AnthonyB2

Members
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

AnthonyB2's Achievements

  1. OK as a non American I didn't understand this, I only heard about it from Trumps initial rant. My immediate thought was, isn't kneeling more respectful then standing? You kneel to propose. You kneel when when getting an honour from a monarch, like being knighted. Some christian kneel to receive communion. Some people kneel whilst getting married. So I couldn't get why Trump was upset about people being more respectful of the anthem then they normally were. I know get that he sees it as protresting and therefore not respecting the symbol, but isnt the whole "mythological" history of the USA that a rebellious protest was a good thing? Your a nation that celebrates rebels as your founding fathers? Isn't the Boston Tea Party a private property destroying riot for a cause?
  2. Malcolm Turnbull (Aus PM) Today’s vandalism of statues of James Cook and Lachlan Macquarie is a cowardly criminal act and I hope the police swiftly find those responsible and bring them to justice. But it is also part of a deeply disturbing and totalitarian campaign to not just challenge our history but to deny it and obliterate it. This is what Stalin did. When he fell out with his henchmen he didn’t just execute them, they were removed from all official photographs - they became non-persons, banished not just from life’s mortal coil but from memory and history itself. Tearing down or defacing statues of our colonial era explorers and governors is not much better than that. Of course Cook didn’t “discover” Australia anymore than Columbus “discovered” America or Marco Polo "discovered" China. I knew that when as a schoolboy I first read the inscription. The statue gives a perspective of history from the time it was erected - 1879. Just as a history text in the Mitchell Library from the same era would do. Is the next step of this new totalitarianism to burn the 19th century histories of Australia as well, or should their yellowing pages be simply overwritten in crude graffiti condemning their long dead authors? Old histories should not be burned, anymore than old statues should be torn down. Rather they should be challenged and complemented by new histories, fresh evidence and modern monuments. Statues, inscriptions, monuments are all part of our history not simply because of what they record but of how it is recorded. We do not adopt every inscription on every statue or monument - it is a voice at a point in time. How many ancient Roman monuments show slaves shackled to the chariot wheels of their Roman conquerors? Does that mean modern Italians endorse slavery? Or chariots? Old statues and monuments which tell one version of events offer the opportunity to tell another. It might be another new monument nearby or an interpretative panel, after all contention and controversy enliven history.... Yes, there are many dark chapters of injustice, hardship and cruelty. And none crueller or more unjust than the dispossession of our first Australians. But we do not advance the clear eyed telling of the truth as we see it today, by trying to obliterate the reality of the different perspectives of times past. A free society debates its history, it does not deny it. It writes new books, it does not burn old ones. It builds new monuments as it preserves old ones. And above all, a free society recognises that the history each generation makes, and writes, builds upon the ones that came before to create our nation’s remarkable Australian story.
  3. Anatess2, Australia is constitutionally very similar to the US. Our states are each constitutional monarchies with legitimately organized, constitutional, and democratically elected governments that ceded only 20 enumerated rights to the Australian Commonwealth and as states retained all non ceded rights. The Australian colonies voted themselves into statehood. However we learnt from the US and ensured that our constitution made it clear the Commonwealth once joined,was "indissoluble" and we forbade states from having their own militaries.
  4. As a fellow Aussie, I'm not sure we have a similar issue to the US civil war. We do have statues of Ned Kelly, who clearly killed police officers. Large monuments to Eureka, which was a rebellion against the government of the its day.
  5. Just_A_Guy, Thanks the article was very good. BTW If you have ever wondered, what a left leaning Trump figure would be like, Billy Hughes, Australia's WW1 PM would be a great fit, although he was probably much more witty then Trump....Quote from an article I found....
  6. I would suggest, firstly whenever possible instead of pulling down a monument, raise another monument next it with a balancing figure or person. Secondly instead of destroying the monuments, they should be moved to a memorial park dedicated to removed monuments. There they have a plaque explaining why they were put up and why they were removed. Like a cemetery for no longer wanted monuments.
