JohnsonJones

I'm ignorant on how this differs from any other nice dress. It looks like it would go well at being worn to church. If NightSG is male, I'm not so sure that it is the best choice of attire for him though. (PS, the above is joking, please do not take offense at the statement).

With respect To be honest, I've never heard of the military stating anything close to the idea that a majority of deaths come from friendly fire when in war. None of those I've talked to within the military ever stated something like that. In every conflict I think they point that friendly fire has caused deaths, but it is no where close to causing more deaths than of the enemy they kill. The normal stat I've heard is that other causes are the major causes of death in war, not direct action. So it is disease and infection that have killed more over the centuries than direct action in battle (though much of the infection at times are caused by wounds from battles in times prior to our modern age). in addition, you also toss in the additives of starvation, exposure, and other elements and the deaths from direct actions (battle deaths) start to become the minority of death in regards to the total number of deaths caused by war. In regards to soldiers, this is not always true though, and there are instances where battle deaths exceed deaths not from battle deaths. However, when NOT actively involved in fighting, the non-hostile deaths exceed hostile deaths (probably for obvious reasons) and friendly fire would be a higher cause of death than hostile fire. This is from the AF website Air University Air Force Casualties and Lists of Statistics Though I'm not positive, wouldn't friendly fire come under the heading of Non-hostile: Accident or something similar to that? I am a civilian and unfamiliar with some military items, but I have dealt enough with military and their individuals to have some idea what they teach and promote (I have to admit to a legal education, part of which taught how administrative law worked which included Veterans and benefits they are able to claim...and then some volunteer work helping veterans in obtaining benefits over the years which has given me a little bit of experience in learning a few things from them - This does not mean I know everything, obviously, for example, there was a recent question I asked about BCD and DD discharges that I had no idea about on these very boards). They have spoken on these things (I heard from one today even, at the school, discussing something which sounds like it probably caused them PTSD for years, probably still does), but I've never heard something like that. Whether it was or wasn't from the US military, I will say the US military from my experience is more accurate on it's reports and statistics than MANY civilian reports and paperwork. They are far more orderly and intrepid in ensuring good information for their educational arenas. I have had the pleasure at times of working with them in my chosen occupation as well due to some subjects which I cover, and they have always been more prompt, to the point, and professional than most other organizations I've ever had to deal with. I find it hard to believe that the military would push something inaccurate upon their soldiers in training. Friendly fire IS a problem, and I think much what was said is probably accurate. There is probably a high chance of killing someone you know and is on your side in the stress of combat when you are untrained and being attacked. However, that's why soldiers go through training, and why civilians with guns should go through hunter's education, gun safety, and other courses. In some states, gun safety is a requirement before being able to own a gun. However, I do not think the US military would say something like Friendly Fire kills more than Hostile action. If it is true that Friendly Fire kills more than hostile fire in general, I must admit I have not heard that before. If it is not true, than perhaps this was just a one off experience? Perhaps it was one trainer's take or understanding in that regard rather than the entire military? Or perhaps it was a point where they were exaggerating one thing in order to impress upon the trainees the importance of a principle (not unheard of from what I understand)? I find it very hard to think the military would get something that wrong and perpetuate it in my opinion....And I don't think that the military spreads urban myths, once again in my own opinion (and my opinion has been wrong at times, I freely admit). On that note, thanks to all the Veterans for the Freedoms we enjoy this Veterans Day.

Hmm, I've never had to go to Healthcare.gov, I get health insurance via work. What do you know, once again my costs went up another 20% this year. It KEEPS going up and up and up. Now, I'm ALL for helping EVERYONE get health insurance and get the medical aid they need. I'd even say it was a right...BUT... The ACA is NOT the way to do it. In essence, instead of actually tackling the problem of what causes us to pay high medical prices, they handed the reins to those who cause the prices to go up each year in the first place...or one of the big reasons. You DO NOT give power to private business that want to make money and trust them to not raise those rates. It's just not going to happen. I'm all for giving people the medical help they need. I think it is actually almost requisite on a moral society, but we went and did it the absolutely worst way possible (well, almost the worst way, we could have done worse). Even single payer is better than what we have now...which many who don't like the ACA probably wouldn't agree with. Every year I see my rates grow for the employer health insurance we are offered. I lost my "silver" plan last year due to the Federal government (it was great, we had everything covered 100%, and paid higher rates for it), but now, I'm paying the same amount I did for my "silver" plan this upcoming year (edit: if the estimates are correct in what is expected for it to cost us next year), but with less benefits. I think I'm not unusual for the middle to upper middle class. As our prices go up our benefits go down under the ACA. That's probably the #1 reason for people like me that are opposed to the ACA. It has nothing to do with helping others, we WANT others to be helped with their medical needs. It's that the prices keep getting higher, and the benefits keep getting less. Edit: The above is my current thoughts or opinion, it can be malleable though.

Obedient to what? We have heard that obedience is better than sacrifice, but when we speak of obedience, to what are we referring to? The Laws that are set up by men? Or is it the law as set up by the Lord? In reading just the Book of Nephi, we may ponder what exactly obedience is? When we incorporate what we know of about Jerusalem at the time, we know that the people were NOT being obedient to the Lord. They had changed some of the laws and customs, and many other things, jailed the prophets, and various wickedness throughout the land. AKA...in that aspect, we could probably say, as TFP stated above me, that Laman and Lemuel were lying in that regard...and perhaps were so far down the path themselves that they could not tell the difference. We can see a parallel in our time, where adherence to the Law of Chastity is mocked constantly and broken as a normal thing (and in some areas it is basically expected that people will break it), language and coveting abounds, and selfishness destroys marriages, households, and many other things. Where those, (whcih could also be attributed to selfishness) want to destroy the holiness of marriage in making a mockery of it by implementing the very sins that would create a desolate world if everyone practiced it, and yet insist that it be recognized as equal or better than the holy institutions created by the Lord. Yet, if asked, people would claim the same thing, that they are righteous, far more than those of previous generations, and if anything, those today are the most righteous of any generation ever in the Americas or Europe. It is very similar in that aspect, and we see it again before the coming of the Lord in the Book of Mormon in Nephi's time. It's a repeating pattern that we can apply to our lives as well. However, yes, Obedience IS righteousness, but it is obedience to the Lord and his laws, not that of men or their constructions.

Of interest, our doctrines are found in our Four Standard Works, but if one wants what our current interpretations of our basic doctrines are as a church...this is probably a good start where they are summarized, but without having to read several hundred pages worth of material. Basic Doctrines Note, while this page is up today, the LDS website does change occasionally, so I cannot say whether it will be the same page tomorrow or in the future, but right now the link should work.

