CrimsonKairos

Yeah the_jason, I can't stand sarcasm because I'm so incapable of handling it and it's always been a big problem for me so you're sooooo right.

Um, Willow and I weren't talking about pop singers. From what I remember, "posh" is an acronym that applies to wealthy lifestyles or expensive possessions. I read that when the British would take a ship for a vacation down the western coast of Africa for example, the most expensive cabins were those whose windows faced Africa so the passenger could get a good view. Well when sailing south, those cabins would be on the port side of the ship; sailing north back to England, the cabins facing Africa would be on the starboard side of the ship. Hence, "Port out, starboard home" came to refer to anyone who was wealthy enough to afford to pay for cabins that were on the port side of the ship going out, and on the starboard side coming home. Posh. Anyone from England wanna correct that if its wrong?

Actually, as PentiumInside pointed out, the majority of their hatred towards us is not because we don't worship Allah. Most Muslims/Arabs hate us because we took "their land" and gave a nice big chunk to form the modern state of Israel. Add on to that the fact that we propped Israel up and kept it from certain collapse during the Yom Kippur War (read up on Operation Nickelgrass), and you have several reasons for Israel's enemies to become our enemies. You don't see the Muslim radicals spouting off against North Korea or China do you? Yet North Korea and China are not Muslim nations. Its not about who you pray to. Its about supporting Israel, an unforgivable sin in Arab and Palestinian eyes.

Its times like this I'm proud to be an American, the only country where life is so good that people have time to sit around cooking up theories linking money-lovers and anti-jihadism. God bless America, the greatest country on earth. Ever. Period. B)

Funny thing is, I think I remember what "posh" stands for: Port Out Starboard Home Right? I still remember some people from my ward in Ipswich asking me at a ward party if I wanted some lemonade, and when I said "yes," getting Sprite, hahahaha. Good times.

Now Frank, I know you're not knockin' geocaching!!!

I ain't British, but I lived in England for a year and I know who Russel Grant is. Maybe he can use my Kolob theory if I can have his residence in Middlesex.

I'm still partial to the Kolob-centric metallic alloy theory. Seriously though, for an interesting take on the Urim and Thummim, read "The Alchemist" by Paulo Coehlo. Its also just a really good read.

The lots used in New Testament times were special metallic alloys that responded to the gravitational pull of Kolob, but these metallic lots were removed and hidden in Cumorah to be revealed during the Millenium. That, or I don't know.

10-4.

I'm curious...what instances do you have in mind?

You're correct, PC.

Sure it does. Its called a jury of your peers. But I guess murdering innocent people is okay. We don't want to dissuade future murderers, we better make sure all murderers get to spend the rest of their lives in a jail while their victims float in the spirit world, separated from their families. Best idea I've ever heard (he said with a healthy dose of sarcasm and disgust). It is not the government's job to ensure people have the chance to repent of their sins. It is the government's job to protect equal rights for all. If you take someone else's life, you forfeit your own. Murderers can be forgiven in the sense that they won't go to outer darkness, but D&C 76 shows that the best murderers can hope for is the Telestial Kingdom. They can do their "repenting" just as well in the spirit world as they can here. It's ridiculous to say, "Oooh, we better not shove murderers out of this world before they can repent!" because they can "repent" in spirit prison. Executing murderers never robs them of the ability to do so; your point is incredibly flimsy and unsupportable. Unless you know of a scripture that says you cannot repent while in the spirit world. One last verse from the OT, a commandment of God to Noah and his sons: Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (Gen. 9:6)

By the way, VOL, I forgot to comment on this part of one of your earlier posts. I don't recall saying you were wrong because you were a new member. I have no idea how long anyone here has been a member or even if they are a member, so understand that I try not to belittle anyone based on the duration of their membership in the LDS Church. I do my best to discern doctrine from the LDS canon and not based on the status of those I dialogue with. By the way, good point about the JST in Luke 23:34 clarifying who Jesus was forgiving. Now as for everyone else who has asserted that a person murdering a fellow mortal is the unforgivable sin (as opposed to denying Christ and figuratively shedding his innocent blood), consider this example of a whole group of murderers being forgiven: And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son. (Alma 24:10)

They are essentially the same thing. Joseph Smith said that to commit the unforgivable sin, you have to know who Jesus is perfectly (i.e. through the Holy Ghost's perfect witness). To deny Christ after you've had him revealed to you in perfection, is as Joseph Smith said, like staring at the noon-day sun and denying that it exists. It is that sort of rebellious spirit which Satan possessed premortally and which led to his rebellion, and it is the same sort of rebellion against light and truth that Judas and the Jewish leaders (high priest, et al) possessed and which prompted them to have Christ crucified. Because they knew who Christ was. There are various scriptures about this, not all of which I feel like looking up right now, but here are two for you about Judas being a son of perdition. First, Christ's prayer during the Passover feast. Speaking of the apostles, he said: While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. (John 17:12) Who is the one apostle who was "lost?" Judas, as we see here: But behold, it sorroweth me because of the fourth generation from this generation, for they are led away captive by [satan] even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver and for gold, and for that which moth doth corrupt and which thieves can break through and steal. And in that day will I visit them, even in turning their works upon their own heads. (3 Nephi 27:32) Notice how Christ identifies the son of perdition as he who sold Christ for corruptible money? And who sold Christ for thirty pieces of silver? Judas. So Judas is a son of perdition because he had a perfect witness of Christ's divinity and still rejected the Lord. As for Caiaphas and Annas and their crews, I suppose there is no explicit scripture I know of that condemns them as sons of perdition. I do not know the extent of their witness of Christ's divinity, but it seems to me that anyone who lived in Israel during Christ's three year mortal ministry, and who had as keen an interest in Christ as the Jewish High Priest/s did and were aware of his teachings and miracles, and who still rejected him, had to have been borderline sons of perdition. But that's my opinion, not doctrine so take it for what it is. What is doctrine is that Judas will not be forgiven in or out of this world, and he will dwell with Satan in outer darkness eternally. Likewise. :) I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I do not consider the Bible Dictionary on par with scripture in terms of authority, nor do I form my doctrinal knowledge based on Bible Dictionary entries, but I did find this in the entry under "Blasphemy" Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which is willfully denying Christ after having received a perfect knowledge of him from the Holy Ghost, is the unforgivable sin (Matt. 12: 31-32; Mark 3: 28-29; D&C 132: 27). I think if you do some more reading and studying, you will find that the prophets (I don't own the Encyclopedia of Mormonism but I assume it'd say it too) have taught that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which in D&C 132 is called shedding innocent blood, consists of denying Christ's divine identity after having a perfect witness of it from the Holy Ghost.

