OnePassenger

No more to say - they're more than heaven. Dancing is their spirit.

Well, I didn't know where to place it. Enjoy it. One of my favorite songs when I was a bit younger. Just because...

Beretta and Kahr? Wish we were married. But God has decided against us. Utah, so far in my dreams...

Are you with the sword or the pencil?

. . .

Let's see.

. . .

Thanks for your post.

Maybe he is in trouble. Justice shouldn't stop in front of the closed gates of their cathedrals. The Hydra has more than one head.

Okay, I will read your answer a few times more. Give me time. Let's move on the next days. PS... Lucky one you are concerning your MIL.

From the internet, from "The Plan of Salvation", German edition, "Der Erlösungsplan", 2007 by Intellectual Reserve Inc., Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where no hell is mentioned (pages 10 - 15, Christ's atonement and the resurrection and last judgement).The Mormon pendant of hell would be the Telestial kingdom, out of the presence of God. The outer darkness, however, would be an absolute place of damnation. Sorry if I seem to be wrong, but it's not always so easy for me to express my thoughts in English. Therefore, the Mormon pendant of hell is not a place of torture that is so described by a fallen church (in the Middle Ages and even today) to spread fear and terror. Mormon teaching, on the other hand, reveals that there are places or stadiums far from God, up to the spiritual death, or close to him, up to excitation. It's, more or less, in our hand, respectively how we behave.

I would ignore outer darkness because if the three degrees of glory are ultimate and eternal places after the resurrection, the outer darkness is certainly the place where absolutely no redeeming is possible, spoken in the context of "hell" and the three given keywords. Christ's Atonement was not to save us from hell, but to prepare us to meet or stand before God without our burden of guilt, taken away from us by return and Christ's Atonement.

Thanks for this classification. But in Mormon theology there are three degrees of glory, which can be assumed as the ultimate and eternal dwelling place after the resurrection from the spirit world, and there is no hell. So, if there is no hell (let's ignore the outer darkness or meeting your mother-in-law in the Celestial kingdom), in which context would you see the three "keywords" then? No hell means no rescuing from it, no deliverance from being taken to it, and no salvation for someone who fell asleep in a fast bus to hell just before the last stop...

"Hope of Deliverance..." - who doesn't remember this song from 1993...? But what is the difference between deliverance and redemption? And what means salvation? Only three keywords of modern Christianity. What is their exact meaning in context of the Mormon doctrine?

Let me give some comments in general: McKenna Denson, Christine Blasey Ford, Jessica Drake (one of about twelve women or more accusing i.e.Pres. Trump of sexual abuse) - just three examples out of hundreds for a seemingly new trend especially in the US (but also in Europe). After more than three decades (!) it's suddenly occurring to them that someone had sexually harassed or "raped" them, but of course they didn't remember all the "details" any more and would ask for some time before reporting it to the authorities now etc. Good actresses they are presenting their accuses so theatrically, often supported and pushed up by ideologically poisoned leftist media and organisations. And they do it so effectively with the support of some mainstream media that one must get the impression these are controlled campaigns with the aim of publicly discrediting the accused person. Are we living in a time of reversal proof giving? Does the publicly accused person have to prove his innocence first? What right is there that allows such women to make such heavy accusations in a public way? Isn't there any law in the US that forbids those offences of libel and defamation as long as the deed hasn't been proved? Leave me alone, but wouldn't a seemingly raped, decent woman report it to the police soonest? Would she remain silent for years or decades? Would she? And if she remained silent for some decades, would she ever report it publicly then if there wasn't a concealed intention behind all those undertakings...? In many of those cases criminal statues of limitations have long been exceeded. But it has become so normal pouring a bucket of crap on someone in public. Their credo: "First prove your innocence!" Goodbye America. Welcome to the beginning of a new age of Inquisition. Let's open the hunt for the evil (old) white man.

The sixth sense - that's an interesting point. The biologist Rupert Sheldrake suggests in his book "The Seventh Sense of Man" that seeing not only takes place in our heads, but can also find its way into the world - to where we see something. It's not enough when light comes in. In order to see something must also run outwards. Who is stared at, feels this charisma. By the way, Sheldrake is also English. 🐶

The same old story. Even a probability of asserted 0.1 % that a dog would attack only under some asserted cases isn't acceptable, because it means he might attack one person out of thousand. I hope your dog wouldn't attack the postman or a missionary, if that poor young man has the bad luck to be a 0,1 percenter. 🤠

Well, the cat obviously preferred a snowstorm to the dog. She is in a better world now. 🤠

That's the usual view of dog owners. There are uncountable cases when dogs attacked men. A Stafford Terrier reaches through the fence of a school yard and kills an eight year old boy, which happened here at a preliminary school only a few years ago; a dog attacked a pensioner and injures her badly, and a dog runs off and attacks passers-by etc. There are endless examples. Which question is in the foreground? In my opinion it's public safety. A dog above a certain weight and with a certain physiognomy is a potential danger. I'm not allowed to walk around here in Germany with a Colt handgun, like in Texas or many other states, I'm not even allowed to purchase one and to own one:. If I had one I'd have a real chance to defend and wouldn't hesitate one second sending one of those hellbeasts to its creator when it's attacking another person. If one can't defend himself effectively against a dog, no one should be allowed to lead such a dog. And I'm not talking about a dachshund or a poodle. You have a dog that could be harmful for a person? Okay - then I should be allowed to were a gun. That's fair play. Don't you think so?

Goldstein, once getting baptized, you wouldn't have to wash your hair for years. 👸

You're speaking in mysteries. What in the world is a razor burn...? Will American razors inflame when the accumulators get overload or when they get used too intensively...?

There was a lady from Niger, who smiled while she rode on a tiger. They came back from the ride, with the lady inside, and the smile on the face of the tiger. 😉

"I never killed anyone who didn't need killing" ... The words of Orrin Porter Rockwell. who assumedly killed more than a hundred, more than even the most dangerous outlaws and gun slingers of the old Wild West did - didn't those words sprang from a deep humanistic and high level moral standpoint of a frontiers man and former US Marshal in Utah who only served the law and who would never do any harm to a person that wouldn't deserve to get killed? By the way, NeuroTypical, Rottweilers are awful and dangerous dogs, and be assured I don't like'em, anyway... There is a town and county with the same name in Baden-Württemberg, that once in a time belonged to the Roman Empire, and those dogs sprang from the Romans who once bred them certainly not for the purpose of "Kuscheltiere"...

Maybe Mr. Nice Guy needs a lawnmower for a hairstyle. 👨‍🌾

. . .