Traveler

This is not a thread of weather to spank or not it is about consistent and effective discipline as parents teach and train children. In a recent discussion with a friend they said that they have noticed something quite interesting in the parents that use non-spanking methods of discipline. One of the more popular methods of non-spanking is what is called the time out method. My friend stated that in his family that time outs ended up to be more of a punishment of parents than children, especially if there are 3 are more children and only one parent available for the discipline and oversight. They also noted that because of the hassle that parents face with time out that they tend to attempt to threaten discipline rather than discipline. Example: Child: climbs on coffee table and starts jumping up and down. Parent: Stop that or I’ll put you in time out. Child: continues what they are doing. Parent: Do you want to go to time out? Child: Continues Parent: Goes and pulls child off table – Did you not hear me? I said to stop that or you’ll be in time out! Child: Pulls away from parent watches them for a bit until the parent returns to other duties then climbs back on coffee table and starts jumping. One of the mistakes my wife and I made in disciplining our children was that when they misbehaved we gave them chores to do. The result is, that every one of my children, that are now grown adults with families of their own, thinks chores are punishment and dislike helping their spouses. They are getting over it but having difficulty. What are effective methods used by member of the forum to train and discipline children? Do you think your children are models of good disciplined behavior? In other words do your methods work? I have some thought but I thought I would allow everybody else to criticize something other than my ideas for a while, first. The Traveler

In John 17 Jesus clearly tells us in scripture "that they may be one, even as we are one." The Hebrew word for one G-d is "ehad" and is translated in English as one - but does not have the same meaning today as it did in ancient time. The word "ehad" had two meaning. First the counting number of a single "one" that cannot be divided in to parts (fraction) or persons. The second meaning is a unity - as a man and woman being one in marriage. The problem that early Christianity had with the Jews is the question of Polythesism. It is the reason that with the advent of the Trinity there was strong effort to keep anyone away from scripture and the understanding of Hebrew without some extra explanation - thus the Trinitarian Creed that was claimed at the time to be greater than the Holy Scriptures. The Trinitarian Creed tried to deal with the idea of parts by denying the ressurected body of Christ as having anything to do with what represents G-d. Thus the idea of G-d having no body, parts or passions. One point that is overlooked often in the talking about the G-dhead is the that Joseph Smith was shown the Father with the Son standing next to him. This witness is also given by Steven in Acts 7:56. The biggest difference with the LDS and other religions is that the LDS have the unaltered words of a Prophet called of G-d to teach that the G-dhead is comprised of 3 seperate and distinct individuals. Those that teach the Trinity can say they believe it to be true and believe the scripture to teach this idea. LDS can counter not only with possible understanding of the scriptures but we can also claim that G-d has called a prophet to end the discrepency with a witness commanded and directed of G-d. Though Trinitarians can claim to be inspired - they have not, to my understanding claimed that G-d appeared to any of them and gave commandment as was given to Moses. Thus Joseph Smith was commanded by G-d to teach that the Father and Son are distinct individuals. So there is a witness before the world that the oneness of G-d is a unity of covenant. So now we know for sure the correct meaning of scripture when it speaks of the oneness of G-d through the ancient Hebrew discription of "ehad". And any that has studied the ancient meaning of ehad knows that the witness is indeed possible. Therefore the question is how can one that has not seen Jesus standing at the right hand of G-d to know if such a witness is of G-d? The Traveler

Interesting - All this time I thought success in marriage was about pure love and commitment to the extreme point that the two become one - in that same manner that a covenant Christian becomes one with G-d. The Traveler

You need not concern yourself - It is my personal and individual effort to express respect for that which I must guard as sacred. It is a promise to which I alone am accountable and has nothing to do with how any one else address the divine. You may address G-d however you wish and I will not criticize any respectful divine reference. The Traveler

You are getting into some interesting concepts. However, I believe that the covenant with Adam and Eve was a "servant" covenant with G-d the Father as the Supreme Suzerain. The reason I make this distinction is because they could only act for the Suzerain under the covenant for that which they were commanded and to be a Suzerain covenant their act would be accounted for by the Suzerain under such a covenant. Note that G-d the Father took on no accountability for Adam’s or Eve’s eating of the fruit. But we do see a Suzerain covenant between Jesus and his Father. I have tried to point out before (but no one seems to understand Suzerain servant and Suzerain Vassal covenants and that in ancient law a Suzerain and their covenant Vassal were considered the same and were often called “one” king or L-rd even though they were different people and both accepted legal responsibility for the other. Under the covenant after the fall, man did have a Suzerain – Vassal covenant with Jesus as the Suzerain and man as a priesthood holder the Vassal. This allows Jesus to take upon him man’s sins and suffer or pay for them. The point that cannot be answered by the Trinitarian theory is how man could have fallen and still had access to the same Suzerain before and after the fall. And how Jesus could take upon him man's sins. It is also interesting to note that the name of the Supreme Suzerain was never to be known to those that did not have a covenant with him – Therefore Jesus never refers to the Father by name before man – just the title of Father. But at the same time he pronounced that he had come in the name of the Father; which name he never speaks. There can be no doubt that Jesus was the Vassal of the Suzerain of Heaven from which man was fallen. Every reference that Jesus make to his standing and that of the Father indicates this covenant – which demands that they are two very different and distinct individuals bound as one in covenant law. The Traveler

