In some ways, I think this might be their attempt to *not* bring contention into the church. I mean, one masked, one unmasked - that's kind of trying to be all things to all people. I can see this as an attempt to *lessen* the contention, by giving everyone a chance to pick the service that matches their comfort level. In other circumstances, that's the preferred mode of action, really - sidestepping contention by allowing all the options. But that's not helping pastors figure out what to do now, when there's really no fence-sitting option, no compromise position. ~*~ I'm happy with how our church is doing things (being small makes a lot of things easier for us). We (both as a family and as a church) went with masks before it was the standard in our community (even now, with a state mask mandate, it's still not really a *standard*, but just that thing you do only when someone makes you). We are having both live-streamed and in person services, and require both social distancing and masks for the latter (we keep a bunch available to hand out). We are the only church I know of in the area that is requiring masks (churches are exempt from the mandate, though they are strongly encouraged to follow it). But we are otherwise doing our usual services, singing and communion and all. Dh (the pastor) got some pushback from requiring masks, but he does have elder support, which helps a lot. (When trying to make the decision, he really felt like he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.) Giving is way down, though it's been that way since the lockdown, not just since we required masks. And dh has been working extremely hard to connect with members via phone calls and home visits.

SheaMoisture Strengthen and Restore Conditioner I can find it in most stores (often, but not always, in the ethnic section). It works great on both my hair and my girls' (fine and straight).

Yea for a starting point! (What follows are just some hopefully helpful thoughts - use if helpful, ignore if not. I was in a hurry, trying to write it during lunch, so idk if my tone reflected my intentions.) That particular question from WS is a hard one, though, at least to me, though I'm probably over-thinking it a ton. (I'm a decent writer but even with all that I read, lit analysis has always been my weak point.) I wonder if she'd do better with topics she was interested in, or at least topics in subjects where she is successful at the type of thinking requried (it sounded like history goes pretty well). I know I always found the kind of analysis required in history essays to be *much* easier than lit analysis. Finding the words to express your ill-formed-but-nonetheless-existing thoughts is a totally different task from having no thoughts to begin with (and seeing no way to find thoughts, either). Heck, my oldest loves to write in general, but she still locks up when faced with the task of coming up with thoughts on command. Both WWS and The Writing Revolution start by having students arrange already existing ideas into a logical order, before having them try to come up with thoughts on their own. How does she do on those early WWS activities, where they give lots of details and you pick and choose which ones you want? Also, TWR's sentence summary activity - where you start with a base sentence (that you, the teacher, supply to the student), like "Antennae help crustaceans," the student expands the idea by answering when/where/why/how questions, and then expands the sentence by incorporating those answers into the base sentence - is helpful for turning a general topic into a useful topic sentence; and so is the because/but/so fill-in-the-blank sentence activity. (Right now I'm having my oldest work on summary sentences, single paragraph outlines (SPOs), and turning an SPO into a paragraph.) TWR has free diagnostics, both sentence level and paragraph level (I'll attach them to this post); I ran my oldest through both (and my middle through the sentence one), and it was useful for seeing where things broke down. It has smaller steps than WS - such as identifying topic sentences and detail sentences in already-written paragraphs - and an easy topic (winter) it might help you narrow down where the issues are. There are several free online resources available for TWR on their website (requires free registration). It's great that you have an entry point! Diagnostic-Sentences-Winter.pdf Diagnostic-Paragraph-Winter-.pdf

I've had them since the 90s, and, although the delay never bothered me, they definitely change faster now. Maybe I'm just used to it, but they are invisible to me, just like they are supposed to be.

My oldest enjoyed both of those around that age (and still does). She rec's the Redwall series, by Brian Jacques, and also Septimus Heap, by Angie Sage (my current 11yo also loves Septimus Heap). Another good series is the Wilderking Trilogy, by Jonathan Rogers. My middle *loves* Green Ember. She says the second and third books end on cliffhangers, making you want to read the next one right away.

