JohnBirchSociety

It is a physical impossibility for man to have always existed.

Prove it.

GOD is above all things. He is under no law, because he created all law.

Since GOD is the creator of all things, he being the only thing eternally existent (without beginning or end), he is most certainly not subject to that which he has created, unless he so chooses (I think he has, in a limited sense). GOD is our creator. Laws have no independent existence. They are created things. GOD created them.

Wow, I cannot believe that you've said we are the same "species" as GOD. This is absolutely, and astoundingly contrary to scripture. GOD is our creator. We are fundamentally different than GOD in that we are created beings. He is not. We are not the same specie as GOD. In fact, GOD has no equal, being the only GOD.

The Scriptures fundamentally disagree with your assessment. GOD is the law-giver. He created law. He has decided to obey the laws he has created for us. He is the author of law.

I'm in the process of having my name removed from the records of the Church. Legally, as soon as notice is received of my intent, I am no longer a Church member. The process by which the Church administratively removes a name from its' roster is of no importance. Once the Church receives notice, then that person is no longer a member and that person is not subject to any Church discipline. If the Church attempts discipline after receipt of a letter of resignation then they can easily be sued. Church Headquarters should receive my letter (with delivery confirmation) sometime this week. I can't wait!

Jesus claimed to be the one GOD (He is). That was what enraged the Jews. I've no problem with being like GOD, where possible. What we can never be is "GOD". There is only one GOD. We are created beings, GOD was not created, he is the creator.

I enjoyed your statements. Good food for thought. I've thunk, and here's my two cents worth: 1) I don't use the term "anti-mormon" anymore. It is to cliche. To misused. The term that I've been using and think I can take credit for is "LDS Antagonist". Just my opinion / preference. 2) The LDS Antagonists do plan their encounters with us. They seek weakness, and they attack it. The sophistry of the attacks is increasing through the availability of the internet and the general information acquired by it. 3) Very few LDS are expert in Biblical Scholarship. We are, as a people, at a distinct disadvantage in that respect. There are LDS Antagonists that are known experts in the fields of Biblical Greek and Hebrew. We have a ton to learn from them. 4) In the Christian world we are a relatively late arrival on the scene. There is some credence to the LDS Antagonists claim that we are not Christian. I have had success in stating that we ARE NOT Christian in the historical, orthodox sense. We just have too much that does not agree with historical Christianity. Now, in the general sense of believing in Christ, we are Christian. 5) The diefication of man is blasphemous and unbilical. The LDS Antagonist is on solid ground on this. Furthermore, our instance upon an anthropomorphical GOD is absurd. This is an area where we are just wrong as a people. 6) It doesn't matter if you or I have read the JoD. It is a reliable record of the statements of early Church leaders, including the Prophets and Apostles in General Conference. So, our rather knee-jerk reaction of rejection of JoD quotes as "not doctrine" isn't very appropriate. Where I do see a problem with LDS Antagonists and the JoD is context. Many times there is a contextual problem with their approach. But, to recap, any statement, especially those of the Prophets that were made in public to gatherings of the Church are very important and authoritative. 7) With the advent of the internet, a lot of LDS Antagonists are very informed about our history and doctrine. And that frustrates a ton of LDS people. We, in my experience with decades of apologetics, are a terribly prepared and ignorant people about our own Church history and doctrinal teachings / developments. Anyways, them's my cents...

Titanic is pornographic and a false portrayal of events.

And what is astonishing about the Passion of the Christ film is that as visually violent as it was, it showed but a very tiny (insignificant) portion of what Christ really suffered. His suffering in the Garden and afterwards was so monumental that nobody else could ever accomplish the task. I think it was so monumental that more than a few of the people who physically afflicted him must have been converted. How could you do what was done to him, and he still lived, and not realize that he was not a normal person? Nobody could survive the torture he endured, not even close. So those that tortured him (unless they had no conscience) must have realized that they were not dealing with a normal situation. No matter what they did, he would not die, until he chose to die. If you get a chance, look into what the Romans would do to people, multiply that by a million times over, put the mental anguish on top of that, then you'll have a true picture, as far as is humanly possible to grasp, of the Atonement of Christ.

Cool. As good as any.

Since it is a complete obliteration of previous foundational scripture, I've no choice than to reject it as false doctrine. As sad as that may seem. I believe in continuous revelation. I believe in Prophets. I don't believe they can change the fundamental, bedrock principles of scripture.

I don't personally believe we are eternal beings. I believe GOD created us, in totality. I believe this because of what the Bible and Book of Mormon say about it, and because of the laws of physics and science, such as thermodynamics. We are created, in all respects. GOD is the sole creator and is the only self-existent thing / being anywhere, anyplace, anytime. In fact, GOD created time.

