JohnsonJones

YES, our understanding of history DOES change in a period of 30 years, sometimes drastically. Of course, in the instance of that article, as it misquotes to the point of aberration, they point out something that NEVER existed the way they actually present it. So, yeah...I had a severe problem with that article which is what made me start questioning where they got this information to begin with. AS for the Mises Institute, they made the exact claims I stated were outright lies on their webpage. Their wording was that they are non-partisan and non-biased...which, once one understands who they are, is a flat out lie. Not that I'm concerned about it as I really wouldn't use their information. Do they research...absolutely. It is biased to be done in a way that favors their argument towards their political viewpoints on their favored economic systems. Nothing wrong with that, and it can be useful, but one MUST read it understanding the bias they are coming from and that this probably will skew some of the things they state. I would absolutely NOT use them as a solitary source about literacy in the 19th or 20th century. I have nothing against home schooling, and nothing against those who choose to privately educate their children. However, when one starts to say that North Eastern Farmers around the time of Joseph Smith and his children were far more literate than those we have today...contrary to quite a bit of evidence we possess...I'm probably going to start looking at the way they go about their history. I get it that you are against public schools or government involvement in the education system. I also THINK (and this is where perhaps you should focus on your primary argument so I can understand it better) that you are arguing in favor of the 2nd amendment and the possession of guns. In this you have stated that a bigger problem is the abuse of children, and that this is the bigger issue. This is where the public vs. private education came in, where you said that 10% of children are abused by their teachers in the public school system. Thus, your argument is that we should therefore have all children be privately educated or homeschooled. This would have the effect of making it so that this abuse by teachers to students does not happen, and make it so that none of them could be shot in a school because none of them would be in a school of that sort. Is that about the jist of it? In which case, there is no reason to stand or fall upon a political-economic school of thought's website, which I think is a red herring among your discussion. I wonder if you are actually serious about this as a solution, or if you are over focusing on a certain arena to try to make a point? It seems a tad extreme, to be honest, but I also may not understand what you are actually arguing for.

I think you have a misunderstanding of history on this subject, but I'm not really feeling about getting into a discussion on it here. I did want to bring up a source that you cited (yes, I do follow people's links and read their articles) that didn't seem to be a good foundation of an individual's views. The article you pointed out (real reality article) is rather slanted, and actually really dated on top of that (and no surprise, they are using 15 to 20 year old sources WHEN THE article was written [apparently around 14 years ago] with the most recent reference at 10 years prior to it being written, and the oldest being 53 years before the article was written. This is okay if it is with primary sources, but with other sources that are simply informational...that is what you call being outdated before you even write the article), but made me curious about it's source. So, I looked it up...it's an anarcho-capitalist website spawned from a dispute from back with the Cato Institute. It flat out lies about what it does on it's about us page, and does not actually state what it's focus is, and that even common libertarians would find the views on this website a little extremist. To say they misquote, and misrepresent the items that they use as references is to actually be extremely lenient on them. They REALLY misrepresent things to the point of saying the exact opposite of what their references even state in some cases. I'm not sure that would be the best site for quoting economic policies or basing them on...though an Anarcho-Capitalist would absolutely love that you are. The site trades upon the ignorance of the readership to believe that they are reading a non-political article on a REAL researched subject from a neutral viewpoint, but the "REAL REALITY" is that the Mises Institute website is a economic-political site pushing an strong politically economic message. My thoughts in regards to our private vs. public education in the US today... We ALREADY HAVE BOTH systems at work in the US already today, and we can directly compare both of them to see results and percentages of literacy and graduation rates compared to the population in the US as a whole. A better example of what paying for private education would be like probably would be to show the percentage of Americans that read at a 16th grade level (aka...have received a bachelor's degree and READ at that level). The reason is that we currently have a private pay for education already in the US...that being for grades 13+, which normally consist of undergraduate and then graduate school. You will find that the percent of literacy in the PAY for education programs of the US is severely lacking. The quality of those that graduate (IMO) are HIGHER than elsewhere, but the percentage who actually achieve this level of education is starkly contrasted in relation to how many at least get a HS degree from a public education.