On the topic at hand, the gospel in the LDS church is a wonderful thing. In many instances, it leaves many things up to our interpretation. In others, things are clarified from the pulpit or otherwise to ensure that we are not mistaken in the current understanding. (Doctrine basically being our four standard works, which as per Joseph Fielding Smith can also be included to have modern revelation, but if something conflicts with what has come before [scripture being the baseline of our judging that] it is therefore not doctrine). Now, I must admit, I do not share Rob Osborn's interpretation or understanding of the three kingdoms of heaven, but I am beginning to understand HOW he gets to the understanding and interpretation. We already do believe some of the things he espouses, especially in regards to the Saints. We, as the Saints do exist in a Telestial world, and when the Millenium comes, I think some have stated that it will become a Terrestrial world. Whether that is or is not, I suppose is up to the individual interpretation. After that, in regards for the Saints, we hope to go to a Celestial World and receive our exaltation. We all have an idea of how that may work, but as Nephi stated if he understood the Condescension of God, in short he said, I do not know the meaning of all things. It is possible that though we understand the basics, we do not understand all that is to come or at least how it is to occur or work. Admittedly, Rob Osborn's explanation does not parallel that of our modern interpretations of what Section 76 as per our gospel manuals or otherwise, but I do not see that his explanation would necessarily oppose what is written in Section 76 all on it's own with careful reading. What is clear to me is that Rob Osborn has a very defined idea of what it means, and I think that currently, nothing stated thus far is going to change that idea. In that, I am trying to understand him and his ideas more and focus on what could be important. I do not think I understand everything there is about his beliefs at this point, but I can strive to understand his approach. That would not necessarily be the miscellanea of the gospel, or things that will not be resolved between individuals, but more on the correct principles and ordinances...that of faith, repentance, Baptism, and the Holy Ghost as well as keeping all the commandments we have been given and hence enduring to the end. It is probably far more important to focus on our common things than that which differs. If wanting to point out differences between what I believe and what Rob Osborn believes on the topic however, I would probably utilize Gospel Principles and other fundamental explanations about our current modern interpretations of scriptures in relation to what a Majority of LDS Saints currently believe today. It may be that his ideas are correct, but they are currently not shared by a majority of the church, and so to differentiate that it could be easier to make that clear by directly referencing various publications put out by the LDS church that make it abundantly clear what the majority currently believe on the topic. With great respect to Rob.

That doesn't seem very nice if you are posting it in regards to Rob Osborn's discussion currently. Is there a reason to post this, unless you are posting pictures of you and your family in reference to yourself in some way, in which case I have missed your connection to the discussion. Not sure why you'd post that picture of your family if that is so, or how that relates...but Rob had a very graceful response.

And they still are from what I understand. They are also part of the Kingdom of Heaven. However, one who is in the Telestial and in the Terestrial are also separated from the Father. Those in the Terrestrial can be visited by the Son, but from what I've read it seems that their progression is halted. They can no longer progress in the Kingdom, and they no longer see or visit with the Father for the rest of eternity. The Telestial do not even get visits from the Son, but may get angelic visitors. They also cannot advance or progress through eternity from what I understand. They are also separated from both the Father AND the Son. Only those in the Celestial Kingdom may progress and live with the Father. I think it depends on what you are using as a definition of Hell in what you regards as such.

Interesting. So, in relation to our modern world, would you then say that the classes would be similar to a Member the LDS church, someone who is not a Member of the LDS church...and those who didn't even get to come to Earth?

Well, how many in America want the original intent? People talk about restricting gun ownership from those who have mental disabilities...or from youth. That is FAR more restrictive already than what was originally intended, and as such, is already attributable to a living and breathing document. Why is this, have we as Americans become Monarchists? No. WE have become Federalists. Slight difference, but very similar in idea in regards to weapons and other rights. It is a cultural change. Neither of the MAJOR PARTIES (Republican or Democrat) want the original intent of most of the Bill of Rights today. They work within the modern interpretations of such things as separation between church and state (how many would advocate to having and enforcing state religions on a state scale for example?), or in regards to the right to bear arms (it's now over personal gun ownership, that means we've already gone down the line of not allowing individuals to own military grade stuff in other arenas like having your own personal F-35 that's armed with the latest and greatest military technology and other items of warfare). Both parties I see as adhering to the ideas of a Living and Breathing document. However, when we look at the Bill of Rights...was it re-written? Was it actually changed? No. It is our interpretation of it...which I think is more reflective of our CULTURE and how we are today rather than any deep necessity of change within the Bill of Rights or the constitution itself. Those Judges who view it as a living and breathing document tend to use this in their way of varying the interpretation which has made things that meant one thing to our Fore Fathers, mean something completely different to us today. Part of this I think is the advancement of technology as well. We are talking about gun laws in this thread overall, which is almost humorous in light of what the 2nd amendment was originally meant for. Who really thinks a bunch of civilians 30/30 is going to be anywhere a match for a group of soldiers armed with M-4's, grenades, a heavy gunner/machine gun, and perhaps air support from fighters and/or bombers with maybe an AC-130 Gunship tossed into the mix. Even if those guns were AK-15s, compared to the military hardware and abilities of just one platoon or even one fully armed Fighter/bomber in the military today, these things aren't even comparable. Our modern weapons have far more destructive capability than anything back then, and that's changed our perspective on what we even apply these amendments to. If we went with the original intent, it wouldn't be gun laws we would be discussing, but nuclear weapons or current air delivery for daisy cutters and if there should be some restrictions on them. Guns are small stuff. The destructive capabilities are just one thing that's changed the dialogue, our cultural outlook (as I said, we are Federalist today, and FAR stronger in our view of Federalism than the original Federalists were, they probably would be horrified at how far we've taken it), and many other aspects that have changed how we view the Constitution and apply it's rights to us today. As I said though, while one side understands WHY and HOW this is important, another part of me also thinks the Founding Fathers were correct and the Constitution should adhere more towards the original intent, then what we have been doing with it today.

