Now that Trump is fully exposed, prepare accordingly

[Ezra]

It's hard to laugh all the time, eddie, when secret combinations have taken over the country.

I mainly laugh at your posts!

So you mainly laugh at silvers posts because of pride. Cool that you admit it. Although I really don't think you meant to. That's just my observation. :ymhug:

Let's discuss pride Ezra...

Sure.

From your understanding where does pride come from?
How are the judgements we have of ourselfs tied directly to pride?
What are some steps to realizing our own pride and how do we overcome them?
What are some good books other then scripture that discuss the dangers of pride and how to overcome it?
When dealing with other people what are some signs that we are being prideful in our relationship with them?

[eddie]

I mainly laugh at your posts!

So you mainly laugh at silvers posts because of pride. Cool that you admit it. Although I really don't think you meant to. That's just my observation. :ymhug:

Let's discuss pride Ezra...

Sure.

From your understanding where does pride come from?
How are the judgements we have of ourselfs tied directly to pride?
What are some steps to realizing our own pride and how do we overcome them?
What are some good books other then scripture that discuss the dangers of pride and how to overcome it?
When dealing with other people what are some signs that we are being prideful in our relationship with them?

There are plenty of warnings about pride in the scriptures: “Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised
is wisdom.

[Ezra]

So you mainly laugh at silvers posts because of pride. Cool that you admit it. Although I really don't think you meant to. That's just my observation. :ymhug:

Let's discuss pride Ezra...

Sure.

From your understanding where does pride come from?
How are the judgements we have of ourselfs tied directly to pride?
What are some steps to realizing our own pride and how do we overcome them?
What are some good books other then scripture that discuss the dangers of pride and how to overcome it?
When dealing with other people what are some signs that we are being prideful in our relationship with them?

There are plenty of warnings about pride in the scriptures: “Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised
is wisdom.

Silver hope your paying attention. That was an apology. (Only by pride cometh contention.) Like saying he only laughs at your posts.

Thank you Eddie for showing that you can see your faults. I admire a person that will publicly humble themselfs.

:ymapplause:

[BeNotDeceived]

I mainly laugh at your posts!

So you mainly laugh at silvers posts because of pride. Cool that you admit it. Although I really don't think you meant to. That's just my observation. :ymhug:

Let's discuss pride Ezra...

Sure.

From your understanding where does pride come from?
How are the judgements we have of ourselfs tied directly to pride?
What are some steps to realizing our own pride and how do we overcome them?
What are some good books other then scripture that discuss the dangers of pride and how to overcome it?
When dealing with other people what are some signs that we are being prideful in our relationship with them?

Here is some precious stuff from my notes that has become inaccessible

Article of Faith #13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. - http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1

Seek to be worthy of praise.
On the one hand, we're supposed to "seek after" things that are "of good report or praiseworthy" (Philippians 4:8).

On the other hand, if we "aspire to the honors of men," we're doing something wrong (D&C 121:35).

How can we seek to be praiseworthy -- without seeking praise? That sounds like a bit of a tightrope walk to me!

There is a subtle distinction that we should not miss: Paul does not tell us to seek praise, but rather to seek after things that are praiseworthy and of good report.

In other words, we emulate, not what is praised, but what should be praised; not just things that are reported, but things that are of good report. And there is no implication that we kshould seek to have others give good reports about us.

Oh, wait. There's Matthew 5:15-16: "Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

So we are supposed to let "men" see our good works, while at the same time we do not "aspire to the honors of men."

In the words of StrongBad: My head a splode!

Yet perhaps the distinction is quite simple after all. When men see our good works, it is so they will glorify God. When we aspire to the honors of men, it is so they will glorify us.

That's familiar ground, isn't it? Council in heaven, Christ's attitude versus Satan's.

But we can't control what other people think. Even if we say, "Don't praise me, praise God," that can actually come across smarmily, as if we were saying, "Whatever I do, that was really God doing it," which claims a certain chumminess with the Lord.

It's something any hypocrite can say, and most do.

I've seen writers make claims of divine guidance about the worst writing, devoid of ideas or truth or talent or skill.

When I worked as an assistant editor at the Ensign back in the 1970s, it seemed that the only submissions that the authors claimed were inspired by God were those that were hopelessly unpublishable.

And besides, right alongside "Let your light so shine before men" we have: "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward" (Matthew 6:2).

Let's make our fine distinction even finer. The King James version was translated in an era when the distinction between "thou" and "ye" was still clear. "Thou/thee/thy" was singular, and "ye/you/your" plural.

So the Savior was telling us as a group to let our light shine before men, while as individuals we are supposed to conceal our good works: "When thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" (Matthew 6:3).

There are some careers in which fame and success cannot be separated. If you're an actor, for instance, or a musician, or a writer, it is hard to do your work secretly -- what's the point, if there's no audience? And if you do your work well, and many people seek to enjoy it, and tell their friends, then you will be, to one degree or another, famous.

