JohnTaylor1886

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    JohnTaylor1886
  • Website URL
    http://

JohnTaylor1886's Achievements

  1. Ah yes, the old argument for moral relativism. Sin and vice are exactly that, sin and vice. Much like describing the taste of salt, except in this case, there is right and there is wrong. I couldn't care less about what the Taliban says or thinks, personally, and that is because that group has already demonstrated who they are by their actions of destruction, terrorism, and perversion of the Qur'an. Even atheists would agree that even if the religious standards were not present, there is a law of universal justice, and I have noted that they also have the same set of values as those who are Deists. (I met quite a few atheists in Poland, actually, and put the question to them.) I do not have to accept what I know to be wrong. There is a difference in being unaccepting and being intolerant. You can call me unaccepting if I choose to speak out against homosexuality, drug use, pornography, etc. You can call me unaccepting if I choose to fire shots at a dope dealer who is coming into my house after I tell him that he is not welcome. You can call me unaccepting for saying that illegal immigrants should be shipped back from whence they came. The difference between the Taliban and myself is that I do not seek to force my will on anyone, and I also do not want anyone forcing their will on me. It is a sin in both cases. While I will always believe that men are free to act for themselves, I also believe in the statement by Sir Edmund Burke, who said "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Yet that is the very thing that we are encouraged to do, nothing. Here is an example of what I am talking about: In Atlanta, a man decided to open an adult book store in a neighborhood where there were a lot of children and a few churches. The county had to grant the permit above the protests of its citizens because not to grant the permit was considered trampling on the rights of the 1st Amendment. The citizens rallied together and boycotted the store and the store was forced to close down and move elsewhere. This is ideal. Why? Because the citizens took action that was not invasive and shut down their enemy. No one had to resort to violence, attacks, or anything of that nature. The citizens stood up for themselves, and fought by refusing their patronage. I feel the same way. The Taliban and other Islamo-fascists are trying to force people to capitulate to their way of thinking by terrorism and senseless violence. Any ideal that relies on the use of force to propagate it is definitely an ideal that will not survive long. Two examples: Jesus Christ did not require violence to further His ideals. And yet his teachings have gne around the world and have lasted for about 2,000 years. On the other side of the coin, we have Adolf Hitler. His way of propagating National Socialism was to eliminate people who would not accept his political or racial agenda. He only lasted 12 years as a leader. Now, as far as sin and vice go, like I said, it is not relative. However, there is also what is called transgression. Transgression is a mere stepping across of the boundaries, stepping beyond what is acceptable, whether you know it or not. Sin is transgression, but it is done willfully and with full knowledge that consequences will be brought about. Now that this has been estabished, sin is not acceptable. If one wants to find pleasure in vice, then that is their decision, but also, I have the right (yes, right) to find pleasure in calling people aboslute idiots who overindulge in such things. And they have the right to ignore me, shout back, or turn away and cry. Getting back to the topic at hand, if you don't want your core beliefs insulted, then don't hang them on your sleeve. You have the right to believe what you will or in nothing at all (nihilism). However, offenses come when (1) people take offense and (2) when people try to force others to acceptance, because that shows signs of a weak-minded individual or group who tries such (e.g. Taliban). There is no obligation to protect you from being offended, such rights are not guaranteed in the Constitution or anywhere else.
