Fiannan

Actually, you might be right Shanstress70. Chances are they might respect a MAN who stood up to them and showed courage. Weakness and cowardness is something that Middle Eastern culture looks down on the most. A few times in Europe I have been in subways with gang-looking youth around and instead of looking scared I chose to walk a straight line and show no fear even if it meant they might have to move slightly for me to get by and get to my point of destination. I've always noticed these young men move and get a respectful attitude -- usually nodding and saying hello. I would never provoke someone but there's been a few times when with a friend in some less-than-desirable sections of Moscow's Metro at night we purposely open doors (past the groupings of homeless or drunks) by kicking the doors open and showing a bit of irritation. Never been bothered there. Another time a female tourist in my group was being shown a bit too much attention from a Russian Skinhead but by just not going sheepish, and joking with the guy, he shook my hand and patted me on the back and we both parted as he yelled Russia and raised his fist (smiling) and I said "right on!" and diffused what could have been nasty.

Shanstress70 writes: Not quite. First, the attackers were from norht Africa. One of my sons hangs with some Iranian and Iraqi (Kurd and Caldian Christian) kids. They are not small people nor are most people from the Middle East! The French men might be small (last year a thousand Arab kids went on a rampage in Paris and beat up/robbed thousands of high school kids who were protesting for school reform and many Arab youth joked about the French kids being small, weak and not knowing how to fight) but as I said Arabs aren't.

Taoist Saint states: No they have not. After the plague it took only a short time for them to establish positive population growth and not only replace themselves, but grow again -- the same pattern after wars (you know, the ones France lost in -- except for the civil war, they won that one). They also kept their religious faith (more nominally than most, but still were not self-indulgent humansits). Today the French aren't even replacing themselves. The same pattern holds true for every other nation in Europe (except Muslim Albania). I personally do not consider the immigrants as enemies, they are opportunists just as the Europeans who came to America were -- after the disease epidemics basically knocked out the numerical superiority of various tribes, Europens could just move in. Who is to blame them for taking jobs that would have been taken by all the French, Swedish, British, etc. babies that wound up in buckets destined for incineration rather than allowed to be born and grow up? When Muslim scholars from the Islamic Republic of France and others in the next century write about the demographic switch that took place they will note that Europe decided that materialism and self-gratification were the ultimate death of the native populations. West Europeans have also been pansified -- they are fat sheep that cannot deal with the problems associated with the economic stagnation in immigrant areas. I saw pictures of a huge anti-globalization demonstration in Denmark a few years back and as the protesters destroyed the local businesses the Danish cops looked like bewildered substitute teachers as the classes laughed at them and refused to obey. I immediatly wondered what LA. NY or Moscow cops would have done -- well, no wonder, they would have ended the protests real quick. Euros just aren't used to the new realities.

What do people think of this theory I do not believe Muslim clerics urge their followerers to go rape infidel women. I do not believe that Muslim parents teach their sons to go out and rape young infidel women either. I do believe, however, that if you move from a society that has certain behavioral expectations and now find yourself living in Sodom and EU then you will communicate your revulsion of western lifestyles from day one to your kids. Most Muslims live in the west because of better economic opportunity or to escape a country that they might have been on the wrong side of the political fence. Some move to escape Islam, but not most. Now add to this a religion that has a great deal of arrogance (we are the best, if you are Christian you are kinda like a stepbrother that you have to tolerate, but can still put in his place, or if you have no religion, or are pagan, you are dust under the believer's feet) then imagine the signals these young people get at home at with their peers. First, you are the chosen people. Second, there's even infidel leftists that teach that your people have been abused by the big, bad white (Christian and Jew) man. Third, due to language barriers you may have a dad trained as a doctor but works at a pay toilet collecting money. Forth, you see women walking around with anti-traditional attitues and dress and men who have been feminized by Euro culture. Well, is this not a recipe for the kinds of trouble we are seeing? One solution of course (which worked in times past) was that very small numbers of immigrants who might come into Europe generally converted to Christianity and melted into the population -- of course, that's when Europeans worshipped God rther than Marx and money (I know it sounds contradictory but anyone with any experience with Euros know what I am talking about). Of course the Euros could convert to Islam (as many are) but I doubt most will. So we will have two societies in one nation (the pattern exists in more countries than France) for the forseeable future. Any bets on how it will turn out?

