2ndRateMind

Well this thread is themed around guns, so the overall murder rate is a subsidiary issue. But according to wikipedia, the rate for the UK is around 10 homicides per million population, and the US around 560 per million. So, that's still a significant difference, which may be partially due to gun control, since a gun is a force multiplier, in that you can kill a lot more people, a lot more quickly, at far greater range, with a gun, than you can with a knife. If that is your intent. Best wishes, 2RM.

No kidding. Fact is, we have stringent knife laws, also. The legal limit on carrying is a maximum 3", folding blade. Of course there are criminals, often with drug related careers, who carry guns and/or knives. But with such a clear definition between legal and criminal, the police can easily distinguish between the two, and tend to come down on offenders like a ton of bricks. Best wishes, 2RM.

Note to self: must be more civil in future. Note to moderator: would be easier to achieve this if bullying personal abuse were to be the subject of similar warnings. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, I can refer you to the UK example of the Snowdrop Campaign. This was an initiative of the bereaved parents of the 17 five-year old victims of Micheal Ryan in Dunblane, 1996, who held all his weapons legally. They were successful in achieving an outright ban on the private ownership of hand guns above .22 calibre, and various other tightenings of legislation. Partly, not entirely, but partly, due to their efforts, the rate of gun murders in the UK is around 1 per million population, while in the US it is about 160 per million population. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. Just seems to me that if the American nation loved it's children more than it's guns, it would already have implemented the effective protection of them. Best wishes, 2RM.

No Christian can contemplate school mass murders without their thoughts and prayers reaching out to those wounded, bereaved and emotionally shaken by this latest atrocity. But it seems that Americans love their guns rather more than they love other people's children, given this kind of event has happened many times before, and doubtless will happen many times again, and the arms industry lobby has always triumphed politically over the loss of innocent lives in the past, and looks set to continue to do so. What is the position on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on sensible weapon reforms, such as extensive criminal and mental health background checks, the limitation on types of firearms civilians may legally own, etc? Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, it's not meant to be a dodge. I just see no point in stating any point of view that is bound to be met with outright hostility, slurs on my character, and irrational invective. When you all decide to play nicely, I'll play nicely, too. Meanwhile, I must say that when I asked in the OP if Mormons were 'just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies', I did not expect such an immediate, definitive and effective demonstration that that is precisely what you are, at least so far as this forum goes. Now, I need to cool off a little. Maybe we will get to raise the tone of the debate, tomorrow. Or maybe not. Whatever, it's not my problem. Best wishes, 2RM.

I never claimed to be nice. If I have any saving grace at all, it is simply an allegiance to reason, rather than rudeness, as the best method of converging on truth. Best wishes, 2RM.

It's OK, unixknight. I have not forgotten you, or your question. But I do not propose to answer it until such time as the climate of discussion on this thread is more congenial to rational debate, and disagreement is no longer perceived as a personal insult, to be responded to by way of bullying abuse. I have a lot of time for you people and your faith, but my patience is not unlimited. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, someone recommended me to read 'The God who Weeps'. I can't remember who it was, and despite trawling my threads, can't find the post. Anyway, I'd just like to report that I have bought the Kindle edition of the book, which I will read as opportunity, time, and inclination permits. Thanks, anyway, whoever you are. It looked interesting. Best wishes, 2RM. PS. Just found it. Thank you Connie.

Not entirely sure whether you think I am the troll, or Jesus as quoted. Best wishes, 2RM.

Not necessarily. If find I can infer much from secondary and tertiary sources. For example, we have this from the primary source*: (emphasis mine) And this, from the primary source** (emphasis mine) Now it may be that my question in the OP was worded provocatively, but I think it was also a fair question to ask, and asked in a fair way: And when I was shown to be (slightly) wrong, I admitted that gracefully enough. But, with very few exceptions, your responses to me have been a veritable torrent of vitriol, venom, bile, and personal abuse. Maybe that is the Mormon way; I don't know, and have only you guys to judge by. But I do not think that, in our conversations to date, you have properly demonstrated that you have completely understood and are sincerely committed to implementing the Christian way. Once we have this matter of attitude, even just plain ordinary courtesy, sorted out, then perhaps, we will be able to move on to matters of more substance. Best wishes., 2RM. * Jesus himself, as reported by Mark 12: 30-31 KJV ** Jesus himself, as reported by Matthew 5: 43-47 KJV

So, Vort, is the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints only for those who agree with you about everything? You are a liar. I never said nor suggested any such thing. Best wishes, Vort Then why do you not care if I become a member of the Kingdom of God, or not?

Do you really need me to define it for you? Can you really not tell it when you see it? If so, and if not, what is your Church leadership wasting their time on? Best wishes, 2RM.