  2. The press was destroyed because it was considered a public nuisance. HC 6:449: "By virtue of my office as Mayor of the city of Nauvoo, I do hereby strictly enjoin it upon the municipal officers and citizens of said city to use all honorable and lawful means in their power to assist me in maintaining the public peace and common quiet of said city. As attempts have already been made to excite the jealousy and prejudice of the people of the surrounding country, by libels and slanderous articles upon the citizens and City Council, for the purpose of destroying the charter of said city, and for the purpose of raising suspicion, wrath, and indignation among a certain class of the less honorable portion of mankind, to commit acts of violence upon the innocent and unsuspecting, in a certain newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, recently established for such purposes in said city, and which has been destroyed as a nuisance, according to the provision of the charter. I further call upon every officer, authority, and citizen to be vigilant in preventing, by wisdom the promulgation of false statements, libels, slanders, or any other malicious or evil-designed concern that may be put in operation to excite and ferment the passions of men to rebel against the rights and privileges of the city, citizens, or laws of the land; to be ready to suppress the gathering of mobs; to repel, by gentle means and noble exertion, every foul scheme of unprincipled men to disgrace and dishonor the city, or state, or any of their legally-constituted authorities; and, finally to keep the peace by being cool, considerate, virtuous, unoffending, manly, and patriotic, as the true sons of liberty ever have been, and honorably maintain the precious boon our illustrious fathers won.In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said corporation at the city of Nauvoo, this 11th day of June, 1844.Joseph Smith, Mayor." It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who introduced the phrase "clear and present danger" in 1919. (This is where the argument came that standing up and shouting "Fire!" in a theater is not protected under the 1st Amendment.) There was a clear and present danger in this case, because the Nauvoo Expositor was inciting the enemies of the Saints to violence, and this was done from within the Saints' own city. Even today, such laws exist to grant shutting down newspapers or other media when their agenda is to incite violence and put lives in danger. That is why judges sometimes issue a gag order. Now, even though the "clear and present danger" statute did not come into existence until some 75 years after the Nauvoo Expositor was destroyed. Reading from HC 6:445, it was clear that even during those times, legal remedies provided for the stoppage of a newspaper that was known to publish libels.
  3. I am really surprised that the Melchezadic Priesthood holders and the former/present Bishops on this site didn't catch this. There is no way a young man would be ordained into the Aaronic Priesthood the day after he is baptised, the same day he would be confirmed a member of the Church! Let alone be ordained into the Melchezadic Priesthood the day after his baptism! This is more proof that Christos is an Anti! Not so, Mrs. S. We fundamentalists can be ordained right after baptism if the Spirit so prompts. There is nowhere in the scriptures or in the words of the prophets that there has to be a set time frame to have passed before one can be ordained. I was baptized, confirmed, and ordained an elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood all within the same hour. Because I have what I believe to be a very strong testimony of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the Atonement, I could hardly be construed as anti-LDS, seeing as how I consider myself every bit LDS. I believe that the Spirit supercedes all. If Christos were to have been ordained to the priesthood right after baptism, there would have been no rules broken, because there aren't any. The only qualification that one has to meet to receive the priesthood is to be worthy after having accepted baptism and confirmation. One should remember that the "waiting period" is not a hard and fast rule and it is not even part of the doctrines of the Gospel, so I would hardly consider it as binding upon all those who choose to belong to the Gospel.
  4. What puts someone in the position of "enlightened thinker", especially in this day and age? An "enlightened thinker" is one who preaches tolerance and acceptance of vice. An "enlightened thinker" is one who won't stand up for what he believes because he worships the god of "non-offense" and political correctness. An "enlightened thinker" is one who will pander to the emotions of just about anyone. An "enlightened thinker" spurns those who take a stand, especially if that stand is based on traditional, wholesome values and, hypocritically, refuses to let them have a voice without being heckled. An "enlightened thinker" is one who accuses those who follow traditional values of backwards and archaic thinking and will suggest going by the values of 2006 and not 1866. An "enlightened thinker" is one who considers himself an intellectual elite, and in order to be like him, you must sacrifice your morals, ethics, and values for a philosophical "new world order". An "enlightened thinker" is like a fashion model, always following the trend no matter how ridiculous it is, and will sacrifice any personal values that he has in order to follow that trend. An "enlightened thinker" never "puts his money where his mouth is". An "enlightened thinker" will spare no effort in shaming people who believe in things like morality, truth, and decency...things held sacred and dear to most Christians. Now, when I hear people on the television or radio speak of how people need to live the ideas of today and abandon their traditional beliefs, it puts me on edge because so many people adopt that liberal garbage. (No, I am not speaking politically, although it could also apply.) It's really fascinating. We have things like gay pride, but I guarantee you, if we had Christian pride parades, people would be jeering. People will worship the god of political correctness and believe in henotheism, yet we forget the injunction of the Saviour who said "I am the way, the truth and the life". James E. Faust had a quote that I believe is accurate, and that is "people try to please God without offending the devil", and such is the mindset of these "enlightened thinkers". Value of this thought...not even worth a tinker's.......
