person0

Members
  • Posts

    2029
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Backroads in Leftist and Abortion Soap Box   
    You are correct, and that would be another problem which is spawned by this issue.  Sadly, I have 0 expectation that, even if this technology is mastered to a 100% success rate, we would be successfully able to right the wrongs of current abortion law.  The intent, however, is merely to further prove that the current pro-abortion rhetoric is illegitimate and flawed.  The fact that this procedure would be available, would make it so that we could more easily establish that an individual could choose to find a way to pay for the artificial womb service, or carry the child to term.  We could, however, offer the service for 'free' only to those who were the victims of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother was at stake. Since those occurrences are rare anyway, the high cost would be justifiable in exchange that elective abortion would be outlawed in general.
  2. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Leftist and Abortion Soap Box   
    You are correct, and that would be another problem which is spawned by this issue.  Sadly, I have 0 expectation that, even if this technology is mastered to a 100% success rate, we would be successfully able to right the wrongs of current abortion law.  The intent, however, is merely to further prove that the current pro-abortion rhetoric is illegitimate and flawed.  The fact that this procedure would be available, would make it so that we could more easily establish that an individual could choose to find a way to pay for the artificial womb service, or carry the child to term.  We could, however, offer the service for 'free' only to those who were the victims of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother was at stake. Since those occurrences are rare anyway, the high cost would be justifiable in exchange that elective abortion would be outlawed in general.
  3. Like
    person0 got a reaction from eddified in Leftist and Abortion Soap Box   
    Scientific advancement may eventually catch up to them so that they will have to admit they simply want to destroy the possibility of that human life, and will not be able to hide behind such ridiculous untruthful talking points.  Exhibit A Functioning Artificial Womb:

    Human testing will begin soon on premature babies.  Once you take the baby out of the body, regardless of the current rhetoric, you can't argue that it's your body anymore, because now it is not only not yours, it's not even inside yours.  If you then don't allow or call for that child to be immediately placed into a functioning artificial womb and grown to sufficient maturity, you by default acknowledge your intent is to kill the child, and prevent it from having a chance at life.  All the existing rhetoric falls once this technology is mastered, (in actuality, just the plausibility of this technology should be enough).  Then, perhaps, more people will realize, it was never accurate in the first place.  Evil, sadly, however, will always come up with some rationalization or justification, as has been proven time and time again.
  4. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Backroads in Leftist and Abortion Soap Box   
    Scientific advancement may eventually catch up to them so that they will have to admit they simply want to destroy the possibility of that human life, and will not be able to hide behind such ridiculous untruthful talking points.  Exhibit A Functioning Artificial Womb:

    Human testing will begin soon on premature babies.  Once you take the baby out of the body, regardless of the current rhetoric, you can't argue that it's your body anymore, because now it is not only not yours, it's not even inside yours.  If you then don't allow or call for that child to be immediately placed into a functioning artificial womb and grown to sufficient maturity, you by default acknowledge your intent is to kill the child, and prevent it from having a chance at life.  All the existing rhetoric falls once this technology is mastered, (in actuality, just the plausibility of this technology should be enough).  Then, perhaps, more people will realize, it was never accurate in the first place.  Evil, sadly, however, will always come up with some rationalization or justification, as has been proven time and time again.
  5. Like
    person0 reacted to NeuroTypical in Leftist and Abortion Soap Box   
    Oh - and also, a bunch of witty pictures that illustrate the silliness can help too.  




  6. Like
    person0 got a reaction from anatess2 in Leftist and Abortion Soap Box   
    Scientific advancement may eventually catch up to them so that they will have to admit they simply want to destroy the possibility of that human life, and will not be able to hide behind such ridiculous untruthful talking points.  Exhibit A Functioning Artificial Womb:

    Human testing will begin soon on premature babies.  Once you take the baby out of the body, regardless of the current rhetoric, you can't argue that it's your body anymore, because now it is not only not yours, it's not even inside yours.  If you then don't allow or call for that child to be immediately placed into a functioning artificial womb and grown to sufficient maturity, you by default acknowledge your intent is to kill the child, and prevent it from having a chance at life.  All the existing rhetoric falls once this technology is mastered, (in actuality, just the plausibility of this technology should be enough).  Then, perhaps, more people will realize, it was never accurate in the first place.  Evil, sadly, however, will always come up with some rationalization or justification, as has been proven time and time again.
  7. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Sunday21 in Favorite Doctrinal Phrases Found In Hymns   
    #19 We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet
    "The wicked who fight against Zion
    Will surely be smitten at last."  