Six, I love you man!

Video of the act of murder. DNA evidence. Confessions. Multiple eye-witnesses. Good police work. All of the above. While humans are fallible, we've gotten pretty good at investigating crimes. Its not like every death penalty conviction was the result of flipping a coin. What do you mean by "unforgivable?" Even murderers will receive a place in the Telestial Kingdom (see D&C 76). D&C 132 is not talking about one man murdering another when it talks about the unforgivable sin. That is the flaw with your argument. The unforgivable sin is denying Christ after you have a perfect witness of him and have had him revealed to you as God's Son and your rightful Lord. If you deny Christ after you know he is God's Son and your Savior, you possess the mindset of the Jewish leaders who called for and set in motion Christ's crucifixion. It is as if you "assent unto Christ's death" and it is Christ's blood that is referred to when it says that one who sheds "innocent blood" cannot be forgiven. Nice try though. Your doctrinal knowledge about that was just a little lacking, but then again, in the Church that's a common misunderstanding. Note: I'm not trying to be snide, though I'm aware it might "sound" that way without being face-to-face to read my intent. Wrong. See above. There's your problem, bro. You have the orthodox LDS position completely wrong. The unforgivable sin is not murdering your fellow man. It is denying Christ after he has been revealed to you in perfection. But not Judas or the Jewish leaders who knew who Christ was and assented to his death anyway. The Romans weren't accountable because they lacked the light and knowledge necessary to make them culpable of the crime Judas committed with his perfect knowledge of Christ's divine identity. Murder can be forgiven, yes. Denying Christ after you have a perfect spiritual witness of his divine reality, no. This is what D&C 132 means by the phrase "shedding innocent blood" and "assenting unto Christ's death." Context is everything, VOL. The Anti-Nephi-Lehies were repenting for a life spent killing their Nephite brethren without cause beyond lust for power and riches. There is in no way a useful parallel between a murderous people repenting of their wicked ways, and a society of laws executing those who break those laws. The death penalty is society's way of affirming the value of human life. D&C 98 explains that God raised up the Founders of the USA and inspired the Constitution. The Founders largely based their political science and philosophy on Cicero's "Natural Law," to wit: You may exercise any of your God-given rights as long as you do not remove the God-given rights of others. Since God gave us the right to live, if we take away someone else's right through pre-meditated and wicked murder, we thereby forfeit our own right to live. Lastly, there's this little morsel from the Doctrine and Covenants (though I know the Church's current civil policy is neutrality): We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. (D&C 134:2) And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die. (D&C 42:19) For those with eyes to see...

Yeah, in the scriptures (even the D&C) God commands the murderer to be killed. Other than that, I enjoyed your syllogisms.

Well said.

I hardly meant to belittle you. Thus again we see the difficulty of carrying on a meaningful discussion without the ability to inflect and intone as we do in face-to-face conversations.

drjme, I've been aware of D&C 98 for a very, very long time. What I wasn't aware of until you replied, was that you personally cannot discern the point in a discussion where one party withdraws by sarcastically espousing the opposite position of the one he holds, thereby signaling his disinterest in further debate. a-train, I don't necessarily disagree with your last post. Sometimes a thesis is good, but synthesis might be better, and for synthesis to coalesce, antithesis must be applied. You're welcome.

Why follow the Constitution when you can amend it to work?

Fair enough.

Run around hysterically if you wish. I don't much enjoy that. I enjoy living in America. I enjoy worshipping God. I enjoy serving my fellow men. In case you haven't read the scriptures lately, all the panic and worry in the world won't change the horrible things that will come upon the earth in the last days. We simply have to keep our covenants, keep our chins up and brace for the end.

You know what I'm saying. Our paper money is backed by the assets of the FED and U.S. government (which I've already listed earlier and which are more than sufficient to pay off the projected national debt). Gold is not the only asset that can effectively back paper money. America has done a stellar job of growing and prospering in the nearly 100 years that we've had the FED. The track record is conclusive. Those are my chief points. I don't worry about the economy. And I've never encouraged anyone to get into debt. But fiat currency is not based on debt. The FED and government can liquidate real assets at any time should the world lose confidence in our currency. That's what Treasury securities and government bonds are: Promises for the government to cover any losses that banks and individuals may experience should FRN's suddenly lose all value overnight. We are not a nation operating on debt. We are a nation operating on promises to pay by the most powerful and prosperous government on earth. I can live with that. Personally, I hate getting into debt. But when I use my credit card, I don't necessarily always have assets I can liquidate if I fail to pay back the credit I borrowed. The FED and the government, conversely, do have the assets to cover any credit they take out. Apples and oranges.