  5. I saw the topic of this thread and read a few of the posts on this. I believe in the adage that "offense is never given, but always taken". You cannot be offended if you choose not to be. The problem with most people is that we do not speak out. There is a time and place for everything, I agree. However, I believe that we have been held captive to political correctness way too long. Why do I say this? Look at what is going on today. It seems that the media and all of these other libertines try to make people ashamed for associating with a traditional value or a tradition-based system. Look at the way people describe Christians today as being archaic, backwards-thinking, closed-minded characters who cannot think for themselves. Many people that stick to their traditions are painted as those who are not up on the times, and are slaves to what they have been taught. Ah, yes, and who made you an authority on what I think and what I believe, Mr(s). Enlightened Thinker? Has it never occurred to you that I have already thought about my own beliefs and that is why I accept them?! Who are you to say that I haven't? Do you presume to read everyone else's mind? And yet, that is exactly what people do. There is nothing more revolting than being told what I think, believe, or feel, especially if it nowhere close. (Such has been my experience with several anti-Mormons..especially those who are so-called "authorities" on Mormonism.) Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. If you have any doubts about that, do an etymological study on both words. You will be amazed. I can tolerate homosexuals, but I do not have to accept their agenda. I can tolerate drug users, but I do not have to accept having them acting crazy around me because they are stoned. I can tolerate adulterers, but I do not have to have them in my house or around my wife or girlfriend. I can tolerate Klansmen, but if I catch them in my yard burning a cross, then the lead will be flying. Is the acceptance that sin is normal and that vices are a good thing...these are examples of enlightened thinking in this day and age?! Heaven help us! Whatever happened to asking someone their core beliefs instead of assuming them? Yes, the saying about the word "assume" comes to mind here as well. You may not like what one believes or thinks. You may choose to speak out against it. You may not like the agenda of a group or organization. (For example, Hezbollah's agenda is nothing more than an pitiful, idiotic attempt to stir up trouble and put the blame on Israel. Period.) That's fine. Just make sure that if you choose to throw stones, some may get thrown back at you. Gee, I wish some of these "Enlightened Thinkers" would realize this? But no, give them their own medicine and they scream like a burned child. Value of this thought: 1/2¢...so forget the penny for my thoughts.
  6. that is exactly my question. I am not the expert on this issue. I thought that the LDS members here have heard about it, read about it, have had discussion about it, etc. and would be the appropriate people to ask about it. My initial thought though, were that apostasy was complete not partial. I look forward to learning about what is taught to LDS members. Dr. T I will answer with my opinion concerning apostasy. In general apostasy is a deviation from a prescribed or standard set of concepts. In this case we are speaking of religious truths. Anciently the concept of religion did not exist. The scriptures instead refer to a “path” or “way”. In reference to Jesus Christ the correct way I believe was comprised of several parts. Following is a list that may not be comprehensive: 1. Kingdom = A organization based on the ancient concept of kingdoms and not modern ideas of social structures. 2. Ordinances = Prescribed methods of initiating and binding standard covenants, commandments, doctrines, relationships, duties and other such things. 3. Rituals = Defined methodologies of standard religious behaviors. 4. Authority = Comes from Kingdom structures and who is authorized to act in proxy for G-d within his kingdom. Must be given and not taken or assumed. 5. Doctrine = The basis of belief. In Matt starting in chapter 5-7 a summery of several stages of apostasy are summarized by Christ. Example, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” He also defines “wolfs” in sheep clothing intending to destroy the flock. As to the great Apostasy the Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS rely on what Jesus told Joseph Smith concerning churches and why he was not to join any that existed at that time. There were three main categorizes: First: Ordinances had been altered Second: Doctrines had been miss-interpreted Third: The creeds were an abomination (falsely claimed to be G-d’s will) In relationship to the First: We have experienced an “evolution” of sacred ordinances such as baptism and the breaking of bread according to the last supper In relationship to the Second: We now have historical evidence (Dead Sea Scrolls and historians like Josephis) that there was an effort beginning as early as 74 AD. To modify scriptures and doctrine concepts for both Jews and Christians. In relationship to the Third: The use of creeds were not used among the Jews or Christians until the introduction of paganism in Christianity by the influence and force of the pagan Roman Empire. What then followed has become classically known by students of history as the “Dark Ages”. This is a short summery - Hope you get the idea. The Traveler Ordinances continue to be altered...take into consideration that administration of the sacrament has changed as well as the ordinance of baptism for health was taken away.
