Cal

Members
  • Posts

    1585
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cal

  1. Right on, Snow. And if history is any guide, all of our FIRST GOINGS will preceed Christ's SECOND COMING. Also, since christians have been wrong about the second coming for almost 2000 years, why should we think that, all of a sudden, someone has it right? And we Mormons already have our track record of getting it wrong, so I guess we have just joined the crowd.
  2. No, I’m saying that "Dr. T" is looking for outside confirmation of those things that Mormons would proclaim as undisputable facts. That such outside confirmation is wanting is what I’m trying to point out, in spite of your claims. Yeah, I know, but you’re also saying that “outside confirmation” must come from people who are and never will be members of the Church while knowing that the Church is true. Heh, which makes we wonder why you would choose to follow someone who knew the Church was true and then still didn’t choose to join it. And on a related point, it could be that you haven’t read the right kind of books, Jason, because I’ve found a lot of corroboration of facts from people “outside” the Church as well as in it, and the reason they didn’t choose to accept the church or the gospel and related issues was because they were still grappling with the traditions of men. And if you’re open to suggestion, I recommend that you read some books by Hugh Nibley, a proficient scholar and member of the Church who cites information from artifacts and documents found all over the world from the ancient past and these latter days. There's nothing scientific about prayer and warm-fuzzies. Heh, prayer is a type of communication, or a means to receive information from someone, namely God, so using communication to talk with God is just as “scientific” as using communication from anybody else. And just as you might have to wrestle with someone to grasp what they are trying to tell you, you might also have to wrestle with God until you are able to understand what He tells you, which at first you may only perceive to be those “warm-fuzzy” feelings you’re talking about until you learn to interpret them into your language. And btw, as any good “scientist” will tell you, it’s always better to go to the source of all good information instead of trusting those who say they are copying, which is why I recommend that you talk with God when you really want to know Him. Ray, I haven't found one good scientist that thinks that praying is the best way to discover the cure to cancer. People have been praying to have their diseases go away for millenia, and it wasn't until cold hard science discovered things like bacteria, virus and then things like penicillin that we made any significant inroads. Same thing applies to everything in this world. Praying for knowledge is just the lazy way out. First study, use science, do the research, then, if it makes you feel better pray. But its the former that will solve the problem, not the latter. History shows that when ever theology tries to "one up" science, theology always loses. So, ignore science at your peril.
  3. Why would you accept something you find objectionable? Do you think a just God is going to require you do do something that goes against your conscience? Has it ever dawned on you that maybe, just maybe, polygamy was just a "prophet speaking as a man", and not a prophet. It is one of the ways we get out of sticky theological conundrums in the Church.
  4. Ray, I don't think I mentioned the word "married", Mormons talk as though only Mormon families can be together in the hearafter. I want to know what scripture that is based on. I said nothing about being married. Or in other words, the idea that I will be married in heaven simply because I want to be, and the spouse I have also wants to be, does not mean that we will be married in heaven for no reason other than because we want to be. I agree, simply wanting something hardly guarantees anything. By the way, how do Mormons distinguish between their "wanting" and non-Mormon "wanting"?
  5. Cal

    Spanking

    I wish the Church would grow some, and just say, DON'T HIT YOUR KIDS, PERIOD. It doesn't seem to have a problem forbiding the use of alcohol, tobacco etc. Why is a little hitting ok, but a little coffee is not? They outright admitted that spanking is essentially usless as a disciplinary tool, so why condone it at all. Just so that the parents who continue aren't offended? I was offended each and everytime I was hit as a child. Any, and I mean any, value it had as a means of changing my behavior was completely overshadowed by the resentment and humiliation and loss of self esteem I experienced. I'm going to keep saying this until it sinks into somebody on here----DON'T HIT YOUR KIDS, EVER!!!!! Don't use the rantings of 2500 year old Psalmists or modern day traditionalist cloud your thinking. Keep your hands off your kids except in approval and nurturing. Hitting another is battery. Battery is illegal. At some point society is going to realize this and criminalize spanking, just like it has criminalized it in the case of adults. Being a parent should not be a licence to batter, even though, at present, it is.
  6. Cal

