FlaviusHambonius
-
Posts
280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by FlaviusHambonius
-
-
I listened to this several days ago of the black minister Jonathan Gentry voicing out his thought's on the matter.
-
I believe you misunderstood me. I am not against the death penalty. I am not against violent acts done for the sake of protecting and defending others. There are situations where we must act for the betterment of others, as can be seen in scriptural examples like Nephi being instructed to kill Laban, or in Captain Moroni killing the kingsmen who refused to take up the pledge to protect the liberties of the people.
The part that makes my stomach turn is when people dish out violence because they think someone deserves it. If the people hunting down the Taliban were bloodthirsty and cruel in the execution of their "penalty", while I may agree that it would be better for everyone for that individual to be put to death, it would still make my stomach turn.
It's a matter of the purpose and attitude behind the killing. Is there violence or mercy in your heart as you carry out the act? Are you seeking vengence on someone who you think deserves pain, or grudgingly carrying out an action that is the only feasable solution to prevent more violence?
Do not consider these men animals. They are just as human as you and me, and they are also children of our Heavenly Father. It is not our place to judge them, but it is our place to protect those we can from violence. When the only way to provide that protection is through war and/or a death penalty, so be it. But we should not glory or revel in such decisions.
I don't mean to be offensive to you Judo, but I really do consider these men animals. To me personally there is no other way to say it. To me they are not 'just as human as you and me' biologically yes they're human, but that's about where it ends for me personally.
Anyone that shoots 14 year old girls simply because she is trying to better herself in a god-forsaken wasteland or decapitate someone with a knife while they're sreaming and a host of other atrocities is well....you know the answer.
-
Yes, Flavius, we are to be merciful and forgiving of them too. Do you disagree?
From where I'm standing, mercy and forgiveness does not automatically equal removing consequenses of actions. Sometimes it equals hastening or providing the consequenses.
Yes the Saviour said to love your enemies and forgive all that tresspass against you, and I'm glad you can take the highroad LM, because I believe you are a better man than I am.
But I will say if that was my 14 year old daughter, I probably wouldn't take the high road.
So yes I disagree.... and yes perhaps the Lord would not be as merciful and forgiving towards me as a result.
-
I am confused from you two posts - What is the difference in the examples you give. Those that are violent for their own glory and those that are violent for the glory of G-d?
Especially applying this comment:
concerning your questions about what should be done about "these same animals that shot this 14 year old girl".
The Traveler
In response to your confusion -- the only way I can put it to you is that a boxer enters the ring with the knowledge that yes, he is entering an arena that is going to be violent because that is how he makes his living, because he is good enough at it hopefully that he can make a living at it and feed his family -- if he has one.
He and his opponent go in with the idea that it isn't going to be a bed of roses, that quite possibly both could come out battered, cut and bruised and yes some have even died as a result -- but both have entered that ring with the full knowledge that could be a possibility -- but they both have made that personal choice.
So I don't think the boxer is creating violence for 'his own glory' per se, (although I admit many have a huge ego) but out of necessity for his livelihood. He's not going out with the intention of killing his opponent and he's sure not packing an AK-47 to shoot his opponent in the head and not threatening to come back to finish the job in case he didn't succeed the first time.
The Taliban that shot the little girl were tring to kill her because she spoke out about wanting to get an education. The Taliban made they're decision to try to kill her -- she had no say in the matter.
The two boxers made their decisions and accept all that comes with it.
The 14 year old girl made no such decision -- it was forced upon her through the Taliban.
I don't know how even the hardcore of the hardcore of Taliban could call shooting a 14 year old girl as doing it 'for the glory of god'.
You did make a good point, and I probably didn't answer you very well and probably shouldn't have even brought the boxer into the equation.
-
One thing else I would like to say and that is in regards to such individuals that choose their occupations in such sports as boxing or football or whatever.......yes it is violent but that is what they chose to do.
Every boxer who steps into the ring is going in with the intention to knock the head off of his opponent not to do a tap dance, but again that is what he chose to do as a proffesion.
So it doesn't really matter what people think is 'acceptable violence' or not -- it's their choice -- and they will reap what repracussions that might follow -- and his opponent realizes the same.
-
The bolded is something that always makes my stomach turn. If everyone got what they "deserved", then everyone would receive nothing but eternal suffering. I have a very hard time agreeing with people who say they're dishing out what someone else "deserves". It's not our place to make those kinds of decisions- that's in God's hands. He is the one meant to carry out justice, while we are to be merciful and forgiving of all men. Even the death penalty shouldn't be about giving someone what they deserve. It should be about protecting the safety of others.