  7. Sure, I'll play along. Die Prinzen Pink Floyd Testament Fatboy Slim Cornelio Reyna Waylon Jennings Hank Williams, Jr. Digital Undergorund Erasure Depeche Mode Poison Primus Kingston Trio Paul Simon Cypress Hill Elton John Boney M That is just some. I don't really have more of one genre of music than another.
  8. So, if he sleeps with someone NOT espoused to him.... what then? Does that free the virgins who were espoused to him to marry another? Kind of cruel to me that the female could stay true to her vows and then go to another man when her marriage was defiled by a cheating husband and DESTROYED? sheeeesh You have to look at the context in which this scripture was given. I recognize it from D&C 132, the very section that described the law of Celestial Plural Marriage (CPM). Yes, on the surface, it does seem unfair. But then you have to ask yourself the following questions: How did people marry originally? By consummation. Nowhere in the scriptures is there any mention of a big wedding ceremony or elaborate vows being spoken. In fact, Abraham and Jacob were told by their wives to sleep with their handmaidens to raise up children. See D&C 132:34. By virtue of the fact that they slept with them, that very act raised them to the status of wives. Now, if a man goes and sleeps with another woman who is already espoused, yes that spells adultery and also spells bigtime trouble. That would also explain the injunction that Moses gave regarding a man who rapes a virgin...she becomes his spouse, and he cannot put her away ever (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). On top of that, for humbling her, as the scriptures put it, he had to be fined 50 shekels of silver. How much is that? Well, the only record we have of its weight was during the Intertestamental period. 50 shekels was around 750 grams, which is about 1.67 lbs of silver (avoirdupois). That is a good bit of silver to pay. Why the inequality? Inequality is a relative term. Granted, it does not seem fair that the man can have other women and the woman has to stay true to the man. However, you have to step back and look at the big picture. What was the law of CPM? I do not mean this in a rude or dour way, but it would help to read all of Section 132 and then couple it with the understanding of the Old Testament. Once a man and a woman consummate, they are husband and wife. Furthermore, there are injunctions against the husband as well. He has to treat all of his wives and children equally (Deuteronomy 21:15-17). He also has the obligation of providing for all within his household, otherwise he is worse off than an infidel (I Timothy 5:8). It is a simple matter, really. The husband has to learn to judge equally and fairly, as well as provide for his own children. If we expect to become like our Heavenly Father, we will have to learn to do the same exact thing here on earth.
  9. I agree, issues like virginity are still important... should be important for both male and female. However, I think that so many cultures hold the male unacountable when it comes to being chaste. That is what I have a hard time with.... why should a female be looked down upon when the male commits the same sin? I can appreciate those countries where the male is held just as accountable for his actions..... kudos to them! If more countries followed suit... rape and unwed pregnancy would drop dramaticallyIt bothers me that now-a-days love has been thrown out of the act of giving of oneself to another..... it's so what's the word... desensitized? I could not agree with you more, and I am a male, for what it is worth. It is easy for a man to conceal the fact that he is unchaste. Nothing really happens to him. A female, well, that is a bit different. They can become pregnant, but a male...nothing. Is it fair? No. I agree that a male should be looked down upon for being unchaste. Giving oneself to another is the highest form of love that there is. In fact, in ancient times, the way to marry was through consummating the marriage. That was it. Of course, later, people started to stand on ceremony...some of then to the point of hedonistic extravagance. I am going to "quit while I am ahead", because I have more thoughts on this, but I do not want to derail the thread.