    Spanking

    I got spanked a lot when i was a kid. I dont abuse anyone. And I must also disagree about: "kids that get hit, learn to hit, not how to behave." I learned how to behave not how to hit when I got spanked. The last thing I wanted to do was do something wrong and get spanked for it, i hated it. Although your statement might be true for some kids. You say that you got spanked a lot, but don't abuse anyone. Do you spank YOUR kids? Then you do. The pattern is repeating. The problem with spanking is that it teaches the next generation to communicate with violence, rather than reason. Until we break the cycle, the next generation will be just as violent as we are.This stuff about "shocking" the kid into awareness with spanking is crap. Kids should be treated with the SAME dignity and respect that we want to be treated. No one has the right to hit kids, period. And yes, I do think it should be criminalized, just like any other form of battery is actionable at law. Ehh I was just interested in the parenting forum, thought id read a couple posts. Im only 17 so i dont have kids but I read what that person said and had to say something. I do believe spanking should be a last resort. If me spanking my kids means they will show respect as I did to my parents, and my kids spanking their kids makes them show respect like I did to my parents, so be it, let the cycle continue. You can call it violent and abusive all you want. The lord sometimes DESTORYS his children to humble those around them, why cant parents spank their children to humble them? Using the violent actions of ancient biblical peoples (where they used the name of God to justify their brutality) is hardly a good reason to justify the continuation of the same brutality. If the God you believe in condones the battery of children, then you and I don't believe in the same God. That verse adds to my belief that the the Isrealites were less than civilized. What ever happened to, "Perhaps he was speaking as a man, and not a prophet"--Mormons use that one all the time to explain away ridiculous things "prophets" have said. Quite often in these forums we'll reach a point of impass and agree to disagree. However, I sensed something more in Cal's quite radical position that ALL USE OF PHYSICAL DISCIPLINE AGAINST CHILDREN OF ALL AGES IS ABUSE. Cal would imprison me, and all of you who believe that spanking can be used as a last resort, or a rare discipline tool. We would all be labeled as abusers. Such a position is radical, because historically even adults have been subject to physical discipline in some circumstances. Children always have. While historical precedent does not always justify continuation (such as slavery), it does mean the burden of proof lies heavily upon those who would force all to comply to their notions of morality. To take a position currently held by less than 30% of parents and say, "Disagree, and we will jail you for abusing your child," betrays the very notion that parents are to raise children, not the state. The state is to intervene in extreme cases, where abuse is clear, and reasonable people agree. You're not even close to being there, Cal. I agree with your general idea that logic, love, reason, dignity are primary for children. But, there are occasions where the spank can be effectively used. Your stridency, inflexiblity, and willingness to force your radical notions on all through the force of law may end up harming children more than the totality of parents who use spanking as a rare discipline. Simply labeling a position invalid because it disagrees with what MOST people think flies in the face of history. Throughout history there have been times when MOST people approved of slavery and all sorts of other nonsense. As far as your objection to the state getting involved, I'm just willing to bet that you are totally in favor of the state getting involved when it supports the positions you agree with. Besides, the state is always involved when it comes to the mistreatment of children. It just hasn't decided, yet, that spanking is mistreatment. But then, in the first half of this century, the state didn't have many laws about ANY form of child abuse. It is simply a matter of public awareness and enlightenment. As you have pointed out, most people aren't there yet. But that doesn't mean they are right, and it doesn't mean they won't someday see the light. And the only way your kids will show respect to you is if you spank them? I think not. There are much better ways. And what are you talking about humbling your kids? Life is humbling enough! Do the world a favor and wait to have kids!!! Ditto, Shan And the only way your kids will show respect to you is if you spank them? I think not. There are much better ways. And what are you talking about humbling your kids? Life is humbling enough! Do the world a favor and wait to have kids!!! First of i NEVER said it was the only way. I do believe it should be used as a last resort. Life for a 4 year old....wow that must be the hardest time in your life. You dont get a cookie before dinner.... How can you say life is humbling enough for a child? And I will do the world a favor and wait. I am not saying that I know everything about parenting....I pretty much dont know anything about parenting. And by the looks of it neither do you. Since you admit you don't know anything about parenting, how is it that you can judge whether others do or don't? Great comment, Straw!
  7. Cal

