Cal

You may look at it that way if you wish. The LDS missionaries have a message. That message is centered around what we understand is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We do not teach our view of Catholic doctrine, or Baptist doctrine, or anything else - just our doctrine. I have studied many faiths and had long conversations but you will never see me post trying to tell anyone what Catholics, Baptist, Hindu or anyone else believes. In fact there is much they believe that I believe as well. You will not see my try to set a doctrinal trap. I am LDS and that is the gospel I believe. If you do not believe as I do that is fine. If you want to tell me what you believe that is fine to. I love to share beliefs. But I do not believe the Anti-Christ have a live and let live attitude. For example I think they will try to get into our general conference and shout something during sustaining. I think they will try to prevent the building of our temples. I think they will come to SLC to the Main Street Plaza and try to ruin someone's wedding day. That is different that just belonging to a different religion. But I do not like someone trying to tell me what I believe. Nor am I that interested in what others believe that hides their beliefs. If you have something better then put your beliefs on the table if not that is whay I think you would hide it. For example I think there is a lot of evidence to support the Book of Mormon and I do not mind sharing it. But if some says that it does not prove the Book of Mormon to them. That is fine with me - until they use similar kinds of evidence to support something they say they believe. Then I realize I am not talking to someone that is honest with themself. I am not sure if you believe in the “last days” or not. I do not know if you believe that there is followers of the Anti-Christ among the Christians (wolfs in sheep clothing). In fact for all your post that I have read I am not sure what you believe (this topic included) – I think I have a good idea what you do not believe but then I am not sure. I am quite sure you do not comprehend my posts, especially on this subject. I am not sure if you know what you believe. Sometimes I think we could learn from each other but other times I am not sure that would be desirable. The Traveler I'm still trying to get a handle on just what an anti-christ is supposed to be. You seem to change the definition with each post. This last post makes it sound like you think an anti-christ is someone who annoys you--tells you what your religion teaches or doesn't teach, or someone that is rude and obnoxious--interupting meetings or weddings. Sounds like the anti-christ is really just an anti-social.

What distinguishes a "spiritual" high from any other kind of high?

You missed my point. Again! No surprise. In your first posting you expressed ZERO disapproval of the treatment of prisoners. After I called you on it you caught yourself and admitted it was bad. But that wasn't your first reaction. Do I equate prisoner mistreatment with genocide? Get a life. Cal, Are you a professionally trained pufftah? You certainly have the inclination and training for it. Far from missing your rudimentary point, I got it immediately and you are a far far left liberal puppet performs on cue. Just because I don't cry like a stuck liberal pig about evil American brutality in every single post I make, doesn't mean I have expressed concern for the abuses in prior thread. This post wasn't about the abuse, this thread was about the inability of certain types to think clearly and put things in perspective and you like a liberal puppet did you liberal jig just like the doctor ordered. --Must have really struck a nerve again, huh, with all the epithets and name calling--stuck pig, pufftah ?, liberal puppet, liberal jig. BTW, never heard of a pufftah. I guess it is supposed to offend me, but nothing does any more, so you will have to try harder.

Please give the legal citation for the case you are refering to.

A little research will reveal that people in all religions experience "spiritual highs". They also report that such highs reinforce their belief in their religion. Does experiencing a spiritual high give evidence that one is in the only true religion? If so, there must be a lot of "only true" religions out there. Personally, one of the biggest spiritual highs I experienced was when I saw the movie "Ghandi". I'm not sure why, but I did. I also have experienced them in church, at football games and when I heard the star spangled banner sung by Whitney Houston. (I wonder if she has a church?)