The French consider themselves still an important world player and an empire. Seems like the colonized are coming to colonize the colonizer.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060104-115755-9546r.htm 20 v. 600 French? What's up with this? Stand by and let a woman be gang raped, people threatened, mugged, etc. and...? I can assure you that if this happened on a Russian train these 20 degenerates would have been beatened by the Russian men onboard (Russia, unlike much of northern Europe still have real men), probably castrated and then the criminals would have the real nightmare begin when the local militia came and administered some "Pulp Fiction" retribution on them. I would also hope that in the USA several good 'ol boys with concealed weapons would have sent these guys to meet their maker real fast. So Europe is this how empires finally die out?

It's the Demography, Stupid The real reason the West is in danger of extinction. BY MARK STEYN Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

Yeah, even with the "Prime Directive" Kirk was busy spreading his seed to all corners of the galaxy. However, in reality I suppose it is a point that humans from other planets could mix with people here. Now since the Old Testament does imply a condemnation of racial mixing then one could say that interplanetary mixing would really be against the rules.

Any leads at this time on who the shooter was?

An interesting question that could then be expanded to where we buy items from. For instance, how many of you bought Christmas ornaments made in China this year? Your money probably was not helping to support a Christian enterprise or Christian workers. However, if you bought only items made in the USA, Mexico, Europe (hey, they are lukewarm, but they are generally Christian) or Russia then you are supporting (at least indirectly) Christian enterprises or people.

I have several devout male friends who are in their early to mid 30s. In my ward one of my priesthood leaders urged me to help one of these guys in perhaps getting settled down and married. I think it would be good for these guys and they want to be married, but one of the problems I see for single (vever married males) divorced or widowed males in their 30s or even 40s is the setup of the singles program. I have to say it really lacks. It's okay for most guys in their 20s. But when I was in a university ward I noticed that many guys got home from missions, finished school and then plucked some 19 or 20 year old out of the batch and got married. Women unmarried by, let's say, 24 or 25 were too old for most guys (the under 30s program is geared for the very young end) interests (too old for guys off missions who married right off and generally ignored by the "I'll be out of grad school at 28" group. Yet these women are too young for the over-30s activities. I have talked to many, many guys who go to a few over-30s group activities and drop the idea real fast -- "Dear, you are the same age as my grandaughter" was a common greeting -- or there's a few cat women there one string short of a straight jacket. So the women are too old or kinda crazy (that includes the "My husband left me several years ago and that just proves men are slime" grouping). Way I see it, the ideal marriage age is for the man to be a few years older. What would be wrong with splitting the singles program into three groupings -- one for the bubblegum chewers, one for the 25 - maybe 45 group and one for the 45 and older groupings. Or just have two with 25 the cutoff for the youngest group or just eliminate the age thing altogether? One guy I know is 33, yet that would make him way too young for the older singles. This guy should be dating 20 - 33 year old women. Instead we lose women in their mid-20s who just wind up marrying guys they meet at work or lose 30-something guys who should be marryinging the mid-20s women in the Church but just give up and marry some 25 year old non-members. Any observations on this?

