Islander

Point well taken. Again, I try but not always succeed to be diplomatic and careful. I tend to be a man of few but precise words. It is not always possible to state a point delicately enough. I do appreciate your advise on the matter. Thank you.

Carol: I suggest you read my posts slowly and carefully. Also, it may be a good idea to assess my statements from a historical standpoint rather than theological in order to understand what I am trying to say. I am not criticizing The Roman Catholic Church, I am making an observation about the nature of the proceedings, which in the words of the historians and theologians that attended the Councils, reported being a contentious gathering. We must be careful not to bring into the argument our own wishes, desires and bias as we examine history. It was what it was and sacrad or reverent those meetings were not. It is hard to imagine now, but there were riots on the streets, pamphlets thrown about and arguing all over the Turkish town even before the 318 bishops arrived. It was (the council) one attempt to bring order and organization to the liturgy and practice of the Christian rites. It is evident, according to the historical accounts, that there were many sects and factions holding on to dissenting theologies and doctrines. Thru consensus and simple majority voting certain texts were accepted, other rejected and a general creed was adoted as a compromise as to define Christianity at that moment in time in history. It was an attempt, among many subsequent, to rid the incipient church of perceived heresy, to bring order and coherence to the faith. Yes indeed, good came from those historical meetings, but we must look and study them in context. But without any romanticism or attributing to them a veil of sacredness since according to the eyewitness, there was none.

I read abuot 2 hours per day. One hour in the morning and then 15-20 min intervals throughout the day. I manage to read it twice per year since 1998 when I joined the church. I tend to read other things during the weekend. I think it is different for everyone but I am inclined to believe that reading too fast keeps us from really savoring the text and reflecting on its meaning.

I did not intend to offend you. If such was the result I offer my sincere apology. I acknowledge not being the best diplomat but I always strive my very best to convey facts rather than opinion or bias. I just pointed to some factual information in that high (loss of lives) has been the price of theological dissenting in history, that the battle for moving new teaching and theological positions to the forefront has been a long and protracted one but also not new. I also pointed that Protestants once severely persecuted, became a significant majority and parted ways with the Church at Rome. They were "right" in some ways but also took foundational teachings and traditions "inherited" from the mother church which in our view continued to be wrong. My apology again, but I fail to see how the above can be insulting or hurtful to you or anyone reading it? The rest of my post dealt with your claim that no "new" doctrine or teaching should increase the body of Wholly Writ as we know it.

Rejecting ALL claims that part from the lines drawn by the establishment has always been a feature of organized religion. The RCC was no different. The RCC put thousands to death during the Reformation. Once we got over killing people for ideological dissent, they allowed them to form splinter groups. Bu that does not change the fact that the lights had gone out of the church hundreds of years before. I note elsewhere in another post that both, the definition of the tenets of Christianity and the Canon itself were significantly flawed and the contention escalated from there. So although the Protestants may have been theologically right in some respects, they were still wrong in others because they dragged with them the same DNA patterns, of sorts, of the mother church. To the uncommitted (denominationally) that seems obvious. Discerning (and deciding) about the RCC claim to apostolic succession takes a little more work and study but the lack of validity of such is also discernible from any time line in the lives of the Apostles and their itineraries. As far as new teachings; every revelation brings new teaching. We learn "new things" that we were not aware or understood from existing texts. Is not that the value of having ALL scripture? We learn from Luke things and details not found in Mark. Subsequent John shares light not contained in the Gospels about the end of days. It may be new because we had no knowledge of it or because we had failed to see it in the existing scriptures.

I have to admit, I tend to see sarcasm as a "blow below the belt" and a response attempting to elicit humor thru embarrassment. It attempts to deflect attention away from the argument. It is almost never directed at us but to others, which lead me to believe it is not noble. I have no affinity or ready use for sarcasm, I admit. Perhaps I have an atrophied sense of humor?