I think most Americans right now are not completely one side or the other. I'd say almost any American that isn't for the original idea and letting Americans own the same weapons as the military may be standing in more of a grey area, if not completely on the side of the living document idea. Me? I can see both sides of it. I can see the benefits of both, which is probably why when discussing things like this it can appear I am two minds of it. Yes, I understand why the Founders put it in and I agree it is a good thing. I also see why it can be a bad thing (if Trump or George Soros, or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet could afford to own personal nuclear weapons...should we allow them to have their personal nuclear arsenal? Just for starters...). One could also say that the Civil War changed the entire fabric of the United States. It changed our entire perspective upon many aspects in the Bill of Rights. Whereas before we were more for independent states acting in unity, we have become more of a Federal entity where states are merely dividing lines. I suppose I'm very multiple personality when it comes to the ideas of whether it is living and breathing, or being opposed to it. Broad personal example. I'm a historian. I love reading about the past. Some of it is thinking it would be great to live in a certain time period. That period of 1790 onwards is one of those periods. To live that time period to right before the Civil War (a period of around 70 years) would be a fantastic time to live in my mind. There was a lot of freedom, pride in the US, a far more moral populace in general, and many other aspects. I like the morality of that time period (during which, I believe Joseph Smith said the inhabitants were already as wicked as those in the time of Noah, which says a lot about just how wicked we are today). I like MANY things about that time period. That could be applied to the time of the Roman Republic, or other periods of history. Then I come back to reality and realize, there's no air conditioning (believe it or not, this is a pretty big one for me). Police as a concept isn't the same as what we see today. There are no phones, radios, or cars or airplanes. Medical procedures that are standard and can save lives today are non-existent than...what we may see as a general medical practice of minor effect would have been a life saving miracle back then (this is actually another HUGE one for me). Our laws have changed and many would say adapted in relation to modern technology. If the Constitution were not a living and breathing document, what would happen. In addition, I also believed the Founders had an intent for the Bill of Rights, but also did intend to have the Constitution as a living and breathing document that could adapt as time went on (and when we see the Bill of Rights as the first example of that...well...). It was this that built resilience into it. In essence it was built for revolution, but a revolution that would not require the populace to have guns. Every few years they could overthrow their ruler, but in a peaceful manner instead of violent. They could even change the laws. At more drastic extremes they could change the very face of the Constitution via amendments. It has changed in interpretation in ways that I think has been good. For example, originally states had state religions. A state COULD have and enforce a religion and religious practices if it so desired. Many did not, but a few did. What would I do if I lived in a strict Presbyterian society? Would I want anyone living in Utah forced to be a Mormon if the did not want it...and what would happen to those who were excommunicated or otherwise? I can see the benefits of both. Which is probably why I facilitate more towards a middle ground in many instances rather then a specific one side or the other. Both parties (despite what they say) basically are in a middle ground, but both act upon the constitution like it is a breathing and living document. There are very few who are truly hardcore Constitutionalist in our time, from what I see...or at least that's my opinion. Some of the difficulties we see today, I see more as cultural changes and differences. I am unsure if the society that our Fore Fathers had would even work with the culture that resides in the US today. We are far more wicked, agnostic or atheistic, and violent than they were. Even Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (famous individuals which many love to try to utilize in arguments of separation of church and state) talked about the need for Americans to be moral people and the necessity of a grand or great Creator in regards to our nation. Many of the other Fore Fathers acknowledged that the Constitution was written for a Christian people that had Christian morals, that without those Morals the Constitution would not be of any force. I think we've come to that point, and it is possible that the original Constitution as they viewed it would be of no real force today. In that light, it has changed, and luckily for us is still working currently. However, in many ways I think the differences of then and now are more to our cultural changes (and many times for the worse) and how we interpret and do things rather than any massive change to the overall design of the Constitution. It's our interpretations and such that have changed and caused the changes.

Several thoughts, some at odds with each other. I think gun violence is more about how a society thinks and acts, rather than perhaps the guns themselves. The big difference I see today in regards to gun control are those who feel the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and those who feel we should always stick with what the founders intended. Many try to make up an excuse of what a well regulated militia is composed of, but from what I remember, a majority of the founding fathers actually were quite clear on this. The second amendment is one of the many checks the PEOPLE have on the tyranny of the government. It is upon the people to rise up and overthrow that government, if that government is of such a tyranny that such a rebellion is required. If this brings up a recollection of a recent war our Founding Fathers had prior to that, it should. This is directly in relation to the Revolutionary war, where firearms and major military weapons were outlawed to a certain degree by the British Empire upon the Colonists. When they talked about weapons, they had military grade cannon and military weapons with which they felt they needed to wage war with (and I believe one of the first battles was about, where the British were going to land to search and find and seize one or more military grade cannons they had heard the colonists concealed). However, when the war started, the best way to fight it was being organized, as with the Continental army and such. That does not mean this was required at the outset, but it was an essential element to actually winning independence. In that light, I believe one who is a Constitutionalist, instead of one who adheres to the living and breathing document idea, should say that this mean that ANY weapon is allowed by the populace. Any weapon that may be used by the military, is allowed to be owned by the populace. That is, of course, an unpopular opinion these days, even by those who are gun rights enthusiasts. However, I think if we are to truly keep in line with the Ideas that many of the Founders intended...that is what the intent would mean. It is far easier to have a revolution against tyranny if you possess weapons of equal scale, or at least a chance to have weapons of equal scale, to those that you are fighting. Some of this idea of an armed populace, I feel died down with the increase of Federal power. More specifically to the event where we did have individuals revolt and try to rebel against the United States in the Civil War. There we had a taste of what a war with those who have access to equivalent weapons was like, and I think MANY did not like it. Which brings us to the other side of the equation. In Japan, firearms are very heavily discouraged. In fact, for most it is illegal. There gun control laws are very restrictive. There ARE murders in japan, but their violence and murder rates are EXCESSIVELY low, and are in fact one of the lowest in the world. Many would point out this is the epitome of gun control, and shows absolutely that gun control works. Does it? Japan has VERY low murder rates. The irony is in the US. It seems the more restrictive the gun laws are in regards to gun control in the US, the higher the murder rates. From what I understand, Chicago and Washington DC have some of the strongest gun control laws in the US, as does California. However, these areas reign rather highly in per capita gun deaths. How is this possible. How could there be such a divergence between Japan and the US? I don't know exactly. I think gun control laws DO work in Japan. I think it IS proof that gun control laws WORK. They actually can cause less gun deaths and less violence overall. However, the question is WHY it works there as opposed to some areas of the US. My thoughts are that it has to do with the CULTURE of the people. It is the culture that espouses the acceptance of violence, or shame of violence. If we are to continue down the path of gun control, it could be commendable, but I think we need to analyze WHY such controls work in nations where they do. In these instances, perhaps a change of the culture of our society is also in line if these laws are too be more effective than they seem to be currently. Edit: Of course, this also beggars the question, if a culture was of such as that of Japan, but still allowed guns, would there even be a need for gun control. I'd say yes there would be, as Japan could also demonstrate. There has been less gun deaths and I think overall murders since they enacted gun control laws. I think in our US culture the deaths would go down if we had a similar culture but still allowed guns without controls. However, I think the lowest result of gun implemented deaths would be from implementing gun control. Of course, if we did as Japan, I also think that if you are a constitutionalist, you'd realize that this is probably directly against what the Founding Fathers ever intended to happen. It destroys the intent with why they had it as a right in the first place. One who has it as a living and breathing document solely, without reference to the original intent probably would have no such prohibition, in my own view.