  10. I have a lot of free time because I do not sleep very much at night and I work in the afternoons, lol. Yes, I admit, I am one of those that does very well on 4-5 hours of sleep. Besides, I could think of much more to do with those 8 hours than just lie. I'll sleep well when I am dead, lol. I promised that I would give examples of the Bible mistranslations and contradictions. Now, the teachings of the Bible I do not call into question. However, those that argue the standpoint of Biblical inerrancy go far beyond that, they argue that the Bible is also accurate as a text. I have already stated that there are books to which the Bible refers, but are not present. There is a list of them in the LDS KJV of the Bible. a. Book of the wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14) b. Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13, II Samuel 1:18) Some argue that the present book has been found, others say that it is not the same book. It can be found online. Judge for yourself. c. Book of the acts of Solomon (I Kings 11:41) d. Book of Samuel the seer (I Chronicles 29:29) e. Book of Gad the seer (I Chronicles 29:29) f. Book of Nathan the prophet (I Chronicles 29:29, II Chronicles 9:29) g. Prophecy of Ahijah (II Chronicles 9:29) h. Visions of Iddo the seer (II Chronicles 9:29, 12:15, 13:22) i. Book of Shemaiah (II Chronicles 12:15) j. Book of Jehu (II Chronicles 20:34) k. Sayings of the seers (II Chronicles 33:19) l. An earlier epistle to the Corinthians (earlier than I Corinthians) (I Corinthians 5:9) m. A possible earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians 3:3) n. An epistle to the church at Laodicea (Colossians 4:16) o. Prophecies of Enoch that were known to Jude (Jude 1:14). There is some dispute that the Pseudepigraphal books of I and II Enoch fit this category. 15 books. Over half the size of the New Testament. Now, how could a perfectly infallible text have gaping references like text? Or is it that the bible was once an infallible text, but isn't now? The Biblical inerrancy camp would not concede to either of these points. The common argument is that we have all that we need for our salvation, but that is not our decision to make. There are a few contradictions in the Bible. Acts 9:7 says that there was a voice but no man. And yet, the same story is recounted in Acts 22:9. Those same men saw a light, but heard no voice. Others can be found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). What hour did the crucifixion take place? Matthew 27:45--"Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour" Mark 15:25--"And it was the third hour, and they crucified him" Luke 23:44--"And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour" John 19:13-14--"When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement , but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! We have two accounts that put darkness at the sixth hour, one that says he was crucified at the thrid hour, and John says that at the sixth hour, Pilate was still addressing the crowd with Christ present Also contradictory are the exact wording of the title written over the cross (Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:19) and the account of the two thieves crucified beside Christ (see Matthew 27:43-44 and Luke 23:39-43). Matthew 27:9 points to a prophecy made by Jeremy the prophet. If Jeremy is the same as Jeremiah as most would claim, then that prophecy is not in that book. It is actually found in Zechariah 11:13. Either Matthew got it wrong, or there is a prophecy that is not located in the Bible. Matthew 27:5 says that Judas [iscariot] hanged himself. However, Acts 1:18 says that is was a fall that killed him. Oddly enough, in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, it seems that the large majority of the manuscripts leaves out John 5:4, as does the Vulgate version. Yet it is still there. In II Kings 2:23-24, we read of two she-bears that came out of the woods and slew 42 children. Were they children? The Hebrew from verse 23 uses the word ne'arim, which means a young man, probably an adolescent. From verse 24, they are referred to as yeladim, which means a young boy, probably the age of a schoolkid. So, which was it? Looking at the verse strictly in the English text, one would think that God punishes little children with terrible punishments, but that is not the case, especially when one does not realize the full extent of one's sin. Personally, I take the point of view that it was a group of youths that were being a bit rowdy with Elisha, and they got torn apart. However, the text itself is very unclear. I am also sure that many have taken issue with the actual translation of Elohim, meaning "Gods". Even with the Documentary Hypothesis, and seeing as how many say that they are monotheists, it makes me wonder. Why is the plural form used? Is Jesus also part of Elohim? I think so. But then, the dual form isn't used either. So where is the third or other elements? My answer may serve as Occam's razor on ths one we worship one God, but that does not negate the existence of many gods. If the Bible meant only one God, it sure has a funny way of expressing it. I am sure some of these points are well-known, but it seems that Biblical inerrantists do not pay them much attnetion.