    Spanking

    I got spanked a lot when i was a kid. I dont abuse anyone. And I must also disagree about: "kids that get hit, learn to hit, not how to behave." I learned how to behave not how to hit when I got spanked. The last thing I wanted to do was do something wrong and get spanked for it, i hated it. Although your statement might be true for some kids. You say that you got spanked a lot, but don't abuse anyone. Do you spank YOUR kids? Then you do. The pattern is repeating. The problem with spanking is that it teaches the next generation to communicate with violence, rather than reason. Until we break the cycle, the next generation will be just as violent as we are.This stuff about "shocking" the kid into awareness with spanking is crap. Kids should be treated with the SAME dignity and respect that we want to be treated. No one has the right to hit kids, period. And yes, I do think it should be criminalized, just like any other form of battery is actionable at law.
  8. Long before feminism became much of an issue in america (the 50's and early 60's) the Church did not support the GSA. Find another reason, please.
  9. My conclusion: Mormons take great pride and confidence in their stance that "families are forever." In a sense, much of the appeal of the faith rests on this notion. And, true to the first argument, faithful LDS adherents are unlikely to be moved by Protestant interpretations, no matter how plain and obvious they seem to us. On the other hand, those that wish to attract non-LDS to this teaching--perhaps as a bridge to faith in the Church and the LDS plan of salvation, will indeed need to convince reticent investigators that the Bible alone, at least more likely than not SUPPORTS (as opposed to merely not likely contradicts) eternal marriage. Since this thread is on the general topic of the Mormon doctrine of "families are forever", could someone point out to me any scripture that says that only Mormon families are forever? Not by inference, but plainly and unambiguously stated.
  10. Cal

    Spanking

    I found quite a few interesting and diverse viewpoints at beliefnet.com. This site is explores many spiritualities, and so counts as fairly objective. In the poll on spanking I found myself in the largest camp--47% believing spanking is best used as a last resort. The article I chose to highlight (those interested should explore the several articles--including some that argue against using it) is an explanation from a self-proclaimed liberal parent as to why she uses spanking as a rare option. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/70/story_7001_1.html I'm glad that you at least see spanking as a "last resort". However, give it a little further thought. If you haven't been able to solve the problem without spanking, what makes you thing hitting the kid is the answer? There is no point in trying to convince me that the Old Testament types have a single thing to say to me about human psychology or proper human behavior when they found ways to justify slavery, and killing kids that talked back to their parents. The impulse to kill kids that talk back is the same impulse that motivates spanking. None of it arises from consideration of what is good for the kid. Spanking is hitting, period. Hitting is abuse. Cloak it in any euphemisms you want, doesn't change the fact. As far as your answer to where you refered to the hitting that goes on it Singapore, all I have to say is: We don't live in Singapore, a country still emerging (culturally) from tribality. I hardly think we should try to justify hitting our kids because it is done to prisoners in Singapore.
  11. Cal