  8. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Vort in New Thread for Runewell   
    Considering the autographa are no longer in existence, your point is invalid.  The extant source texts are all copies, or copies of copies and no two match completely:
    So, we have two books of scriptural claim.  One with no original source available (the Bible), and the sources that are available are copies of copies that do not even match one another, copied by people who also could have made modifications or corrections (obviously they did since not all copies match).  On the other hand we have the other (the Book of Mormon), also without the original source (the plates), which has gone through minor grammatical and clarificatory revisions. However, because of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the original printers manuscript is available to everyone in the world.  So any revisions to the Book of Mormon are irrelevant, because, anyone can also say that the original source text is the most correct version, and that version does exist.
    Obviously this is false.  An objective atheist would conclude that both books are equally fallacious documents having the effect of suppressing the people due to false truth they were led to believe, regardless of historical significance.  One can only truly know the truthfulness of the Bible by the power of the Holy Ghost, same as the Book of Mormon.  Regardless, however, you simply want to establish a rationale to continue in your current belief and reject and strive to disprove ours.
    For this particular argument, you are trying to say that the Church isn't true because it changed the text.  However, in another thread you also make claims that would lead one to see that you believe Joseph Smith is a false prophet (looks like the moderators have removed your post).  So that means that even if the Church had not made any adjustments at all, you would still believe it is false because you do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.  Sounds to me like you have a personal conundrum at your hands.  Once you decide Joseph Smith was a true prophet, everything else will eventually fall into place (and it is evident you already know how to find out).
    EDIT:  By the way, remember when I claimed that the Spirit of God bore witness of your malintent.  You've done an excellent job of settling the matter.  I guess I must be a true prophet, so now you know you can listen to me when I tell you the Book of Mormon is true!  
  9. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Anddenex in New Thread for Runewell   
    Considering the autographa are no longer in existence, your point is invalid.  The extant source texts are all copies, or copies of copies and no two match completely:
    So, we have two books of scriptural claim.  One with no original source available (the Bible), and the sources that are available are copies of copies that do not even match one another, copied by people who also could have made modifications or corrections (obviously they did since not all copies match).  On the other hand we have the other (the Book of Mormon), also without the original source (the plates), which has gone through minor grammatical and clarificatory revisions. However, because of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the original printers manuscript is available to everyone in the world.  So any revisions to the Book of Mormon are irrelevant, because, anyone can also say that the original source text is the most correct version, and that version does exist.
    Obviously this is false.  An objective atheist would conclude that both books are equally fallacious documents having the effect of suppressing the people due to false truth they were led to believe, regardless of historical significance.  One can only truly know the truthfulness of the Bible by the power of the Holy Ghost, same as the Book of Mormon.  Regardless, however, you simply want to establish a rationale to continue in your current belief and reject and strive to disprove ours.
    For this particular argument, you are trying to say that the Church isn't true because it changed the text.  However, in another thread you also make claims that would lead one to see that you believe Joseph Smith is a false prophet (looks like the moderators have removed your post).  So that means that even if the Church had not made any adjustments at all, you would still believe it is false because you do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.  Sounds to me like you have a personal conundrum at your hands.  Once you decide Joseph Smith was a true prophet, everything else will eventually fall into place (and it is evident you already know how to find out).
    EDIT:  By the way, remember when I claimed that the Spirit of God bore witness of your malintent.  You've done an excellent job of settling the matter.  I guess I must be a true prophet, so now you know you can listen to me when I tell you the Book of Mormon is true!  
  10. Like
    person0 reacted to Just_A_Guy in New Thread for Runewell   
    The autographs of the Bible are no more available for scholarly scrutiny than Joseph Smith's gold plates are.
  11. Like
    person0 reacted to The Folk Prophet in Busting “The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy”   
    I think this misses the point (haven't read all the replies yet).
    Compare like to like. Let's say, for example, that marriage was outlawed. Then some group practiced it anyhow but abused it and forced it and took underage brides and what-have-you (all monogamously). Would that be an argument against marriage?
  12. Like
    person0 reacted to Anddenex in New Thread for Runewell   
    Read the Introduction to the Book of Mormon very carefully. Again, take the time to view the corrections made and NeuroTypical provided you with some sources to read. It's reliability isn't suspect at all. What is happening is an individual is implying terms and then saying, "If they don't fit my terms, it is completely suspect." If you want to believe this, it is your choice. The Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God. The translation is correct.