My list of things I get on mine: high index (thinner material, to avoid the coke bottle effect), transitions, progressives, anti-scratch, anti-glare. Personally, I *love* my transitions. So convenient. Progressives take some getting used to, but are great if you can't read with your distance prescription. (I spent years carrying reading glasses with me at all times because my eyes hurt within seconds if I tried to read or do any close-up work, even just reading a label at the store.) But if you don't need bifocals, you don't need progressives. Don't skimp on the anti-scratch coating. My old (expensive) pair was scratch-free for over a decade; my new (unexpectedly cheaper) pair was scratched within a few months, and is now, 2 yrs in, more scratches than clear. I was told I didn't need extra scratch protection, because something else I was getting (transitions, iirc) had it built in. Yeah, no - was not remotely enough.

What did you use, and how was it unsuccessful?

Learning to read and spell has been an adventure here, so I've done both SYS and an SWR-like approach with both girls; they complemented each other well, and I blended aspects of them together, but at the core they are fairly different approaches. SWR can be used to teach reading - it's whole thing is spell your way into reading - but SYS would require a separate reading program. SWR is pretty strict phonics all the way through, while SYS starts off with basic phonetic spelling and then, after phonetic spelling habits are hopefully established, incorporates a visual approach. SYS is very open and go, and takes about 15 min a day. Once you learn how SWR works, it's fairly open and go, but you do have to read through it and wrap your head around it first. As well, SWR is more involved - both that it takes more time to teach, but also that it covers more and goes deeper. SWR explicitly teaches and analyzes all words, while SYS has more implicit learning. SYS takes a studied dictation approach starting partway through Level B. (In Level A and the first part of Level B, it's straight dictation, using phonics skills to spell what you hear.) There's one passage per week, which you analyze each day using their nifty color-coded visual marking system and then use as copywork. (I use SYS's marking system on everything we use for dictation - WWE, Dictation Day by Day - it's our main tool for the "study" part of studied dictation.) Then on the last day, you use it for dictation. The idea is that by study and repetition, the spelling - especially of common words - will sink in. SYS's visual marking system is kind of a stripped-down version of SWR's marking system; I incorporated some extras from SWR (like numbering the different sounds of a given phonogram) into SYS. I didn't do SYS till the kids were reading independently (started at Level C); however, I think Level A can be used with beginning readers. SWR teaches words by dictating them and logically working through them, applying phonics knowledge (phonogram options and the rules governing those options) to figure out how to spell each sound. They have a marking system that both informs you how to pronounce the word for reading and also helps you remember how it is spelled. There are several activities you can do to practice the words; I didn't do any of them, which is probably why our SWR-style approach was great for learning to read but not as great at cementing spelling. (Also spelling has just taken a lot of work here.) In short (too late), I like SWR for its explicit, logical phonics analysis - I used a modified version of it to hit phonics really hard. We went through the words twice, once in print as part of learning to read and then again in cursive to cement phonics as well as to learn both cursive and spelling. I like SYS for its ease of use and its nifty visual marking system; dictation helped my kids' spelling tremendously, and SYS made dictation very doable for us.

