An Arms Race in the Church House

   You could have a minor arms race in the church house, if you are not careful. The nation gets edgy about school shooting, and such.

   And, church shootings. There have been enough of those.

   Word is, you need to have a gun to stop a gun. The police are not going to arrive in time; Somebody has got to have a gun to stop the criminal.

   Soon enough, people are going to start seeing it as their duty to bring their guns to church, to be ready for the next mass shooting.

   And, when one person sees the person in the pew next to him packing, he decides he ought to be helping out, as well. So, he brings his gun the next week. Pretty soon, eight or nine people are packing.

   And, you've got an arms race right in your own church.

   Don't question that it could happen. I wonder if in some churches, it already has. 

Without a gun, an argument is an argument. But, when weapons are present, the disagreement becomes deadly.

We Could Wait and See How the Fastest Draw Plays Out in Church

  I think of how in some Wild West towns, you had to turn your gun in when you arrived in town. They knew back then that if everyone had a gun, there would only be trouble.
  I consider this, as I reflect on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prohibiting lethal weapons in its church houses.
  There are those who warn that a shooter is sure to show up at a church meeting, and -- unchallenged now -- rip bullets all through the churchgoers. The church will regret its prohibiting guns, they promise.
   Such an event might, indeed, happen. But, on the flip side, consider what a proliferation of guns could mean. What if it became practice among some to bring guns to church? What if, say, ten people conceal-carried? Sometimes, people get upset with each other. And, if they have guns, that can be dangerous. I think of stories of friends simply being together, playing cards or whatever, and a disagreement breaks out, and one pulls out his gun and shoots the other.
  That could happen in church. And, the more guns, the more likely it will. Someone gets edgy about someone else, and they pull out their gun. I don't know but what if he or she knows the other person is also carrying, that might even make them pull their gun quicker.
  The fastest draw always was the rule when guns were involved. We could wait to see how that rule plays out in church. Or, we could nip it in the bud, and prohibit guns.

Is Hurricane Dorian a Small Piece of Scripture being Fulfilled?

   Look to the seas, and wonder. Look at the hurricanes and wonder if they are a part of this. I know of two revelations that speak of the seas and the last days.
   There is that verse in John 16, of an angel pouring a vial upon the sea, and the sea becoming a source of death.
  And there is Luke 21:25, prophesying "the sea and the waves roaring." When Joseph Smith translated portions of the Bible, he added to the words in Luke, "The earth shall also be troubled, and the waters of the great deep."
   There are those who belief we live in the last days. If it be true, it does not mean that all the revelations that speak of the last days are being fulfilled at this moment. But, the same, we might look around at what is happening and wonder if that is what the scripture was referring to.
   Then, what of hurricanes? They form in the seas. And, they bring death. But, if we are to consider them a sign of the last days, then we would assume they need to be worse than in past ages.
   I read this, from newscientist.com:
   "Hurricanes are expected to intensify faster, to become stronger overall, to dump more rain and move more slowly as the world warms, and that seems to be just what is happening. . . . The only stronger hurricane than Dorian ever recorded in the Atlantic was Allen in 1980."
    Hurricanes are becoming stronger. They do come from the seas. Scripture does refer to trouble from the oceans in the end of times. We can sit back and wonder. We know not for certain that this is what was meant. Maybe the scripture spoke of something else and not this at all.
   But, we should wonder.
  Note added 9/4/19: Thought of the disclaimer-attitude I ended with, and think to correct it. If the waters are the great deep are to be troubled, if the second angel poured out a vial upon the sea, then that means something will be occurring. If these are the last days (yes, if), then the hurricanes from the waters are how the seas are being troubled. Worse things might lie ahead, much worse. Still, if these are the last days and this is what we see of how the seas are troubled, it, then, is at least a partial fulfillment of scripture -- has to be, for it is what there is.

Trees are Needed More in the Cities to Stop Carbon Dioxide

   I wonder if the problem of too much carbon dioxide would be better solved with trees in our cities than with trees in the Amazon. I am not a scientist, so I do not understand these things, completely.  But, to me, you place the trees where the carbon dioxide is. If the streets of New York are where the carbon dioxide is, that is where you need your trees. In the Amazon, there might be carbon dioxide miles above it in the sky, but how much is right down where the trees can have any effect? What, those trees suck it in from miles away? I'm not a scientist, but this does not make sense to me.
  And, I realize you can only put so many trees in New York City. Still, I wonder if we couldn't make some improvement -- plant a few more.
   And, plant more in all our cities.
   I think of grocery store parking lots, where often we do see trees. Thanks to Walmart and other grocers for planting them. Could they plant more?
   I think of Erin Mendenhall, who is a surprise finalist in the race for Salt Lake City mayor. She campaigned on a pro-environment platform. If she is elected, what will she do? More -- if she is elected, what will she be obliged to do? If someone suggests an ordinance saying no new single-family houses without at least one tree, what will she say? How about no new commercial development without accompanying trees?
   Some trees take away more carbon dioxide than others. Could we try to get more of them in our urban environments? The trees at Walmart are nice, but would other varieties be more effective?
   I do not know if large trees can be replanted. Perhaps you cannot take partially grown redwoods and line them along the interstate -- where all the cars are. But, if you can, it might be worth it.
   Tell me this: Why aren't more of our interstates lined with trees? How many are? Of top, I can't remember seeing any. Why not?