One thing that is a shame about the accusations against Mentally Ill...You know one of the biggest groups of individuals with PTSD? Veterans. What is ironic about them...99% of them would be safe with a gun, were entrusted to use guns and shoot people and did this effectively up until they were diagnosed with PTSD. What changed with their status? Absolutely nothing except for a piece of typing that a doctor did. They are just as trustworthy, able, and probably experienced with guns of most citizens. And yet, with one label we say they cannot be trusted to have a gun anymore. It doesn't happen to every veteran, but there is a LARGE group of veterans it happens to. It's part of what seriously makes me question the idea that people toss around in blaming the mentally ill. I started thinking about it when I had an individual I met who was a veteran and told me about their diagnosis and debating on whether they should actually turn in their guns or do something else. I found it ironic in regards to that individual. It seemed that those that may have a mental illness were easy to blame and use as a catalyst to blame the problems on, but they were being scapegoated rather than an actual analysis of the situation around these things occurring. So...I started looking at the other circumstances surrounding those who did violence with guns, and in almost any case it wasn't necessarily mental illness...but you could almost ALWAYS point out (when we actually knew the motive) that there was some anger or hate behind it. That seemed a far more common denominator. Even Bullying on the individual who eventually became the criminal seemed far more common than simply mental illness. Of course, how do you identify such things? I think that's the bigger difficulty. I think that's the difficulty that a LOT of people have. They jump on this mentally ill situation, but in all honesty, MANY of those (even in situations where they may have had treatment and people may THINK they were...such as this latest incident in Florida...where the kid actually was NOT diagnosed with a mental illness even if he had treatment if what I've been reading has been accurate) were not diagnosed as being mentally ill. They were perfectly legal when they got their weapons. Assuming they must have been mentally ill in hindsight may seem obvious to some, but it presupposes that the professionals should have some magic ball...and also presupposes and blames the tens of millions (yes, there are tens of millions, and Utah has a huge percentage as well as Mormonism itself) of those who are mentally ill and NEVER even think about hurting or harming another. I think it has hit home personally recently, as I had a grandchild (one of my older ones) that had a diagnosis of some severe mental illness (in the past 2 years). It is something I am still learning about and dealing with. I know it must be even harder for their parents than for me, but it is still something I grapple with (for example, due to the way the church does things in regards to missionaries, it is strongly probable that my grandchild would never be able to serve a mission, even though they want to but will be unable to go for no other reason than this illness. It makes it hard to deal with this sort of discrimination [IMO], and then you start seeing that type of discrimination against the mentally ill in many other areas. It's almost that I'd suggest hiding it from anyone who does not need to know just to avoid it, but then I also don't think people should lie to their church leaders...so it's something I struggle with in that regards probably because I want my grandkids to be able to serve missions if they want, I've even offered to pay if they need it). It's a difficult thing to deal with, and to see blatant blame laid out on those who have not done anything to merit it...at times I wonder if we should blame an entire group numbering far more than many other groups as the cause of our troubles, or if we should narrow it down significantly to be able to better pinpoint those who are prone to utilize gun violence in schools or elsewhere.

It depends on the church and the religion. I think another religion that tells people that they can receive answers (though it's more of feeling it in your heart, or through the Holy Spirit) are the Baptists. IN fact, in order to be saved, you have to feel it in your heart. You not only confess to the Lord, but then you have that mighty change of heart within you, and it is by having this that one can know that they have indeed been saved. Prison Chaplain could answer more for his religion, but I think Pentecostals ALSO have a heavy reliance on feeling the spirit and such. Other protestant religions, from what I understand, do not have such a heavy reliance upon the spirit giving answers, and some are actively opposed to individuals getting their own answers as opposed to the answers their specific religions church gives.

It's basically as @LiterateParakeet posted. Good Luck with your film. If you have any other questions about LDS culture, please feel free to ask.

I suppose I should actually talk about the main topic... I appreciate Hallway Mormons. If they are youth I normally would remind them of class, but if they are adults, I appreciate that they are there at church. The church is not just a place to teach, but for us to meet with each other. Many who are in the hallways may have difficulties in the classes for various reasons, or are trying to come to church, but cannot go to the classes for various reasons. I appreciate that they made the effort to at least come to church, even if they are not in the various classes available at the time.

I RECOGNIZE THAT GAME!!!! I play boardgames with my grandkids, and we all follow the boardgame scene as a family. One of the cheaper games we found was Star Realms. I don't have it on the phone or tablet, but we do have the actual card game (with the expansion Colony Wars you can all sit around the table and play a four player game). If you like that game, another one that we play that is somewhat similar (but not really) is a game called Jump Drive and it's older sibling...Race for the Galaxy. Jump Drive is more popular with the grandkids right now (we have them as young as 8 playing that one).