True, and in Sweden you cannot tell an audience you believe homosexuality is immoral. Just because Ceasar says something is a sin, that doesn't mean it's a sin in God's eyes. Your main point about LDS practice is correct (in a way). To be honest, a non-LDS Christian should have no moral hangups about being a polygamist. As for LDS practices, polygamy has been suspended, not made a sin as such, but, like the Jews, suspended. That does imply it will come back. However, being LDS and polygamist would be to go against church policy and get you excommunicated. No I am not. Did God design it that there would be a 50-50 split in demographics and gender? No. Women survive to adulthood more than men -- especially when wars are taking place. God probably recognizes that more men go homosexual than women. God probably recognizes that less men than women want to settle down. For most people monogamy would be the rule, but God also set the stage for polygamy as well. The Mosaic Law allows for it. And if it were a sin he could have instructed Abraham to adopt monogamy within his own family. He did not. The only way we can get a perspective on the mindset of people in Biblical times would be to examine the mindset of peoples in the Middle East in regards to polygamy today. Yes, you will find that more fundamentalist Muslims (and some Christians and Jews) there will be more likely to adopt polygamy. And whether you like the Mormon Fundamentalists in the USA today or not you have to admit that many, if not most, raise huge families to the glory of God (not some sort of eugenics experiment). I said that demographics would allow for polygamy but most people would pair off in monogamist relationships. Much the same way (excuse the analogy) that most people marry people within 5 years of their age but, since men have no real "biological clock" some men will wind up divorced or widowed and marry women 20 or 30 years younger than them -- and have all the necessary hardware and functionings to make a family with the younger woman. As for why polygamy was not accepted by many leaders of the early Christian faith (in Rome) the point I was making was that traditionally Roman culture was monogamist (allowing for mistresses of both genders). The fact that Rome became the center of Christianity in the west meant that some cultural norms became part of what was known as Christianity. Much the same way that Mormons generally feel you should have a white shirt and tie on when blessing the sacrament -- although in a spiritual sense you could probably bless the sacrament wearing a toga or nothing at all and it would have the same meaning. Polygamy, as Martin Luther pointed out, was not accpepted in western Christianity due to traditions, not the Bible. Perhaps, but there were religious organizations which were in existence during Joseph Smith's times that practiced wife swapping or no sex at all and they were not attacked. There was something special about the restored gospel that brought in the hornets. Maybe less than 20 years. I do believe social disapproval of polygamy is dying out and that more people will come to embrace it -- probably with the LDS coming in a bit later.

Setheus, I have heard your explainations for that scripture before but it still doesn't make sense -- would not the daughters of man be daughters of God as well as their male copunterparts? http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html I make no claims here but if there are other people's in our neck of the galaxy, and they are humans (created in the image of God just like us) could this not refer to a mixing Not of Seth's sons and Cain's daughters but of people not part of the liniage set up to inhabit earth? No I am not Catholic by the way -- LDS.

Just a question to discuss here. I think most of us think of people prior to the flood as being agrarian in nature and having a technology equal perhaps to the ancient Babylonians (large fortified cities but still low tech), However, I have wondered why God would have had to destroy the world with a flood -- after all, a nasty human-specific disease (in which immunity was conferred only to Noah and his family) would have done the trick and been far less complicated. Could it be that human society was so advanced that you had to obliterate all signs of it? Today we are tampering with genetics in a far from natural way. We produce things like glowing Christmas trees by splicing glow worm DNA into tree seeds, we have goats with spider DNA that produce silk, sheep with human blood and mice with human brain cells. This is only a science that has been around in our lifetimes and all that tempers us is a combination of ethics from our religious/cultural past and a paranoia of Hitlerism. That will go away as time goes on. Who is to say our ancient peoples didn't start tampering with God's creation (why is it commanded that species breed only after their own species -- isn't that determined by genetics anyway?)? And what other little experiments could a totally degenerate, but highly advanced, society coem up with? This may sound sort of Art Bellish, but what are your thoughts?

Just to throw some more confusion out there -- in the first part of Genesis it is discussed that the sons of God came down and impregnated women on earth. Just who is this referring to?

Good references Bizabra, I have posted the quotes here before that Martin Luther was pro-polygamy and said that the Bible, nowhere, taught that polygamy was wrong. So let's look at the issue in this context: Polygamy is not a sin as defined by the Bible. Polygamy, while not something God probably considered the norm (otherwise way more women would be conceived than men) was probably something that would be practiced by the most devout people -- with more kids from such families than the norm. Our culture's opposition to polygamy stems from Roman (Pagan) customs in which allowed for only one wife (in legal terms) but allowed a man as many male and female sexual partners (often slaves) as he wanted. The recognition of these facts should at least allow for more tolerance of polygamists both from our history and those who choose polygamy today.

I agree but they should come to terms with what is causing the desires -- not just say "God, I am so evil, I will instead become a monk and give my sin to you to handle". And I wonder the logic of telling men who want to be church officials that they cannot have sex and marriage. Talk about increasing the likelyhood of people unable to control what is a stumbling block being placed in dangerous situations. I would rather a church official be married, asexual or looking for a heterosexual relationship. Also, I will try to go back to my original point that if a religion takes the stand that sex is in some way part of some sort of original sin (did the Jews who also have the Old Testament believe that? Actually, I'm curious) and that not marrying is a higher order than marriage then is it a wonder why European Christianity took such a strong stand against polygamy? If one wife is to keep us out of sin and do the dirty work of procreation then having more than one wife must be really nasty!

