JohnsonJones

I did. If you had read below you'd realize that wasn't the rest of my one sentence answer. It was putting in context another question for you to answer with one sentence. I even clarified that the first sentence was the answer I was giving and then gave a TLDR answer. I would prefer you answer the question I asked, as it pertains to my thought process. In the writing above, you miss the context of what I am referring to. I'm not promoting the wipeout of all Palestinians. I AM wondering at what point it is justified to simply level Gaza and leave it a smoking crater. The United States destroyed areas of Afghanistan completely that were larger than Gaza (to put it into context). Multiple Daisy cutters did crazy damage there at times. Afghanistan (from what I understand) was hit in more rural areas with those Daisy Cutters though. A Majority of Palestinians do not live in Gaza. If you took out Gaza though, it would still be considered a genocide. That said, in answer to your question...in our context, probably not because you haven't provided the context of the incidents nor is it a big enough disaster for international news. HOWEVER, taking it more in context of what I am talking about, the answer is yes, it could be a good consideration to close down certain wards or even stakes at times. I have seen incidents where Missionaries did some rather bad things in an area and that area was then closed down for missionaries. It's not just the recent attacks that have me pondering this though. That's just the capstone. We have incidents where non-palestinians get to Gaza and get brutalized. They just simply go after people and hurt them. It's not a safe area. This isn't Hamas that attack, but the people of Gaza itself. It's been known not to go in for a while. If you can go to one of the safer areas you would have heard some pretty vile rhetoric. It's not just a few people there, it's widespread. Now it's spilled out. Some, who have seen the images of what they've done are horrified. What they did is NOT civilized (war is not civilized, but there are some things which you can at least try to do. What Hamas did was the exact opposite. Anything that would be considered against the rules of warfare...they tried to do). All that wording, all the things they said they wanted to do...they were not joking. They were absolutely honest over all those years. Once you see that, you can't unsee. They do not just want their own place. They do not just want their own land. They do not just want to have the Jews out of the area. They want to massacre and kill the jews in the most horrific manner possible. They do not appear that they will ever change. They will just keep coming until they succeed. Eventually, if they ever get power (and no one can predict the future, some day it is very likely if they, as a people survive, they WILL get that type of power), they WILL do as they have said they would. At that point, all we will be able to say is that they told us their intentions and for some reason, we decided to ignore it all. The closest I can see is some of the Indian Conflicts in the United States that we do not talk about because it paints some of the tribes in a bad light. These tribes would take and torture settlers. Their style of warfare was designed around wiping out (we aren't talking about a simple, kill until someone surrenders, they did not accept surrender, they killed everyone. Think little Big Horn, but it includes any non-combatants as well). The United States responded in kind (not torture, they'd just kill the tribes). Situations between Native Americans and the United States were at times just as brutal (genocide was seen as acceptable to a degree. If you look at the numbers, the United States did a genocide on some of the Indian tribes more successfully than many other genocides done on purpose throughout history (not the most successful, but they killed a LOT of Native Americans, and some tribes were almost wiped out by the US). So, how does that reflect on what should be done to HAMAS and Gaza? It boils down to the answer I gave you above. or even shorter (which I also gave above). I don't know. I am undecided. I am trying to figure it out currently. What I've seen over the past two weeks has utterly revolted me. I don't see how those in Gaza can support Hamas at this point. I've framed it how I see it and I don't know what the solution is? I don't think most who say they are supporting the Palestinians and to a degree, Hamas currently, understand what Hamas is or what they've declared or what they actually did (and showed...they showed that everything they said in the past that they intend to do was not just bluster...they REALLY actually mean that, they mean the eradication of the Jewish People). I think we give Israel to little credit though. The US, through past action, has shown they would be far more aggressive towards someone who did this to us on a relatively similar scale. We would be crying out for blood the day after. Israel has shown GREAT restraint in what they've done. I don't know what the solution is. I know if I had a rabid dog that was threatening my family what I'd decide to do. Can I apply the same ideology to this? I don't know. It's not an easy question to answer in my mind currently.

