OmahaLDS

I would disagree. Al-Qaeda exists in a completely real world. The way they fund their operations, deal with the opposition of the US government, and carry out their attacks indicates the live in the real world. They understand what they are doing. That is precisely the problem. Their motivation is even based on a recognition of the real world. It is simply that their objectives for the world are somewhat unreasonable. How would you define dissenters? Al-Qaeda is a fringe movement, and as such dissent is irrelevant. If you are talking about Islam in general, the issue is far more complex. I would agree entirely, when it comes to Islam what people do not know gets them into significant trouble. This is decidedly odd because BYU has a fantastic Arabic program, ME translation series, and ME involvement in general. Why membership ignores the valuable resources from LDS sources, I have never understood.

He is a frequent author for Jewish Journal... Author Page: George Robinson | Jewish Journal Would your suspicions be eased were his last name Cohen?

How? Shiites are discriminated against in some areas, but the same situation exists in parts of the US for African/Asian/Mexican-Americans. Is the US oppressive now? Explain your argument. It is not that you are wrong, it is that it would be so easy for you to find out you are wrong... "Bahrain held parliamentary elections on 25 November 2006 for the 40-seat lower house of parliament, the Chamber of Deputies, as well as municipal elections. There was a 72% turnout in the first round of polling. As expected by most observers, Shi'a and Sunni Islamists dominated the poll, winning a clean sweep in the first round of voting" Bahraini parliamentary election, 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I know a Shia in the Bahraini military, but I will let you post your evidence that they are excluded from the military. You're talking about the Middle East. Anyone can be held indefinitely for whatever reason the person in charge wants. Evidence? Your lack of travel does not constitute truth. If you had ever been to Bahrain you would know that public drunkenness is a serious offense and you are briefed on this upon arrival. You do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about on any of the subjects in this thread. Having a Muslim in-law, and attending school with a Muslim does not mean you are knowledgeable on the Middle East. I would highly recommend you stop posting and start reading.

Completely void of any comparative aspects. In the Hajj pilgrims travel to Mecca, only wear what equate to two large towels, and can carry no weapons. Crusaders traveled to the Holy Land in full armor and killed a huge population of Muslims, Jews, and Christians. How are the two mildly equal? This is not what you said. You said... "It is not about territory or oil – it is about water. This is why Israel is such a thorn to Islamic peoples that are wealthy with oil; Israel controls the water – especially the water of Jerusalem." Israel does not control much water at all. Can you support your claim or have you abandoned it?

Unfortunately this is not uncommon. More embarrassingly, given most member's predilection for one pole of the political spectrum, and that pole's predilection to demonize Muslims, most Church members are doing to Muslims what was/is done to the Church as an institution and Church members individually throughout history. There is not much difference between anti-Islam sentiment and anti-Mormon sentiment, and you would think most Church members would recognize the parallels. Every time an anti-Mormon comes out with a half-baked, clearly unintelligent criticism of Mormons, most Church members will see it for what it is. When an anti-Islam critic comes out with a similarly half-baked, clearly unintelligent criticism of Muslims, too many Church members jump on the bandwagon. It does help to understand why they are the way they are. Oddly enough, given the anti-Hezbollah sentiment going round, Hezbollah is capable of being engaged in a political process. The leaders can be reasoned with. They use terrorism, not because they are crazy, but because it is a useful tactic to achieve their aims given the arms imbalance. Their aims are not necessarily the most noble, but the can be reasoned with to large degree. Al-Qaeda, not so much, but to place Hezbollah in the same league with Al-Qaeda is like putting the Mafia in the same league with a street thug. He's certainly no saint, but the Godfather is a businessman, and he is intelligent enough to know when to step back from the brink. The street thug is not.