    The Book of Abraham isn't a volume of the Book of Mormon. It would be similar to saying the New Testament is a another volume of the Old Testament. They are completely separate records.
    Moses had critics. Noah had critics. Enoch had critics. Peter had critics. Jesus had critics. If you want to listen to critics that again is your choice. The Book of Mormon is true. It is scripture just like the Bible. Proof is evidenced by God. There is no evidence to Christ's resurrection. Jesus Christ is the Savior. Their is no proof or evidence that he is God or the Savior. Jesus Christ like the Book of Mormon are what they claim to be. Jesus is God. The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ. I don't need science to give me proof of the evidence of God. I don't need science to give me proof that Noah built an arch. I don't need science to prove Moses parted the red sea. I don't need science to testify, give evidence, that Adam and Eve were the first parents of God's sons and daughters. I know this by the power of the Holy Ghost, as Peter knew Jesus was the Son of God, not because man said so, but because the Father gave him witness. As Peter knew Christ was the Savior from the Father. I know the Book of Mormon is true from the Father through the power of his Spirit. If you want to claim otherwise, you can claim otherwise, it doesn't change what the Father has revealed to me.
    But I do wish you the best in seeking to provide evidence of truth -- proof of truth -- of more than half of the events in the Bible. I assume then it must be just what people claim to believe, not true either?
  13. Like
    person0 reacted to The Folk Prophet in Busting “The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy”   
    Unless you're an apostle or the prophet, it pretty much amounts to the same thing.
  14. Like
    person0 reacted to Rob Osborn in Can a person who is single have their calling and election made sure?   
    https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/07/accepted-of-the-lord-the-doctrine-of-making-your-calling-and-election-sure?lang=eng
  15. Like
    person0 reacted to Just_A_Guy in New Thread for Runewell   
    Don't not hold back, @NeuroTypical.  Tell us how you really feel!
  16. Like
    person0 reacted to NeuroTypical in New Thread for Runewell   
    Oh fun - you've encountered some old-style antimormon criticism, and it sounded good to you.  Well, it's been a few years since I've encountered this one - the internet having made the obvious answers so available to people, most critics dropped it.  But since you seem to have missed the responses, here you go:
    https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/12/understanding-textual-changes-in-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
    https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2002/changes-in-the-book-of-mormon
    Also, how odd to see a Christian level this particular complaint against the Book of Mormon.  Are you of the opinion, runewell, that somehow the Bible is exempt from human alteration?  Do you believe what you read (in any of the dozens of popular different translations out there) is the same verbiage that existed 100 years ago, or 1000, or 2017?  Are you unaware of the human-run councils way back when, where folks got together and chose what scripture would be considered 'canon', and what wouldn't?  
    Are you aware of the impact the Dead Sea Scrolls had on our understanding of original biblical text?  Are you aware that some of the original groundbreaking work was done by Prof Donald Parry, professor of Hebrew at Brigham Young University, back in the '90's?
    Basically, if you think a book that has been changed much in a few centuries gives you pause, there's no way on God's green earth you should ever give the Bible a second glance, as it stands condemned of that criticism by orders of magnitude.  
    Pray tell, what other pearls of antimormon wisdom do you have to share with us poor deluded Mormons?
  17. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in New Thread for Runewell   
    Yes, it does.  That is an artistic form of expressing the statement.  It works either way you ask, but if you want to ask if it's not true with a sincere heart, please do.  Based on your communications, however, it does not appear that you as of yet have a sincere heart regarding this specific matter.
    This is the second self-contradictory statement you have made (the first being denying that the Holy Ghost bears witness of the real truth).  The only way your reasoning above can be valid is if you are not a Christian, and are not coming from the Christian perspective.  It appears, however, that you claim to be a Christian.  Using your same reasoning above, why would you believe the Bible to be true?  It has been changed many more times than that over it's history.
  18. Like
    person0 got a reaction from SilentOne in Am I Good Enough? Will I Make It?   
    Jesus was given a death sentence, what did he do wrong?
  19. Like
    person0 got a reaction from SilentOne in Am I Good Enough? Will I Make It?   
    @runewell In my experience most Christians of other faiths do not understand the word 'works' the same way we do (which contributes to confusion in their faith vs works perspective).  Most people do not realize that prayer, repentance, scripture studies, and every other gospel related action, are all works.  I was talking to a former employer one time about faith vs works and he finally told me about how giving to the poor, etc was his idea of works and I came to the realization that he did not interpret it the way we do (even though he acknowledged that those things were important commandments).
    My perspective is that works (in the gospel) is anything that you do with your mind or body to take action that leads you to Christ.  So as @Carborendum said, the very fact that he was admitting guilt and acknowledging the Savior is in itself a work.
  20. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Vort in I Hate My Patriarchal Blessing   
    Translation:  I hate what God has decided I need to know in order to achieve His purposes for my life.