Is it? The traditional definition of Damnation is eternal punishment in Hell. I don't see the three degrees of glory as doing that. If you tone it down to merely being torture and punishment in the afterlife...I still don't feel the three degrees are torture and punishment. They are a reward. It shows the great mercy and love of our Father and the Savior that even those worthy of a Telestial Glory are given such. It is not a punishment nor is it torture, it is a glory of heaven given to those as an eternal reward. I know those who claim that if they don't get the Celestial Kingdom they will regret it or be sad...but how do we know that? My feeling is that we basically will go where we choose to go. Those that do not want to go to the Celestial Kingdom will choose not to because they would be uncomfortable if they were there. It would be torture for them to be there and they will realize it. So they will go to a place where they will be most comfortable and happy instead. In a like manner, the only ones that do not get to a glory of heaven are those who reject it. They will NOT accept the atonement and thus by their own choice choose to go to outer Darkness.

It doesn't MATTER what you may feel or think, just as it doesn't matter what I may feel or think. The question posted is WHY people are acting as they are and what are some reasoning behind it. I understand what some of them are. It is as I said. They read these essays. When the Church says they don't accept the explanations of why the ban was put into place... Well...that means they don't accept the explanations. How much more clear can that be? The explanation was that it was revelation and doctrine. The Church doesn't accept that explanation (as per the essay). [The Church says they don't accept any of the explanations...how can it be more clear than that?] That's how it is understood. Doesn't matter if you and I say it means something different. This is a major problem for many people. They've referenced ME to these essays with the exact reasoning that I've given to you. This is what they use to try to discourage people (I know, they've tried to target me with this reasoning that I've relayed in this thread). If they WANT it to be understood other than how some people understand it, they need to revise how it is written. I actually agree. It does seem at times that those who are in charge of the Essays and the things stated by the Apostles are on different pages at times on certain subjects though. The Essays are NOT Church doctrine. They shouldn't be accepted as such. I see that they are being used by some to try to claim it though. HOWEVER, I do completely agree with your take. But if that's the reason they are having problems with the Church and leaving it, I think there could be things that could be done on our part to change that.

So, while I answered your question I can expect you will not answer mine?

That is one of several items. If we are addressing the Preisthood ban it specifically states This goes contrary to what was originally stated and believed. This was not the justification given. If we want to say it, this is actually very close to gaslighting what actually happened in my lifetime. The explanation for this was that it was revelation (which, as the essay states, is not accepted as an explanation today). It was also official doctrine. It was stated to be DOCTRINE when I joined the church. It was being fulfilled during my lifetime (and we saw it being fulfilled in many ways with Spencer W. Kimball). The Church prior to that had this doctrine reinforced in several ways. One of the more famous today is a Statement from George Albert Smith from 1949 which states This is why the revelation to the Prophet and the Twelve was such an astounding and marvelous revelation when it came. It was prophecy being fulfilled (a prophecy that had also been made by Brigham Young and later others such as Wilford Woodruff). Bruce R. McConkie had said to the effect that the African American would not get the Priesthood and then, after the revelation, had to stand and bear his testimony and retract that to reassure us that this was indeed revelation. He had been wrong with how soon it would be fulfilled. It was being fulfilled in our DAY!!! Part of the reason WHY some saw there was a restriction also applied to others who did NOT have a genealogy tied to Africa as well. We STILL have this restriction in place TO THIS DAY. (this does NOT mean this WAS the reason, only that some SAW it as the reason...it was NOT because they necessarily saw those with genealogy from Africa as Inferior or any other nonsense, at least where I was at). The restriction boiled down to choices in the pre-existence. We made choices in the pre-existence that affect where we are and what opportunities we have in this life. This is why there are those today that may not have the opportunies others have. In some instances it constrains what we can obtain or not obtain in this life. We may not understand things (for example). It is this reason why we at times do not cause those who are severely handicapped in certain manners to be baptized or to receive the priesthood. That many would use these very essays against the Church and what it is teaching is NOT surprising. To ACT surprised at how it is being interpreted by others is to ignore what is happening to some who read and interpret these essays. It is to ignore many who use them as a primary method to instill doubt in young members today online. These Essays have turned into POWERFUL anti-LDS tools that are used on a regular basis along with other items (which I won't bring up here, because frankly they aren't Church supported items and have no purpose in being here). So, we may not necessarily see it in this manner (which you point out), but it is absolutely seen in this manner by some out there and it has affected them in the way I have described. It's not just this essay either, there are other essays that they utilize as well.