  7. Whilst I appreciate that a clear stance was made in terms of distancing from unacceptable groups. I think there are some interesting questions (for some of which I have no answers)... If Gen Lee is unacceptable as a figure to be placed on statue, (remember the original protest was the removal of his statue) due to his own views and that far right people laud him, how far do we go with repudiating people from previous generations?? Is Jefferson or Washington Ok to have statues, as slave owners? Teddy Roosevelt certainly had strong views on race? A case could be made against Winston Churchill? And to hopefully not to be too controversial on an LDS website, but some people find Brigham Young a challenging figure. Instead pulling down statues, why not raise statues of others....Put a monument to Sherman next to Lee, or MLK, or Jackie Robinson or just some local person of colour notable? Also genetic testing has clearly revealed that many people who present as one race, having ancestry of another. The number of test where people thought they had native American blood but actually had white ancestry and then seem disappointed in being partly of European descent. I have the possibility of having native Australian ancestry and would be very happy if I were so. People have a lot more mixing then many realize.
  8. Sorry to intrude, but I thought I would add that sometimes people say repetitious things for various reasons... Someone may find that any form of public speaking is very intimidating, using a well worn phrase may help them to speak, when else they would be silent. Or something may have crushed them (eg death of a child or spouse), they are struggling through greif and pain, they may not have the ability or feel the faith to speak fresh words but can determinedly speak cliche words as an act faith, They are clinging to Jesus in a simple way, till the day they can run, dance and worship him more freely.
  9. Growing up in a single parent family, the senior elder at my church (equivalent of LDS Bishop), had me help hm on his farm. The pocket money was great but the thing i value most now was the virtues that I saw him display. It was only years after that I really valued the gift of time that he spent with me was worth.
  10. Not sure if this is an answer but my jumbled thoughts to your query are. God is only bound by laws that are intrinsic to who He is and are consistent to his character. God is loving, holy, merciful, compassionate. So the laws God is bound by must flow from who he intrinsically is. He cannot be unholy or unloving etc, he is not however forced to act in a manner because of a law, rather he innately is that way and can be no other. His actions in incarnation, atonement and redemption flowed naturally from who He is.
  11. Whilst I agree heathen (whilst maybe technically true) sounds harsh, they may be agnostic or just non lds theists. Unbelievers sounds less harsh but how about having some optimism and call them prebelievers.
  12. Thanks PC, you're right There also some Pentecostal groups (eg Apostolic) and some pre-Pentecostal groups (eg Catholic Apostolic), who have (from their perspective) restored the role of Apostles to the church.
  13. Apostasy and Restoration Keeping up the theme of beliefs I think LDS share in some sense share with churches founded in the US around the same the period in history that are often termed restorationist LDS -Apostasy included complete loss of priesthood power and required direct intervention by God to restore the truth SDA -Apostasy included moving to Sunday worship, required prophetic ministry to restore the truth CoC -Apostasy included Constatinian church state enmeshment with the move to infant baptism, milder restoration required by removing all non NT traditions and beliefs from the church.
  14. I presume it was meant to be a closed book quiz... 1) What is the secondary title of the Book of Mormon? Another testament to Jesus Christ 2) Who are the two primary nations in the Book of Mormon? Nephites and Lamanites 3) What time period does the Book of Mormon cover? Around 1000BC to 400AD 4) Who is the primary author of the Book of Mormon? Joseph Smith 5) What is the single greatest and most repeated theme in the Book of Mormon? Faith in Jesus
  15. Jane_Doe, Thanks for the Welcome. Not believers baptism but believers baptism for the remission of sins, is distinctly restorationist. My understanding of anabaptist theology is not huge (so i am happy to be corrected) but I have always took it that they are more sign/seal of your faith, rather then baptism being part of covenant creation. Lutherans (and in theroy Anglicans) do connect baptism to salvation but baptise infants normally.