  11. Jason, as usual, you conveniently ignore things in your haste to make a reply, dropping arguments here and there. Here is one example: Wow. You actually walked into a Catholic Church once? Amazing. You're way smarter than me. If I were a lawyer, I would actually object, for assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many times I have been to a Roman Catholic church, cathedral, rectory, or mission. I could also easily look at the quote that you have provided such as: I studied Roman Catholicism two years ago. That discussion let me into a discussion with a Priest and a highly respected Layman. You mean you had a discussion once? Or maybe twice? I won't to assume, but suffice it to say, that yor own logic would damage you at this point. Second, don't whine to me about attacks on your person. In fact, wasn't it you that said that I needed to brush up on my Latin? Then I called you on it, because you couldn't distinguish between the two? What's worse, now you say that you weren't sure. Well, if you're not sure of what they said in one facet, then how can you be sure of what they said in another? Third, I asked you which theologians you cited. "Everyone in the New Advent". Yes, I am familiar with the New Advent, and yes, I have used it on a goodly number of occasions. Big deal. Usually, if you are going to quote something, you give references, including name, page number, date, and publisher, if they are available. Besides, New Advent is about as official as Mormon Doctrine. New Advent is a good reference tool for Roman Catholicism, nothing more, nothing less. I won't go into how the Cathecism compares, but suffice it to say, it has a much higher standing. That was where the quotes came...and still no objections. Ah well, no objections, no problem. Fourth, polygamy is not the issue we are dealing with. Technically, neither is the Virgin Mary, for that matter, since this thread deals with the Biblical errancy. Just for the record, yes, polygamy is an LDS issue. Whether or not the powers that be in Salt Lake choose to deal with or sweep it under the rug, that is their decision...and that is for another thread altogether. It doesn't make anyone less of a Latter-Day Saint if one chooses to follow that doctrine, because the mainstream (or Corporate) LDS church in Salt Lake City is not the end-all, be-all of Mormonism. I didn't really come here to propagate the doctrine of plural marriage, as there is a lot more to fundamentalism than that, and I am confident that you know that already. So, I'll just label this a red herring and let it swim back upstream. If you want to start a seperate thread that deals with that very issue and its basis, or lack thereof, proszę bardzo (go ahead). Fifth, I know what you said and I know what I read. The Wikipedia article and the things you say are a very close parallel. Draw whatever conclusions you desire. Sixth. Prayers that are directed to Heavenly Father are not said "Hail, Mary", or "Ave, Maria". Could it be that Mary was, in fact, deified? Now, this may be pure speculation, but I have reasons to think that the early Christian Church did just that. The Roman Emperor was looked upon as a God, and that is common knowledge. However, Jason, for your amusement (yes, I am actually thinking that you may fnd this amusing, considering the history of the world after this), I am providing you with a letter from Pliny the Elder to Trajan and Trajan's response. This is from The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage, pp.79-81 (Deseret Book, 1958 edition) (who cites another source, namely Milner. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PLINY AND TRAJAN. The inquiry of the younger Pliny, governor of Pontus, addressed to Trajan, emperor of Rome, and the imperial reply thereto, are of such interest as to be worthy of reproduction in full. The version here given is that of Milner as appears in his "History of the Church of Christ," edition of 1810, Cent. II, ch. 1. "Pliny to Trajan, Emperor:"Health—It is my usual custom, Sir, to refer all things, of which I harbor any doubts, to you. For who can better direct my judgment in its hesitation, or instruct my understanding in its ignorance? I never had the fortune to be present at any examination of Christians, before I came into this province. I am therefore at a loss to determine what is the usual object either of inquiry or of punishment, and to what length either of them is to be carried. It has also been with me a question very problematical,—whether any distinction should be made between young and the old, the tender and the robust;—whether any room should be given for repentance, or the guilt of Christianity once incurred is not to be expiated by the most unequivocal retraction;—whether the name itself, abstracted from any flagitiousness of conduct, or the crimes connected with the name, be the object of punishment. In the meantime, this has been my method, with respect to those who were brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians: if they pleaded guilty, I interrogated them twice afresh with a menace of capital punishment. In case of obstinate perseverence I ordered them to be executed. For of this I had no doubt, whatever was the nature of their religion, that a sudden and obstinate inflexibility called for the vengeance of the magistrate. Some were infected with the same madness, whom, on account of their privilege of citizenship, I reserved to be sent to Rome, to be referred to your tribunal. In the course of this business, informations pouring in, as is usual when they are encouraged, more cases occurred. An anonymous libel was exhibited, with a catalogue of names of persons, who yet declared that they were not Christians then, nor ever had been; and they repeated after me an invocation of the gods and of your image, which, for this