  21. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in Favorite Doctrinal Phrases Found In Hymns   
    #19 We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet
    "The wicked who fight against Zion
    Will surely be smitten at last."  

  22. Like
    person0 reacted to Vort in Busting “The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy”   
    Not what I expected. Good for Gabriella Loosie for seeing past Carol Lynn Pearson's rants -- or, at least, good for Sister Loosie for reading Hale's review of Pearson's book and for finding Ulrich's historically based review. Sister Pearson would do well to learn to keep her unfounded speculations and anti-prophetic rants to herself. How her writing is not considered open apostasy I just can't figure out.
    There is a certain type of woman in today's Church, not entirely uncommon, tending to be older but found in all age ranges, that takes the historical practice of plural marriage as a personal affront and fights against it with surprising ferocity. I am convinced that some of these women, if told by God himself that polygamy was justified and righteous, would tell God in no uncertain terms that he was wrong.
    NEWS FLASH: We don't live polygamy today. If the practice of plural marriage bothers you, then quit thinking about it.
    Denying historical revelations because you don't like them is always, 100% of the time, a dangerous practice. Glad to see people like Loosie, who are honest and self-aware enough not to reject Joseph Smith's revelations for reasons of personal taste or convenience.
  23. Like
    person0 got a reaction from anatess2 in 3 Mormons: Feminism   
    There is nothing good in feminism.  The feminist movement, by definition, is not good.
    Feminism is contributory to the societal decline of the family, and as a result the decline of righteousness in the United States.  Feminism is not about equality or justice, it is about power and control.
    Women in leadership in the Church has absolutely nothing to do with feminism or the feminist movement, such a notion is completely false.  The fact that Emma Smith was an influential leader is evidence of this, as her leadership and position was inspired by God long before the feminist movement came to be.
    While women are and should be able to enter the work force, this should be a well thought out and prayerful decision (in righteous counsel with their spouse if married), rather than the norm that feminism wants it to be.  There is place for women in the work force without the modern feminist movement.  Feminism is anti-women, it specifically seeks to degrade a woman's sacred role as a mother.  'By their fruits ye shall know them'.
  24. Like
    person0 reacted to estradling75 in Is there more than one Celestial Kingdom?   
    We might be in error in thinking to much about the Kingdom aspect as compared to our earthly standard of such.
    I do not envision the Celestial Kingdom as having the kind of boundaries as we commonly think of boundaries.  Anything that can "bare the weight" of Celestial Glory is going to be part of the Celestial Kingdom... And if you can handle the Celestial then you can handle the lesser.. so no Kingdom is denied you (The reverse is not true though)
    So the Earth becoming a Celestial body means it adds to the Celestial Kingdom.  So in that sense no.  But it seems like it will be our "Family Home" in a sense where we begin our efforts in so it will be important to us as part of our beginning in a sense.
     
  25. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Kids and school lunches and what Christ would do   
    How is it even possible that you are doing anything wrong in this situation?  The simple fact that you are asking this question is evidence of your sincerity and love for your students.
    This family has a few choices, allow their child to eat school lunch, send the child to school with a packed lunch, or send snacks to tide the child over until  afternoon lunch/dinner at home.  The only other option is allowing the child to go hungry until dinner.  If the family is asking you to provide snacks, then they are choosing the latter option.
    You have no responsibility whatsoever to spend your own money to provide food or snacks for this child.  If her family is in financial trouble, they can seek out help through other means.  This sounds like a self entitlement problem to me, and I personally would not support them in this.  If they do not find their own way to provide for their child's needs, then eventually this becomes a neglect issue and CPS would come into play.  They can go to the school principle, the board of education, etc, etc, if they feel the school lunch options are not appropriate to their child's health.
    I would forward the information to the principle. I would say the Christlike thing to do in this case is to allow them to love their child enough to make sacrifices in order to provide for her in the way they are supposed to as her parents.  They are not entitled to use you to fill the gap of their incompetence.