made for about a year. And the specifics of that 10/13/1882 revelation have not been preserved, at least for the commoners’ eyes. --Andrew Karl Larson, “I was Called to Dixie” (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1961), p. 607. Larson’s source citation read: By a revelation through President John Taylor, October 13, 1882. This writer wrote Dr. Larson, desiring more precise information, and soon afterward receive word that the original reference had been lost but most probably was found among papers in the St. George Temple.
Viewed as a ‘Second Reformation’, involving not only the WoW, but Plural Marriage and tithing, its success was likely the result of all the leaderships adherence to the following a new order. On September 28, 1883, Wilford Woodruff, as president of the Quorum of the Twelve, declared:
“I want to say to the First Presidency that we have been together as a quorum since this morning's meeting except for one hour. We have had a free and full talk upon our individual affairs-upon our family matters, upon the word of wisdom, the duties and responsibilities that devolve upon us as Apostles, etc. And we have come to the conclusion that we will more fully observe the word of wisdom, as we have all more or less been negligent upon that point.” --Minutes of the Salt Lake School of the Prophets, September 28, 1883, p. 52.
So observation of the WoW was ramping up in the church! Hearts were buoyed! The WoW was spoken of as being as important as the Celestial Order of Marriage!!
And therein lay the problem, beginning with the 1885 Supreme Court decision that allowed for the prosecution of men who practiced polygamy. Between 1885 and 1893, nothing of note was mentioned regarding observation of the WoW, basically, because most of the leadership was in hiding. They did not dare to schedule meetings that had notice of their attendance.
But things were not yet perfect. At April Conference, 1886, the First Presidency referred to those who officiated or participated in Temple functions, noting that it was "most inconsistent to carry in the smell of whiskey and tobacco.” In 1893 the general membership of the Church was chided for excessive use of tea, coffee, and tobacco.
Things were finally set straight during October Conference, 1894, when Wilford Woodruff declared, “The Word of Wisdom applies to Wilford Woodruff, the President of the Church, and it applies to all the leaders of Israel as well as to the members of the Church; and if there are any of these leading men who cannot refrain from using tobacco or liquor in violation of the Word of Wisdom, let them resign and others take their places. As leaders of Israel, we have no business to indulge in these things. There may be things contrary to the Word of Wisdom that we indulge in, and that we think we cannot live without; if we cannot, let us die.”
During that same conference, a young pup of an Apostle, Heber J. Grant, said to male members, “If you think more of a cup of tea or coffee, or a cigarette, or a chew of tobacco than your Priesthood, to resign your Priesthood.”
But there was still a lack of complete unanimity among the brethren! Here’s the written record of a meeting in May of 1898 regarding enforcement of the WoW:
“The subject of the Word of Wisdom and its strict enforcement was brought up for discussion. Pres, L. Snow having raised the question whether Bishops were justified in refusing to give members of the Church recommends to the Temple because they did not observe the Word of Wisdom. Brother J. H. Smith inquired what was meant by hot drinks. President J. F. Smith said it was defined by Hyrum Smith in the Times and Seasons; also that he (Bro. Smith) had heard President Brigham Young say that at the time the revelation on the Word of Wisdom was given prominent men in the Church were inveterate tobacco users and tea and coffee drinkers and that it was because of those practices that the Word of Wisdom was given.
“President L. Snow read the revelation on the Word of Wisdom and drew special attention to that part which relates to the use of meats, which he considered as that which relates to the use of liquors and hot drinks. He also referred to the revelation which says that he forbids the use of meat is not of God. He went on to state that President Taylor had expressed the view that some of the brethren talked too strongly against the drinking of tea and coffee. Brother Snow said he was convinced that the killing of animals when unnecessary was wrong and sinful, and that it was not right to neglect one part of the Word of Wisdom and be too strenuous in regard to other parts. President Woodruff said he regarded the Word of Wisdom in its entirety as given of the Lord for the Latter-day Saints to observe, but he did not think that Bishops should withhold recommends from persons who did not adhere strictly to it. --Journal History, March 11, 1898, p. 2
Obviously, the standard under which all of us grew up with in the church was not yet set. They were trying, but an outsider has to wonder, why didn’t they, prophets one and all, hit their knees and ask of ghawd, who giveth liberally and upbraidth not…?
People who tried to ‘lawyer’ their way out of compliance urged the point of view that pepper and ginger drinks were what ghawd referred to when he said ‘hot drinks’, not tea and coffee, which are just heated drinks…
And the initial language was examined and used as an excuse, because the first phrase says, “A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirkland…” So only they might be subject to the greetings, which then says, “…not by commandment or constraint…” We’ve all tried to weasel our way out of something based on what we viewed as ‘flexible’ language.
In October 1902, President Joseph F. Smith wrote John Hess, a Stake President at Farmington, Utah, in answer to an inquiry regarding the granting of recommends to Church members who did not observe the Word of Wisdom. President Smith advised Hess to:
“(1) Use his own discretion in most cases,
“(2) Refuse recommends to flagrant violators,
“(3) Work with those having weaknesses,
“(4) Be somewhat liberal with very old men who had contracted the tobacco habit but insist that they refrain from using tobacco those days they are in the temple, and
“(5) Draw the line on drunkenness.”
All of which supports the contention that it’s not a hard and fast law of ghawd, right?