What about the Taliban gunmen who stopped the bus and then entered the bus and called out the name of the 14 year old Pakistani girl and then gunned her down, just because she felt that all women should have the chance to better themselves and have an education.
A 14 year old girl who had the courage and hope that she and other women would someday see that come to fruition, and so she spoke out about it.
Would it turn your stomach to have these animals hunted down and taken off of the face of the earth so that innocent 14 year old girls would not have to worry about such brutality in the future? Or should we just let them have a pass and let God deal with them in the future.
Whatever you think the high ground is, it does at least for now seem to be in our hands, after all isn't that what we're over there for? Even though it is in Pakistan, hopefully the Pakistani government would try to hunt these men down, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Let us not forget that these same animals that shot this 14 year old girl also said that they would try to hunt her down again once she heals from her wounds -- if she ever does survive at all.
-
I'm at work and the web-site is filtered so I didn't get to check it out, but I did get a good chuckle when the OP said that all of these people have been converted to Mormonisim.....I mean come on George Carlin? That must of been one outstanding missionary in the spirit world.
You would have to have spiritual eyes for a brief moment in time or as Pam said a direct line to the spirit world, but no way of knowing who has accepted what.
-
There is the possibility that if you have a hard core Baptist, Methodist, Catholic or whatever faith that they had here in mortality and that faith was still strong within them when they passed, chances are that they will stay strong in that faith in the hereafter.
LDS theology is that they (the LDS faith) will have missionary work in the spirit world teaching those spirits that have passed important things pertaining to the kingdom of God....at least those things according to LDS theology.
But if these same spirits that were so strong in their faith here on earth and rejected other belief systems here on earth ....ie Mormonism for example, how would they're thought patterns change so dramatically that all of the sudden they accept Mormonisim?
How do we know that spirits that had other belief systems are not also preaching they're particulair brand of faith?
Mormons believe that when your spirit leaves your body, that spirit will take the same characteristics with them into the next realm. So for spirits that held different light and knowledge and beliefs contrary to LDS might still find it difficult to jump ship.
I don't think the Lord is going to sit everybody down in the spirit world and expound LDS theology to everyone.
Spirits that never believed in God while in mortality I'm sure are having a whole new world opened up to them....but where that will lead them who knows?
These are just random thoughts and speculation on my part.
-
Good afternoon Heber13. Thank you for the compliments. I hope you are doing well! :)
I understand what you are saying and for the most part I agree. I agree that God prepares a way for His children to accept his gospel and to live by its precepts. I don't agree that God prepares a way for his children to choose how they wish to live the gospel and then live by the precepts they have chosen to follow. I totally agree that God will exercise mercy and justice with perfection in judging us and that our hearts and our desires will either condemn us or justify us. There is, however, a subtle equivocation going on in what you are stating. I think where you err is in supposing that because God allows people a chance to accept and live the gospel outside of mortality that they are somehow exempt from the necessary ordinances of the gospel.
It is important to make clear that from a Mormom frame of reference Mormonism is "God's way". So, to say that Mormonism isn't the only way is to say that God's way isn't the only way. God's way is the only way.
The scripture you quote says that those who did not have a chance to receive but would have received the gospel, given the chance, will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom. The inference is clearly that they must accept the gospel of Jesus Christ, which gospel is found in it's totality with all it's saving ordinances, only within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a.k.a., Mormonism.
Also, there are at least three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom and this scripture doesn't necessarily speak to exaltation.
The scriptures are telling us that people will be given the opportunity to accept the gospel and to have the saving ordinances done for them, either in this life or in the next or some other time.
Regards,
Finrock
Well speaking for myself it seems obvious that when Joseph Smith had this vision and beheld Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom of God it had to have been the highest degree.
verse 3: 'Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and The Son'
He also talks about seeing Adam and Abraham which fits in quite nicely with LDS theology because of the fact that LDS theology says that Adam and Abraham and all of the rest of the great and noble ones were united back to their bodies after the resurection of Christ.
That means to me at least since their spirits had been reunited with their bodies and they were dwelling in the Kingdom of God where the 'blazing throne of God was.... and seated in that blazing throne of God was the Father and the Son......and then he beheld Alvin who had passed away in 1823 and had not had any ordinances performed.....because this vision was occuring in 1836 and none of the ordinances for baptisms for the dead would occur until 1842 during the Nauvoo period.