I'd guess so, too. Comfortable with most of it, I expect, but would probably have issues with the Lutheran emphasis on the sacraments (and how God gives saving grace through them) and also our holding to unconditional election. I'm not entirely sure how Arminians would put it, but as I understand it, they do hold to some level of human involvement in accepting salvation as necessary to the process, whereas we Lutherans are closer to Calvinists wrt unconditional election. Lutherans are pretty hardcore about salvation being a no-human-involvement-needed thing. So this is where Arminians and Lutherans differ. Arminians, as far as I understand, do hold that people can and must accept salvation in order to be saved. Lutherans, otoh, hold that you can't even want to accept salvation until God's already saved you. Even "not rejecting the salvation you've been given" is still only possible *because* you were saved first. For Lutherans, accepting Christ is a result, not a cause, of salvation. We draw a sharp distinction between God's saving work and our (good) responses to that work. "Accepting Christ", "not rejecting the salvation you've been given" - all those are morally and spiritually good responses to salvation, but they aren't the cause of our salvation nor are they the cause of our remaining saved. It's not just that we can't do anything spiritually good apart from God's grace, but also that we can't do anything spiritually good until we are redeemed. My understanding of Arminians is that they hold that God gives a kind of precursor grace that enables the will to freely choose to accept or reject salvation. Lutherans, though, hold that only the already-regenerate will can choose to accept salvation. Here's a couple of analogies. Let's say that you are a beggar and someone (God) comes up to give you money (salvation). As I understand the Arminian position, the benefactor holds out the money to you and you either take it or refuse to take it. But the Lutheran position is that the benefactor takes your hand, puts the money into it, and closes your fingers around it. Now that you have it, you are free to continue keeping it or to reject it, to open your hand and let it flutter away - but your receiving it? You didn't do anything to receive that money, you couldn't have done anything to receive that money - you were utterly incapable of putting your hand out to receive it - but you were given it anyway, because your benefactor did everything required. Another analogy: Jesus as a lifeguard and you as a drowning swimmer, four interpretations. 1) You're drowning in the ocean. The lifeguard sees you struggling, calls out to you and gets your attention, and tells you how to swim and get yourself back to land. You follow his example and make it back to shore: the lifeguard saved you. 2) You're drowning in the ocean. The lifeguard sees you struggling, dives into the water and swims out to you. He not only tells you how to swim but is right there coaching your through it, every step of the way. You follow him and make it back to shore: the lifeguard saved you. 3) You're drowning in the ocean. The lifeguard sees you struggling, dives into the water and swims out to you. You are panicked and exhausted and have nothing in you. He takes hold of you, lays you over the float, and swims you to shore. You make it back to shore: the lifeguard saved you. 4) You've already drowned in the ocean. The lifeguard sees your dead body being tossed about, dives into the water and swims out to you. He takes hold of you, swims you to shore, and performs CPR. He revives you on the shore: the lifeguard saved you. So, as I understand it, Arminians tend to see salvation as somewhere between 2 and 3; Calvinists tend to see it as somewhere between 3 and 4; while Lutherans see salvation as number 4, all the way. We aren't just saved from dying; we are already dead and salvation brings us back to life. So when it comes to the will in salvation, we're dead, spiritually speaking - dead people can't will anything. There's no role for the will in being saved, because there's no life in us before we saved - we're the dead body needing to be resurrected, we *really* don't have anything to contribute. For Lutherans, the choice-maker is God, always. We can't even do anything choice-wise until salvation has already occurred. Not throwing away salvation, not flinging ourselves right back into the water to die again - that's a good work, but like all good works it's the *result* of salvation, not the cause. The will has nothing to do until it's brought back to life by God. Which, yeah, brings us right back to the ol' crux theologorum. We're like Calvinists in our insistence on salvation being entirely and utterly the work of God, and like Arminians in our insistence that God both wants to save all and is actively working to save all. (And like Catholics in our focus on God working through the sacraments.) It's back to super-fun Lutheran paradox land =). With the poles of unconditional election and universal atonement, Ariminians are the exact opposite of Calvinists, picking universal atonement while rejecting unconditional election. And as ever, Lutherans still refuse to give up either pole and so just keep accepting the paradox. You're very welcome - I'm glad it's been helpful :). And thank you for being such a polite and interested conversation partner. I enjoy discussing theology, so the time spent isn't a burden.