The Traveler Well, I guess it won't happen in the United State or Europe since the majority of us are Christians. You missed the point - the Ancient Anti-Christ were all Hebrews and of the house of Israel and claimed be be under covenant with G-d. A modern day Pharisee will be connected to "traditional Christianity" in the same manner ancient Anti-Christ (Scribes and Pharisees) were conected to the traditions of "Israel". But just being a scribe or Pharisee did not make them Anti-Christ. There was more to it. Trav--isn't that what mormon missionaries try to do everyday? Are we the Anti-Christ? Actually, I think you could say that we are the most successful at disrupting the faith of others, we manage to convert thousands of people every year. How is the faith they once had not disrupted? Faith in mormonism is a heck of a lot different than faith in most other religions, even in mainstream Christian religion.

Have you not seen the reports of these people being tried for their crimes? Last I heard even Lyndie England (with a newborn baby) was looking at a maximum of 38 years in prison. One soldier already got eight years in prison and a dishonorable discharge; the Army is hardly letting them get away with it. I didn't say the soldiers were getting away with anything. I was paraphasing and disagreeing with what I thought I heard Traveler saying.

Absolutely. American soldiers are to be held to a higher standard than Arab soldiers, because American civilization is better than Arab civilization. Where much is given, much is expected. Holding someone to a higher standard than another is a measure of respect -- up to a point. (There's that phrase again!) But when you hold someone to such a high standard that it's virtually impossible to meet (i.e., the Iraq campaign must be completely free from any abuses at all if it's not to lose its moral authority), then it's not a mark of respect -- it's a mark that you're not criticizing in good faith. And that's my other peeve about the Abu Ghraib coverage. I get the impression that many, if not most, of the biggest critics of it are people who opposed the Iraq war in the first place. The Abu Ghraib abuses gave them support for their position, and they're using it. Again, it makes me question whether they would offer the same criticism if it didn't give them a perceived political advantage. UN peacekeepers have been found to have raped 13-year-old refugee girls in camps they were supposed to be guarding, in Sudan, Congo and elsewhere. Nobody gives a damn, because, I suspect, there isn't a slam-George-Bush angle to the story. (Also, because in the minds of many, the UN can do no wrong.) There was all kinds of nastiness in World War II, including murders by American troops of German prisoners on multiple occasions. (SS prison guards who tried to surrender as concentration camps were liberated generally got no mercy.) That didn't stop Tom Brokaw from writing "The Greatest Generation." If you actually knew some servicemen well, I suspect you wouldn't be so cavalier about how seriously they take stains on its honor like Abu Ghraib. Several large books are being thrown at the guilty parties. Finally, I think people who harp on the Abu Ghraib affair more than is necessary to ensure that the guilty get punished ought to consider whether, by making the abuses seem worse than they are (which was bad enough), they are enabling propaganda campaigns by enemies of their country. PD, If you are implying that is my position, it is not. I also do not disagree that many who were against the invasion of Iraq in the first place would use any excuse to find fault with it. However, if Liberals are guilty of making too much of the abuses, then lets agree that the Conservatives are just as likely to make to little of them, and leave it at that. No one disagrees, I hope, that 1) some abuses are worse than others and 2) no wrongful abuse should go overlooked.

Sorry to disillusion you, but NOTHING works for everyone, not even the Church itself.However, the BSA has a lot to offer kids that would otherwise just be kicking around. I learned a lot about being a team member and overcoming adversity. We did a lot of hiking, camping. Most likely I would never had done those things otherwise. Kids need role models, especially young boys. Not all Scout masters are good role models, but many are, and a lot of good is done. Having said that, I know that kids can suffer a lot of abuse at the hands of other kids and even clueless scout masters. As a parent, I would make sure the scout master is the kind of person I would want my son to look up to.

The problem I have with imbueing God with the power to intervene is that it raises the question, "upon what basis does he intervene?", and if he can chose when to intervene, real world observation makes it look like he is dramatically arbitrary and capricious. At least, it looks like he is cruel and uncaring, if he can intervene, and doesn't. I don't pretend to know anything different that what you have said, I just can't seem to find a way to allow God ANY power over nature, without then making him liable for the all of it. Put another way, can a God who has told us to be merciful with eachother set an example of such NON-MERCY with regard to human suffering? The only way he can be exonerated, so to speak, is if he has no power to prevent it.