So in my estimation Alvin had either obtained Exaltation and was dwelling in The Fathers Kingdom along with Adam and Abraham and the rest of the great and noble ones without any ordinances being performed at that point or Joseph Smith was having a vision of something that was going to happen in the future..... but without having the ordinance of baptisms for the dead being revealed and performed at that time.
These were some of the thoughts going around in my head as I read through D&C section 137 -- 138 and also 127 and 128.
It doesn't talk about Alvin still being in the spirit world....it say's Joseph beheld him in the Celestial Kingdom of God......which I interpret to mean the highest degree.
So if Alvin passed in 1823 and The Vision of sec 137 came in 1836 and the sections of baptisms for the dead didn't come until 1842.....why was Alvin seen in vision by Joseph dwelling in the celestail kingdom with God.....instead of the spirit world or spirit paradise until such ordinances were revealed?
Just thoughts and questions going through my mind and curiosity -- I might be out in left feild.... maybe someone could chime in and set me straight.
As for some of the other things being discussed -- my thoughts as of the last few years seems to heading in the direction or notion that God will judge us for striving to be the best that we can be given our circumstances, morals and ethics which have been instilled in us by family, culture and our religious beleifs that we hold dear to our hearts.
In other words we do the best with what we know until we find something that has even more knowledge or value to us -- it's a process and a journey of life....at least to me.
The fact is....at least to me, is that the world is not going to become all Mormons, Evangelicals, Buddists or Muslim until that day when it's all set right.
To always think in black and white terms with no color in between or at least a little gray just doesn't seem realistic to me anymore.....it did perhaps to a point when I was younger and brought up in Mormon culture and doctrine.
Now it's just hard for me to believe that a small minority has the market on over 6 billion souls in the world.....'.the only way is our way' (yea, I know Gods way) mentality just seems a little off....to me at least and that goes for all belief systems who claim such.
Just thoughts and opinions....I'm not trying to offend anyone. Perhaps in my journey I will come to a whole different thought as time goes on.
The most important thing to me is that God blessed me with a Saviour and that I will always have hope in him......regardless of where my journey in life takes me.
-
I would only add that I hope attending church would include partaking of the sacrament.
In comparison, I made these distinctions:
A- Being a hypocrite in the Church is worse than being a sinner outside of the Church.
B- Not keeping our covenants is equal to not making them.
C- Being spiritually inactive is worse than being physically inactive.
I never said, people should not attend church. I said, they should come (return), repent, and be active in their faith.
I did suggest that someone who is inactive should consider removing themselves from the Church records because of "A" above.
One question to you. When should someone remove themselves from the Church records?
So let me get this straight -- what you are suggesting is that 2/3 of the membership remove their names from the church records because of their inactivity?
-
I say bravo for the kid who shot the intruder. He did what his gut told him to do -- get his siblings upstairs and grab a gun for the protection of himself and his siblings. Once a intruder breaks into someone's home, then he has crossed the forbidden zone and all bets are off.
If this happened more often thugs might thinks twice before entering someones home.
A few years back I watched a video of a burgler who had descibed the specifics about how his operation had worked for years and of course he descibed how much easier it was to rob a place when there was no threat of someone on the other side with a weapon.
He also spoke with delight how he liked to rape the women -- again because there was no threat of a gun on the other side.
So in my opinion if person is willing to break someones door down and invade their domain -- he better be willing to pay the price........end of story.
-
Sorry it took so long to get back to your question peteolcott, perhaps this will help you as to your question about humility.
Here's some other topics if interested:
-
That story needs to in the Ensign....or told in Conference where a lot of ears can hear and heed a great message of what it's all about.
-
That is pretty clear. It looks like there is substantial humility in the church leaders.
I want to find the exact boundary of this and that is why I pose this next question:
Is it possible that every prophet and leader of the church (past and present) could be in complete agreement on a specific aspect of doctrine, and all of them be at least slightly wrong, or is this considered to be completely and totally impossible?
Read a book called 'Conflict In The Quorum' by Gary Bergera. That might give you an insight -- It was interesting to read the spats between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young and their opposing outlooks on doctrine (as the years went on) and their differing ideas on how leadership and authority was to fit into the scheme of things. (after the death of Joseph Smith)
Even in the modern Church, I'm sure they have their moments of disagreement -- it's bound to happen I would think with 15 different personalities -- but I think when it gets down to the nitty gritty, there of one mind.
-
It is very good that you limited that to a personal opinion. This sort of humility is what is required to remain extremely receptive to the Holy Spirit.
That is what I like about the LDS church the most, it seems that its members are far more humble and thus receptive to the Holy Spirit than any other church.