I think it's a harder question to answer than people make it out to be. That's the answer. An even shorter answer would be... I don't know. That's the answer. Remember, just 30 years ago that was the Strategy of the United States of America towards the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. It is STILL a limited strategy that we hold as one to use in case of nuclear attack on the United States (we literally have the strategy to genocide RACES of people in some cases as we eliminate the nation they are found in by carpeting their land with nuclear weapons). Is it the right strategy to have? I don't know. Now, you can answer this. If a family came up to wipe out your entire family and killed your kid, would you allow them to kill the rest of your family, or how would you react?

I don't view it that way. I know some that do, but I do not. I view anything that is in the Kingdom of Heaven as one of the Glories of Heaven. It is not a Hell, it is a glory.

edit: Upon re-reading my own post, I see it may not be as clear as I intend. I apologize for any weakness of my own trying to convey what I mean. This is a tough one in my opinion. The Church itself on it's own website is claiming this already in the Gospel Essays. I find it has confused a great many. I've seen youth use these gospel Essays as the PRIMARY reasoning for their having opinions contrary to the Church and even proclaiming ideas that the prophet today is not the prophet. That if a prophet can retroactively proclaim what another said was divinely inspired as just an opinion, than neither is divinely inspired nor a prophet. That actually troubles me. It has left a wide rift among many and I have no answers on this. My only thought is that the prophets of the past are inspired and divinely led as well as those today. The differences are how those doctrines are understood. I'll elaborate in a PS below as how this works isn't really pertinent to what I want to say. The problem today is that people see two things as facts that they should not see. 1. When they declare the Church is true, what they mean is that the Church is perfect in every way. When they find out that the Church can have problems or even difficulties it deals a powerful blow to their testimony. If their testimony was based on the idea that the Church was perfect and they find out that it is not...then they have a conflict where facts don't support their belief. It can cause a crisis which some do not survive. 2. When they say they believe in the Prophet they mean that they believe the Prophet is infallible. They believe he is just as perfect as a Deity. When they find he may have faults or is just a man, this can cause a Crisis. Facts do not support what they believe, and as such can cause them to lose their entire testimony because their testimony was based on a falsehood. This is where the core thing comes in. We SHOULD recognize that our Church leaders are MEN. They are HUMAN. They are NOT deities and are NOT who we worship. We should follow what they teach and do what they say (for example, if the prophet says that we should all get rebaptized, we get rebaptized. If the prophet says we all should wear masks and get vaccinated, we should all wear masks and get vaccinated). However it does not mean we necessarily see him as anything greater than any other member. HE IS the mouthpiece of the Lord, but he is ALSO a person and a member just like you, or me, or others. Trying to hold him to inhuman measurements when he is just a human is bound to cause problems eventually. (edit: This is where I do not know if I am being clear enough. HE IS holy and he IS the mouthpiece of the Lord, but to expect him to be perfect or be greater than a man is unrealistic expectations. Our prophet is chosen by the Lord for certain things which we may or may not know or understand. This is not necessarily because he is the most righteous or the greatest among us, but because he is the RIGHT individual for that position at THAT time [just like any other calling hopefully]. To expect him to be the most perfect or righteous individual of the church, or even greater, a perfect being, is only setting our faith in false expectations that probably could never be fulfilled. I see far too many setting up this expectation of the prophet in their lives though. He COULD be the most righteous and the greatest, but it is not necessarily true either. What we HAVE to understand though is that HE IS a man, just like us, and AS a man he is Not yet perfect as only the Lord is perfect). I think one problem today is we've raised many of our children to think of things in a higher status than they should. Rather than see the Church as the vehicle for ordinances and covenants, they see it THE thing of worship. Instead of seeing that the Church is made for man, they see that man is made for the Church and it's perfection. Rather than see that the Prophet is merely the mouthpiece of the Lord and his representative to use, they see him as the Lord's avatar in the Flesh. This is bound to cause problems and I think it is causing problems. PS: In reference to the above, a prime example is the Adam/God theory. As people from Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith explain, the way Brigham Young said it and meant it actually perfectly supports the same way we believe today. The PROBLEM is that shortly after Brigham Young, his words were misunderstood and as such got reinterpreted to mean something entirely different than what he meant. If you understand Brigham's method of talking, you can understand perfectly what he said, but if you do not understand that method, you take it to mean something that does NOT represent what we believe. The problem came then that there were many who started to believe this theory meant something entirely different than what Brigham Young stated or intended it to be. They felt that it meant that Adam (or Michael) was the Father who is the Father of our Lord in spirit and flesh. This was incorrect, and as this idea became the meaning of what was meant when people mentioned this theory, that theory as it was understood in that way, had to be disavowed. We DID NOT throw away Brigham Young's speeches of it in the JoD, nor did we try to erase Brigham Young's teachings. We only disavowed the changed understanding that utilized the label and as that was the label used, disavowed it. I think the same could be said of some of the other teachings these days and how some people are understanding them. They understand it with a modern lens without actually understanding what was said. It is their current understanding of the thing which is being disavowed, not the teachings and doctrine that Brigham Young taught himself, and that applies to other prophets and such as well.