In all honesty, I WANT you to be an effective defender of the faith/gospel/church...however you want to put it. I am NOT trying to be your enemy in this instance, and I am sorry if you feel that I am doing that. That is NOT my intent. As per your discussion above, you seem to be a man of strong emotions. Your wording makes it seem that you have very strong emotions in this regard. In this thread though, I am NOT your enemy. I am not THE enemy. I am actually agreeing with you to an extent. Much of what I've talked about relates to how things affect me, and how that can help you or others in relating the gospel. This is why I used the personal examples above, to hopefully help you and others better understand what has helped when they defend their faith in relation to my own personal life. Some were very good, some have been very bad. Much of this is stuff that one learns on their mission (don't argue to contention, contention is the spirit of the adversary, instead bear testimony, quote scriptures, relate talks from the general authorities). I can see this approach is seeming to make you more upset rather than help though...so let me try a different approach. Let me put it a different way. As I just stated, I am NOT your enemy in this thread. I am actually trying to agree with some of your points and be constructive in how we go about talking about being a defender of the faith. I am a member of the church. If anyone should be easy to convince, I should be it. There are many here who are also members of the church. They are our friends (or so I would hope) and want the best for us. When we discuss doctrine, we should be the easy ones to get along with and agree with. We can do this best by showing salient points by the church or general authorities, and then bearing testimony about it. I suppose a good example would be to show such a thing. Missionaries are at the forefront of representing the LDS church in the world today. As such, one could label them as the Army of God in our world, and in many aspects, defenders of the faith, and the foot soldiers that we send forth to do battle. How do they do this battle, not with swords and spears, but with words and prayers. It is their instruction that I turn to. From Preach my gospel Chapter 11 This is about how to get people to make commitments, but I think this is also key. It is the Holy Ghost that converts, not ourselves. We can state elements of the church, but we need to make sure we are doing so in way which invites the Holy Ghost to be the one that can convince.. From Preach my Gospel Chapter 4 Which brings and interesting quote up, so I clicked on the linke which brought me to the talk. It is more of building the spirit within us, but also has some interesting nuggets for convincing others as well. It is where Boyd K. Packer also uses the parable of salt in one of it's uses. It is an example of how powerful testimony can be, even if the one we bear it to still disagrees. However, he also refers back to scripture. And then I love this story, of how testimony and the Spirit are far stronger than that of our own wisdom and words. Boyd K. Packer's Talk Candle of the Lord So I'll speak my testimony now, as that's the pattern ascribed. I know that we can help others to feel the spirit. I know that one of the most powerful ways to do this is to bear our testimonies of the truth. We can also do that by acting in such a way that brings the spirit into our conversations. If we use this way of discussing, where we invite the spirit or try to have the spirit in our conversations, and have them feel the spirit, we will be far stronger in all that we do with the gospel and talking about the Lord. We discussed defending the gospel. I hope that at least in this we find common ground. I feel that by inviting the spirit and providing a space where it can dwell we can be far more effective with it bearing witness, than we can in and of ourselves. Now off of that TFP and this is specifically directed to you. I do not wish there to be bad blood between us. I am sorry you feel so angry and upset. We should be allies in the Lord for I feel that united we would do far more good than divided. I have tried to speak directly to you with respect, and I've tried to point out what I hoped were good aspects to praise you (though you unfortunately took affront to some of it, and I am sorry that you did). I am trying to be more friendly and uplifting towards you (though you seem to not have not taken it that way thus far, I may be mistaken) because I see that you (at least from your original post at the beginning of this thread) seem to have good intentions that I would agree with. That this is something I think we can find common ground upon, and perhaps build upon rather than tearing down. I have tried a different approach with this post in hopes that you can better understand what my point of view is in regards to your ideas of Defending the gospel. I hope that this can be a bridge between us to help us feel that spirit and grow a bond as brothers in the gospel, and find a unity of discipleship that we can share.

For us civilians, is there a reason why a DD makes it so that they cannot own a fire arm? What happens if it was something less than a felony (for example, what if they struck a superior officer or something to that effect), or something similar to that. I can understand it in relation to a criminal record, but I've heard of several instances of a DD that would not warrant such a prevention of possessing firearms in civilian life. That said, if such a thing should have prevented the shooter from possessing a firearm, he shouldn't have gotten it. A terrible incident.

That is actually a VERY deep question, though it may not appear so on the surface. I know many decades ago (far too many for me to reveal just how many, plus you may see how old I am then )I had a Mission President. He said if he was anywhere without his spouse in the hereafter, it would be Hell to him. When we think about spiritual death, it is the separation of man from his Father (and the Lord). This can have several different meanings. One could see it as the inability to see and be with the Lord. One could see it as a separation from the Kingdom of the Lord. One could also see it as several ideas. Pertaining to the two I just mentioned though... If it is the first, we know that in the Telestial Kingdom man are not visited by the Lord or the Father, but may be visitied with angelic messengers. In that light, one could postulate under at least one definition of spiritual death, that idea continues. However, as we believe the Telestial Kingdom is also part of the Kingdom of the Lord (as I believe this earth is also, at least I think it fall in that definition, but a fallen world rather than one raised in any glory), in that light it is salvation from hell. Edit: Such postulations could go on and one I think. However, when thinking about such things, normally these are NOT doctrine specifically, or doctrine as specifically pointed out by the LDS church. AS such, what I said above is my own ponderings, rather than the set doctrine of the LDS church. This is also why there may be such great deviations among members as to what different things mean or what various things in this life or the next hold.

Well, with the modern Catholics, they do believe that those who are not Catholic also have a chance to go to heaven. It is in a nutshell, very similar to the LDS idea. If one would have accepted Catholicism (clarification: but not in all instances, very limited, depending on what their beliefs and thoughts are), or are Catholics in their hearts, they will be saved. They may even have the Catholic church right there, but for some mortal reason, it is impossible for them to reasonably join, and as such may be subject to being saved. It is those that ARE catholic and reject Catholicism that are doomed.