    Spanking

    While it may not work with your parenting style, to point-blank declare that it does not work, too quickly condemns what did indeed work for millenia. The Bible does not merely "condone" phsyical discipline--it calls for it. Is corporal punishment necessary for all parents in all situations? Of course not. On the other hand, to declare it 100% wrong is too strong, imho. I've never seen any research, nor have I even seen anecdotal evidence that spanking is superior to OTHERS forms of discipline. And given the down side, I still stand by my statement. The fact that the Bible calls for physical violence, only says to me that the Biblical people were uncivilized and naive to human psychology. And no, 100% wrong is not too strong. No human being has the moral right to intentionally inflict physical pain on another. PERIOD. That we try to justify it with ancient religious texts just says we can't think for ourselves on the subject. No, it teaches that if you are disobedient, rebellious, and not mindful of the law, there can be physicall painful consequences. Little ons get spanked, big ones go to prison. Since when do criminal who break the law get SPANKED. It is actually AGAINST THE LAW to physical abuse even prisoners? So why should it be ok to do it to our own kids?!!!!!!!!!! I would argue that spanking, properly done, can foster trust in adults, and teach children that physical restraint or punishment only happens in limited, properly governed circumstances. Since when did getting hit foster trust? All it fosters is resentment. I got hit as a kid, and all it did was make me resent the person who did it. I said to myself, "how dare you violate my right to my own body. What gives you the right to inflict your physical self on me?" When you can answer that question maybe I can agree with something you are saying. Again, do unto others.... The fact that some people say "Well, my dad hit me, and it didn't do me any harm" begs the question. Children are human beings with the right to their physical and emotional space and privacy. Spanking and hitting VIOLATES that. Ask yourself this, as an adult, would you let anyone hit or spank you? What makes you think that kids like it or can handle it any better. Spanking only satisfies the "needs" of an out-of-control, angry parent. It does the kid NO good, PERIOD, end of story, and nothing you have said yet convinces me otherwise. The Bible deals with slavery, it does not call for it. The Bible commands capital punishment, and it does call for the physical punishment of rebellious youth. We that take the words of Scripture as being from God will grapple with how to apply them in today's world, rather than dismiss them as "uncivilized." Sorry, but THAT part of the Bible is the kind of thing Brigham Young was probably talking about when he said that the Bible has the Word of God, the Word of Man and the Word of the Devil. The physical punishment and condoning of slavery are definitely the Word of the Devil, IMHO. I would contend, however, that corporeal punishment is best carried out only rarely, as way of saying to the child, "You've really crossed the line this time!" The simple fact that you conceed that it should only be used "rarely" implies that you recognize that there IS something wrong with hitting. If you can get things across without hitting, why use it at all? And if you can't, maybe you need to rethink your parenting skills. As you've seen from this thread, there are many here who find that they do just fine without it. That should tell you something. You know, this simple post explains just about everything I've ever wondered about you, my brother.
  12. Cal

    Spanking

    Your post has some really good ideas about parenting. I don't notice any one on this thread implying that spanking is the WORSE thing a parent can do. Obviously, as you pointed out, there are other poor parenting behaviors. However, just because the items you mentioned are examples of poor parenting, doesn't mean that parents are somehow vindicated in thinking that spanking is therefore OK. Actually, IMHO, they are both bad parenting. Spanking is just one of many poor parenting behaviors.
  13. Does that mean he just sits around doing nothing all day! Sorry, I just couldn't resist. By the way, for what it is worth, I've been using ice from ice machines for 30 years at least, and don't recall getting sick from any of them. Most bacteria are very host and tissue specific. That means that bacteria that will grow on, say, ice machine coils, probably can't live inside the human digestive track. So the chances of that kind of bacteria doing you any harm are pretty small.
  14. Cal