So, let me summarize your statement: Don't hold our soldiers to such a high standard, after all they were not very good soldiers? Let's not try them in civil courts, lets let the military deal with them? ( Sounds like the wolf guarding the hen-house to me) . And, war is hell, so don't worry about war crimes?

The analogy of the speeding ticket falls short. You have chosen an example that clearly no one cares much about--speeding tickets for going at a relatively slow speed. The inhumane treatment of POWs by american soldiers is a BIG deal by ANY measure.When you reference an atrocity like that commited by the american soldiers by saying "Saddam did worse" is a joke. I would think we hold our soldiers to a little higher standard than Saddam----and far higher than apparently we did in this case. It's like saying, don't be so mad at me for pushing down a little old lady, Hitler killed lots of little old ladies. What a ridiculous comparison. Pushing down little old ladies is bad period. No need to point out that someone else has done worse.

You missed my point. Again! No surprise. In your first posting you expressed ZERO disapproval of the treatment of prisoners. After I called you on it you caught yourself and admitted it was bad. But that wasn't your first reaction.Do I equate prisoner mistreatment with genocide? Get a life.

I love you Winnie! You are so COOL! LOL

Bigot. Are you implying there is something wrong with the government telling its people how to SAFELY cross the border and how to deal with the border police. Do you have a problem with safety? And what does it tell them to do with the police that you find so objectionable? It sounds like to me you just don't like a whole group of people called Mexicans. And that, my friend, makes you a bigot. You are so far down the path of unreasonable that I don't find it worth answering anymore. So you don't deny disliking Mexicans?

Bigot. Are you implying there is something wrong with the government telling its people how to SAFELY cross the border and how to deal with the border police. Do you have a problem with safety? And what does it tell them to do with the police that you find so objectionable? It sounds like to me you just don't like a whole group of people called Mexicans. And that, my friend, makes you a bigot. I resent your ignorance on this matter. You would have us be over run, giving up our own land to aliens without a word or be called a bigot. I guess it is a good thing you are a pion and not someone with real power. We are as good as slaves now for them because we are paying for all of their education and other benefits. We are also losing our children's futures to them. Just move over kids. Forget getting anything we had, it is already taken by the aliens. Now don't cry or moan or that will make you a bigot. Yeah right! Lack of facts, lack of knowledge of history. You don't seem to mind that your food is cheap and you don't seem to bother acknowledging that, while you think we are being "overun", our ancesters didn't seem to mind "overunning" the mexicans who are already here in California, and claiming California for its own. By the way, do you know the definition of bigot? It is the resentment of a whole class of people simply on the basis that they belong to a culture different than yours. Sound familiar. I don't hear you complaining about illegal Canadian immigration--it's not as evident, I wonder why? You are so full of it your eyes are brown! You totally are off by calling me a bigot according to your own difinition. Go you cold, huh? Can't think of a single rational reply.

My point exactly--you pay no attention to it.

My answer: So what? What is your point? What benefits are you talking about? What are they not paying for THAT THEY CAN AFFORD? And SO WHAT that the legals treatt the illegals badly--is that some sort of justification for YOUR doing so? Maybe if they got paid a decent wage they could afford our auto insurance. Remember that the status of being illegal carries a connotation of some sort of moral failing on their part. In reality, it is simply the ethnocentrism of americans that wants to look down on others, especially if they are less fortunate than oneself. Where do you get off claiming that I am treating the illegals badly? Get off your high horse, bucko. You have no idea how I treat them. As for your other complaint, the fact is, that it is a law to have a minimum insurance on any vehicle driven in my state on public roads. Period. If the illegals want to be a viable part of America, they need to start by not breaking the laws here. If they cannot afford to drive legally on our roads, then they need to find another mode of transportation that they can use legally. The moral failing they show is that they refuse to obey the laws of the land they chose to come to. Besides that, by and large, they don't pay income taxes since they are undocumented workers. That leaves the legal residents with the burden of paying for the illegal ones. They place a burden on our public services without making any meaningful contribution to the funding of those services. That is a problem. Where did I say YOU treat illegals badly? You are the one that claimed that legal immigrants treat illegals badly--I simply said that is no reason for anyone else to. I didn't say that you, personally, did, Bucko!