Calm down. I believe this was a discussion about Defending the Gospel, and I agree with you that the Gospel does need defending at times. If that is why you choose to be here, that is a commendable goal. If you wish to discuss the other thread in depth, perhaps you should PM me about it. I brought some things up here as examples. Talking about you specifically, you can be aggressive at times, and sometimes it seems to me that it is because you are more Republican/conservative than adhering to the gospel. At those times, it can be very contentious. Confusing personal morality, especially in regards to politics and applying it as a gospel principle, rather than the church's apolitical stance, which has no party nor any party boundaries seems to me to be something that could be tailored down, and causes some despair. I think you probably are a fine lad in your offline life, and hopefully have a terrific and strong testimony. I think that you do not relay that effectively at times online. In that, as if you are as I hope, one with a great testimony and many spiritual things to share, I am hoping that if you listen to what I'm saying, you can convert your own personal testimony and conviction of the gospel more effectively to aid those like me and many others online in a vigorous defense of the gospel and the truth. AS for me, yes, there was one time I decided to fight back. It was once in your regards, so no, I have no repeatedly done anything towards you. Normally I simply walk away from threads that you get overly hostile in. I did push back against your insinuations and verbal assaults once, hoping that perhaps you would become just a tad more humble, as well as finally being tired of always being the one to just take it, and finally the desire to not be associated in any way with something that you brought up out of the blue (which I still think was somewhat inappropriate given the context and possibly hazardous to some, but that's a different thread than this one). It was probably the wrong thing to do. In that one instance, It was not Christlike at all, and as I said, it falls under the advice I probably should have adhered to. It is one that we all should think about. Instead of trying to act in our defense in those instances, perhaps we should ask the simple question that we find so commonly tossed around, but is so true...What would Jesus do? And in all honesty, at the end of the day, that's probably the advice we should all take, me included. We should absolutely defend the gospel. It needs to be with charity and love towards the individual. We should probably turn the other cheek, or offer to go the further than originally thought. Bearing testimony, offering up scriptures, and other such things are areas which work better then arguing. I think the idea that you have to defend the gospel is a correct one. The question isn't about whether we should or should not defend the gospel, as I agree with your idea that we should defend the gospel. The question therefore is HOW should we defend the gospel. In that light, I gave examples of what I've seen work and do not work in my personal experiences here. I think you could be a great proponent of the gospel, and a great defender of the faith. I just hope that you can reign in some of your personal emotions sometimes, and focus more on how to bring others to Christ in a Christlike manner. I also think that can apply to all of us (myself included), where we need to focus more on the Lord and what he would want us to do in bringing others to the faith, rather than other thoughts that probably hinder far more then help.

This may be a tough thing for LDS to understand, but Anatess is absolutely correct on this. For all of you who were never Catholic...there is a chance (however slight) that you will get to heaven. For those who had the truth in the Catholic church, but then reject it or choose a different faith, their fate is sealed. The best parallel would be akin to the LDS belief that those who did not hear the gospel but would have accepted it if given the chance will receive celestial glory. Contrast that to those who willingly choose to support another church, promote it, and then get excommunicated. Those who are Catholic and then join another religion, rejecting Catholicism are akin (though maybe even a tad worse) that the excommunicated member as per Catholicism. At least how I understand it and has been explained to me in regards to my own salvation or not. Adding: How each responds to it probably differs from household to household, but I think the parallel would be to ask what lengths would one go to if they felt the actions of their spouse would condemn that spouse to Hell. What would they do to prevent that from happening? For Catholics, the spouse is literally choosing to reject the Lord from a Catholic perspective. It can be a major disruption. At least from my understanding. Hence, the great need to pray and find out whether the Book of Mormon is true directly from the Holy Spirit/Lord. If one can find the truth of that, then they will know whether the choice they are making is the right choice or not.

There are many different understandings and thoughts on how Christian Gnostics (not to be confused with other Gnostics) believed and felt. The Christian Gnostics also believed in a physical and spiritual death as well as a resurrection from both physical and spiritual deaths. The pre-destination is slightly different from Calvinism, though I'm sure some Calvinist may feel differently. There's is more akin to what the LDS feel is fore-ordination, but in some ways more confusing...from what I understand. It's more of, the Lord is knows what is going to happen. Therefore, the Lord knew whether you'd join him or despise him. In a more LDS idea, he foreordained those to leadership in the gospel due to his knowledge of who would actually accept the gospel. He did not foreordain those who he knew would not accept the gospel. However, a key difference I see is how I interpret the Christian Gnostic idea of physical death and resurrection. It seems they did believe in a form of reincarnation, in that the individual, if not perfected in this life, would be brought back again to perfect themselves...however, this resurrection could eventually lead to a perfection of body and soul. The physical resurrection was something guaranteed to all, not just those who were pre-ordained. One major difference, and why I think it is related to Mormonism at times is because MANY Protestant sects (I think there are some though) do not believe in a physical resurrection like the Christian Gnostics. They believe in a spiritual resurrection, where our spirits go to heaven or hell. That said, there are Gnostic ideas that are in modern Christianity as well. I think there are many in the LDS faith that believe that after death we continue to go line upon line, precept upon precept until we attain perfection. I personally do not know how this will operate if it is true, but there are examples of it given I believe. I would be interested if you could expand on this idea that you present here, specifically about the 3 classes in the pre-existence and the 3 classes in regards to the term Gentile.

I think you should read the rest of my post before you comment on it...TBH. You'd find out that it may say something very different than you think it does. I don't believe I mentioned whether you were Christlike or not, and you may even find I commended you on a thing or tow or at least agreed.