I think at my age, it's not going to matter much if I survive or die. It's all pretty quickly over anyways. However, that brings up another thought I've had often enough. It doesn't really matter if one lives to the second coming or not. If they die, they personally have their second coming at that point...and the decisions to be righteous or wicked come to bear at that point rather than having to wait X number of years for the Savior to return to rule this world in glory.

There is a desire to lump them all into one group. In the Gaza Strip, a GUESS on my part is that at least 75% of the population there support HAMAS. This is not all of the Palestinians. Gaza Strip is actually only one portion where Palestinians live. There are many of them in other parts of Israel and the adjoining areas (The West Bank for example). Ironically, what I hear is HAMAS has sworn the destruction of Israel and the death of every Jew there, but I haven't actually heard how they would deal with those who are NOT Jewish in Israel. From how they've acted I'm not sure they will make much distinction, but I do not know. Palestinians as individuals differ greatly. I know some as individuals that are great people. As a people though, they tend to create problems in many areas (not just Israel) that they go. This has caused problems with some of those that may be their friends otherwise.

That's been the strategy previously though. The plan during the Cold War was to wipe one group of people off the face of the earth before they could do it to you. The chances of it being successful quickly enough though pretty much guaranteed MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) which is why it never occurred. However, the strategy was to wipe out the other side, eradicate them much more fully than almost any other genocide has ever done in the history of the world. We did it to the Nazi's overall in World War 2, though that was also successful due to other factors besides straight up killing them all. We would have been forced to do it to the Japanese in World War 2 if Nuclear Bomb strategy had not worked to convince them to surrender (and it almost didn't). The British did it to the Indian Cults (not to be confused with the Native Americans) as they fought several groups in India. The United States practically did it during myriad Indian Wars (Native American Wars) on this continent. In the Bible it's what Joshua was ordered to do (though, as it wasn't completed, they were scourged by that decision for centuries after). If you have a nest of vipers in your child's room, do you try to move them to another place when the animal control can come collect them and move them to the wilderness, or do you try to kill them all as soon as possible? If it was a choice between having your entire family eradicated and tortured to death in a lingering and painful execution or eliminating the enemies which want to do that to you...which do you choose? Because, if given the chance, Hamas is going to kill each and every Jew in Israel if they can. We may think it's an easy decision, but when it's your or them, what do you choose? What should you choose? To die and have your entire people genocided instead...or to act and stop those who want to do that (after they've attacked multiple times, denied any treaty for peace because...they want to genocide you...so obviously peace is out of the question for them...and now have killed some of your family already again with the intent to kill all of you if possible) after they've started to attempt to do so? Saying, no it is not acceptable is an easy answer. But I'm not so sure it's always that simple. We, as a nation (US or UK), have obviously practiced that strategy to wipe an enemy out entirely, inclusive of those who are non-combatants in some wars in the past. It is easy to tell others that they shouldn't do so when we are in a position of safety and they are the ones who are threatened with Genocide (for the record, Israel is not threatening Genocide of the Palestinians or Hamas at this time, though HAMAS basically HAS declared a genocide on the Jews in Israel). The last time we actually were threatened with a genocide type act before the Cold War was probably certain areas during the Indian Wars (yes, there were tribes of Native Americans that when they waged war, it basically be to wipe out everyone of a certain tribe or group in an area), and we basically responded in kind at times (not always, but certain instances we went pretty barbaric). If we were threatened today, if 911 is any indication (which was not a genocide type attack, it was basically just an attack on US soil, at which point we made it a point to basically try to wipe out Al Quada and anyone we thought dealt with them) we would absolutely scream for genocide of the perpetrators if they wanted to genocide the US and proceeded to do an attack on the scale related to us to what happened in Israel (basically, take out the states of RI and Conn), at least if past behavior predicts what we would do. PS: I'm not saying it's the correct course of action, or necessarily the righteous course of action. I've just been thinking on what the proper response to someone who wants to genocide your own people is if you realize they will NEVER stop trying and someday if they get the power, they WILL do just that.