I say, measure their right to be here with a more generous measure. After all, the native inhabitants fought my ancestors tooth and nail to deny them the right to live here. Try immigrating illegally to Mexico, or applying for public assistance there, and see if Mexico's lack of "American ethnocentrism" makes any difference. We are far more generous to Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise, than Mexico itself is to people wanting to live there. The ultimate fact is that Americans have decided that they don't want unlimited immigration, and have enacted laws setting limits (at fantastically high levels, incidentally.) If you think those limits ought not to exist, you ought to advocate that those laws be changed -- not just lambaste as "bigots" anyone who actually wants to enforce them. Did I say I was "universally" correct. I was making a generalization which obviously has its exceptions. I don't really care about the exceptions. There are those on this thread that would paint the mexican immigrants with a broad brush of indolence. That is what I object to.Importing? They are mostly here voluntarily. I they can find a better life here, why not? Our ancesters did. Of course it is, NOW. Try tripling or quadurpling that cost to get other americans to do it and see how cheap a head of lettuce would be. And lettuce is only one product. Also, when you chose the harvesting end of the spectrum, you limit yourself to the end where the labor is arguably the lesser cost. As you go from there to transportation, processing, distribution and delivery the labor costs spiral upward. First, that is a mixed bag at best. Many of the natives americans were happy to coexist until our ancesters broke treaties left and right. Our attitude of treating native americans like savages with disrespect and contempt lead to the problems. Had we acted like the Christians we were supposed to be, the outcome may have been drastically different for the native americans.Second, does one wrong justify a second? If we are, why shouldn't we be? Beside, the point isn't which country is the most humanitarian, it is that we should decide for ourselves what kind of country WE are. One thing for sure, we ARE a country of immigrants. Why should we stop acting like it. In closing ,, I find it interestingly coincidental that those that MOST want immigration laws enforced also express, whether obviously or between the lines, a prejudice and fear of other cultures, reflected in an almost preoccupation with mexican immigration. I WOULD like to see the immigration laws with regard to mexican immigration changed to reflect REALITY. Mexican immigration has several characteristic not shared by other groups. First, this is and was for a long time, THEIR country. We kicked them out. Second, many mexicans have relatives in this country since the mexican-american war or earlier. They have a deep connection to the american southwest. Third, as I said before, and you didn't disagree, most mexican immigrants come here to be with family and to work. Yes, the US is a better place to live. And it becomes even BETTER with mexicans here. If you disagree that mexicans are not a nice people to be around, then you had better examin your sense of humanity. Remember this, most immigrant groups coming to this country struggle to become successful. Immigrant Italians struggled, immigrant Pols struggled. But, thanks to the generosity of the american system, they EVENTUALLY became a productive part of society. Mexicans are doing the same thing. I get a lot of children of mexican immigrants who now graduate from high school, where their parents didn't, but just worked hard, and these kids are going to college, getting good jobs and paying the taxes you so mournfully wish they would. It is a process, one that has gone on in America from the beginning. If it were so damaging to the economy, then, by now, we should hardly have one. History speaks for itself.