Are you really asking, or just saying stuff. If you are truly asking and REALLY wanting to listen, I have a bit to say. I'll be general at first, and more specific to you at the end...if you even read that. I believe the gospel does need defenders. I was mentioning today (Elsewhere IRL), the gospel needs a more prominent presence of those who support it. Go to google, type "What do Mormons believe?" Look at the top ten results. For someone trying to find out about the church, how many of those sources would you want them to be their first definitive answer about the LDS church? I'd say less than half of them are complimentary of the LDS, and quite a few are harshly critical, and in some instances, blatantly lying about what the LDS church believes. We need more people out there and more LDS involvement in the internet and the various sources young people are getting their information from these days. The LDS church is trying, but is running far behind the rest of the youthful internet involvement, and doing things like a simple search on google can show this growing problem. I think there needs to be an involvement in defending and growing awareness of the LDS church and what it actually believes. On the otherhand, there IS a need to defend the gospel, but one has to know the difference between defending the gospel and destroying it. Being on the attack is not necessarily defending the gospel, and attacking others who are actually good members on a regular basis and calling them apostates, is more like bullying than anything relative to defending the gospel. When one bullies in the LDS church, it does more harm to the church and others, than help. First off, there IS bullying here. I've had some of the brunt of it recently, including a rather huge pile up due to it in some other threads, which at first I was aggressive (which admittedly may have been a mistake), but eventually just walked away from it after a short apology. Sometimes it seems that apparently bullying IS approved on this forum at times. If you do not subscribe to some of the conservative group think of the in-crowd here, that sometimes brings on a LOT of bullying of one. What is bullying specifically, it is when one goes into an attack in an effort to drive one away from the forum and possibly away from the gospel and the LDS church. What bothers me even more is that I've seen it applied to others (and bless his heart, Rob Osborn puts up with a LOT of it here, which is uncalled for, as do a few others) because they may not think the same way, but appear to be good members all the same. Why is this bad? Because if your joy is great if you save but one soul, what happens if you drive one or more of those souls away? In a nutshell, defending the gospel is vital, in my opinion, but being overly aggressive can be bad. This is a very fine line. I'll give examples as follows, but the gist of my thoughts have just been given above. One of the reasons I came to this forum was because it is one of the few places on the internet that is friendly to pro-LDS discussion. Almost every place I went looking to discuss LDS information and topics was anti-Mormon, and hostile to actual LDS members and actual discussion on what LDS individuals actually believe. This forum at least appeared to have allowance of good LDS discussion, and rules against anti-Mormon propaganda for the most part. This is part of what I'd consider defending the faith, having a location or place where actual discussion about gospel topics can be held, but directly derogatory commentary and those who would hate Mormons are normally NOT allowed. I'd consider that a defending the Faith aspect. Part of the reasons I came online is that I'm one of the lone members in my family in the LDS church. It is constantly under attack by them. They have had bad experiences with Mormons. There were some particularly bad Mormons that were directly acting as bullies upon my family when I was young. A relative of mine had found an LDS girl that she thought could be friends with. Instead, they shunned her, than called her names, then insulted her, and eventually ended up sending her to the emergency room. That caused a LOT of bad feelings there, and I wonder sometimes what may have been different if my relative (who was also a girl) had been treated better. It's also colored some emotions about ME in their regards because I joined the LDS church. That is probably a BAD thing that occurred. I sought out a place where I could discuss things about the LDS church because I do not feel I can discuss it with those at home. I may have indicated that I am in a leadership position, which is true. Some think that those in these positions may be perfect, or are completely solid. I am inadequate. In fact, I find it excessively hard and sometimes find myself fantasizing of just telling those above me I can't do this anymore and they'll have to find someone else. However, that thought also makes me feel incredibly guilty. I get a LOT of blame in my leadership calling, and sometimes I wonder if I take it far more personally or deeply than I should. I deal with issues relating to racism, discrimination, petty squabbles, and otherwise within the area which I am over. Even worse, I have NO answers to be honest in regards to those problems. The other problem is I do not feel there is anyone I can discuss it with in person. I do not want to weaken anyone's testimony in real life, and so I can't really discuss it with any of the individuals I know. I feel guilty if I bring it to those above me and feel they already see it as insignificant and falling prey to insinuations. And I absolutely can't bring it up to my extended family, as it would only have it reinforce their opinions of the LDS church already. This place gives me an area where I can state things in that regard and see what others say, but in hopefully a more faith promoting arena such as these forums. I see that as a way these forums help defend the church. I've recently reconsidered whether it's a good thing to be on these forums. Specifically at you (the OP), you confuse your political stance with the gospel. I am NOT what I'd say far left or really liberal. In California I'm was actually quite conservative when I was there. I AM liberal in regards to a majority of those on this forum (of course, in the Bay area a conservative may be a little different than a conservative in SLC Utah). This is a difficulty that some have at times. They confuse personal moral objectives with the gospel or gospel doctrine. When we try to ascribe judgment because of politics, rather than actual righteous judgment, that's probably not the best thing. At a guess, probably 50% of the US is liberal (and that means probably MORE liberal than I). In relation to US politics, Europe is more liberal, and thus in comparison to the US standard, probably 75 - 80% of Europe would be liberal (but more like 50% in European standards). If you are trying to drive a majority of people in the West away from the LDS church...that's not defending the gospel in my mind. If your goal is to drive away faithful LDS members that are not as conservative as you are...that's not defending the faith either. Why does this apply to me. I came here to discuss gospel topics. At times, these forums put a bad taste in my mouth. There's only so much I can read/listen to at times of people stating how I and those like me are apostates or worse. I already have difficult enough times dealing with hostile family members that the last thing I need from members is the same stuff right back at me. I may need a place to discuss things online, but is it really worth being bullied over? Maybe it's better to simply leave than to put up with that type of stuff? This is how this can be VERY bad. On the otherhand, people have legitimate questions regarding the LDS church. There are trolls on these forums occasionally that just want to give rise to anti-Mormon sentiment, but a majority that I've seen have been honestly seeking answers from those who LDS. This is a good place for it and a good thing. Bearing testimony, quoting doctrine from scripture verses, putting in links to Conference talks and quotes from them are all great things. Love, charity, and hope towards those who are seeking the truth are the best ways to defend the faith. The spirit of contention probably is not. Giving things that help the individual feel the spirit (such as the aforementioned, testimony, scriptures, and conference talks) are some of the most powerful tools in missionary work and in helping others to come closer to the Lord, if not the gospel as well. This is a very strong way to defend the church. On the otherhand, when someone says something we do not agree with, we tend to get slightly offended and want to attack back. I am not innocent of this either and sometimes may also be a bit bullyish. The thing is we need to realize when we are doing this, and try to stop. I understand the desire to attack those that attack us. It is a natural instinct. We want to attack that which we feel to be directly attacking us, and sometimes we pile on. I am guilty of this, others are as well. However, the Lord himself said to go the extra mile, to turn the other cheek, to agree quickly with thing adversary. When we spur the spirit of contention, generally it is only furthering the plans of the adversary. The spirit of contention is not of the Lord. This is a very bad thing and nor really defending the church as much as us trying to make ourselves feel better, rather than help anyone else. As I said, there is a very fine line. Very often, we can realize which we are doing by asking what is our intent. Are we doing it to try to bring others closer to the gospel, or is it some other reason. I think your intentions are well placed if it is to defend the gospel. I think defending is a vital thing people do these days. However, we need to be careful that we are actually defending the gospel rather than utilizing it as an excuse to fulfill some other desire or goal. It can be hard at times (especially if one feels like they are under attack), but the best example of how to do this is probably to look to the example of the Savior and, though some may see it as too common, a very good piece of advice and ask what would Jesus do? (and most of the time he wasn't kicking over tables and whipping people, though there is a time and a place for that as well, just not normally).