Song: United States National Anthem Movies: 1) Braveheart 2) Last of the Mohichans 3) Patriot 4) Legends of the Fall 5) GodFather III 6) Passion of the Christ 7) We were soldiers once; and young 8) The Alamo 9) The Longest Day 10) The Glen Miller Story 11) Iwo Jima 12) The Natural 13) Band of Brothers

I think you'd have a good point if we were talking about spiritual things for which we would naturally find no physical proof. At least for me, I'm talking about physical things which we can approach with the scientific method and plain reason. For example, The American Revolution actually occurred. It is a physical reality that is not subject to spiritual confirmation. It is physically a real event because it had left vast, undeniable, evidence of it's occurance. When we look at the evidence before us, there simply is no evidence of a global flood of the magnitude expressed in the Bible, at the time the Bible speaks of it. In respect to when Adam and Eve left the Garden, becoming the first human progenitors, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary on the account as written in the Bible. Also, there is no evidence, as one would expect of such a massive migration for a period of 40 years, or the Exodus. Not a single piece of evidence. So, though the conclusion is uncomfortable, the most rational, and simplest of explanations is that it did not occur in the literal sense that the Bible depicts. These are intellectual matters, as tangible as the American Revolution. We can also question, intellectually, the Book of Mormon on the same grounds. And let me be clear, I believe the Book of Mormon is historically true. That being said, we can look at the Cumorah battles and see that they would each (Jaredite / Nephite-Lamanite) constitute the largest battles in known human history, with the largest concentration of causulties in known human history. In particular, the final day battle of the Nephit-Lamanites would be the most deadly single-day tally in known human history, even surpassing Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Those types of things, with swords, shields, the provisions need to fight such a thing, would leave a lot of evidence. To date, we've found none. And there is no reason to expect to find any, for we HAVE found evidence of much smaller things that happened a LOT longer ago, in the Americas. Now, a rational person would take the simplest of explanations and state that such things never actually happened. I believe they did happen. I cannot explain the complete dirth of evidence where there should be plenty. But I know they happened because I know through study and prayer, that the Book of Mormon is historically true. Hope that helps?

On this and a plethora of other issues I have spoken publicly while at BYU. On only one occasion was I told to not repeat what I was saying. I ignored that ignorant advise.

Something that has always troubled me on an intellectual level is the magnitude of destruction that occurred at the last battle in the BofM. It would constitute, by many orders of magnitude, the largest single day battle in all of known human history, yet we've got no physical evidence of it occurring anywhere near what we call the Hill Cumorah. For that reason, I don't believe it transpired anywhere near what we call the Hill Cumorah today.

I think we can emphatically state that human kind sprang forth from one male human and one female human. Also, we can safely assert that there was a flood of some sort. However, the Biblical depictions of these events are not literally true. That was my point. Yes, there was an "Adam". Just not 6000 or so years ago. Yes, there was a "Garden". Just not 6000+ years ago. Yes, there probably was a "Flood". Just not as the Bible depicts it.

President George W. Bush said in a recent meeting that he does not believe the Bible is literally true. My question(s): Do you believe the Bible is literally true? If so, why? If not, why? Does it really matter? My answer(s): 1) No, the Bible is not literally true. There was no Garden of Eden as literally depicted in the Bible. Man did not spring forth from two humans 6000-6500 years ago. There was no global flood 4000 or so years ago. The Bible starts jiving with historical fact after the Exodus. 2) Yes, it matters. If the foundation is not literally true, then there is trouble when others refer to the foundation as validating their belief structures. Your comments.

This reminds of an instance on my mission in French speaking Europe. We were baptizing / confirming a new member from Zaire (Congo). His best friend had referred him for the discussions. His friend worked construction and could not get anytime off to get to the baptism services early. In fact, he just barely arrived before the confirmation. Having worked construction (industrial) all day, he was in clothes that were nowhere near "white shirt / tie" apparel. In any event, the friend was an Elder, so seeing that he had arrived in time, I being the one performing the confirmation, invited him to the circle. There were about 5 of us that day. The Bishop objected on the grounds that he wasn't clean or wearing a dress shirt / tie. My response ended the confrontation, "Jesus doesn't wear a tie"... I realllllllllly, realllllllllly, think we need to stop being so rigid in these things.

You are correct.

Nobody has ever been able to predict precise bottoming or topping on the market, it is too fluid for that type of prediction. We can say that the laws of economics dictate that fiat currency ALWAYS collapses. When it does, the market goes with it. There are signs that our fiat currency is collapsing. Of course the only solution for this problem is a return to real money, as mandated by the United States Constitution.

The safest geological formations we have available are under-ground salt mines. Put the waste there. No water a gone through those areas in millions of years. Chernobyl was a horrible accident. It occurred because of shoddy construction, caused by communistic ineptitude. Three Mile Island, which you refer to, was such a non-event it was absurd that it was reported to such a frightening scale. Precisely NOBODY was even remotely hurt or in danger during the entire "event". The total radiation released during the event was equivalent to about a chest ex-ray for one individual.

Anyone who has read my threads knows that I'm a free-trade / free-market supporter. The purpose of this thread was to demonstrate the absurdity of yelling about importing so much oil when we EXPORT oil. If those doing the yelling about "our dependence on foreign oil" would just get of their arse and start wondering why in the world we would EXPORT oil under the "dependence on foreign oil" rampage, we'd get somewhere. If T.Boone Pickens would study a bit more, he'd not be so inclined to go for wind power, etc... We ought not complain about importing oil if we are exporting what we produce. It's nonsense. Also, we can most certainly drill ourselves out of dependence on unfriendly foreign sources of oil. We have extraordinary reserves in both standard sources and in shale oil, etc. Hydroelectric could be used more, for sure, if you could get around the eco-extremist who sue to have such things stopped. It's just a mess, but we are barking up the wrong tree on solutions, and we don't even realize the facts behind the smoke-screen we are being fed.