Freaking Teletubies, always knew when they grew up they would be abducting humans and doing strange experiments. Wonder what probe Tinky Winky would be using?

I have heard this too. Also, local royals families did not like the idea that a smart peasant kid could rise through the ranks and wind up marrying a royal. So with this political reality, combined with guys who did not like women anyway, Gregory banned marriage for the clergy. Lauraltree, simple demographics for Brigham Young's time show a slight majority for women in the Church but not a huge one. There were a lot of LDS men who just did not want to marry (just like many worthy mamma's boys you find in the special intererst singles activities).

First, from what I understand Paul's statements referred to men going on missions -- which in that day was very dangerous. So if in missionary service maybe it was not a good idea to marry. However, the Bible is strong on marriage and celibasy is totally contrary to scripture. There was a great deal of debate about celibacy in the early Catholic Church with Gregory finally making this rule. However, the scripture you pointed out about the requirements of a bishop shows that today, if Catholic bishops don't have a wife, they are living contrary to that scripture. And if we use that logic then in the Old Testament most men were born from the wombs of men since it seems men did all the begetting. Jews were the bulk of converts to Christianity for its first couple of centuries until it evolved into something so contrary to Jewish traditions (Roman and Greek philosophical ideas) that conversions shrank to practically nothing. Just because certan things in "the law" were liberalized through the atonement of Jesus, that did not mean that Paganistic philosophies were all fine and good. As for the choir boy thing, all I am referring to is that if you tell men who want to have a family they cannot become priests then you are going to get two extremes of men entering the priesthood -- highly dedicated men willing to sacrifice sex and family or men who are repressing urges and trying to sublimate them towards a spiritual ideal. Problem is, whenever you repress something too much it will someday come back and dominate you -- try not thinking about the color blue, nomatter what you do right now, pretend that to think about blue will be a sin...see my point? As for what I know about history urban upper classes of Jerusalem were quite comfortable with Roman rule and ideas. They exercised nude in the gymnasium (the word after all means "a place to exercise naked"), enjoyed the games, even went so far as to have doctors scar their penis so it would appear uncircumcised -- so they would look like Roman men in the gym or in the baths (or maybe the orgy courts). So just like today if you look at a map of the 2004 election you notice a sea of red (Bush) except in urban areas where they are blue(Kerry). Urban areas today are more liberal, less religious, more gay, more single and less likely to be into tradition as the outlying areas where people tend to move after marriage or where more conservative people tend to stay rather than go off to the city. Demographic realities were the same in Jesus's day as well as in the days of Sodom.

GRR8, Whose church? While I am probably the most vocal proponent of large families on this board I find nothing wrong with having sex WITH YOUR SPOUCE as often as you wish. Also, humans are the only species that has sex drives continuously, not just during the fertile cycle. The Bible. Good enough for you? You are of course ignoring human psychology. If you have healthy parents in the first place then why would there be any problems with genetics? Also, how would venerial disease creep in unless people were unfaithful? You have already advocated multiple partners for sex, so what is your problem with polygamy? Also, if a person has the right intent (to raise a rightious posterity and have a celestial family) then there is a big difference. In today's society a man can have sex with as many women (or men, sorry if there are any liberals reading this) as he wants. If he goes to a sex club he can do as many as is physically possible and it's totally legal -- in Canada too according to their high court last week. Yet if you actually want to make a commitment to more than one woman to be faithful and assume responsibility for her and her children then that is considered immoral. Now if that is not strange and ironic I don't know what is.