purpose, I had ordered to be brought with the images of the deities. They performed sacred rites with wine and frankincense, and execrated Christ,—none of which things I am told a real Christian can ever be compelled to do. On this account I dismissed them. Others named by an informer, first affirmed, and then denied the charge of Christianity; declaring that they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so some three years ago, others even longer, some even twenty years ago. All of them worshiped your image, and the statues of the gods, and also execrated Christ. And this was the account which they gave of the nature of the religion they had once professed, whether it deserves the name of crime or error,—namely—that they were accustomed on a stated day to meet before daylight, and to repeat among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath, with an obligation of not committing any wickedness;—but on the contrary, of abstaining from thefts, robberies, and adulteries;—also of not violating their promise or denying a pledge;—after which it was their custom to separate, and to meet again at a promiscuous harmless meal, from which last practice they however desisted, after the publication of my edict, in which, agreeably to your orders, I forbade any societies of that sort. On which account I judged it the more necessary to inquire, by torture, from two females, who were said to be deaconesses, what is the real truth. But nothing could I collect except a depraved and excessive superstition. Deferring, therefore, any farther investigation, I determined to consult you. For the number of culprits is so great as to call for serious consultation. Many persons are informed against of every age and of both sexes; and more still will be in the same situation. The contagion of the superstition hath spread not only through cities, but even villages and the country. Not that I think it impossible to check and correct it. The success of my endeavors hitherto forbids such desponding thoughts; for the temples, once almost desolate, began to be frequented, and the sacred solemnities, which had long been intermitted, are now attended afresh; and the sacrificial victims are now sold everywhere, which once could scarcely find a purchaser. Whence I conclude that many might be reclaimed were the hope of impunity, on repentance, absolutely confirmed." The emperor's reply follows: "Trajan to Pliny:"You have done perfectly right, my dear Pliny, in the inquiry which you have made concerning Christians. For truly no one general rule can be laid down, which will apply to all cases. These people must not be sought after. If they are brought before you and convicted, let them be capitally punished, yet with this restriction that if any one renounce Christianity, and evidence his sincerity by supplicating our gods, however suspected he may be for the past, he shall obtain pardon for the future, on his repentance. But anonymous libels in no case ought to be attended to; for the precedent would be of the worst sort, and perfectly incongruous to the maxims of my government." "Ave, Imperator..." "Ave, Maria..." Gee..... Seventh, yes, I am quite aware that the thread was moved. I saw it this afternoon. That's fine. Now, getting back to the topic of the thread before we derailed it (and yes, that is an inclusive "we") No, the Bible is not infallible, it is not inerrant, and it is not the end-all, be-all of scripture. I'll divide this into two sections, personal beliefs and reasons for those beliefs, and you will see quotes and evidence in the second part. Yes, the Bible is scripture. Look up the etymology of the word scripture, and that is what it literally is...writing. Do I believe the Bible is textually infallible? No! Absolutely not! It isn't even complete because there are so many references to other books, books that are not had in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any other books that have been discovered to date. Other scriptures have been discovered. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, the Old and New Testament Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha...yes, I consider them all to be scripture in the literal sense. Now, as to whether all of them are true, some are and some aren't. Careful study can lead to which is true and which is not. Now, why do I deny Biblical infallibility? 1. When people make reference to the Bible, it is largely ambiguous. With or without the Apocrypha? Which version? (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, NKJV, Douay, Luther's Bible....which one?) And no, you cannot say that they are all the same, because the insertion or omission of a single word can change the meaning, so yes, each edition has its own slant and that slant may not be correct. 2. We do not have the original texts of the Bible to make such a statement (a.k.a Autographa). We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have the Nag Hammadi Library, we have other manuscripts and codices (such as the Codex Vaticanus) that can be studied. Try to find an original text from John, Luke, Moses, Malachi, or even Q (if you accept that hypothesis and if you actually believe that it is out there). I find it very two-faced when individuals demand to see the gold plates for the Book of Mormon, but yet, they can't provide any material evidence of manuscripts that come from the Bible. If material proof alone brought faith, I would become a Gnostic or an Essene (but don't ask me to becme a Docetist). 3. Take a collection of books and put them in order. Now, having no list, try and order them again after 50 years after everyone has been through your library several times. That's right....that is a hard task. I will address the mistranslations of the Bible in a later post, as well as other points, hopefully within a few hours.