    Spanking

    Spanking is wrong on several levels. First, it doesn't work. Second, it teaches one thing: When you are frustrated with the behavior of another, physical agression is appropriate. Is that really the lesson we want the child to learn? I know the first to be true, because, I tried it. Very ineffective. Bottom line: kids that get hit, learn to hit, not how to behave. Kids only learn how to behave by seeing adults they respect behave well, and by feeling secure in their relationships with those adults. Spanking is just a euphamism for physical agression or hitting. Just because the Bible condones it doesn't make it right or true. After all, the Bible also condones slavery, capital punishment and a bunch of other uncivilized behaviors.
  15. I'm sorry to say I can think of a lot more categories than four. How about the "Non-caffinated alcoholics". I know one, actually he does drink a little coffee too, but says that since alcohol in small amounts helps preven athleroscrosis, he has a little drink now and then. He sites Brigham Young's brewry as justification. If it was good enough for Bro. Brig, it's good enough for me. How about the "I like everything in the Church, except the meetings" guy. Or the "I'm born Mormon and go to church, but if it weren't that my mother would disown me, I would be just as happy in any other church". I know one of those? How about the "I would really rather not be Bishop, but my wife would kill me if I resigned" guy. How about the "Native American's don't have Jewish DNA, but you think I'm about to tell the whole family about it?" Know one of those?
  16. Maybe it is POSSIBLE, but have you ever seen anyone do it over an extended period--say 10 years? In other words, stick to a diet, without OTHER major changes, like exercise and life activity?
  17. Right on! We all have to accept that the bacteria were here first and we just have to live with that. Again, even a small amount of almost ANY bacteria can't do you any harm, since it takes a critical minimum number of bacteria to get into you before they can multiply in sufficient numbers to take hold; otherwise your immune system just gobbles them up before they can do any multiplying. So I wouldn't even worry too much about the fecal bacteria in the air---just don't start drinking out of the toilet, if you can avoid it. Leave that to Rover.
  18. Have you ever noticed that when someone gets up and says they didn't prepare anything and are going to rely on the "spirit" to prompt them, within 5 minutes at least 10 people in the audience are snoring? I can't say I've ever heard a really good speech that wasn't obviously well thought out and organized. And I sure as heck never gave one that wasn't.
  19. I have to agree with the post warning y'all about distilled water. As a science teacher, I had my students do experiments where they place vegetables in distilled water. The vegetables become very ridgid because the cells fill up with water, as the electrolytes in the cells exit the cells into the low-electrolyte concentration around them. This can happen any time ANY cells are exposed to distilled water, including cells in your digestive tract, leading to a depletion of electrolytes in your body. Secondly, I hear a lot of myth-saying here. In most US cities, the tap water is perfectly fine to drink. The minerals in tap water are actually good for you. They include mostly Calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate and a very small amount of a few other minerals. The hysteria over bacteria, or chlorine or flourides in the water is mostly promoted by the botttled water interests, and I think you can figure out their motivation. Calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate are good for you, they are often taken as mineral supplements to diet. The small amounts of chlorides and flourides have never been proven to do any damage. And if you are worried that your water has dangerous levels of either bacteria or heavy metals, all you have to do is contact your the Water Authority in your area and they will be pleased to send you all the print outs of the water tests they do DAILY. This bottled water thing is really just a waste of money for most people. If you don't like the taste of your tap water, then just buy a cheap tap water filter. The taste is due to the small amount of chlorine used to kill bacteria, and some of the carbonate in the water, which are harmless. One other little tid bit---a lot of people think that since substantial amounts of say lead, mercury or other toxins are harmful, that therefore, ANY amount is harmful. It might sound logical, but its not true. Immunologists have done studies on the effect of very tiny amounts of toxins on living things, and they discovered something totally unexpected. Yes, substancial amounts can damage cells, trigger cancer genes etc. HOWEVER, in tiny amounts, the only effect of most of them is to stimulate the immune system against the effects of a later exposure to the large dose. This is akin to the way the body reacts to vaccines. An exposure to an inert or very small amount of the disease causing agent actually helps immunize you against the larger exposure. So, it is not surprising that even though tap water may contain trace amounts of a lot of things, none of it is likely to do you any harm, and may even be doing you good. Remember, you can always check the status of our water supply since the Water authority is a public agency and must provide you with a water report if you ask for it.