The Industrial revolution wasn't that bad for the reasons I listed. Technology actually created more jobs overall, just in different areas. As certain occupations were lost, others were made. However, currently the problem has been that automation has literally been destroying jobs that were there all along. For example, When they created robots on the factory lines, it did away with 50% of those jobs that never came back. It was cheaper for the Robots....UNTIL...China and other labor came into the picture. The same goes with many other arenas. As I said, right NOW in the US only 2/3 have jobs...and it's just about at parity in the US for unemployment in relation to those who are employed. That means, overall, there's really only work for around 2/3 of Americans. That's a LOT lower than decades ago. The projections I've given were actually rather optimistic...in that it said that it be in 100 years (some projections have that 1/3 employed in FAR less time than that). The job quality has gone down...50% of US citizens are on government subsidies or assistance of some sort. It's projected to rise (as I said, 75% is also a low rating all things considered). Technology itself does NOT reduce jobs...but automation DOES reduce jobs. That's the entire point of automaton, to make things more efficient, reduce costs, and thus increase profits. The irony is that with automation, we can produce more efficiently and even produce more than what is needed. AS it moves into retail, it most likely will also get rid of other jobs that will not be replaced, because...simply put...there is no need to replace them. When you can replace the job of 3 cashiers with 4 machines and one machine attendant cashier...those jobs are not going to come back...and they aren't really going to be replaced by anything that matches it overall. You could claim that it will with the factory workers (that are not even in the US)...but with the ratio of only a few factories and 1 worker for every 100 cashiers lost...that's not exactly a good ratio. You toss in the machine repair guy...for a total of 4 more for every 100 cashier jobs lost and that means that you have lost 20 jobs for every 1 job that you've created. PS: Of course, just to point it out, this IS my opinion on automation...not necessarily something I've studied all that much in depth myself. I am not a historian of economic history, especially not American economic history, so my opinions are probably just as reliable as any other joe that you might meet on the street. Just in case anyone thought it was (which I highly doubt anyone was...but just to make sure that everyone understand, I am NO expert on this...).

What about those who play RPG games and tactical games on their cell phones? I imagine there is such a thing. My grandson LOVES Angry Birds and Minecraft. He asked for some angry birds toys for the past two Christmases. He also asked for Minecraft lego things. I played Angry Birds once. That same grandson couldn't get past a certain point and so he asked me to help him. I did so terribly he quickly decided I did not know what I was doing (which was true) and took back the phone (which...just happened to be MY phone which his father had decided to load the game onto...) and kept on trying to beat the level himself.

Automation I think can get rid of some jobs and create others, but technology itself does not get rid of jobs. In some instances it actually creates jobs. For example, let's look at Train engines when they were first developed. This reduced the number of cross country carriages, and hence got rid of those jobs. It also reduced the number of cross country deliveries, on coach, or via horse...thus getting rid of those jobs. We'll say that got rid of approx. 10,000 jobs in the 19th century. However, the steel industry was increased to make the trains, the boiler industry and instruments were increased to create those trains, and that in itself created 10,000 jobs, they just were DIFFERENT jobs. Then you have to lay track and for a few decades, THAT made a LOT of jobs as well, some estimate over 100K over that time period. Then you needed engineers and conductors, which also made jobs, though not as many as the others. It also made it FAR more accessible and safer to travel across long distances. This meant that the industry itself grew into money and more money as a lot more people could travel in this fashion...so though travel was cheaper for them overall, with the numbers now travelling, it brought in a LOT more money. However, then we bring in automation. Let's say that we could have automated most of this, so that the trains were made by automation, that the trains were driven by automation (did not happen, this is conjecture). We lose all those jobs. How about the track then being laid by automation? We have a folk legend in this regard (John Henry) in this regards. This happens, and suddenly you do not gain all those jobs. The jobs that you lose are NOT returned. Those people have no living and no jobs have replaced the ones that were lost. You still have accessibility...but no one to pay for it. What happens then? It's what people have predicted in the long term future, and what has already happened in some occasions. Ford (of the model T fame) noted that he wanted to pay his workers so that they could buy his cars. He recognized that if you have no one with money, you cannot make any money to begin with. Hence, he needed to set an example with his workers, so other companies also paid a wage so that their workers didn't desert over to Ford's factories. Hence, by paying a higher wage, he got others to do so, and people bought his cars. However, what happens if there are NO jobs and thus no one can buy anything. Capitalism falls. People assume that the US government is doing all the money handouts because of charity, but this may not actually be true. Currently, we have only around 2/3 of Americans that work and make money. Over 50% of Americans get government assistance of some kind. This enables them to buy stuff. In essence, the US is the cornerstone of the world's capitalism. We buy a LOT of stuff (between us, Australia, Japan, Korea, and Western Europe, we buy so much stuff that it's incredible). Most of these nations are actually rather socialistic these days in the programs it uses to help people survive and get by. Without these programs, what happens? People buy less stuff. Capitalism crashes. So, in essence, right now, the US and Western governments are actually propping up that very capitalism that we say we treasure. This makes our standard of living better in the US and the West (as Fether aptly has noted...but this is an artificial propping up by the governments, if it didn't prop up the population, then we'd end up more like those other nations where poverty IS worse then in the US). The question then is if automation continues as it has over the past 100 years, we can expect in another 100 years that there will only be enough jobs for 1/3 of the population, or at least that's a possibility. The governments will have to print MORE money, and prop up even MORE people to keep this type of system going. Even those that have jobs, many may be as they are today, where they do not pay a living wage, meaning that they will probably be dependant on the government assistance also. That means up to 75% will only survive due to the government programs. The big question then, is whether the governments of the West will go bankrupt or otherwise fall into a deficiency before this happens or when it happens. At that point, is this fake capitalism really capitalism, or some perverse combination between capitalism and socialism? Is this the best way to do things? No one knows. Some utopian idealists have theorized many ideas, from things very similar to what we see in the Law of Consecration occurring (for example, Roddenberry's TNG star trek where there is no longer a use of money in the Federation, but people don't seek the acquirement of stuff anymore, but rather to better themselves in other ways), to that of Karl Marx's thougths which led to some of the more drastic ideas of communism. We don't know what will happen, the irony of it all is that with automation we SHOULD have more than we have ever had before. There SHOULD be enough for everyone and there should not be any poor (in fact, we have already reached that point in North America, even if you include Mexico, in practice, we should not have any homeless or poor...but there is a CATCH as you will see)...the problem comes in with greed. AS long as people horde and do not want to share (and that is pretty much almost everyone), this type of program will never work. The problem is how do you work a system where you have a population that is inherently greedy...when in order for a system to work, you need a population that is inherently virtuous and selfless?