So, Vort, is the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints only for those who agree with you about everything? Best wishes, 2RM.

Or, you could just answer the question in the OP, without the insults, if you have such an answer. As for your assertion that 'God is not politically correct', you could well be right. I do not know. But I do know He is just, and where political correctness reduces social injustice, then I think He would not be altogether displeased. Best wishes, 2RM

Can't oblige with any established authority, only elaborate on my own experience (for what that's worth!) But, it seems to me that beliefs often generate other beliefs, and they generate others, and so on, and so on. The result can be a pathological, even psychotic, (I know; I've been there), proliferation of beliefs that bear no relation to reality. And eventually and paradoxically, one discovers that the less one believes, rather than the more one believes, the stronger and more resilient one's faith is, the more confident in one's faith one can be. Best wishes, 2RM.

On the contrary, William of Occam was a Franciscan Friar, philosopher and theologian. I think matters of faith were exactly what his 'Law of Parsimony' were meant to apply to. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yup. We don't do so well here in the UK, either, in respect of the parliamentary representation of women and ethnic minorities. But, I think there is a general recognition that this is a problem, and needs to be addressed. And, we are beginning see the benefits of marginalised groups beginning to populate the corridors of power. Best wishes, 2RM.

So. Carborendum. The epithet 'Pale, Male and Stale' was simply something I asked you all about. Are you a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete organisation with a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete leadership, and a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete outlook? I cannot apologise for finding this question relevant, given the portraits of your leadership as being 87% white Caucasian, 100% male, with an average age of, what shall we say? maybe 80% over 50 years of age. None of this amounts to a personal attack on any individual contributing to this discussion, such as you have subjected me to. Maybe you are just all being defensive, but if so, I would suggest you deal with the issues that make you defensive, rather than insult me, which serves no useful purpose at all. As for the rest of your enquiries, I shall deal with them tomorrow, maybe, as time and inclination permit. Best wishes, 2RM.

Which explanation is simpler: Jesus of Nazareth was a revolutionary Rabbi who founded a religion, or Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God who came to Earth by being born of a virgin, performed miracles and saved humanity from its own sins by being tortured to death, after which He resurrected 3 days later. What does Occam's Razor tell you to believe? Is it possible that sometimes the more complex answer is correct? Good question, unixknight. To my mind, had Jesus only been a revolutionary rabbi, the religion would never have been founded. Or, if it was, would have quickly and permanently diverged from what is Godly. Thing is, He still saves souls, in that if in need, and if He is sought open-heartedly, He will bow hither, out of heaven, and answer the prayer. Or at least, so I have found, and many testify, from all corners of the Christian communion. Best wishes, 2RM. All fine, but hardly arrived at through an application of Occam's Razor... which is also fine, and hopefully shows why you won't get any mileage by citing it in this discussion. No, I am just saying that there are other spiritual phenomena to consider and account for beyond Jesus' life and mission on earth as recounted in the Gospels. One therefore needs a more extensive theory than that Jesus was just a revolutionary rabbi. But, among those more extensive theories, it still makes sense to apply Occam, and choose the simplest from among them. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. You have to understand, guys and gals, that I only have a second rate mind. It would be easier to answer your questions if I had more familiarity with the LDS mindset, and some pre-decided agenda to promote. But I don't. I need to take time to consider your comments and questions, and compose answers to them. And this task would be easier still if the general climate of this forum was less inclined toward personal insult, and more disposed towards a more gentle, but nevertheless rigorous, enquiry into truth. Meanwhile, I can tell you now, that after a week or so's discussion with you all, your general attitudes make me inclined to think that I would make a very poor Mormon indeed, and perhaps I need to look elsewhere for a spiritual home. Best wishes, 2RM.

Good question, unixknight. To my mind, had Jesus only been a revolutionary rabbi, the religion would never have been founded. Or, if it was, would have quickly and permanently diverged from what is Godly. Thing is, He still saves souls, in that if in need, and if He is sought open-heartedly, He will bow hither, out of heaven, and answer the prayer. Or at least, so I have found, and many testify, from all corners of the Christian communion. Best wishes, 2RM.

estradling75. As I showed in that thread, which was taken down because of your persistent lack of netiquette, there is quite enough wealth in the world to feed the hungry. The problem is with how those resources are distributed. It does not take a genius philosopher to realise that if one is not OK with the (voluntary) redistribution of those resources that I advocated, one must be content for the starving to starve. Anyway, I have said my piece on that topic, and do not propose to engage in conversation with you further, unless you have something pertinent to this particular thread to contribute. Best wishes, 2RM.

Maybe just 'dislike' and 'disagree with', would be adequate? Or, perhaps the politics in the US are more polarised than they are here, in the UK. Best wishes 2RM.