On Alma 9 - We see in the preceding chapter that Amulek could have his heart changed to help Alma. It shows how the Lord knows our hearts and can help choose us to do the work he wishes to be done. So, here, Amulek has joined Alma in teaching the word to the Ammonihah. The verses of 14 - 24 speaks dire warnings to them about their wickedness after knowing the Lord and his gospel. I wonder in our day, as we see more and more of our youth fall away from the gospel (and not just us, Christianity in general is having great difficulties with it's youth falling away from Christian belief) if the Lord will visit us with wrath and destruction much as he did the Nephites (and also in Israel to the Jews when it happened with them).

So, since they are mentioned, does that raise the number of women mentioned in the Book of Mormon to +2000?

Back on topic. I've been very busy the past little while so not able to comment. With the recent events it makes me wonder if wiping out a group of people is ever justified or not? I've seen many pro-palestinian things recently and also I have seen a lot of Restraint on Israel. We speak of the terrible things the Nazi's did leading up to and during World War 2, inclusive of the Holocaust. This event was where a bunch of people blamed the Jews for many of their troubles and then proceeded to try to kill all of them within their territories, or eventually to kill all of them and wipe them out. Instead, we wiped out the Nazi's, though we didn't kill everyone, and there were still some remnants left to bring about the Nazi and Neo-Nazi's of today with their ideology. You probably will not take my word for it (very few on these forums ever do, even when I post articles or other items), but Hamas wants to genocide the Jews. They are supported by a LOT of Palestinians (enough to keep power, and from what I've seen, those in Gaza are willingly allowing them to do so and fully support them. This means that you have a group of people that would not just wipe out Israel if given the chance, but do so by killing every Jew in Israel. They would not do it humanly either (and what the Germans did would be seen as Humane if you knew what Hamas would do if given the chance to). They would torture the Jews to death for spectacle, entertainment, and revenge. They would kill every Man, Woman, Child, and Baby of the Jews. I do not see this attitude going away. How do you deal with a people that want to wipe out another from the face of the earth like a rabid animal. Are you then justified at getting rid of them? Of course, if you did that, it probably also would be seen as a genocide? How does one respond to such hatred. People try to claim that Hamas was driven to this because of Israel. I disagree. Hamas could have acted as other nations and states have. They have some of the most beautiful beach areas of the Mediterranean if they so desired to have them. They have the perfect climate for it. They could be swelling with money if they so desired. They don't desire. They only desire one thing (which I pointed out above)...the genocide of the Jews. Israel have actually dealt with this with a GREAT DEAL of restraint in my opinion. Considering what the type of group they are up against and what that group would do if the situation was reversed...it is insane to think about how restrained Israel has been. To put it in scale...because we are much larger than Israel the attack on us would need to be a LOT more violent and larger...If another nation came in and nuked the entire state of Rhode Island...literally nuked it out of existence with multiple small nukes, and then went through Connecticut door to door killing any American they could find...We would nuke the HECK out of whatever nation did that to us most likely. We wouldn't care about Human rights or niceties, we'd simply use the nuclear option once it was used on us. Israel has not yet even responded in kind like we would have. Think about that. I am solidly pro-Israel currently in this issue...but I find more and more out there are turning against them in regards to this event.

Of interest and a little off topic, top tax rate in the US for Federal Taxes is 37%. California has a Tax rate of 13.30% for it's top tax rate. That right there is 50.30% tax! Add in sales tax at 7.25% and you are talking far over that 50% tax rate. Does this mean we are in bondage?? Note: This doesn't even include other "taxes" such as property tax or social security, etc.

PS: Latest news I've heard thus far is that the Peacebrokers are trying to broker a Peace between Israel and Hamas at this point. Gaza is on the verge of running out of supplies and even the Red Cross workers there are saying they are running out. Israel is at least giving some ear to the Peacebrokers. Hamas is absolutely refusing to talk or budge or anything. It's like talking to a blank wall. I'm not sure what is up but they WANT this to happen to Gaza, or so it seems. They aren't talking. Even as Gaza is having great difficulties Hamas is the hard nose ones (well, harder nosed than the Isreali's at least) here it sounds like.