These are good scriptures to bring up and I'll read them and contemplate on what you stated. When you see the terrestrial world, for those who already passed on, do you see them coming back with terrestrial bodies during that time period, or how do you see it? If they come back, would that be a form of reincarnation? If they do not, then in what manner are they perfected, if I understand this portion of your post correctly. In otherwords, during the millennium you have those that passed away and those that will be "twinkled" (I think that's the popular term). How do you see them able to properly advance to learn to be the celestial grade. PS: Sorry if after you respond I don't respond soon, I may be off of the forums for a few days.

I've never made it to the Philippines yet. I do have relatives and thus connections to Germany though. It's been awhile since I seriously studied their laws, but they had some zingers too. I am an avid Axis and Allies fan, but the original box art was one I was told to avoid bringing to Germany by my relatives. There are some interesting laws and ideas there as well. Not half as onerous as many places, and I'd still consider them a free nation (though probably far more socialistic in some ways than the US, not as much as Sweden). I've only heard rumors about laws in the Philippines, but I've heard as for nations to visit, it's far more modernized then most, and a LOT more like America (as they used to be a part of the US) than most other nations out there. Supposed to be a nice place, but never had to go there and never vacationed there yet. Ironically I have a friend who is Japanese, but in Utah and Idaho has been mistaken as a Filipino . I'm not sure that makes him or Filipinos happy though, I get the idea that there is some tension between the two. I'm highly ignorant on Filipino culture on my end though.

I little odd there Vort. Hopefully Rob still returns and discusses this subject, because it would be fascinating to see his insights on this. I am actually genuinely curious, as this goes FAR beyond what Rob has talked about. To be clear, what I'm about to say is NOT doctrine and denied as anything remotely like doctrine by the LDS church. However, it is a fascinating study. There is some who think that many of the early thoughts by Brigham Young and others were in part based upon many of the ideas of the Christian Gnostics. In this way, if Rob got his ideas from them, it could be seen as a direct relation to the ideas of early LDS theology. Now, the Adam-God theory is NOT considered anything LDS today, and obviously NOT LDS doctrine. That said, there is some conjecture upon it. I might do some more in my personal thread into thoughts I have on it, but in this I'll relate the part that corresponds to what I think are startling parallels to what I think Rob has discussed. Brigham Young postulated an idea that Adam originally was a literal son of the Father, and in fact such has been utilized by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. Mckonkie when using the genealogy of Christ going back to Adam (Luke 3:38). He also postulated that Adam was originally a Celestial being that needed to descend to this Telestial station in order to have children. He considered that it was possibly Adam who's genetics were part of the Lord's physical make up, and hence for the Lord's mortal body, was his actual physical father. Additonally, the Lord stated in his mortal ministry, he did nothing but what his father did (John 5:18-20). If we utilize that in lieu of the above thought, it would indicate that Adam had previously also laid down his life and taken it up again. Next we have traditional interpretations of heaven, where the first heaven is referring to the sky above our heads. The second heaven is referring to the sky in which the stars reside (or which we know is now as Outer Space). The third heaven is literally the realm of the Lord, or what we normally think about when we call heaven. This would indicate that if the Celestial Kingdom is heaven, it indeed would be THE heaven. Then, as we have discussed recently in another thread the Word Celestial literally means heaven, while the word Terrestrial would be Earth. AS far as I know, there is no correlation of the Word Telestial traditionally outside Mormonism. Viewing it as that though, and the idea that the Terrestrial then may refer to a perfected Earth, the idea of the Gnostics could have a very real bearing upon the ideas that Rob has put forth. In this that there is only the Earth and heaven, where men are on Earth, but ultimately seek to obtain heaven. From what we know of the Christian Gnostics, this could be a VERY Christian Gnostic idea or parallel. It goes beyond that though and one could utilize it in different ways. For example, in a different manner than what Rob has presented, there are other plausbilities that could be interesting to see his take upon. Once again, remember what I'm talking about is officially NOT LDS doctrine as per LDS statements in our modern time. It is decidedly disavowed, but it is an interesting topic to explore. There has been statements that one who goes to the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom is at an end, they cannot progress any further. However, those that enter the Celestial Kingdom can progress. Now, if they are not in the highest degree of glory because they are not married for eternity, they are relegated to the second degree of the Celestial Glory. In theory, they could still advance. Pushing off of the idea that Adam was a Celestial being, Brigham Young could also have seen other possibilities. Have you ever wondered if anyone else may have come back to earth. Perhaps those who had physical bodies already in heaven but were servants and did bidding (hence had physical bodies, as may be hinted at by other LDS writings, ceremonies, etc and could thus actually interact with others physically) could return to this earth, undergo it's challenges again, but this time perhaps find someone to be eternally married to and thus progress to a higher degree. In regards to Adam having done this, it was seen as the Lord also doing this possibly (a little known item I believe from Joseph Fielding or Joseph F. actually postulated the idea of it being a Father, Son, and Grandson dynamic between Adam, the Lord, and the Father, with the Father being the Grandfather, and the Lord actually being Adam's father, but then coming down and being Adam's son...hard to present it as it was written). I suppose that also speaks of the reincarnation aspect...and which is perhaps a parallel that some may see between the early LDS leaders and Christian Gnostics. Now, if we go off of Rob's Osborn's ideas as I understand it, that means that that this Second degree of the Celestial Kingdom is actually the Terrestrial setting (as in the millennium type setting, with the lowest being our earth in general now days with how it's inhabitants act). This means that a Terrestrial being could return and possibly work on attaining the Celestial glory or reward. As I said, this is NOT something I actually believe, but in studying history, I found some very fascinating parallels of what I've heard Rob Osborn talk about. In fact, when reading them it brought him to mind. I'd be absolutely interested in hearing his insights on these things and his relation to LDS doctrine and theology. Of more interest, as I touched upon above, if one believes there was an apostasy or a great apostasy, the Christian Gnostics would be one (of several) ideas for those who would be the original followers of the original Gospel. Their "secret" could be very similar to how we LDS have so called "secrets" in our religion. They were all eliminated (thus fulfilling that part of the church apostatizing in the theology part), and there have been direct parallels made occasionally by a few scholars of religious doctrinal similarities between their beliefs that we've discovered (and as such, are probably in accurate in some parts as they were gone for a long time and what we have done is more a reconstruction of what we think they believed) and the LDs beliefs. Hopefully Rob responds, as this is something I'd be interested to hear his opinions on and perhaps pick his mind on.