Yes to this, more or less. (Calvinism and Lutheranism's 1.5 shared points - total depravity and (sorta-shared) unconditional election.) But *not* this. There is a whole lot more to those 3.5 points of difference (limited v unlimited atonement, irresistible v resistible grace, and no v yes wrt the possibility of true apostasy). Quoting myself here to say that, while those two things are functionally the same, Lutherans *don't* actually believe *either* of them. (Mea culpa for implying otherwise - I think I finally found the words I was looking for.) We *don't* believe that God is letting *anyone* just go their merry way to hell without intervening. Rather, we believe that God is actually intervening every second of every day, for the benefit of *everyone*. We don't just have a vague hope that God might issue a reprieve, but we have a sure and certain confidence that God *is* actively giving His saving grace to *anyone* who hears His Word. He doesn't just *want* all to be saved - He is actively *working* to bring that salvation about. But, of course, not all who hear the Word accept it. This is where the resistible versus irresistible grace difference comes into play. Calvinists, wanting to uphold God's sovereignty, hold that God's grace is irresistible - that His saving grace cannot be resisted by sinful man, and as such all who receive saving grace are saved - and that all who *aren't* saved must not have received that irresistible grace. And thus you get the picking and choosing - giving saving grace to some, withholding saving grace from others. But for Lutherans, God is *not* withholding His saving grace from *anyone*. It is freely given in the means of grace - God's Word and the Sacraments - to everyone who hears, even if they then reject that grace. Unlike Calvinists, Lutherans hold that when God's grace is given through the temporal means (instead of im-mediately - without means) - it is resistible. People can, and often do, resist the saving work of God. But God never resists *offering* His saving work - and offering it in efficacious ways. Unlike Calvinists, who can never know where and when God's saving grace is given, we Lutherans do know - right there in Word and Sacrament, available to all. We're still Lutherans, and not Arminians - we still hold that God does all the work in salvation. So we are still left with the question as to *why* God allows His grace to be resisted. We haven't solved the crux theologorum. We don't know why all aren't saved, we don't know why God doesn't just *make* it happen. But, unlike Calvinists, we *do* know that God is *actively* working toward the salvation of *everyone*. We don't know how it's going to turn out, but nonetheless we have not a vague hope, but a sure and certain hope in the mercy of God. Because God *is* intervening, constantly. Does that help any? ETA: I know it's a paradox - how we affirm both unconditional election and that God doesn't pick and choose but offers salvation to all. But we really do affirm them both. That's the real difference between Calvinists and Lutherans on unconditional election (and Lutherans and Arminians on universal atonement): Calvinists go for logical consistency and so pick one pole (unconditional election) while rejecting the other pole (universal atonement). Lutherans refuse to give up either pole and so just accept the paradox.

You're both not missing much and yet missing quite a lot (how's that for a helpful answer, lol). From the outside (people who reject all forms of predestination), the whole single v. double predestination probably looks like a distinction without a (meaningful) difference. It's like how Lutherans can have a tendency to dismiss differences between Arminians and Reformed as "it's all just some kind of Reformed", lol. The differences between two positions that share several fundamental premises matters a lot more to people who accept those premises than they do to people who reject those premises in the first place. Single predestination *is* predestination, and as such is going to share several premises with double predestination. But at the same time, there *are* differences, and they *do* matter (even if those differences are more appreciated by those on the inside than those outside). I do get your logic - whether God particularly predestined you to damnation, or just let you go your merry way to hell without intervening, the end result is still damnation =(. (I pray very fervently that God *does* save all.) The crux theologorum - "If God wants all to be saved, and God does all the saving, then why aren't all saved???" - is just inherently a difficult thing. However, despite it all, Lutherans *do* see a difference between leaving it unanswered, merely affirming that "if one is not elected by God, damnation awaits," and answering it by saying that "God deliberately elects some people to damnation." (The latter is known as the doctrine of reprobation. Lutherans hold to predestination, but not reprobation.) Yes, that is the main difference - and it really is core. Calvinism's starting point is the sovereignty of God - it controls everything that follows. And for them, affirming the absolute sovereignty of God requires affirming that God both affirmatively damns as well as affirmatively saves - AKA, requires affirming double predestination. But the starting point for Lutherans is the mercy of God, and that determines our approach to predestination. For Lutherans, predestination is always a matter for hope, *always*. It is not about which pre-destined category you fall in, but about God being faithful to save His own. It is *never* about wondering about "what if I'm not one of the elect, what if I'm predestined for damnation????" There is *no* being predestined for damnation. Being elected by God is always and only a *good* thing. God does not want any to be lost. Affirming the predestination of the elect does not require you to affirm the reprobation of the lost, and the reason that Lutherans don't affirm the latter is pretty central to our whole theology. The mercy of God shapes our understanding of the whole Bible, just as the sovereignty of God shapes the Calvinist understanding of the whole Bible.