I'm not so certain I agree with this idea. There are Poor in the US that are homeless. There are Poor in the US that are still without heat, electricity, or even the capacity to see a doctor. There are poor in the US that live on illegal immigrant farms (it's an interesting thing that I see), or that barely have enough food from day to day. Going outside the US, there are poor that live in cages, or a 7x3 foot area when they aren't working. When they do work they work a 12 hour work day or more at times. Many do not realize what the truly poor in the US deal with (unless, of course, they are there themselves), and when you get outside the US, many Americans can't even dream of the brutal poverty found in some locations in the rest of the world. I think that automation will make capitalism more profitable, but I do not think it necessarily will resolve the poverty issues. I think that relies more on people having the pure love of Christ, charity, and seeing things more of belonging to the LORD and thus EVERYONE rather than trying to hog it and say this is our piece of the pie that we have earned and thus it is OURS. It would probably need to be more like the Nephite society after the Coming of the Lord, that society we find in 4th Nephi, than anything else. To get there...though...it may need to have a massive disaster on a similar scale to that right before his coming to humble all of us (me included) so that we could accept living in such a society.

I think one thing is to greet them, remember their name, and to be friendly (but obviously, not OVER FRIENDLY if you are a guy and they are a gal, or vice versa). People seem to always enjoy a handshake and a smile along with a greeting. They also appreciate it if you remember their name.

I grew up decades ago, so it was a very different culture back then. When I grew up, every other kid had a gun somewhere they could access. Most of them knew how to shoot it and were pretty good shots (and part of that had to do with the fact that the older kids grew up during the depression years and one of the ways they got food was to shoot it, and the rest of us younger ones grew up in their shadow, but luckily not with the hardships they had experienced. I had a much better and easier life than the prior generation). It may be that we didn't have the internet, but we didn't really have any shootings that I could recall. If we did, I'm thinking it wasn't in the numbers we have now. If some fool had come to a school planning on shooting it, that fool probably would have gotten a shot or two off (better make it worth it because that's all he is going to get off) and he'd have been full of lead right after that. It's probable even the principals and others had guns on them or nearby they could access. When my kids were growing up they always had around two security officers (or police officers that would be there during school hours) that were constantly at or available at the school. They did not normally show their weapons, but they were always armed. They actually had a kid try to shoot someone at the school once (the kid got a bullet off and it went through an individuals hand if I recall) but they were QUICKLY taken out by the security officers. Even then, most kids might not have had guns in the school, but by High School many of the kids had guns in their vehicles outside and in the parking lots. I know schools have become no gun zones, but it strikes me odd that they wouldn't even have the basic police officers there like schools did (or maybe it was just where we had our kids going to school at??) in previous decades. Or is it that the officers are being taken out that easily and quickly? It doesn't take an entire school to be armed to take out a single armed gun man. When I hear of some of these school shootings I wonder what happened to the police or security officers that should be there...or is it something that is not done in the rest of the US these days?

