Maxel

Members
  • Posts

    1853
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maxel

  1. I'm not playing a "dirty political game". Please cite who this conservative talk show host is, and links would be great. I have no idea who you're talking about. Furthermore, there's no evidence that she was nominated for the Peace Prize before 2007- apparantely, her story went largely unnoticed until 1999, when the play Life in a Jar was written by 4 high school students.I now understand that the Nobel Peace Prize is not given out for achievements more than 2 years prior. I misunderstood that, and I was mistaken in my statements that Irena should have won instead of Gore. However, I've found another official source that lists Mrs. Sendler's nomination- IrenaSendler.org. So she was, in fact, nominated- she merely didn't meet the basic criteria to receive the prize. I've tried to be courteous and have been honest in this discussion, and I frankly admit I don't like being accused of playing "dirty political games", or that I'm dishonoring Mrs. Sendler's name.
  2. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, DigitalShadow.This would definitely disqualify Mrs. Sendler because of the time lapse between the 1940's and 2007.
  3. Are you arguing that the Nobel Committee is in the habit of turning down nominations from approved sources?"Members of national assemblies and governments of states" are officially recognized as qualified nominators. As I have shown, two heads of state- the Israeli Prime Minister and the Polish President- backed her nomination. PRIO listed her nomination as officially confirmed, meaning the nominator had made the nomination public. There's plenty of evidence to believe that she was, in fact, nominated. I fail to see the "dirty politics" you're talking about. I feel the case I've made over my last few posts and the evidence I have provided is sufficient enough to suggest that Irena Sendler was in fact nominated, and did in fact lose to Al Gore and the IPCC. Even if I'm mistaken, the evidence is there, and anyone else could have arrived at the same conclusion- that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to climate activists over a real humanitarian who endured the very real threat of death and torture for the sake of saving the lives of innocents. There's nothing 'dirty' about discussing what we perceive to be the truth, or said truth's implications.The reason I'm still pressing this uncomfortable topic in what is otherwise a heartwarming thread is that you apparantely refuse to even peruse the sources I'm providing, instead clinging to the claim that "it's not PROVEN, so even BELIEVING it's true and comparing her against the recipient is DIRTY POLITICS". Such a claim of dirty politics is, I believe, unwarranted in the face of the evidence. While I'll agree that it's impossible to prove beyond a doubt that she was a nominee, your original claim that this was cooked up by a "conservative talk-show host" and is solely a political ploy is wholly unwarranted- as have been your repeated assertion that this is still just a political gambit.
  4. thekabalist, I read somewhere on another one of your posts that Jewish tradition states that the Hebrew language was supposed to be the "pure" language. I ran across the following the other day, and thought you might find it interesting. From the book of Mormon, chapter 9, verses 32-33: 32 And now, behold, we have written this record [the Golden Plates] according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. 33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record. Not a 'saying' per se, but it seems to bear a resemblance to the aforementioned tradition of Hebrew being a more pure language.
  5. WHAT?! Having positive relationships with his in-laws? That's worse than cannibalism!
  6. Hey, it's IN PRINT from that bastion of journalistic excellence, CNN.It's UNDENIABLE proof that the President is not only a cannibal, but a fan of Oregon State. Two unforgivable atrocities.
  7. mnn727-The "Speculations" part of the article isn't speculating about who was nominated- it was speculating about who would win. PRIO has, every year, summarized known candidates and weighed the political atmosphere to give their opinion on who would win the Peace Prize (this has happened at least since 2002). As I said before, Sendler is listed as a confirmed nomination. From the webpage: Furthermore, Sendler's nomination was publicly supported by both the Polish President (Lech Kaczynski) and the Israeli Prime Minister (Ehud Olmert)- this is described in the first link. There's plenty of evidence that suggest she was, in fact, nominated. The fact that her name wasn't officially mentioned as a non-recipient doesn't mean anything, as it is evidence for nothing (as you have pointed out). Mrs. Sendler died in 2008, and the 2007 Peace Prize recipient was anounced October 12, 2007. Since she was alive at the time it was announced, there was no reason she could not have received it- other than the fact that the committee didn't find her accomplishments merited it. I get the feeling you're dead set on believing her nomination was cooked up by a "conservative talk show host" to smear Al Gore. You can still think the talk show host's actions were deplorable, but the evidence suggests that Mrs. Sendler lost the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC.