I suppose partly, TFP IS a internet bully and I did finally have enough of his bully tactics. So, while he made broad accusations repeatedly in various places against anyone who wasn't conservative or was a prime example of someone who would drive people from the church, I decided to pursue his aggression as aggressively as he has done. I probably went a little too aggressively, but his own medicine is a pretty screwed up thing that he dishes out. I suppose I should have yet accepted the higher ground, but I had had it with his bullying and for once decided to fight back against it by acting similar to him. No one would defend me, or any of the others he bullies, because I am NOT the "in-crowd" for this site and so I fought back for once. Normally I will simply step back and say, is what I'm going to type nice or not...and if it isn't simply leave the thread. If temptation comes to strike back, I'll even stay away from the thread or even the forums for a few days. However, he has had his tendency to directly attack those in a very aggressive manner that really leaves a bad taste. I was sick of self banning because other individuals couldn't stop being a little overbearing. Still, utilizing his own tactics is probably something I shouldn't have done. It was lowering me to his level for once, which doesn't paint me in a good light. It doesn't end quite there though... In several countries which I visit, the freedoms people have in the US are not prevalent there, and indeed, not even given. Those laws forbid many things, including any connection to certain activities. I found it ironic that while he has accused others of serious sin for doing things that really aren't sins, he actually committed what would be considered a crime in some of those places I visit. So, while he makes accusations based on really stupid stuff, I bit down as depending on the nation, he actually committed a pretty bad crime (though, if he hadn't included minors in his inclusion, ironically, it would be more iffy, the inclusion of certain terms is what sealed it) if he were in other nations. NOW, in all truth and fairness, I normally do NOT browse forums while on site or in those nations for multiple reasons. In this case though, yes I also covered my rear end rather quickly in my statements (though I probably could have done it without being quite so obnoxious, that was my push back against the bullying). While I am there, even though it's work, as an American typically all my communication and interaction are monitored on the internet (and it's a little odd, as even more phone conversations are intercepted and listened to, you can identify a bad tap on the line and in some ways it can be humorous if you tell them they have a bad tap as you can hear them and then you hear a click or other item). IF, for some odd reason I did come to these forums, I could be guaranteed that anything under this user name would be read, and utilized. So, yes, even this comment that I know that they'd read this. I think I've made it abundantly clear in the above portions of the thread my stance though, but who knows what would happen. The other reason is the same places with these rules have very harsh rules normally in regards to many various things we take for granted in the US. Now, in some ways this is a very good thing, as in some areas of morality people are far better than the US. In other ways, it means if you really don't watch what you do or participate in, you will be punished severely. That's the other reason I typically don't browse the internet except for official business reasons while there, it's better to be safe than sorry. But I used the opportunity to point out that TFP himself is not as sinless as he made himself out to be, and in fact should reflect on his OWN beam in his eye then the mote he repeatedly tries to put on others. Was this wrong of me, maybe...and I apologize for going down to his level in doing this. I didn't see any other way of doing it other than accepting the abuse he normally dishes out, or fighting back like in the same manner he does to others. Probably not the best decision I made though. Many Americans live in their own little bubble and think the rest of the world and it's laws are just like the US. Sometimes they are very similar, but in some instances, they are very different. It can also be very hazardous. I knew of one Minister that went to minister (imagine that) to congregants and was kicked out of the nation. That's normally the least punishment one can expect and the best outcome. He wasn't kicked out for something he actually stated, nor was he kicked out for anything he did. He wasn't even kicked out for a direct association, but because of the opinion that he was of the attitude that he condoned certain things (that I talked about in this thread) in relation to certain groups that I won't mention to explicitly here. It was a clear warning that there are certain areas we were not to even come close to threatening though. In another nation we have TPN's (third party nationals) which in many ways could reflect human trafficking in some cases. However, when you include any discussion of minors in that regards, it quickly becomes an illegal item to be anywhere close to condoning and you must make it clear that you do NOT condone or agree with such things. They have crackdowns occasionally which have led to life sentences. Luckily I'm an American and normally they will just send them home with a stern warning never to return if we violate the law, but in the worst cases they do have prison sentences (and those prisons are NOT places you want to be, they are nothing like American prisons which are like palaces in comparison). So laws are different in other nations, some much more restrictive than the US. I don't expect any to wake up from the bubble they live in, but if possible I would hope that they realize that those in free nations should feel VERY grateful that they live in those nations. I've been to several places where the freedoms we take for granted are not available. What I did was probably not the best way to approach it, but then, letting Folk Prophet bully without regard isn't exactly the best thing either. So, yes, I fought back against the bullying on his part, instead of letting it go like I normally do. And yes, it was a pile on me because of it, but that's okay, I asked for it in part...and unlike some who we discussed who have been chased or shunned out of the church and accepted it, I kept coming back despite not being welcome. I do think this is something we do at the church at times though, we find our group and ignore some of those actions that we like, while we ostracize those who are not part of the in-crowd. Expecting me to ban myself every time a bully comes on the scene though, because I'm trying not to be as confrontational as they are, is asking a bit much I would say. I fought back because if I did not fight for myself, no one else would. That said, I'm not for more restrictive rules on these forums, I appreciate the free speech, but a little more consideration for others would be NICE at times. I myself could have taken a better slant at it, but I think that would have caused TFP to double down on bullying in his continuation of more and more excessive and ridiculous parallels into criminal justifications which made NO sense at all to me on why he pursued that matter, so to me it appeared for no other purpose than to be a bully (IMO). However, I'll try to be more my considerate self from now on, I apologize for the angst and upset feelings I may have caused others. However, the examples of relating criminal activities and asking if they are allowed because legal activities which you do not agree with is a pretty far reach and shows an excess of allowance in and of itself. Once again, I don't want to abridge free speech at all, and want the forum rules as they are, I just don't like being attacked mercilessly (and it wasn't just this thread) at times because someone's own perceptions to be able to slam into someone with no regard to what they think or even are talking about. And yes, JohnsonJones isn't my actual name (though if I browsed these forums in an area where my internet browsing is monitored, they wouldn't need to know my name, they'd have the moniker from my own activity honestly). It is a conglomeration of several names of which are directly part of my name or relatives.