Sorry, been a little busy as of late. Actually, I have been really busy as of late and looks like I'll be continuing to work over the weekend at this rate. Anyways, I'll try to give a few sources... From Israel itself... Trump revealed covert Israeli Mission in Syria to Russians Little less from Israel israeli intelligence furious over trumps loose lips The record from the US side is less upset than the Israeli's were (who were extremely upset for some reason) and tried to play it off without showing that Israel was actually REALLY upset about it... Isreal was source intelligence trump shared with russia So...the rumor that I've heard related to that in a big chain up to this event is far more plausible than some others I've heard in thread. Anyways...I'm for a quick read of the forums and then back to work for me.

War IS profiteering in many ways. It can also create an economical lift as long as the society engaged doesn't get destroyed or hurt beyond the lift it grants. That said...I don't think Biden is involved with this. It's far more likely the classified information that Trump gave to the Russians pertaining to Israel was then given to Iran and Iran used it to help plan this attack. We don't need the war in Israel for any economic lift in the US. Unless it REALLY explodes (I don't see it doing that) it won't have that effect as far as I see. Netanyahu had a problem recently with his Justice reforms. Supposedly many officers and leaders in the military resigned over these things. Some hypothesize that this loss of experience and manpower created gaps in their intelligence gathering as well as their preparedness that allowed this attack to be as bad as it was. However, if anything this unites Israel (from it's rather divided spot over these reforms) against a common enemy. This does FAR more for Netanyahu and his political situation than it does the US. Some also hypothesize that it was a move by Iran and Hamas to derail the Arab-Israel peace process that seemed to be forming extremely well. This actually seems more plausible than any of the other ideas I've read. It probably stands a good chance of doing that, at least for the time being. The price Hamas pays for it remains to be seen though.

So, why hasn't someone chased down the lights when they appear. When they start, someone runs towards them till the get to it's source...or, if they stop, position someone down the tracks until they appear and see if the other person sees them...and evaluate what is causing them? You would think that the Scientist studying it could get someone at the source of where it originates at some point by positioning students at different areas getting closer or further as the lights go off.

This is what I was thinking about as I read the Original post as well.

So, the other day I built a Book case and put it up. Which was more important, knowing about the Book case or actually building it? The same would apply here. Without knowing about the Book Case I could have never put it up in the first place. I could have never constructed that particular Book Case if I did not even know it existed. I could not have constructed the Book Case unless I had the belief that I was able to construct it. At the same time, if ALL I had was knowledge of the Book Case and the faith I would be able to build it, but never put in the effort to actually BUILD it...the Book case would have never been made. The Book Case would not exist without my work to build it. In this instance then, which is more important? The Book case MUST have BOTH MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AS WELL AS MY WORK in order to be built and exist. I'd say the same in answer to your question. You have to have both in order to have salvation. Each element on it's own does not work. One is the first STEP to Salvation, but the other is NECESSARY to actually ACHIEVE that salvation.