You are ignoring the point that I am trying to make. That we have gone thru a process of selection for the (OT/NT) scriptures and a definition of the tenets of Christianity that was not infallible or even sacred. And you are attempting to do the same by using "judgment" as the catalyst for the process of selecting what is sacred writ or not. Not only is it "judgment" subjective and flawed, it assumes a general body of knowledge, theological and historical awareness that most Christians today do not have. In case you forgot or are purposefully ignoring it, ALL the letters in the NT are the words of the prophets and Apostles of God to His people. They provided the guidance, knowledge and insight, the truthful and correct interpretation of God's word and doctrine to the saints in the early Church. That is what we do today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Later day Saints thru the prophet, seers and revelators.

Let's not forget that the Council of Nicaea had nothing spiritual or sacred about it. It was a wine inflamed, inkwell throwing raucous that left clear the schisms that a few years later caused the first split within the church. Do not forget that The Muratorian Canon (the very fist one) did not include the letter to the Hebrews or James, 3 John, or 1 and 2 Peter. It included the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter. It rejected the Shepherd of Hermas and Paul's letters to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians. So, we must pay attention what is called sacred and the criteria to judge such given the fact that history and those involved in the process proved to be less than reliable at choosing the scriptures and interpreting the word of God once His prophets and apostles were gone from the earth.. I suggest God thru the Spirit would be the ultimate authority on what record is sacred and thus of value to enhance our faith, spiritual growth and ability to get closer to the Savior.

By your own admission, you do not believe in God as manifested in the scriptures and or Christ as revealed in the Restoration. In fact, you do not believe in religion as traditionally understood. You are not loooking to understand or to learn anything as you were formerly a member of the church and thus know quite well what we believe and declare to the whole world. You are not seeking to regain a testimony, enrich your life or learn anything that may lead you to understand your existence and current spiritual crisis. You have, quite vociferously and without hesitation stated your unbelief about all we hold sacred. Your posts do nothing but oppose and contest ALL which you know abundantly clearly that we whole-heartedly believe. Not only is the contention contrary to the estated purpose of the forum, it breeds the kind of friction we hope to avoid as to preserve the spirit of fellowship, friendship and Christ centered attitude we would like to share with investigator and interested alike. I never questioned your motives for leaving the church. These are your own and if you are not concerned about your spiritual wellbeing, why should I? The desire for salvation and communion with God is an individual endevour born of the heart in response to the presence of the Holy Ghost and not an intellectual exercise. Explanations and arguments about why you separated yourself from God are nothing but rationalizations. They do not concern me. I was hoping to avoid further contention and constant redirection for the sake of the investigators, the seekers of truth and all those who the Lord will lead here in their quest to learn, to inquire, to ponder and to reach to us in fellowship. That is clearly not your intent. I understand your needs to social intercourse and engaging conversation. I was just suggesting another venue where like-minded people would gather with greater philosophical affinity to your current position.

Welcome to the forum: I guess going to the official Church's website at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should be a priority. Browse around and gather information at the source. I am sure that after that ou will have some questions and we'll be happy to provide some answers or point you in the right direction. BTW, what interested you about the church?

hehehehe....Isn't that what we do constantly? Inference. I guess people do it out of habit in order to explain what happens and what we see around us. There may be some truth in the "...try to control them" but I doubt it applies to "most". Again, that is just also my ...perception/opinion/conjecture?

LOL....my wife just rolled over with the cheeseburger-lebration!!! She is expecting and tends to celebrate with ice cream. Way to go!!! how exciting. Keep us posted, please.

Great, now that we know where you stand I would like to thank you for your contribution thus far. Further postings will not be necessary. It is evident you have no interest of any kind in anything the forum has to offer thus we wish you well, a happy life someplace else and I hope you can find a forum more to your liking and in sync with you philosophical position. The best to you

Yep, I saw the clip as well. Is no longer available on the web, mind you. MC will never pick Mitt for VP. The upside is too small (he would bring only a s very small group opf supporters since MA is a dem. State) and the potential downside and fall out constitute too much of a political risk. MC is already weak with his own constituency and the radicals will NEVER vote for Mitt because they see him also as a potential candidate for the White House in 4 years. MC does not have the backbone to stand up and defend Mitt. He had ample opportunity during the primary and he never did. In fact, nobody from the GOP endorsed or even publicly supported MR during the primary. That was a sad tale. No even Kennedy endured that kind of hostility being the first Catholic presidential candidate.