It is very easy, in such careers, to start measuring your success by the amount of fame or honors you receive.

Fame is like nicotine: Even a single dose can set up a dependency. Many begin to shape their work and their lives in order to get more and bigger hits of fame.

Speaking as one who has had a little bit of splash in a very small pond, I have seen how the hunger for awards and recognition and fame -- "the honors of men" -- sours the lives of those who can never get enough of it.

And you can never get enough of it.

Why? Because the thrill of fame lasts about 15 seconds, and then it's gone.

Or else you start to believe the praise and think you deserve it -- not your work, you -- which leads to a sense of entitlement that makes you miserable to live with.

Our job -- whether we're in a fame-inducing career or not -- is to do the best work we can, in both senses of "best": best in quality of workmanship, and best in moral value to those who receive it.

Those who do good work will usually have the respect of those who know what good work is. If you aspire to do good things and do them well, then respect will come from those whose respect is worth having. If there are large numbers of people who value your work, good for them -- but you are no better than any other person who does good, and does it well.

Fame -- being known to ever larger numbers of people, winning prizes, getting magazine and television coverage -- is not worth crossing the street for.

Because fame is the admiration or adulation that comes to you; what makes you happy is the love you give to other people.

Fame comes and goes with the whims and tastes of the public. The love you give stays given.

Orson Scott Card is a writer of nonfiction and fiction, from LDS works to popular fiction. “In the Village” appears Thursdays in the Deseret News - http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voice ... /?id=10305

[Silver]

Several photos in the article which did not copy/paste. You need to go to the link to see them for the article to have greatest impact.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-1 ... n-chemic-0

Top Missile and Chemical Weapons Expert Debunks Trump’s Claims About Syrian Chemical Weapons

by George Washington
Apr 13, 2017 4:02 PM

The Trump administration claims that it has proof that the Syrian government dropped chemical weapons from an airplane on April 4th.

But a top missile and chemical weapons expert told Washington’s Blog today that the weapon was not delivered by an airplane at all …

Specifically, we called Dr. Theodore Postol, professor of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT. Postol’s main expertise is in ballistic missiles. He has a substantial background in air dispersal, including how toxic plumes move in the air. Postol has taught courses on weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological threats – at MIT.

Before joining MIT, Postol worked as an analyst at the Office of Technology Assessment, as a science and policy adviser to the chief of naval operations, and as a researcher at Argonne National Laboratory.

He also helped build a program at Stanford University to train mid-career scientists to study weapons technology in relation to defense and arms control policy.

Postol is a highly-decorated scientist, receiving the Leo Szilard Prize from the American Physical Society, the Hilliard Roderick Prize from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Richard L. Garwin Award from the Federation of American Scientists.

Postol previously debunked the U.S. government’s claims about a 2013 chemical weapons attack in Syria, causing the New York Times to back away from one of the main arguments for Syrian government culpability.

Postol told Washington’s Blog that a chemical weapon dropped from a plane would have included an explosive on the inside of the tube containing the chemical agent.

But the photograph the U.S. government released to show the weapon which released the chemicals on April 4th shows that the explosive was placed outside of the tube containing the chemical weapon.

Postol illustrates this fact in a report he released today:

Postol 1Postol 2 Postol 3Postol also notes that the weapon is simply a section of a 122 mm artillery rocket, rather than any type of weapon that would be released from a plane:

Postol 4Postol also told us that – contrary to popular myth – chemical weapons are more effective when there’s no wind, as people are exposed to the chemical for a longer period than if it’s calm (wind lifts some of the chemical upward, so it’s not as concentrated at ground level. On the other hand, a chemical released at ground level on a calm day moves about the same speed as a person walking … 1 to 2 meters per second).

Postol looked up the weather for the area where the chemical incident occurred. It was quite windy the day before and the day after the incident, but was calm when the chemical release occurred. So reports by the Russian government that it was windy that day are inaccurate.

Postol believes this provides circumstantial evidence that the chemical was released from the ground, and that the perpetrator intentionally waited for a calm day to set it off.

But Postol also told us that he has evidence that the site has been tampered with. Specifically, he’s reviewed photographs of the site over time, which show that it has been modified. [Update: he just sent us his Addendum on evidence tampering.] So there’s really no evidence linking the Syrian government with the chemical incident.

Postol told us that the errors, inconsistencies and lack of facts in both the 2013 and 2017 U.S. reports on Syrian chemical weapons incidents show that the reports were not vetted by any experienced intelligence officials. In other words, these were political rather than fact-based reports.

Postol notes concerning the U.S. government’s report:

[It] does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack.

***

[Like the report on the 2013 Syrian chemical attack, the government’s new report is] obviously false, misleading and amateurish.

***

What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true.
Many other experts have also expressed doubts about the Trump administration’s claims regarding the chemical incident.