Unless you mean the Canadian in Guantanamo, No. It does not really matter. It has no bearing on the issue, and your relationship by marriage conveys no knowledge. You have changed your argument. You said Bahrain was "one of the most oppressive countries of the Middle East". Which is it? Also Bahrain's royal family are the Khalifahs... Al Khalifa family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Sauds are the royal family of Saudi Arabia... Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia While it is entirely possible there has been some intermarriage between the royal families in recent years, they are NOT "ruled by a branch of the same family that rules Saudi Arabia," unless you want to go back hundreds of years to find a common ancestor. Well I am certainly sure you learned far more in that week than in the years I lived there. In fact the number of egregious errors you have made would indicate the opposite, but perhaps not. Perhaps you can point to a source? I link would be nice. Photo even better. Do you have a CV for Omar Kadar? There is a source inside Jerusalem, tunneled beneath the walls. It is possible to see it if you visit Jerusalem. I do not remember the name. Additionally something like 30% of Israel's water comes from the Jordan River. I suspect that may be the source. Given your lack of research on this prior to engaging in the discussion, I am not sure feeding you the information would be useful. Additionally the Shiat Ali are a somewhat complex group. If you like I can recommend books. Dr. Moomen's is a very good primer, probably the best. Also you are confusing politics and religion. Iran will support whoever satisfies their national aims, religion notwithstanding, so their support of a Sunni group is irrevelent with regards to their own faith. The differences between Shiat Ali and Sunni are minimal compared to differences between Catholics and Protestants, for example. Let's see a source for that. Here is one you can start with... http://oilandgasdirectory.com/2009/research/Bahrain.pdf Your information is naturally flawed. The Khalifas left the Arabian peninsula in the 1700's. Yes. Here and there.

You are making an argument in the complete absence of facts or understanding. When has Hezbollah ever made any indication that they want to seek a conflict with the US on US soil?

Thanks for the appeal to authority. My sources are a Masters Degree in Middle Eastern studies, I lived in the Middle East, I speak Arabic, and I have studied/worked in the region for a decade. None of this has any bearing on your comments regarding beliefs, water, or anything similar. Additional, Bahrain is surprisingly open for a Middle Eastern country, has one of the most open economies in the Middle East, does not require the hijab, and sold alcohol, an oddity. There was some effort to end this, but I do not know if it passed. You might want to ensure the person you are speaking to did not live in Bahrain (or anywhere else in the Middle East) before lecturing them on Bahrain. Can you cite a source where these three are specifically called out? It is certainly possible, but I have never seen them specifically delineated. Which sura? The current conflict has nothing to do with Omar, of the Rashidun. What are you talking about? This is not true at all. Again not true at all. So you have said, but you have failed to recognize the flaws in this argument, pointed out above. Restating a failed argument does little to make it more valid. No, some people understand it quite well. Again, not true. Sunni. Sunni. Yes. I would take your advice. Nothing you have said indicates you have the slightest idea on any of these subjects. Again not true, Bahrain has a lot of oil, and is not related to the Sauds. Saudi Arabia comes from the Saud family. The Bahrainis are Khalifas.

Don't thank me, my wife is the one who is a saint. She has been working with special needs kids since she was 12. Her mom was an aide in a Special Ed. classroom, and she has been doing it ever since. I help out with heavy lifting, but that is about it.

I was not referring to Mr. Peeks. Some autistic children are very sensitive to touch, so do not like to bathe because of the way they feel. As such baptism, especially forced baptism, would be VERY traumatic.

I never said you or anyone else was anti-Joseph Smith?

How can you dictate to others what doctrine is because of your visions but fail to understand that if President Monson and Mr. Peeks father were friends the likely at some point discussed Mr. Peek's baptismal status? Also as I quoted above, the decision to baptize a mentally handicapped individual is with the parents. I am sure had you been the parent, Mr. Peek would have been baptized, regardless of the trauma he might have experienced. We can all be happy this was not the case, however. I actually quoted it. The Church has a website specifically for those associated with mentally disabled in the Church, and my wife is an Autism specialist. I have far more association this this subject than most. For those not feeling the need to dictate to others what salvic ordinances they denied their mentally handicapped child, the Church is actually very attentive to special needs children. If you have one, or need information for someone in your ward, special programs are available including manuals.

That's not true. First Mr. Peek did not have autism. I thought you might want to know that before passing judgment on him. Not true either. His powers of recall exceeded most people, but this did not translate to easy application of this information. Knowledge also requires application of information. You are free to believe this, but the Church disagrees with you. This is not true either. Additionally you are hardly in a position to judge what he did or did not understand. His father, on the other hand, and President Monson, who was a friend of his father, was in a much greater position to judge this. Your position of Ark steadier is neither moral, ethical, nor doctrinal. And we can all give thanks that you are neither judge nor advocate. And your ability to judge that capacity is nonexistent. And to think the friend of Mr. Peeks father, President Monson, must have been unaware of the CHI. I am sure the President would appreciate your thoughts on this matter!!!

This does not necessarily sound that stable.