I think that most media outlets have thrown out the window any hesitation and even attempt to be impartial. They are no longer reporting the news. They are advocating and broadcasting opinion as news, which I find offensive since they are implying that I can not analyze and discern an issue on my own based on factual information. If "BYU News Network" (hereby hypothesized news outlet) would have reported on Rudy's twisted (he obviously did not learn anything in parochial school) upbringing and obviously checkered history (the man is an adulterer and a fornicator) and drag the history of the Catholic church out on long documentaries of the Inquisition, the scandals at the Vatican, the Cadaver Synod and other historical snippets (one of my favor ones) the backlash would have been huge. Not to mention the accusations about bigotry and lack of PC. I bet a couple of LDS chapels would have been fire-bombed. I think it is sad and worrisome.

Like PC says, it is an old, faded but often exhumed argument by those only desiring to contend and argue. I think it would be plain and simple hsitorical revisionism to try and psychoanalyze Lea and Rachel's relationship with Jacob and the domestic tension and intrigue that came from it. Not only that, there were other concubines not mentioned in the saga more than in passing. In summary, we should just compile the threads, links by topics and point to the place (FAQ, topics and issues). The interested will go and read until they are satisfied (or not) and the agitators will show their true colors rather quickly. Just a suggestion

Well, there! I guess we are becoming a forest! LOL. I just could not resist. But welcome back and congrats to your hubby.

I wrote a paper long ago about the evolution of organizational/social systems and the impact of the law/religion across them. I know I have the research somewhere with stats. In many cultures, the law originate and codified by historical religious mores and values. thus a woman can be severely "punished" physically and even killed (honor defense) by her husband or father for an offense (adultery for example) without such (the injury) constituting a punishable offense for the male. Now, males do not suffer the same application of the law if they transgress the same law. We tend to inherit that kind of "flexible" application of the law here in the US. Depending on the cultural milieu, society tends to treat men and women differently for the same offense. In the research I cite stats for 1. Sexual offenses 2. Drug use/possession. 3, Prostitution 4. Assault and battery 5. White color crimes There is gender-based bias within the social environment that is translated into the legal system.

Historical hindsight is always 20-20. But it does very little in terms of shedding light into the debate about whether revelation continues or not. I propose an experiment for the skeptics. The Trekies of the forum will know exactly what I am talking about. So the rest of you would have to go to the nearest video store and rent the whole Star Trek: The Next Generation series. Imagine you are a member of "The Q". A race of almost omniscient, extremely powerful and mischievous beings that move across time and space freely, moving planets and acting god-like to "inferior species". Visualize the time line between The Creation and Malachi. Insert yourself anywhere there and we will erase your mental tape of any and all memory of future events. If you were to read the known scriptures up to that point, I would seriously doubt you would believe there was a need for any more scriptures. You would, most likely, state that you had enough knowledge and holy writ necessary for your salvation. You would have argued that you knew God's will and that you were living according to what has been revealed (up to that point in history) and that nothing else was going to be revealed in regards to how to approach God and obtain your salvation. Just as some do today. That has been the claim of EVERY generation!!!! They went to the earth being VERY wrong. The Lord in His infinite wisdom kept raising prophets that spoke and declared to the people the way of salvation. He continued to reveal His will and mysteries and performing miracle to succor His children. But it was not seen that way as it happened. The words of the prophets became scripture and revelation, and truth and understanding to the FUTURE generations. But they (the prophets) ALL died stoned and imprisoned by their own people and their rulers. Prophets are never believed in their own time. At last, God Himself, the Law Giver, the Creator and the Savior of mankind descended among the children of men and they said of Him: "... He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils." "...then answered the Jews, and said unto him [Jesus], Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?" "...And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?" "...the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man [Jesus] receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." "...Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man [Jesus] is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day." ...This man [Jesus], if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner." (brackets added) So, my friends, I suggest to those that rely on borrowed, old and faded arguments to contest what is plain and discernible truth thru the Holy Ghost, that they should ponder in their minds the true intent of their hearts. Is it to seek after the things of that God that has made His name known among all nations because of His wonders and miracles and the power given to His servants? Or is it that their desire to contend, their quest to hoard and claim knowledge above the sovereignty of God the fuels their passion and argument to the point of blinding their eyes and minds? I am no theologian, not do I claim any special or secret knowledge but what is available to all humble enough to seek Him with a broken heart. But, I have found of my own, without help or instruction and before I knew of the Restoration; that God speaks to his children, that there were and are men on the earth that speak and prophesy in His name and with His authority, and they walk with Him and they plead with Him and He hears and grants them their petition. And that will never end until the Savior comes and declares that the work is done.