Politically speaking, Mormonism was in the dumpster, even in Utah, in the aftermath of polygamy, and the trifling with rules carried out by Apostles Cowley and Taylor, both of whom were sealed to ‘spare’ wives in 1905 and 1909, respectively, despite the 1890 Declaration and the 1904 Second Manifesto. Yeah, Mormonism as a dumpster fire…
And the leadership knew it. At October Conference, 1908, George F. Richards gave the keynote theme: "I am sorry to say that I do not believe there is another revelation contained in this book, the Doctrine and Covenants or another commandment given of the Lord that is less observed or honored than this Word of Wisdom, and that, too, by members and officers of the Church . . .”
Following the keynote talk, Anthon H. Lund, a member of the First Presidency, declared that General Authorities were now insisting that individuals accepting positions in Wards, Priesthood Quorums, etc., live the Word of Wisdom! Wowsers! BAM! In your faces, losers!
Then Apostle George Albert Smith sort of tempered things in the next talk, when he provided a note of positive encouragement to Saints with Word of Wisdom weaknesses by reporting that in the St. George Stake, (an area formerly plagued with some wine abuse) all members of the Stake Presidency, High Council, and Ward Bishoprics, with two exceptions, were living the Word of Wisdom. - I bet is sucked to be those two!
Adding to the muddy swirl of ‘what the hell is going on’ was the fact that the church, by all the evidence, was against Prohibition! State efforts to make Prohibition a state law were thwarted in 1908 and 1909, which caused confusion. If the Church was against alcohol, why not support Prohibition?
In 1915 the State Legislature tried again and a law was passed. But then Governor Spry, an active member, vetoed it. Later it was claimed by people supposedly in the know that he was ordered to do so by President Joseph F. Smith! Given an opportunity to refute this claim, Joseph F. Smith did not do so. But the word on the street was that Smith was just reluctant to meddle in Gentile affairs. But Prohibition did pass in Utah, in 1917.
Finally, FINALLY!, with the arrival of Heber J. Grant in 1919, the church (Heber) began to emphasize the WoW with constant firmness and fervor. It had become the binding principle all of us grew up with. But as to picking out a date when that switch was flipped is difficult, other than to point to the ascendancy of Heber J. Grant. Of course, there are those who want to maintain it was always binding, such as the church’s website, which identifies September Conference, 1851 as the date it became official. But that’s bullshize as historical events clearly show.
Heber J. Grant was always staunch in his support of the WoW as a gospel principle, but he wasn’t given the support he desired by those under whom he served, even as an Apostle.
In 1894 he wrote the following: “I confess to you, my friends and fellow-laborers in the cause of God, that I have been humiliated beyond expression to go to one of the Stakes of Zion, to stand up and preach to the people and call upon them to obey the Word of Wisdom, and then to sit down to the table of a President of a Stake, after having preached with all the zeal, energy, and power that I possessed, calling upon the people to keep the commandments of God, and to have his wife ask me if I would like a cup of tea or a cup of coffee; I have felt in my heart that it was an insult, considering the words that I had spoken, and I have felt humiliated to think that I had not sufficient power, and enough of the Spirit of God to enable me to utter words that would penetrate the heart of a President of a Stake, that he at least would be willing to carry out the advice which I had given.
“l remember going to a Stake of Zion but a short time ago and preaching with all the energy I possessed and with all the Spirit that God would give me upon the necessity of refraining from the drinking of tea and coffee, and I heard also at that conference a very eloquent appeal to the Latter-day Saints by a man who, I understood, was a president of a quorum of Seventy. But when we came to take our meal, he jokingly said that he could not do without his tea and coffee and he proposed to have it and suffer the consequences.
“I remember going to another Stake of Zion and preaching to the people on the necessity of refraining from tea and coffee and giving some figures upon the wasting of the people's means} and the president of the Stake remarked, after I got through, that he thought the Lord would forgive them if they did drink their coffee, because the water in that stake of Zion was very bad. I did not say anything, but I thought a good deal, and I had to pray to the Lord and to bite’ my tongue to keep from getting up and doing something that I never have done in my life, and that is, to pick out a man and thrash him from the public stand. I felt that God owed me a blessing for not publicly reproving that man, because I wanted to do it so badly.
“Now I had made up my mind before I came to this Conference that I would not open my mouth upon the Word of Wisdom. I have become so discouraged, so disheartened, so humiliated in my feelings, after preaching year after year both by precept and example, to realize that there are Bishops, Bishops’ Counselors, Presidents of Stakes, and Patriarchs among the Church of God whose hearts I have not been able to touch, that I had about made up my mind that I would never again say Word of Wisdom to the Latter-day Saints. I felt that it was like pouring water on a duck, s back.” --Journal of History, October 6,1894
That about wraps it up. We have ONLY Heber J. Grant to thank for making Sec. 89 a commandment. No other leader, prior to him, had a compelling notion that it was ghawd’s law. BY only got involved for economic reasons; he didn’t want the Saints sending money to the East Coast!.
Ghawd never visited a single soul with the realization that it was a Law, until the unique personality of Heber J. Grant made the endeavor a personal crusade.
So, YAY Heber!!
Anyone tells you differently, have them email me. F—k the church’s website explanation. It’s all bullshiz. Even if a ghawd spoke to JoJu back in 1833, that confused son of a bitch (either one, both!) never had another effective word on the subject.
Men: it's all the doings of unadorned male bullshittery. And you can quote me.
(The guy on the SCMC who has my file will be pleased with this effort; I've slacked off lately, but now he can be relevant again! You're welcome, and Merry Christmas!)
submitted by ElderOldDog to exmormon [link] [comments]