  20. The reason low fat diets, per se, don't lower the incidence of these diseases is because low fat "diets" don't work, if dieting is the only thing you are doing. Nobody I have ever met has been able to sustain (without other changes in their lifestyle) a "low fat" diet, or any other "diet" by itself. It's just to easy to lapse into old familiar habits of eating. What CAN work is a total lifestyle change--including exercise, getting out from infront of the TV and taking up active hobbies or sports (golf, tennis, jogging, walking) and generally leading a physically active life. You can't expect to just sit around watching TV or blogging on the computer all day, and think that your are going to be able to sustain a "low fat" diet. Those two lifestyles are mutually exclusive. Personally, I find that when I jog three times a week, play golf a couple of times a week and work out with weights 3 times a week, I have no trouble ALSO keeping a healthy diet--activity motivates activity. When I sustain my activity level, I also have the motivation to eat more healthy. So, just deciding to go on a low fat, or any other kind of diet, won't work to make you any healthier, by itself. It takes a total lifestyle adjustment. (By the way, a healthy diet, does include a lower fat intake than most people get. Most people who eat too much fat, also eat too much carbohydrate and protein too. And the foods they eat to get this out-of-balance diet are things like hamburgers, hot dogs, fried foods (french fries, deep fried burritos etc). The typical american diet is way too heavy on protein, carbs and fats, and way short on fiber, vitamins and minerals. The average person needs only the equivalent of about a can of tuna worth of protein per day. Contrast that with the typical american diet: Breakfast: Coffee, donut and scrambled eggs. (with the scrambled eggs you may have got all the protein you need for the day. Lunch: Hamburger, fries and a coke. Dinner: A steak, mashed potatoes and maybe some bit of vegetable or salad (with enough fatty dressing to drown a horse). Ever had a daily diet resemebling that? Analyzed carefully, it is loaded with oxidized fat (heated fat is full of free radicals that cause all kinds of havok--leading to athleroscrerosis and implicated in cancers of various kinds); it is way heavy on carbs, and about twice the protein you need (which also is converted to sugars and fats eventually). Anyone that tries to convince you that a diet high in the wrong kind of fats (heated fat or animal fat of any kind) is feeding one a load of you-know-what. The only kind of fat that is actually healthy are Omega 3 fatty acids (found in fish and some vegetables)--this fat can still make you "fat", but it won't clog your arteries, in fact, it has the effect of unclogging them, as well as doing good for your nervous system.
  21. Move more, eat less is radical? According to every study on diet and exercize I have every seen, this is basic to good health, especially in reducing the chances of diebetes, heart disease and yes, cancer. Nothing is going to guarantee that people don't get these diseases, but less fat, more fresh fruit and vegetables and exercise reduce the incidence of these diseases, no question about it from everything I've read.
  22. Well, considering the fact that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, that was a long time to be without rain. I quess the dinosaurs just roamed around in a mist, and the erosion of the North American eastern mountain ranges took place without the benefit of rain. That must be why it has taken about 100 million years for the Appalacians (sp) to wear down from what looked much more like our present day Sierra Nevadas. Actually, geologically, any speculation that there was no rain before about 4000 years ago is enough to make anyone with the least scientific education roll on the floor with laughter. Let's get real folks--Genesis may have something solid to say about the history of some nomadic pre-Hebrews, but is just a nice, quaint little folk tale when it comes to the geology of the earth. There is no way the earth was EVER covered with water in the way a literal reading of Genesis would suggest. A man named Noah may have built a boat to survive some local storm and flooding, making his "whole world" seem inundated, but that's it. The fact that BY and JT thought that such a flood was a literal reality shouldn't make us ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. After all, faith is based on reason, anything else is just credulity.
  23. Snow--angel wings have evolved on dead people, according to Darwinian principles of natural selection. You see, as angels have been making so many personal appearances lately, some of the truest of the true believers fail to recognize them as angels and stone them to death for a second time. However, by chance, some of the angels, way back in the dark ages did manage to sprout a few feathers at the suggestion of Catholic monks and in-house artists. You see, the Catholic priests were getting a lot of reports by the "masses", you know, the ones that have religion as an opiate, that they were seeing "dead people". But the priests thought that it would sound a lot better if they were saying " We see dead birds". So the priests and monks decided that angels should have wings.As the wingless variety died out, the feathered angels reproduced prodigiously, and so now, most of the angels are of the feathered type. Even some of the feathered ones are occasionally mistaken for flying geese, and are shot out of the air by Ted Nugent and his friends in Michigan.