What is interesting is that we have had so FEW of these shootings. They normally do not list all the shootings that were stopped by others who also happened to have guns on them, but I think I heard in one year it typically can number close to two hundred. That's two hundred various public shootings stopped by someone else who happened to have a gun on them at the time. The news normally does not report those. In comparison, Australia itself has over 200 gun deaths each year. The biggest reduction happened between 1996 and 1998. In 1996 there were over 500 gun deaths in Australia, but in a 2 year period, they reduced it by over 200 deaths. It has stayed about even for about the past decade hovering between 200 and 250 deaths each year. That doesn't mean gun control doesn't work or does not have an effect. Australia, as an example, has reduced it's gun deaths by 50% over the past 20 years. However, it is one thing to stop gun deaths, but it is another to control the murder rate. I think a LOT of gun control is cultural. For example, in Japan, murder is normally not something that is a huge factor. There is a great more respect for their other Japanese. In the US on the otherhand, I think a LOT of the respect people have for others in some other nations is severely lacking in the US, and that is one of the main factors that contribute to gun crime, gun deaths, AND the murder rate. I think that even when we increase gun control, it actually does not work here in the US, as we have multiple examples where they have increased gun laws and have very strict gun laws...and as that happens the murder rates of places like Washington DC, Chicago, and some cities in California have skyrocketed over the same 20 years span that Australia cut it's gun death rate. The question then is why it worked better in Australia than it did in the US cities? My thoughts is that it is an entirely cultural effect. To truly implement a change in how guns are seen and utilized, as well as how often murder occurs, we need to change the very culture that surrounds violence in the US. In otherwords, it's not really the gun that kills people...though they are the instrument by which it is achieved...it is PEOPLE that kill People.

A LOT of these don't seem to actually stem from Mental Illness or from those diagnosed with Mental Illness. It is a popular meme to try to blame, but it seems that a majority of these cases that make the news (when we know the motive...some of the larger ones we do not like the Vegas shooter) it is normally from someone who was being bullied a lot (and many times this isn't brought up, but it seems to be a common thread), or someone driven by either anger or hatred. I think a better tool would be to be able to identify those who are unusually angry about something or some issue and ensure that while they have this type of anger they are not able to access weapons.

I am looking for the...Old People in the ward that don't need callings...calling. That's a hard one to get sometimes...though...especially when you are still able-bodied. I'd like to just be a nobody who doesn't have to do anything? Maybe HELP clean the ward building every few weeks and such (so no cleaning coordinator calling) and that's it. We'll see what happens when I eventually get released from my current calling...though I doubt I'll suddenly be able to go incognito and never have any more callings ever again. Hopefully people don't think this is too terrible of me to want. I just want to stay at home and enjoy my family, so that's probably what driving my desire for the no calling...calling overall. I guess that's not very saintly of me though...probably a little selfish on my part.

An interesting observation I thought of. The School policy actually is misrepresented in this thread, if I understand the policy correctly. The policy was NOT that girls were required to say yes to all the boys...or rather they were...but the boys were ALSO required to say yes to any of the girls that asked them to dance. The actual policy appears to be gender neutral and simply says a student must say yes if asked to dance. Now, it being Utah, most likely it is expected that boys will ask girls to dance instead of vice versa...but in many parts of the US and even the world (well, okay, in Europe, not so much in Asia, Africa and parts of South America) these days, dynamics have changed. It is GIRLS who are asking the BOYS out, as well as to dance. In dances with the 14 year olds I have also noticed a slight dynamic at times. All the girls get in a group and dance in a circle, and a few of the boys stand around in a circle, but most of them just sit or stand against the wall. You also have a few girls sitting on the stage. Invariably this is the common stance for them all to be in during the faster songs. When a slower song pops up...about half the boys might ask a girl to dance...the other boys...I think might just be there because they were forced to be from their parents or think that's what is expected of them because they don't move. However, I've seen quite a number of Young Women go and ask the boys to dance. In that light, we are approaching it as if it is just a requirement of the girls...but when I read the articles it appears that it goes both ways...that a boy has to dance with a girl that asks him to dance as well. In any place other than Utah...with 12 year olds, I expect that might be more weighted to help the girls out than the boys. I expect the problems we see with the 14-18 year olds at church dances are only exacerbated at these kids dances...and as such it may be that in other states the girls do more asking to dance than the boys do. I'm not certain if that changes perceptions of how people see it, but it is interesting that most of the discussion has centered around girls not being able to say no to a boy asking them, but (and this is if I understand the policy, which states a student [not specific to boy or girl] cannot refuse a dance) ignores that it can equally apply to a boy being asked to dance by a girl. If it centered on the equally applicable other side of the equation, and in many states, the more likely scenario of girls asking boys to dance, and the boys have to say yes...how then is the application to this as it is no longer about girls saying no, but girls asking to dance and boys being able to tell them no. Is this the same terrible message being sent then? Or does it change the dynamic? Not that it matters, it appears that the school has changed it's policy.