  8. Okay, I see what you're saying, LM. I'll let you get back to your main point... I'm not going to wade into the question of who's more patriotic: conservatives or liberals.
  9. mnn727- You'd do well to factcheck your claims, and not be content with claiming others have not factchecked their own. Irena Sendler's nomination was publicly supported by "Polish President Lech Kaczynski and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert", and an online petition was set up by the Polish Jews Forum to support her candidacy. EJP News: Polish righteous gentile nominated for Nobel Peace Prize The PRIO institute (International Peace Reasearch Institute, Oslo) listed Sendler's nomination as "confirmed" for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Nobel Peace Prize 2007: Nominations and Speculations So yes, Ms. Sendler really was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and she really did lose to Al Gore and his slideshow. Then again, the honors of the world mean nothing. I'm sure Ms. Sendler had a very, very warm reunion with many people that she helped when she died.
  10. I disagree with your assertion that disagreeing can't be patriotic, LM. I disagree with many things the current administration is doing, and I aim to take some kind of action to make that disagreement known and make my voice heard. I do these things because I think the basic values of the Constitution are under attack. Is that not patriotic? I'd agree that if this were the only thing I were doing, and not voting or educating myself or displaying other signs of patriotism I wouldn't be very patriotic- but it's my sense of patriotism that leads me to disagree on this situation.
  11. prisonchaplain, I liked the article very, very much. One aspect I'd like to add is that Pastor Jackson seems to have help purify his own flock. I found it interesting that the response of one couple that stopped attending his church when he began preaching repentance to the Mormons said In the end, his congregation consisted of people who agreed with him that their cruel actions towards the Mormons were "between [them] and God"- people who were really willing to utilize the teachings of Christ.I think it was awesome that Jackson's church was tested financially, but they kept on going. It seems that, besides promoting a feeling of goodwill and respect, Jackson succeeded in helping his flock purify themselves of a major sin- which is a very admirable accomplishment.
  12. Would you be okay if we raise taxes for the rich and poor equally? Maybe increase the income tax by 15% all around? The intent was just to talk about solutions to the money problems facing our country. I'm already familiar with the conservative idea- cut spending and cut taxes- but I'm trying to get a greater feel for the more liberal approach (beyond the 'raise taxes' portion). I also tried to approach it in a manner where solutions are presented first and debated second, instead of the ideology being imediately combatted.In that regard, I'm enjoying this thread- particularly FunkyTown's analysis of the situation and prisonchaplain's suggestion that bytor pay it all. An idea I happen to support. Where's my check, bytor?
  13. Thank you for pointing that out, Hemi. A crucial difference, since we can assume that Satan very clearly remembers seeing the Savior- yet the devil is most definitely not a member of the Church of the Firstborn. The crucial step is in the receipt of the saving ordinances and the sealing of the Holy Spirit of Promise.
  14. My heart aches for faithful Lutherans who now don't know what to do because the authority they looked to failed them. I'm glad that another Lutheran church is forming that affirms traditional marriage. I skimmed through the ELCA's statement about human sexuality, and the ambiguity and wishy-washyness made me sick. It's clear that the direction the ELCA is heading is to fully accept homosexuality as normal and godly.
  15. I imagine it would. Undoubtedly there will be many families like that- however, the glory of God is such that all anguish will be swallowed up in the joy of Christ for the righteous. The unrighteous will have to endure more of the anguish of being seperated from their earthly family as part of the "bitter dregs" of eternal damnation.
  16. One thing to remember when we're talking about kingdoms: Alma made it clear that this life is the time of our probation. While we may receive ordinances of salvation and exaltation in the next life, they will be in effect only if we would have received them had they been allowed to "tarry" in this life (see D&C 137:7). Someone who prefers sin to holiness in this life will still prefer sin to holiness in the next life, and will therefore prefer a lesser kingdom and be unable to abide the glory of a higher kingdom. We are who we choose to be, because our actions are dictated by who we are. It's a cycle that only the Atonement and the grace of God can break us out of, and only if we follow His set terms (which includes doing all we can in this life to repent and improve ourselves). I know of no passages in the scriptures that suggests that we'll be able to progress from lower kingdoms to higher ones.