Solve Joint Health, and You Live Longer

  Dynamics of the Knee 101 and why it might make a difference in how long you live. Have I piqued your interest? I hope so. Read on. Read why the knee might be a key to long life.
  And, what I say of the knee, I say of the hip. The hip is just as important. Have you ever noticed how many elderly fall and break their hips? Why does that not happen so much to those who are young?
   The secrets of life and death, then, are to be found in the knees and hips. If you would live to be 101, read on.
   A few weeks ago, I saw an ad or infomercial or whatever for a product called Arthrozene. The good doctor who came up with the product explained that the knee's cartilage is like a sponge. And, when the foot lands on the ground, fluid is squeezed out of the joint. And, when you lift your foot, fluid is sucked back in. A bad joint is one where the sponge has dried up, and no fluid is entering or exiting.
  I visit a rehabilitation center each week as part of a church calling. Yesterday, as with many weeks I've been over there, I ran into person after person with knee or hip replacements. I ran into two or three whose hips had been broken. Why do hips break more often with the elderly than with youth? Because they are more bridle, of course. And, while I say "of course" because this makes sense, now that I know cartilage can dry up -- and does as we get older -- it all makes even better sense. Dry things break easier. Old people have dry cartilage, and so, old people's joints break easier.
  Can new fluid be created? I don't know. The Arthrozene people must believe so. I tried to replicate what Arthrozene has in it, by buying Boswellia and Collagen. I already had some Hyaluronic Acid (and some Boswellia, but I bought some more).
   Now, getting back to the suggestion that when you run, as your foot lands it squeezes  out fluid and as it lifts up, it sucks in fluid. You do not lubricate the joint then, without exercising. And, note this: If you land hard, that is more likely to jar out the fluid than a gentle touching down of the foot. Just like there is a splash when something heavy is thrown into a pool, whereas there is no splash if the heavy item is gently laid into the water, so the pounding from running means more than gentle walking.
   There is a lot I do not know. I have learned a little about the lymphatic system, and of how it carries the body fluids around, and the body fluids have toxins in them and the lymphatic system helps carry them out. I would guess the lymphatic system serves the knees and joints, and any liquid squeezed in or out is transported through the lymphatic system. So, when it is squeezed out, is it carried away and a new supply of liquid sucked in? If you are going to get rid of toxins, this would seem necessary. If there is any value to squeezing out the fluid only to let it back in, it would seem some new fluid must be brought into the joint.
  Does all the fluid in our body intermingle? Or, is there a set of lymphatic vessels for one fluid, and another set for another? Is there one set for intake, and another for outtake? What are the interfacings with the blood system? Is inflammation carried through both?
   Consider that toxins kill. Consider that the breakdown of the knee and hip might be due to toxins being introduced, or becoming too dominant. Maybe when the knee cartilage dries out, it is because of the toxins in the liquid. At any rate, if the same toxins are awash in the rest of your body, then if you keep your knees and hips healthy, you might keep the rest of your body healthy.
   The knee becomes the visible indicator of the whole of the body.
    When a person just lays in a hospital bed, their lymphatic system is hardly active. Yes, we know the lymphatic system requires exercise. Unlike the arterial system, which has the heart as a pump, the lymphatic system has no pump. It relies on exercise.  Now read this, from http://www.cpandr.co.uk:
   "The lymphatic system is our body’s own waste removal service. It is the least talked about system in the body but is arguably the most vital."
   Lay in bed and die, perhaps? If removal of the toxins requires the lymphatic system and the lymphatic system requires exercise, where does that leave us? If our joints get stiffer and stiffer and we no longer can exercise, that is death sitting in. Solve joint health, and you live longer. One, the health of the joints is a reflection of the health of the body, and, Two, you need those joints healthy so you can exercise and have the lymphatic system ridding you of killing toxins.

Lessons to be Learned from Taylorsville Shooting

   Push aside news of all the other shootings and learn from a little one in Taylorsville, Utah.
   No one died, so no news outside Utah.
   But, I wonder if there are lessons to be learned as much from this shooting as from any other.
   A man shows up at a birthday party, drunken, barefooted, and with a gun. The party's host talks him into leaving, and he does. The party's host then goes to talk to a neighbor, who is a concealed carry permit holder. As they talk, the unwelcome man returns, an argument ensues, the man points his gun -- and the neighbor shoots him.
   The story exemplifies the notion that some people shouldn't have guns. The man was drunken. Certainly you do not want a drunken person to be carrying a gun around. But, what if he had been sober? Would it have been okay for him to be bringing the gun? The party host still would have been within rights to ask him to leave. But, what if the party host was alright with the man having the gun, as long as he wasn't intoxicated? Would it then be a good thing -- and safe -- that the man brought his gun?
  That would depend on what the man intended to do with the gun, wouldn't it? If he were just hauling around the gun in case he should need it for self defense, perhaps having the gun is okay. But, even then, be careful. If the man knew he sometimes gets in arguments, and was wanting the gun to give him the one-up in such situations, he might rationalize he was carrying it for self defense. If you get in fights, the gun can be seen as your self defense.
   Bottom line is, Some people should not have guns. We should be drawing lines and leaving some people out when it comes to the right to bear guns.
   Gun-free zones? That's another question this story broaches. Should a birthday party be a gun-free zone? Or, to the contrary, should guns be encouraged? Should we make sure someone at the party has a gun, just in case a criminal comes and someone needs to shoot him down? What would become of little parties such as this, if a number of people stepped into the role of defenders, and all came packing heat?
   For my part, I think those are parties I would leave. You can argue guns are needed for self defense, but having a number of guns present only escalates the danger of one being used. I do not think I would like to be going to parties, or other gatherings (including church), where a number of guns are present. Count me out.