Bigot. Are you implying there is something wrong with the government telling its people how to SAFELY cross the border and how to deal with the border police. Do you have a problem with safety? And what does it tell them to do with the police that you find so objectionable? It sounds like to me you just don't like a whole group of people called Mexicans. And that, my friend, makes you a bigot. I resent your ignorance on this matter. You would have us be over run, giving up our own land to aliens without a word or be called a bigot. I guess it is a good thing you are a pion and not someone with real power. We are as good as slaves now for them because we are paying for all of their education and other benefits. We are also losing our children's futures to them. Just move over kids. Forget getting anything we had, it is already taken by the aliens. Now don't cry or moan or that will make you a bigot. Yeah right! Also, can you be more specific about why your future is being LOST? As I see it, if your children's future is being lost, it is your fault, not mexican. You sound like Hitler, blaming the problems of Germany on the Jews.

Bigot. Are you implying there is something wrong with the government telling its people how to SAFELY cross the border and how to deal with the border police. Do you have a problem with safety? And what does it tell them to do with the police that you find so objectionable? It sounds like to me you just don't like a whole group of people called Mexicans. And that, my friend, makes you a bigot. I resent your ignorance on this matter. You would have us be over run, giving up our own land to aliens without a word or be called a bigot. I guess it is a good thing you are a pion and not someone with real power. We are as good as slaves now for them because we are paying for all of their education and other benefits. We are also losing our children's futures to them. Just move over kids. Forget getting anything we had, it is already taken by the aliens. Now don't cry or moan or that will make you a bigot. Yeah right! Lack of facts, lack of knowledge of history. You don't seem to mind that your food is cheap and you don't seem to bother acknowledging that, while you think we are being "overun", our ancesters didn't seem to mind "overunning" the mexicans who are already here in California, and claiming California for its own. By the way, do you know the definition of bigot? It is the resentment of a whole class of people simply on the basis that they belong to a culture different than yours. Sound familiar. I don't hear you complaining about illegal Canadian immigration--it's not as evident, I wonder why?

Well, I guess it won't happen in the United State or Europe since the majority of us are Christians. Since you think the Anti-Christ is Satan, for anything to be different I suppose we would have to prove that the world is a worse place than it was a few hundred or even thousand years ago. By most measures, it is actually better now. More people go to church than in the past, more humanitarian aid to the poor than in the past, there have always been wars. Less hunger in the world now than in the past. Seems like a better place to me. When WASN'T there a time when every Tom, ###### and Harry claimed to have God on his side? Nothing much has changed there. Mormons fall into that category too. Virtually all Muslim and Christian religions make that claim. What's new? And the other Eastern Religions could care less about the whole issue. Again, what's new? Basically, where your are leading us is down the path to a forgone conclusion on your part. That is, that your religion is the right one and everyone else is your enemy to the extent they actively disagree with you. By definition, if you are convinced that your religion EXCLUDES the possibility of any other religion have any legitimacy, then all other religions are your Anti-Christ. But, you see, you are setting it up that way by assuming that only your religion is legitimate. This is too vague a statement to be able to address. What religion DOESN"T preach and to at least some extent care for the poor? A case could be made that the LDS Church is very much centered on doctrines, appearances and positions. Nevertheless, the Church does a lot of practical good too, so I don't criticize it on that basis, but the church is definitely into doctrine, PR and appearances. In other words, any one that sees the world differently than you is Abominable. If Jesus' message is Peace, you aren't carrying it.

My answer: So what? What is your point? What benefits are you talking about? What are they not paying for THAT THEY CAN AFFORD? And SO WHAT that the legals treatt the illegals badly--is that some sort of justification for YOUR doing so?Maybe if they got paid a decent wage they could afford our auto insurance. Remember that the status of being illegal carries a connotation of some sort of moral failing on their part. In reality, it is simply the ethnocentrism of americans that wants to look down on others, especially if they are less fortunate than oneself.

Bigot. Are you implying there is something wrong with the government telling its people how to SAFELY cross the border and how to deal with the border police. Do you have a problem with safety? And what does it tell them to do with the police that you find so objectionable? It sounds like to me you just don't like a whole group of people called Mexicans. And that, my friend, makes you a bigot.

tell us some of the things YOU think were "implied".