Some, in order to feel they are the tallest trees in the forest resort to try and cut down all the trees around them rather than growing themselves to their desire heights. Currently we have in Israel a residue of Judah and Benjamin. Many eastern european historical converts came back to Israel in the 40's and 50's. Many of these late comers had no genetic link to Israel at all. To complicate matters, Lehi was not from Judah but Manasseh of which there is NO genetic trace anywhere in the planet to compare to. I find it of very little profit to argue these points. Most people do not understand what an acrocentric element is within a DNA branch. They forget that we know where David's temple was but we have not been able to find one single artifact from the Temple in 100 years of digging. For a place that has been populated continually for 10,000 years there is very little to show for. So, I just decided to conserve my energy for more worthwhile tasks rather than debate the so-called DNA research.

I thought for quite some time on how to respond to this new information. I know I lack the sensitive touch. As you can imagine there went my carrier as a politician. For the most part, the "fair-tale like" physical responses are hormonally driven. They are normal but they do not last and thus are a very poor indicator of the future of the relationship, as you know can sense. It seem obvious to me that much of what you thought and believed about the relationship only existed in your mind. Crafting relationships without anchoring them to reality is a sure recipe for disappointment. I suggest that the sooner you take realistic stock of the situation the sooner you will be on the road of actually addressing the facts of your current situation and plan for your future. Wishing and hoping that this man may or may not (want to be with you) does absolutely nothing for you and your situation. in fact, evidence points to him not being reliable or committed to you. Your plan should not include him unless it is from the legal standpoint. I hope you can find the courage and strength to deal with these issues the Lord's way.

It could very well mean they hit him severely with sticks. After all the word could also imply 1. A means of inflicting severe suffering, vengeance, or punishment. 2. A whip used to inflict punishment. 3. To flog. In places like Malasya, Singapore and Indonesia they still use rattan sticks (or faggots in 18th century language) for corporal punishment. In India today the police carries rattan stick as a defensive and offensive weapon.

You could, in theory down an O'dools still, I guess. As for me, I can't stand the smell of fermented/rotten stuff.

There is no mention in early Christian documents of infant baptism. The Roman Church begins to toil with the idea around 230 AD (the Greek and Eastern churches opposed the practice). Later, very liberal interpretations and extrapolations of the text give root to the tradition of infant baptism. Presenting the new born males to the priest on the eighth day had to do the the circumcision under the Torah but a child is not brought to the temple as a fully sanctioned and aware "adult" person but until age 12-13. At such time they are accountable under the law. There is no evidence baptism was carried out on children under this age among early Jewish converts to Christianity and later Christians at large prior to the Carthage Council in 253 AD where it begins to gain acceptance in the Roman church.

Masterlee - I like how you articulated that point. Even more simple, when we pray for answers, guidance, instruction and insight we are asking God for revelation about our lives. We are imploring to our father to Reveal His hidden purposes and meaning for action in our everyday lives. I am expecting Him to point me in the right direction in my business, with my family, my calling in the priesthood and just about every aspect of my existence. In fact, I totally depend on him for insight in how to conduct myself according to His will. So yes, those in authority ask for revelation in order to do and act in His stead, according to and in sync with His will as to the affairs of His church and kingdom.