If I remember, that's where you start with a partner, and then you separate and each of you get a new person to dance with...so two becomes four people on the dance floor, and then the separate and find new partners so you have eight on the floor...etc...etc...etc. It's been a while, I think that's what I was. I think the idea behind this that the principal was thinking of was one that my kids normally practiced (though this was many decades ago...the last left the house over a decade ago...so what was applicable then, probably is not applicable now) where if they were asked out on a date...unless something really was off about the person and the person seemed okay...they would agree to go on at least the first date (normally as long as it was with another couple or chaperoned though) with the individual. They did not need to say yes to a second one though, the first one was a courtesy. I'm not sure how that would go over today though, times change. Edit: Ah, MG beat me to it. It looks like my memory was basically right though...

You realize WHY there are participation ribbons and not keeping score in sports? Right? It was to encourage people to PLAY sports instead of stay inside, and to show that sports in and of themselves can be fun, that there was no need for competition. Participation ribbons actually were regularly given out in my day and later with my kids...it's only been in the past 20 years that I've seen people start complaining about them and several organizations stop passing them out. Not surprisingly, America's obesity rate has skyrocketed during that time period... Might not be a cause and effect, but I don't think it's merely coincidence. Stop making sports about simply being fun, and make it more about competition, and those who don't do well in sports or are not competitive suddenly are not going to enjoy or like sports anymore.

Just one last aside...IN MY OPINION...Hinduism is not actually the OLDEST religion in the world, but it is considered the oldest one that is still currently being practiced and followed by many who study such things. This is ANOTHER PASSING THOUGHT (secular, not religious) in relation to secular history...I suppose one could make an argument that Judeo-Christianity is the oldest religion in the world, if basing it off the idea that Judaism was born of Babylonian religion which in turn was born out of the original religions of the Indus Valley people. In that right, it is the lineage that Judeo-Christians (and also in that light, though a different branch, Muslims) follow the original Babylonian religion leading back to the Indus Valley religions. As it is just a thought, I don't think this idea would actually be looked upon favorably by the historians to be honest, but it is a thought I had.

In secular matters (rather than worldly) seek secular sources. Obviously Christian sources will typically indicate favoritism towards Christianity, and the historical origins of Christianity trouble MANY a religious professor. Historical evidence would indicate that MANY things have entered into Christianity from pagan origins (and as historians could point out, Judaism, from which Christianity grows out of, is seen to have come from Babylonian religions as per many Historians [vs. Christian religious professors], and in some ways, one can see Christianity at first the outcome of Judeo romantic mythology in the culmination of a messiah figure, but then as it drifts farther away from it's Judaic roots, grows and adapts more of the Paganistic rituals and ideologies of the outside world. History pretty firmly can show that the Hindu trinity predates Christianity by quite a bit. Something of interest is that some sects of Hinduism allow their members to also believe in other religious ideas, such as Christianity. One of these outgrowths of Hinduism firmly follows Christianity, but with the twist of the their trinity also being the same as the Christian trinity. The trick is, there is NO LIMIT to how many times their version can be incarnated, thus there have been multiple occasions that they have an incarnation. In fact, in regards to Hinduism, at times there are different sects based upon different beliefs regarding what or who were incarnations and how many incarnations there may have been, are, or will be. The similarities of the Hindu belief and Christian Trinitarian beliefs are rather obvious, and a historian would conclude that there has been a distinct influence from the Hindu religion on European religious belief and practice. Of course, this can trouble many of those who try to correlate their own religious views with secular history, as it doesn't match what they believe. (for example, see our discussions about Adam right above this in the thread). In this instance, a hardcore Trinitarian would probably state that the original doctrine was Christianity, and that it was the trinity that was originally understood. As religions and men fell into other beliefs, some strands of the true religion were kept, and hence, the idea of the trinity was still reflected in the Hindu religions, but inaccurately and incorrectly. In their minds, then, this would justify that obviously the Christian trinity would predate the Hindu trinity, despite what the Historical record and Historical evidence presents. My original post on this topic was NOT born from my religious mind (that was the second one I entered) but from my secular thoughts in regards to history (in some instances, I have to keep these two separate as there can be quite a bit of conflict between what I would say as a historian vs. what I would say as my own religious beliefs...most of my religious beliefs cannot be backed up by history either and at many instances directly conflict with what history shows or indicates). Hence, it is as the world shows it, which normally takes the slant of a more what we can see and read and verify rather than what requires faith or belief in the unknown. in regards to belief, some may feel Krishna was a predecessor or parallel to our Lord, but other Hindu ideas have it that the Lord himself was an incarnation. Others do not believe in Christianity at all. What we can see is that there was a direct influence of Hinduism upon the Eastern Roman Empire at the time of Constantine, and though it was not as prevalent as other ideas, it appears to be something that is written about at times in direct correlation with the rising ideas we see in relation to the idea of a Christian Trinity as well. From a Historian's point of view (secular, rather than religious) the movement points quite pointedly, that therefore, the ideas of the Christian trinity were most likely born out of the ideas coming out of the East regarding another trinity, and that this was yet another pagan assimilation into Christianity that had been ongoing for a little while (and would continue in the future as more and more paganistic rituals and ideas came into Christianity) in the world already. There ARE other sources of thoughts in relation to this, as we can see that the first impact of the Hindu ideas comes not during this time period, but prior to even the coming of the Messiah to the Jews. Some would source the ideology behind the trinity, and even the Messiah to Eastern origins predating Caesar, and in some cases, even to the Greek influence during the time of the Maccabees or beyond. The thing to remember about secular history though, is that history does NOT have a deific view, or in otherwords, there is no Creator or Creation that is factual in secular history and such ideas are relegated more to myth than fact. Hence, even Christianity cannot be seen as factual by secular history (though there have been many that have tried to do so, as the same with Islam and other religions). Thus, when looking for religious origins, secular historians do NOT seek evidence that it comes from heaven or otherworldly means, but rather worldly origins. AS secular history dates Christianity and even Judaism, when it seeks origins, it seeks it from worldly sources, rather than divine revelation. Just something to keep in mind when I talk about the secular histories of religions vs. that of our belief or faith. As I said, this is more a passing thought of mine, and based on secular history rather than religious faith. There are MANY conflicts between religious faith (and Christianity being one of them) and secular history, and many areas where what religion or religious historians may point out that secular history does not agree with. Thus, I would say it is very possible for someone to get an answer that the Hindu Trimurti precedes that of the Christian Trinity if coming from secular history, where as getting a conflicting statement that the idea of the Holy Trinity predates the Hindu Trinity if coming from one who is stating it specifically from a Christian religious historian (which tends to be limited specifically to the West in acceptance, where as secular history is normally more broadly accepted academically).