what does quorum call mean video

What is CONFERENCE CALL? What does CONFERENCE CALL mean ... What does reverse 911 call mean? - YouTube LISTEN: What Does The Call Of The Loon Mean? - YouTube What is CALL REPORT? What does CALL REPORT mean? CALL ... What the British Mean When They Call Someone a Ginger ... What is QUORUM CALL? What does QUORUM CALL mean? QUORUM ... What does the end of a monster calls mean? - YouTube Quorum- Proxy -Motion - What does that Mean? - YouTube What Does It Mean To Be A ‘Karen’, Especially Now During ... What is QUORUM? What does QUORUM mean? QUORUM meaning ...

Quorum Has a Legal History In Latin, quorum means "of whom" and is itself the genitive plural of qui, meaning "who." At one time, Latin quorum was used in the wording of the commissions issued to justices of the peace in England. A quorum call formally begins when the Clerk calls the first name. Once the quorum call has begun, the Senate may not resume the conduct of business until a majority of Senators respond to this call, or unless the Senate agrees by unanimous consent to “dispense with further proceedings quorum call - A call of the roll to establish whether a quorum is present. If any senator "suggests the absence of a quorum," the presiding officer must direct the roll to be called. Policies around quorum and meeting attendance provide needed context for board members to prioritize effectively. Quorum. In board terms, a quorum is the minimum number of board members that must be present at a meeting to validate the proceedings of that meeting. In the absence of a quorum, the board may discuss matters, but not vote or Quorum definition, the number of members of a group or organization required to be present to transact business legally, usually a majority. See more. A quorum call is a parliamentary procedure designed to ensure that members of a legislative body are present before a vote is passed. A quorum is defined as the minimum number of individuals who must be present for a transaction or law to be considered legal. A nugget of political arithmetic is suddenly everywhere: “Two-thirds majority.” This is the share of votes required to convict President Trump in an impeachment trial in the United States Senate.That’s 67 senators, if you’re counting—or, in the glass-half-empty variation, the number of Republican senators required to jump ship is 20. Defining a Quorum According to Robert’s Rules, the definition of a quorum is the minimum number of voting members who must be present at a properly called meeting in order to conduct business in the name of the group. A quorum call is a procedure used in both houses of Congress to bring to the floor the number of members who must be present for the legislative body to conduct its business. The quorum call is established in Article I, Section V of the U.S. Constitution: In the case of a “live" quorum call where a five minute vote on an amendment is expected following the quorum call, Members are summoned by three bells followed by five bells. Alternatively, in the absence of a quorum, the Chair may order a “notice” quorum call and vacate the quorum call at any time when 100 Members appear.

what does quorum call mean top

[index] [7378] [1916] [7629] [6292] [244] [4523] [206] [1311] [2866] [3734]

What is CONFERENCE CALL? What does CONFERENCE CALL mean ...

What does reverse 911 call mean? A spoken definition of reverse 911 call. Intro Sound: Typewriter - Tamskp Licensed under CC:BA 3.0 Outro Music: Groove Groov... Your favo(u)rite British host, Laurence Brown, explains exactly what the British mean when they call someone a ginger. If you enjoyed this video, let your fr... http://www.theaudiopedia.com What is QUORUM? What does QUORUM mean? QUORUM meaning - QUORUM pronunciation - QUORUM definition - QUORUM explanatio... 00:00 - What does the end of a monster calls mean?00:36 - What is the moral of the second tale in a monster calls?01:10 - What is the first tale about in a m... http://www.theaudiopedia.com What is QUORUM CALL? What does QUORUM CALL mean? QUORUM CALL meaning - QUORUM CALL definition - QUORUM CALL explanati... http://www.theaudiopedia.com What is CALL REPORT? What does CALL REPORT mean? CALL REPORT meaning - CALL REPORT definition - CALL REPORT explanati... The name Karen has become a new, popular meme, joke and insult for a very specific type of person online. Karens are often described as annoyingly entitled, ... INTERNATIONAL FALLS, MN (RJBroadcasting.com) What does the call of the Loon mean? Find out more at a free lecture. Homeowner meetings can be confusing so we are taking a few moments of your time to explain common HOA meeting terminology to help you understand how things w... http://www.theaudiopedia.com What is CONFERENCE CALL? What does CONFERENCE CALL mean? CONFERENCE CALL meaning & explanation.A conference call is a...

what does quorum call mean

Copyright © 2024 hot.playbestrealmoneygames.xyz