  17. I think there's a difference between knowledge that's handed to us and knowledge that we seek to find. If we were all told the whole truth upfront, I think most of us would be in a worse position because we'd know the truth, but the state of our spirits would be different than if we had worked to attain that knowledge for ourselves- and the change might be so critical that it might render us spiritually impotent. Greater knowlede must be sought- I can think of but few examples in the scriptures where wholly unsolicited knowledge (of any kind) was given to a mortal from a heavenly messenger. I think that even those sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise still need to actively seek out the information they need to grow and progress- and that's after coming very far and receiving all the ordinances pertinent to salvation. As for the uneven discernment of of the exam of life- I also believe that each person's life situation has been heavily influenced by his/her actions in the pre-existence. Also, every person will have the chance to hear the Gospel in its simplest form and will have the opportunity to either accept or reject the witness of the Holy Ghost- either in this life or the next. I think that for this earth to reach its eternal, glorified state mankind has to live on it and use its resources- that would necessitate mankind living on his own, living in a fallen state on a telestial world. I think that also explains some of the discrepency between peoples' life situations.
  18. Hey, the DS has a stylus... Maybe use it to sign electronic papers of divorce? What kills me is that a preacher actually performed this ceremony (supposedly). I sure hope it's a fake preacher, because I would NOT want to be him on the judgment day. G-D: HOW DID YOU HANDLE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS AN EMISSARY OF MY NAME? PREACHER: Oh, I did great! Married a bunch of people. G-D: ONLY PEOPLE? ONLY ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AT A TIME, AS PERSCRIBED IN MY HOLY WRIT? PREACHER: Ummm.... Yeeeeessss. *Shifty eyes*
  19. Welcome to the site exnonlds! Does your name mean you're a convert to the Church? I assume that's what an ex-non-LDS is...
  20. I'm reeeallly late to the party, but welcome to the board!
  21. thekabalist- I enjoyed your entire post, but the Rebbe's following words particularly struck me as dealing with the nature of Christ's mission: I don't know how much you know about our beliefs, but we do believe that Christ, as the Only Begotten of the Father, was the Father and God of heaven and earth, and the one who makes possible our eternal salvation and exaltation. The idea of "forgoing one's own luminary potential" (for a time) is similar to the "condescension of God", or Christ's voluntary sacrifice to leave His throne on high and be born as a mortal man (see 1 Nephi 11:16-28). We learn that the purpose of this condescension was to perform the Atonement and bring to pass the salvation of mankind- analagous to a greater candle sacrificing its height and place to stoop down and light a yet-unlit candle.Very interesting!
  22. Can video game characters enter into legally binding contracts? Next thing you know, people will want to be marrying their DOGS!!
  23. ... That's really creepy. Seriously. I could just imagine the amount of people who would get "married" to their MMORPG characters/girlfriends/boyfriends/whatever. Thankfully, (most) people aren't that desperate. And I do feel really, really bad for this kid. If this isn't some sort of publicity stunt, he must be so lonely...
  24. Okay, we may have different ideas about two key concepts:-What is required to be inducted into the Church of the Firstborn, and -What is God's kingdom, and can one 'join' it after death? I've always understood the Church of the Firstborn to include all those throughout the history of the world who exercised real faith in God and were sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (this would include Abraham, Israel (Jacob), the Apostle Peter, the Three Nephites, and the other holy prophets), which to my understanding includes a personal visitation from the Savior. These requirements definitely exclude the Protestant idea of a "universal church [or priesthood] of believers", but does not limit members of the Church of the Firstborn to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints founded by Joseph Smith. In other word, membership in the Church of the Firstborn is not limited to people living in this dispensation. In that sense, I'm comfortable with calling the Church of the Firstborn a Mormon version of a "universal Church of believers"- because they're not just 'believers', but those who have actually seen Christ appear to them, personally, and know without a doubt that He exists.
  25. I agree with HiJolly's take on the OP's question. Vort, I read D&C 76:50-54 slightly differently. I believe members of the Church of the Firstborn might not join the LDS Church in this lifetime, but by receiving all required ordinances after death they are able to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.