More like...zero evidence currently...but you have a good point.

This is true. I was talking from a historical viewpoint rather than a religious one. From a religious one, Christianity is the original religion.

When you talk about the Hindu religion, how many sects do you know of? When you talk about Islam, how many sects do you know of? There are probably MORE sects of those religions than there are of Christianity, and yet, MOST Christians lump almost all of them together as having the same beliefs. What may seem like major doctrinal differences to those who nitpick, in all honesty, are seen as almost hilarious nonsensical arguing due to pride and arrogance to everyone else...most typically. When we see different sects of Muslims in their various nations fighting it out, normally we may not even understand the things they consider deep theological rifts, but to us, they believe in basically the same thing, and it is different than ours. We like to differentiate ourselves over many minor things, but when the rest of the universe looks at us (Christianity as a whole), all they see are some very minor differences between groups of people that want to feel special and elite, rather than welcoming to all men. We get so caught up in trying to fight over our special turf, to say that we are the only ones that are going to heaven, that we actually stop being Christian and start being heathens. Remember that good old adage that we tell children to think about when they do their actions...What would Jesus do? Our Lord normally condemned those that would understand his deep doctrines (that study of who he was, what his connection to the Father was, his substance and origins), all the while praising those who simply listened to his words and accepted his teachings. He never specified that one had to believe this about him, or that about him to be saved, but rather to follow him. I am one of those that do NOT believe the man on the cross who the Lord said would be with him in paradise was baptized. I think he was one of those who was a criminal and had NOT followed the Lord up to that point. Because of this, it shapes my idea of who is saved and who is not. In essence, the LORD is the one who judges. He is the one who makes the final decisions. At that point on the cross, not another soul stood up for the Lord. This thief was the only one to rebuke the punishment being dealt to the Lord, and in essence, the Lord granted him his salvation by promise right then and there. I think the lesson is that we do not have to have this deep philosophical understanding that the Pharisees and Sadducees had of religion. We must be willing to defend the Lord and take up our own cross to follow him, but we do not have to be one of those that understand every single thing about him. We, ourselves, need to follow his commandments, which means that we need to follow his example and be baptized and other things he did and stated. However, when it comes to who will be saved, he has said many who called upon him will not be saved, and many who we may not expect to be saved (such as thieves who were being crucified) will be saved. Our goal is to save ourselves, and to help as many others to be saved as possible. In that light, do you think the Lord said...only the .01% of the world's population who are those who are part of the Evangelical Pentacostal religion will be saved...because I am only sent to them? Or that only the .001% of the world's population that are LDS religion are those who will be saved because I am only sent to them? I do not believe this, I believe the Lord was sent to ALL men, to atone for ALL of us, and his salvation is available to all who accept it. We know that narrow is the way, but he already stated that HE was the way. You could say that in some measure, though LDS, I have that Baptist doctrine (as I'm a biblical literalist, it probably would be more the Far Right conservative Evangelical Baptist) heavily influencing my opinions on this. The biggest obstacle to men is their own pride. Salvation is like the staff which Moses posted when the Children of Israel were dying and all they had to do was look at it to be healed. It is a type and shadow of the Lord's plan. I think it can be THAT easy to go to heaven. If we merely seek to accept the Lord, and follow him, we can go to heaven. Why is this possible? Because the Lord is merciful. He is the ONLY judge, and the final judge, and he is no respecter of persons. He loves the thief who ends up in prison just as much as the fervent church goer. IF the thief turns their heart to the Lord and follows him...why should he not be saved? The Lord never said one had to have a doctorate to be saved...in fact, many times he condemned those who had the equivalent of that in his time (which, as someone who is a professor of