I know that is what they SAY, but I would argue it is fundamentally something very different. By DEFINITION, Trinitarians admit they DO NOT understand nor comprehend what and who they worship. They can understand and comprehend, but at the same time, by their own admittance (or at least those who believe in the creed above) do NOT understand their deity. THIS is the core difference. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do NOT state this. They believe that they CAN comprehend this, and then go further by DEFINING how this is comprehensible. THAT...I would say is the core sin that some Churches have against ours...or at least in their argument. THE irony is that they CANNOT actually say we are WRONG, because, once again, as pointed out, they themselves cannot define the relationship itself. It's like telling someone that you cannot calculate 2+2...you don't know the answer. You can comprehend that 2+2 exists and is a math problem, but you cannot calculate it. Then, when someone says that it equals 4...those who cannot figure out the problem say that is absolutely not the answer. HOW WOULD THEY KNOW...if they can't do the math...then HOW CAN THEY TELL SOMEONE ELSE they are WRONG? In the same way, if one cannot comprehend or understand the Trinity, how then can they tell someone else that their belief on how it works is wrong? In essence, all other things in the creed are also things that the LDS church promotes. There is MISUNDERSTANDING on the part of many Saints in that they also do not comprehend the similarities, but going down the list, they essentially believe the same as the Trinitarians with the exception of the comprehensible portion. They believe that Humanity is of a different substance than the immortal Deity. That what made Christ special is that for a brief while he shared a PART of this substance of mortality, but he was at first Divine (Being a Spirit and composed of it without any blood, the same as the Holy Spirit is, and as the Father also is not Flesh and blood but Flesh and Spirit...thus being of the Same substance as each other but not mortal as we are) and now also divine (of the same composition or type of body as his Father, being a Celestial Body or heavenly body rather than the Corruptible Mortal Flesh that we are). Thus he is the same substance, but at the same time, they are all THREE separate individuals (also something we agree upon). The question than comes on how we understand the oneness. IT IS NOT truly defined in the Creed except to show that they are one, and yet three. In this, the Saints also agree, that they are one and yet three. The GREAT SIN that those who say it is incomprehensible is that the Saints ALSO say that the way this is achieved is not just due to being of the same immortality as each other (or same substance, as differs from the substance of the mortal man) but also of the same mind, or being one in purpose rather than a more nebulous same brain in all three bodies but also different. It's that the Saints DARE to define the incomprehensible, or at least attempt to define it. And for that, many do not accept that the Saints are Christians. -------------------------------------------- The above is what we see on paper at least, and orally and vocally. The TRUTH of the matter from my perspective though is that the disagreements ACTUALLY stem from something very different, and the history is that the REAL reasons for the divide today is due to other matters. The doctrinal reasons are just the excuses that some religions have made up to try to justify the original purpose and reasons of WHY they wished to exclude the Latter-day Saints from being Christians (as if the Trinitarians can be the ones to judge rather than the Lord being the one who actually is the judge). (though in truth, and ironically, it first goes to the fact that they were polygamists and that offended them early on and so those churches sought ANY excuse to exclude the Latter-day Saints from Christianity, and later it was due to Missionaries converting members of their congregations. That the Church started converting Christians from one church or congregation into theirs was seen as scandalous and a crusade started among some of the Protestant Churches to stop this. In around the 60s and 70s you start seeing a massive movement to discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and much of what I've read and heard point out that it was MORE due to the missionary efforts of the Church itself rather than actual theological disagreements at first. This is when they started truly trying to find theological differences [even turning to those who were anti-LDS at times and spouting truths mixed with lies about the church to their members and anyone who would listen in an attempt to stop those conversions. It is in some ways...extremely ironic. I see it as the fore-cursor the current problem that all Christianity in the U.S. are experiencing today, because many of the same things they used to try to dissuade people from converting to the Church could ALSO be used against them. Many of these are now the arguments which young people are also using against the Christian Majority of Trinitarians on WHY they cannot be part of those Churches. In essence, those Churches laid the seeds of their own problems for young people falling away from them decades ago).

Driven in Utah, Florida, Atlanta, California, Texas, Virginia, and Montana and can say SLC drivers ignore more of the speed limits than any of those. Traffic in SLC isn't the worst, but drivers ignoring the rules are! (also driven many other locations, SLC drivers are the worst for following speed limits than any other locations I've visited). Haven't ever driven in Boston that I can recall though, and Illinois was just through North Illinois (along I-80) so I can't comment on how they compare, but yeah, the drivers from around mid SLC on South for around 40-50 miles simply seem to drive above the speed limit with very few exceptions. Of course, Humorously speaking...the traffic is so bad in L.A. that you couldn't drive faster than the speed limit if you WANTED to. It's just one big parking lot constantly.

Well, the structure looks like it's relatively okay...but...seeing that it's in this thread chances are that there's something weird with it going on. Better to just condemn it on principle and blow it up and clean up the rubble then rebuild.

So, having vistied Utah awhile ago (and I may have mentioned this before somewhere) while those North of Salt Lake seemed to follow speed limits, it seemed almost NO one followed speed limits South of Salt Lake. I would say they already declared the speed limits null and void in the area from Salt Lake City to Spanish Fork in Utah. I've never seen a place where they so flagrantly ignored the speed limit. I was driving the speed limit and was the slowest person on the Road! I've never see any place as bad as that for ignoring speed limits (and I've been to a lot of places...some have problems, but not as flagrantly as SLC)! To me it appears as if the speed laws are already null and void in SLC! I will say humorously though that in the Middle East, especially on the Arabian Peninsula many of the family (you have those who are actually citizens, they are normally part of a tribe and many of them are extremely rich and own very expensive cars) will drive no where close to the speed limit, driving as fast as they can. At the same time the majority of the populace (who are normally foreigners...being either TPNs [which many would say are the equivalent of slaves there] or those visiting on business drive under the speed limit (the fines are extremely harsh). Citizenship wise, they probably equal South SLC for speedsters, but populace wise, no where close.