That is not true at all. Most Iranians want a closer relationship with the West and US. That is an absurd statement. If you want to seriously discuss the issue, such statements would best be left at the door. It is untrue, and really kind of silly. I do not think that is true either. Because we remove the incentive to have them. Having nuclear weapons puts a nation in a category that only a select few are in. It grants international dignitas. If that can be provided by another means, it may change the equation. Having nukes is also costly, so there is legitimate reason to avoid the acquisition. No. Sanctions have never worked. International aid and assistance. That is not true at all. Again not correct. "Their" Mahdi will appear simultaneously with Christ, oddly enough. This is odd. Shias are 20% of Islam. You're saying only 25% of Shias believe this? It is also odd that you say 100% of Iran's leaders when it should be clear to anyone who has watched news in the past few weeks that there is significant disagreement between leaders in Iran.

That is an interesting position. While it is possible, in my time in the ME, I never came across that belief (that God gave the Arabs the gift of water). He did give Hagar water, but I am not sure that is what you are referring to. This is incorrect. When it comes to people who are really wealthy with oil, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, etc... none of them share a water source with Israel. Those countries that DO share a water source with Israel, Egypt possibly, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, two already have peace treaties with Israel, Egypt and Jordan. In fact the only water source that is an issue is really the Jordan river, and it does not originate in Israeli territory at all, making Israel the weaker partner in the situation. So far, any discussion of Israel and water, outside of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, is invalid. Afghanistan certainly has nothing to do with Israel and water. Afghanistan is actually central Asia, and not really Middle Eastern. So you are correct that water is an issue, but incorrect in the magnitude, relationships, and even which sources are in conflict (if you think water in the UAE has anything to do with Israel).

Hezbollah is a MUCH more multifaceted organization than Al-Qaeda. Hezbollah is more like the IRA, with non-terrorist activities. There were/are IRA members in the US for years, but it did not really matter. The groups are very, very different. Comparing them is not as easy as you think. Scrutiny does not equal fear mongering, which is what is being done here. Hezbollah is a political movement that actually can be engaged. Al-Qaeda is not. You really might find the book by Dr. Norton interesting if you can find it.

The issue is more complex than that. You're talking about a provincial people, so a limited local census might be construed as a general census. The Roman census was a yearly event, it seems unlikely that the provinces would not also have routine census. It is also unlikely that the decree came directly from Augustus, as he was only Princeps Senatus, but rather from one of the Consuls. But again to the provincial Augustus was the face of Rome, so it would not have mattered to them as much as the fiction of the Republic was to Romans. I am not entirely sure how that is possible. Records are somewhat scanty. I am not aware of any conclusive source one way or another. It would be possible to discuss how the Empire/Republic operated, and how it would have happened. It was likely written several decades after the events. That would not be surprising. It is an important distinction.

I'm going back to my undergrad (ancient History) for this one, but Publicani based their taxes on the location of their records. It was not like now when records were easily transfered to every locale an individual might be living in. If Joseph was born in Bethlehem, and was registered with the government in Bethlehem, he would have had to go to Bethlehem. Mary would not have mattered to the government, she was a woman. The Roman government was not about to go looking for everyone in question. Based on Roman practice, the individual would go to where they were registered (which would generally be where they were born), not necessarily the other way around.

Just as an FYI, the Church has a disabilities website... Home ...Which has a FAQ section about baptism. It says... Hemi's criticism is both unfounded, it is doctrinally incorrect. The parents' choice was the right one.

My wife is a very well educated Autism specialist and she would never say this. How can you claim to know what someone's "real" age is? That would be a false lesson.

That is impossible as there was essentially a census every year in Rome (which is what the Censor did). Whether or not one was conducted in provinces, I really do not know. This is not necessarily true. In a Roman Census, Joseph would have to travel to Bethlehem if he was from Bethlehem, not necessarily because he was of Davidic descent. He very well could have been both from Bethlehem and of Davidic descent. Not all people of Davidic descent would have been from Bethlehem. Why not? I can think of a dozen reasons it could have happened, but no reason it couldn't have happened. This does not mean that a census would have been impossible. It could have been both. Why is inerrancy required? There was no empire at the time.

If you're interested you might like the following book... Amazon.com: Essential Judaism: A Complete Guide to Beliefs, Customs & Rituals (9780671034818): George Robinson: Books It's a simple straight-forward primer. Judaism is a REALLY interesting faith, and people forget that Christianity is, in essence, a Jewish faith. Learning about Judaism makes you appreciate some of the more Jewish aspects of our own faith. And the food is really good too, if you're an Epicurean.

I think it is important to consider the author's conclusion about his (her?, Taylor could be a woman's name as well) year, Many issues that the author discusses are very vague and ambiguous, and there is little care or consideration for those within or without the faith who take a minority stance.

Some facts are facts. Julius Caesar lived in Rome, not China. Force is the product of mass and acceleration. Etc...