history...probably does NOT speak well of me, I probably should spend more time repenting than anything else and humbling myself). Do we think the thief on the cross really had a deep understanding of the Lord's gospel. If we see what most of those in that type of element at that time knew and experienced...most likely he did NOT have that knowledge. It was probably a basic knowledge of the Lord and what he had been doing. In regards to our different sects then, the Jews were not Christians. For the Jews who had converted to Christianity, if memory serves right, Paul did not cast them out of the church, or say that they were going to Hell, but instead tried to correct their ideas, or at least their practices. It may be that he did not successfully change their thoughts, but he DID change the acceptance of those. Instead of narrowing the doctrine, he broadened it to be MORE accepting of others. In fact, much of Paul's arguments were to broaden Christianity in it's beleifs and appeal to the Gentiles. When he did rebuke others and threaten to cast them out, it was not over such trivial matters as cultural differences of food, or different beliefs in what the substance of our Lord was, in fact, if anything, he broadened the narrow beliefs of the time of the Jewish Converts and adapted cultural ideas of the Gentiles into their ideology so that the Gentiles could be converted and follow the Lord. What he DID focus his rebukes of doctrine (clarification: when he was saying to cast someone out or condemn them on occasion) on were the commandments of the Lord in matters of morality, chastity, and honesty. His basis of these were the commandments, and many of them dated not just from our Lord's teachings, but from the Old Testament. If we follow the example of the Lord, and that of Paul, we are not to discriminate between ourselves due to minor doctrinal differences that really have no effect upon our salvation, but if we do have something to help someone overcome, it is the sins that are spelled out in the bible by the Lord. WE cannot allow ourselves to participate in these sins, and those that do suffer from them, we are to try to help them understand what these sins are and to help them overcome them. However, when it comes to things that we consider doctrinal differences, most of these are not big enough to warrant the disagreements that we have between Mormons and Pentecostals, between Catholics and Baptists, and between any other sect of Christianity that believes in Christ and the Lord. Do we really think that Christ wants us arguing and fighting over this stuff? Or do you think he would rather us to be one in faith and hope? Sorry, this went long, but I find it a terrible thing that we, who should be united as a people (Christians) spend so much time trying to prove we are the right ones and others are wrong instead of loving our neighbor as ourselves, and the Lord above all. I think the Lord is FAR more loving than most give him credit, and he will save MANY that we may not think will be saved, and many who we may think will be saved, will not be. The Lord looks upon the heart (and so, I guess I'm one who actually thinks that good intentions MIGHT matter), he is the judge and he loves all of us enough to have sacrificed and atoned for all of our sins. Sometimes, rather than thinking he was sent for all men, and how exactly he will make it so that as many people as possible can be saved through his actions, we get caught up in trying to say this group will not get to heaven, or this group will, and to justify our actions rather than to love our fellowman and try to understand where they are coming from. The Jews, the Muslims, the Hindi, the Buddhist, these all have definitive differences of belief in deity and thought than a Christian. Instead of squabbling amongst ourselves over our meager piece of pie, perhaps we would do better uniting as all Christians to bring the gospel to them and to their nations (and having been to many of them where Christianity is NOT recognized as an official religion that can be practiced openly, I think it should be far more pressing to realize the REAL differences of religions between them and Christians and how much the Lord loves them as well, and yet they are lacking many of the fundamental beliefs that we have). Once again, sorry, I am longwinded at times. This is something that at times I feel passionate about, and probably am even more long winded in this than I should be.

Hinduism outdates Christiniaty by a LOOOOONG mark. Their belief in a Trimurti also started a fair ways prior... Though this and many other aspects that seem adopted from Hinduism into Christianity has not always sat well with many Western Religious studies (and their professors in the realm of that specific religious history...Mormons included at times with this).