We share maybe 1.5 points, I think? lol. We share "total depravity" and kinda share "unconditional election", but not "limited atonement", "irresistible grace" and "perseverance of the saints".

I'll try :). Basically, it's a case where we Lutherans would say that Calvinists have gone too far in trying to explain a mystery that cannot be explained (not this side of heaven, anyway). Lutherans call it the crux theologorum (the cross of the theologians): if 1) God wants all to be saved, 2) God does all the work in salvation, 3) God is all-powerful and all-good, then why is it that 4) not all will be saved? The Bible affirms all four of these points, yet they don't logically fit together (as far as we humans can see); you can fit any three into a logical explanation, but not all four. It's an unanswerable question - and we Lutherans argue that trying to answer it anyway tends to compromise at least one of the points. Double predestination goes against 1), that God wants all to be saved. Calvinists tend to redefine "all" in the various verses talking about God desiring all to be saved (e.g. 1 Tim 2:4) as meaning just the elect; they hold to a limited atonement, that Christ died just for the elect, not for all. And that's the core of the Lutheran objection to double predestination: the rejection of a universal atonement. Lutherans hold that Christ did indeed die for all, meaning *all*, everyone. We hold that God didn't create anyone for damnation, God doesn't destine people for damnation; rather God wants *everyone* to come to a saving knowledge of Christ. Why it is that some are not saved is a sad mystery - but it isn't because that's how God deliberately created it to be. Does that help any?

Not in the same way as Calvinists, though. Lutherans hold to single predestination (being predestined for salvation) but not double predestination (some predestined for salvation, others predestined for damnation). And it just isn't emphasized the same way in the Lutheran churches I've been in. Related, Lutherans allow for true apostasy (rejecting the faith after being genuinely saved), while Calvinists tend to hold that anyone who has genuinely apostasized must not have had saving faith to begin with, and that's a big difference in practice. Eta: wrt original topic, I was taught that "angel of the Lord" refers to the pre-incarnate Christ.

Per my dh (a pastor), in practice it means that you have a lot better standing if the religious body you are a member of has taken an official stand on the issue. If the religious body you are a member of declines to take an official stand, it negatively impacts your individual claim to a religious requirement. So for a Christian school, they aren't going to have very solid ground for this exemption unless whatever church or denomination they are affiliated with officially declares support for rejecting facial coverings. ETA: Ditto for individual students/parents claiming an exemption - their position isn't very strong unless their church/denomination has officially declared support for refusing masks.

But if you wanted to keep his approach of applying the Subtraction Prop of Equality, you could do this: 1) m<SRT = m<STR; m<3 = m<4 Given 2) m<SRT = m<3 + m<1; m<STR = m<4 + m<2 Addition Angle Postulate 3) m<SRT - m<3 = m<1; m<STR - m<4 = m<2 Subtraction property of equality 4) m<SRT - m<3 = m<STR - m < 4 Substitution 5) m <1 = m<2 Substitution I agree. I think that his only problem, actually - not *explicitly* stating his use of the Addition Angle Postulate. Otherwise I think he was correct in how he then applied the Sub Prop of Eq to it.