  12. I am still right. That seems to be the whole thesis behind your argument. That is most assuredly an argumentum ad lapidem Sorry, this is not a college debate. You don't get the benefit of implementation by affirmative fiat here. First, you failed to address the passages that were taken straight from the Catechism, and not only that, you then choose to basically ignore the interpretation thereof by failure to offer up one of your own. Second, you failed miserably in correctly identifying which language went with which concept. Like I said I can't trust your ability to identify language, and if that is the case, then obviously, your interpretation is invalid. Third, the fact that you had mistaken the languages leads me to believe that you were absent-mindedly quoting an article...which I had found in Wikipedia under Virgin Mary. Fourth, prayers are addressed to Mary. Among them are Ave Maria, and Salve Regina, both of which I have in a copy of St. Joseph's Daily Missal. You say that all praise directed to them is also directed to God. I hardly consider the saints or the Virgin Mary as an extension of God that needs prayer. You might, some others might, but I don't. And even under the pretense that what you say is true, nowhere in any scriptures, ancient or modern, is there a clause that permits oration to Mary or any of the Saints, or any icons mentioning such. I actually walked into a Catholic church (actaully, this building was where the diocese was housed) in Łódź, Poland and asked about the Assupmtion of Mary. I had asked the same questions in Kraków and in Sosnowiec. It turns out that all three said the same thing...it was nothing more than tradition. "Nie ma nic takiego w Biblii, tylko to jest tradycyjna." (It doesn't exist in the Bible, it is only traditional.) So were the idolatries of Astarte (or Ishtar) as Baal.
  13. If you can't properly udentify Greek and Latin words, then you also cannot properly identify the sense in which they were used...so that whole argument is, at best, an argumentum ad lapidem. And just which theologians are you citing here? I also have supplied a goodly number of excerpts from the Roman Catholic Catechism to explain my point, so that also gets pulled across to our side. Monica, I appreciate the reference. I use Strong's (very common), as well as Gesenius' works and Thayer's. If you want a very concise reference grammar of Greek, use Smyth's. Allen and Greenough have a very excellent Latin grammar.
  14. I am also opposed to the United Negro College Fund, BET, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, etc., etc. I know for a fact that if I started a United White College Fund or White Entertainment Television, or worse yet, instead of the NAACP, how about the National Association for the Advancement of White People, people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and Kwesi Mfume would all have a conniption fit. What most people do not seem to understand, especially those outside the South looking in, is that racism was not as widespread as people think. Yes, you had Selma, Talladega, the students killed in Neshoba County, MS, and others. But let's be fair. Most of the riots occurred in places like L.A., Chicago, and Detroit. If you are going to measure racism using violence as a standard, the South would win that comparison hands down. Here is a philosopical question. What is racism? If, for example I refuse to serve non-English speaking customers, is that racism? If I am a cop and I catch an Arab doing 25 mph over the speed limit, is that profiling? It seems that the liberals have really been doing some backwards thinking on what constitutes racism and/or profiling. Equality means just that, equality. No affirmative action, no funding for minorities for college and businesses, no special considerations for minorities. Period. Ideally, that is how it should be, operative word being "ideally". I truly believe that as long as we have institutions that favor or cater to a particular race, such as NAACP, then yes, there will always be racism. That would put people like Jesse Jackson out of work, now wouldn't it? Much of what Dr. Martin Luther King said was on the money. Granted, his moral character left a bit to be desired, but the ideas he espoused as far as equality goes...those were on the mark.
  15. I hope that I may be of some help. I do speak German and I can also read and write it. Send me anything you need to have translated at my LDSTalk address (same as my name here). As far as Iowa goes, I don't know much about it, but perhaps I can help with linking. I ran into the same road block when I was doing work up in Ohio. Fortunately, the death certificates there listed the names of the parents of the deceased. With that information, I was able to link up some of the names in my family tree and find out more information. According to the information I have pulled up, official registration of births, marriages, and deaths began in Iowa on 1 July 1880. So, what you would need to do is find out which department keeps the vital records (vital records being birth, marraige and death certificates). It is usually done by the county health department. Find the county where he lived, contact the health department there, and obtain the information. If you knew where he died, you could also contact the health department there and ask for a copy of the death certificate. I used to work in a credit insurance bureau and I have had to view death certificates from several states in order to pay out benefits. Most, if not all, list the names of the parents on them. All you would need to know is where he died. If you knew when he died, that would help narrow thngs down a good bit. I hope this helps. Write to my LDSTalk mailbox if you have further questions.