It is ironic that Pope Gregory banned priests from marrying in the 11th. Century as it WAS a requirement for the early Christian church that leaders be married -- that makes more sense than the divorce idea since rabbinical leaders were required to be married and Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. I will note that it used to be customary (still is from what I understand although it is difficult to get around discrimination laws) to only hire married teachers for public school positions. Makes perfect sense in that you serve as a good role model and you are less likely to mess around with students. We can see the problem the Catholic Church has with choir boys. Hate to get back to Freud but a couple of other defense mechanisms employed by people to ease guilt and tension is projection and renounciation of needs. In the later, a guy raised to believe sex is wrong, yet not only harbors sexual thoughts but those that might not be so "mainstream" might become a priest so as to make up for his guilt complex. Projection refers to taking subconscious thoughts and throwing them upon others to feel better. One wonders why women always wound up the victims of sadistic tortures for herecy and witchcraft -- ever see the means to get confessions? S & M. What evolved into Christianity in Europe seems to make sex seem like a sin -- it isn't in marriage and celebasy a higher order (yeah, right). That is a far cry from Judaism and later Islam (which is more Biblical on sexual matters than Christianity) which saw sex as a sacrament and blessing from God. So if you have leaders with their own sexual hangups actually outlawing marriage for church leaders it is no wonder this "marriage if you must" attitude would be so anti-polygamy. One wife is bad enough but several? Also, polygamy was less common amongst the upper class of Jerusalem in Jesus's day -- most were totally Hellenized and looked down on their Jewish heritage (thus the reason all of Jerusalem is recorded as troubled at the signs proclaiming the birth of Jesus. The more religious Jews (especially in the countryside) still practiced polygamy. Jews did not postpone polygamy until around the 17th. Century in Europe in order to avoid persecution from Christians -- the Jewish stand is not unlike the LDS position if you examine it.

Yes, a bishop is to be married. That is all that passage refers to. Also, David's sin was lusting after another man's wife and causing him to die. There is no mention that David sinned by being blessed (by God) with multiple wives. And where did Abraham lie about his wife Sarah -- about her being his sister? They did have the same biological father after all.

I recognize little truths here and there all the time that fit well into the Book of Mormon. Here's just a little one in reference to the climactic conditions hitings the peoples on this hemispere after the death of Jesus, which have been explained as being related to possible volcanic activity. I was watching a program about the famous Italian volcano and the eruption that destroyed Herculium and Vesuvius in 79AD. They read an eye-witness account that said everything turned black, heavy and there was no sound for a long period of time. The interesting thing I noted was that the narrator said that scientists generally rejected the account of this individual until the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1978. There they noticed that after the pyroclastic cloud enveloped the area (not the section that would have been hot enough to kill, but the overall ash evelopment combined with the gases from the cloud) did indeed follow to the letter the things the ancient Roman writer had recorded. Question: Can anti-Mormons also add volcanology to the list of credentials Joseph Smith had when compiling the Book of Mormon or could he actually have been telling the truth?

Maybe you should read up on Freud. He had a lot to say about abuse. At what age were you abused -- that makes a huge difference. A female babysitter (quite common actually) , how sad. Was it from the ages of 6 through 12 (the latency stage)? Here is where sexuality is supposed to go dormant and the partnering with same-sex individuals is generally preferred. Skill acquisition is important and any problems with fixations in the earlier stages of development lay repressed. However, if one abuses someone during this stage (or a child is exposed to porn) it can confuse the individual and (like cracking the egg open for a baby chicken -- which kills it if it is assisted during hatching) can cause a huge amount of trauma. I obviously think that there is more to life than the Freudian model. I think we inherit things as well. I was adopted, and I never met my biological family members until after I was grown. However, I seem to like women who are strong and vocal about their opinions (very much like my mom) and I often told people after I joined the Church that I would never marry a Mormon since I had not yet found women that fit that mold (later did). However, for looks I never really liked women who looked like my mother (upon meeting my natural family I noticed the women resembled the kind of women I found attractive -- my wife could have been mistaken for being closely related) . There is a field of psychology called socio-biology that claims our preferences for looks are based a lot on genetics so... On what could be called spiritual outlook my natural mother (who is nothing like my mom) is very new age/native American religion oriented. Interesting side note: I do not look all that American Indian (been mistaken for Jewish or Russian) but a guy I worked with who was into things like auras and new age stuff asked me if I had Indian ancestory since he claimed to have visions of shamans when we were together. He would have not known my background at all. I do believe our souls take residence in families that there is a connection. Of course, this would lead to traits in certain lines. This is interesting as my exploration of religion found traditional religions lacking in many respects -- which led me to the Church. So I do believe the characteristics we "imprint" for seeking in our mate will be determined strongly by our opposite sexed parent and upbringing, but there are factors I believe are also determined by our spiritual gifts.