Given what you have, here's how I'd do it. 1) m<SRT = m<STR; m<3 = m<4 Given 2) m<SRT = m<3 + m<1; m<STR = m<4 + m<2 Addition Angle Postulate 3) m<SRT = m<4 + m<2 Substitution 4) m<3 + m<1 = m<4 + m<2 Substitution 5) m<4 + m<1 = m<4 + m<2 Substitution 6) m<1 = m<2 Addition Prop of Equality

YMMV, but with my kids the window for graded readers was really short. We do strict phonics, while most of the leveled readers, even the allegedly "phonics-based" ones, use so. many. sight. words. So for most of my kids' learning-to-read period, they can't read common sight words and so even the easiest readers are an exercise in frustration (*especially* the earliest readers, which are often the *most* sight-word-heavy <sigh>). And once their reading takes off and they can read uncontrolled text, they move pretty quickly into, you know, actual books - books that exist to tell a story, not merely to be used for reading practice. The sweet spot for my bunch, wrt leveled readers being useful, is when they are just about to make the leap to uncontrolled text: they can read most common words (even the ones with tricky phonics) and their phonics is good enough that they can use it to figure out most words in their spoken vocabulary - but slowly. This is where leveled texts are doable yet not pointlessly easy. Between the library and the shelf of readers the grandparents have bought over the years, we have plenty of material. And since leveled readers are mostly utter twaddle at best, whose only redeeming feature is that they allow excited burgeoning readers to read "real books", I'd rather save my money (and shelf space) to go toward quality books, ones that are worth rereading. I did invest in a few used reader sets that matched my phonics program, but despite liking them I haven't used them much, tbh. The (substantial) practice material in our main phonics book has been more than sufficient for practicing their phonics during our reading time. And the vast majority of our content is done through read-alouds (of which I have many, many shelves' worth ;).) ETA: Also audiobooks are big here. The first "real" books my younger two read have been books they mostly memorized through audiobooks.

I'm a big fan of her Regency novels - as above posters said, light and fun and silly. I comfort-read over ten of her books at the beginning of the pandemic. Some of my favorites are Sprig Muslin, Cotillion, The Foundling, and The Nonesuch, although I like almost all of them. (Not as big of a fan of the ones in the 1770s or pre-Revolutionary France, although the level of conspicuous consumption in the latter explains a lot about why the Revolution happened, lol.)

My hat's off to you. I grew up in gulf coast tx, and my mom always said that the only reason Houston is what it is, is because of air conditioning, lol. My relatives are all from the north, and my uncle joked that southerners don't have a chance to feel the heat - we go from our air conditioned houses to our air conditioned cars to our air conditioned stores.

I keep mine at 80, Mom did the same growing up. It's comfy, so long as you have fans going. Anything below 78 feels rather decadent to me, lol. (And to think, when we lived up north, my neighbors though we were weird for using the ac *too much*.) Eta: dh's mom used to keep it around 82-85, and that was a little much for me to take.

Hugs. I'm sorry it turned out this way .

What is the turn-around for the non-rapid test? My nieces were tested before they had surgery, and that *was* rapid - 15min, I think. But my oldest was tested more to rule it out than anything (suspected allergies - tightness in the chest and gi symptoms, but no fever/coughing), and it was an 18hr turn-around, which seems fairly rapid to me.

In terms of worst movie I saw all the way through (in the theater even, so help me), it definitely has to be Scary Movie. I only saw it because I was with friends, and it's the only movie where I wished I had that 90min back. Mostly I just quit watching if something's too bad. In terms of movies where I couldn't even be in the room while someone else watched it: 28 Days Later. Made my dh turn it off - just couldn't take it, it was too awful (in terms of freaking me out - so disturbing).

There's a couple of straight-to-dvd Disney sequels that were awful even by those low standards, that even my early elementary kids nixed: Mulan 2 and Cinderella 3. I actually thought the premise of Cinderella 3 was fun in a fanfic-y way (time travel by the steps to the events of the 1st movie), but the execution was unwatchable. Mulan 2 - the female characters were girl-power/follow-your-heart-and-damn-the-consequences over-the-top stereotypes while Mushu went from amusingly-self-centered-but-with-a-heart-of-gold to flat-out morally horrible - and the movie didnt have a shred of self-awareness about any of it. I nixed it 30min in. In terms of a movie that aimed higher, quality-wise, I gave up on Voyage of the Dawn Treader - made me so mad how they added in a totally unnecessary scary green cloud of horribleness plot (which also terrified my younger kids). Totally changed the overall story, for the worse.