I have never encountered any instance of self-righteousness by any of the members of the LDS church. I can not say this about the Pentecostal church that I belonged to for many years.
Stick around awhile, you will surely run into one -- as in any faith group.
-
I think that was Elder Glenn L. Pace. It was a great talk before the corrections. Still a good one after the corrections.
HiJolly
I was thinking of the 1984 Ronald E. Poelman of the first quorum of the Seventy conference talk. It was the only one that was re-taped (up to that point--not sure if any after) from the podium with a cough-track added.
From Wikipedia:
Controversial sermonIn the October 1984 general conference of the LDS Church, Poelman delivered a sermon entitled "The Gospel and the Church". Controversy ensued when the version of his sermon that was published in the November 1984 Ensign magazine differed from the sermon Poelman had delivered orally. According to Poelman's brother, after Poelman had delivered his sermon, it had been pointed out to him by apostles that have dealt with apostate, often pro-polygamy groups, that the text of his talk might support these groups' claims that people do not need the LDS Church. In response, Poelman decided to revise the text of the sermon.[6] Videotape copies of general conference that were included in church archives and distributed throughout the church contained Poelman delivering the revised version of his sermon. A "cough track" was included in the retaping to make it appear that the revised sermon was delivered in front of an audience.[7]
One commentator has criticised the changes to the sermon as a dramatic shift in the meaning of Poelman's address:
"The rewriting and refilming of Elder Ronald Poelman's October 1984 Conference address, originally a rare and inspiring defense of free agency, so that it became yet another cry for obedience. His text was not edited — his ideas were turned inside out."[8]
Poelman spoke again in general conference after four and a half years.[7]
Article from Peggy Fletcher in 1985:
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/045-44-57.pdf
The Original talk at conference 1984:
-
So, according to the Kingdom Hall of Elders, this same woman could castrate this same man or do a Larraine Bobbitt to this mans genitalia and have nothing to worry about, as long as there is not two witnesses, is that correct?
Although I would suspect a lot of screaming, so she might possibly have something to worry about!
-
Bishop: FlaviusHambonius
1st Councelor: Snow
2nd Councelor: HiJolley
Clerk: LoudmouthMormon
EQ Pres: Rameumptom
HPGL: MormonMusic
Primary Pres: Suzie
Primary Music Leader: Carl62
RS Pres: Elphaba
Sunday School Pres: Just_A_Guy
YM Pres: MOE
YW Pres: Pam
-
I would make sure that everyone on the face of the Earth had food and water all of the days of their life.
-
Can LDS members read non-Mormon or anti-Mormon literarure as they are searching for answers to their spiritual questions?
Or are you constrained to read only LDS litereature disregarding all else as I understand it is while you are on you LDS missions.
No, we are not allowed to seek out our own journey, each individual member of the LDS faith is assigned an overseer or taskmaster who watches over us 24/7 to make sure we don't drift of into the neverlands of misinformation that does not accord with LDS beleif of doctrine.
If you don't adhere to this policy, holy water will be thrown on you and you will instantaneously turn into a puddle of mush -- sort of like the wicked witch of the east -- only without the broom -- that's just another myth about Mormons, they actually don't carry brooms -- but look out for the horns, they can be devastating.
-
Well, Christ *did* die on a cross as a part of the Atonement. What's the big hoopla??
I agree, growing up in the LDS church and culture I was of the thought that any kind of outward celebration (such as wearing jewelery etc) was frowned upon.
I personally don't think it takes away from the reverance of the living Christ at all, especially if a person wears it with a personal conviction in their heart that it means something special to them.
Now if it's someone wearing it just because it's another piece of bling....well that's another thing -- but who am I to say.
-
Perhaps a comforting gesture to all the possible converts of the area, that as Pam said is so steeped in the Catholic tradition, at least that was my first thoughts.
-
Since nobody has figured it out by now I'm just going to come out and say it. I find it much more likely that DKM88 is an anti posing as a member with a shaken testimony, than a member with a shaken testimony. All reasonable explanations and attempts at consolation have lead to nothing but adamant arguments (not truly taking the new advice/information into account) and paraphrased repeats of the original post.
DKM88, if I'm wrong about you I sincerely apologize. That being said, I'm rarely incorrect about these kinds of assessments.
The 'Amazing Kreskin' has spoken -- "even now I know what you are thinking"
-
Perhaps someone could invent and patent a Garment shredder.
What do we all think of the President's speech yesterday?
in Current Events
Posted
I wonder who most of the young students will be around the world in the year 2114 after watching this. I stumbled on to this the other day and found it quite interesting.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1312110880060