This is my view and my view only - as I have expressed before. If man has access to the same G-d before and after the fall then there was no real fall or need for a true Messiah. The singularity of G-d in relationship to man is because of the fall of man. That singular G-d is the mediator G-d - Jesus Christ the Son of the Father whose mission is to bring us back from the fallen state of one G-d to the society of G-ds that exist in heaven where G-d the Father presides and rules over that divine kingdom of G-ds. (Thus the eternal and divine meaning of King of Kings and L-rd of L-rds). The Traveler

Ignorance is the worse kind of prison. Knowledge and truth is necessary for a person to be free. In essence, sacrifice is necessary to get to heaven (Where G-d the Father and Jeusu live - who are examples of sacrifice for the benefit of others) and seeking the desires of "self" is the gateway to spiritual prison (Where Satan is the example of the result of seeking what the self desires). The Traveler

The point in LDS doctrine is that a choice cannot be made in ignorance, only when one understands the end consequences. It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would choose eternal darkness (outer darkness) over eternal life unless they had been beguiled. At the same time, it is even more difficult to believe that G-d holds those to account that love others but vocally deny the doctrines of G-d they find inconsistent (or incomprehensible as in some so called traditional circles). How can someone turn away from a G-d they cannot understand or comprehend? Or how can anyone be on the right path ever coming closer to a G-d they cannot understand or comprehend? The Traveler

Thank you for your response - I convinced that salvation and being saved is not about me me me me. Me have ing salvation, me being saved, me being forgiven. I believe it is more about loving and sacrificing for others than it is about self and loving and sacrificing for self. The Traveler

You are Soooo right - the commandment is not Biblical - I stand corrected.The Traveler

The commandment not to kill means that we should never have the desire in our heart to take another (or our own) life. It is not given to us to decide to take a life. But should G-d command - it is the resposibility of those that covenant with G-d to do as he commands. Has G-d ever commanded that a life be taken? This is an interesting question because all life in under the control of G-d and if he wanted it ended he could do so without bothering any of us. But that misses the point of covenant. In the case of Laban - it is very likely that Laban made a covenant with G-d to protect the brass plates with his life. This means that according to the covenant he must die and Nephi was well impressed on the importance of taking that covenant upon himself concerning the plates. The Traveler

I have had the opportunity to talk to a few GA's in private. As a youth I personally knew Hugh B. Brown first councilor to President David O. McKay. In a quiet moment I asked Hugh B. Brown if we should support our bishop, even if we know (no doubt what-so-ever) he is wrong. Elder Brown looked me straight in the eyes and said that we should support our bishop, especially if he is wrong for he will need our support more then than at any other time. The Traveler

Thank your for considering the question but let us not lose track of the main consideration. That is if there is Biblical reason to believe that living things could produce a different species. The commandment by G-d implies that living things can reproduce and can, under some circumstance, produce a different kind. Else why bother making the commandment? If there was no possible way a living thing can produce a different kind there would be no need for the commandment as given. Is it possible that G-d is telling us something very important? In the book and movie Jurassic Park there is an assumption that frogs (embryos) could be modified to reproduce dinosaurs. This is not all that far fetched. The next step beyond cloning (which can be done) is to modify an embryo to reproduce something quite different. Most likely this will happen within our lifetime. I do not think it wise to hang one’s religious validation on the notion that this cannot ever happen. The Traveler

It is my opinion that some posting in this thread do not understand the teachings of Jesus. I would reference his parable about the man that owed the king a great deal and the king forgave the debt but then the same man caused another in debt to him to be thrown into prison for not being able to pay the much smaller debt. Jesus then taught that regardless of our repentance of our sins that if we do not forgive ALL OTHERS that trespass against us that we will not be forgiven by our Father in Heaven. This may come as a big disappoint to many on this forum as it has to me for I often have great difficulty forgiving others. But then I wonder – How can anyone (including myself) believe in Jesus Christ and believe that he did indeed pay a ransom for all sins and then not forgive the sins that Jesus ransomed? I find it most interesting that in these discussions there are arguments such that somehow we believe our sins will be forgiven but someone else’s will not. As I understand the great sacrifice of Jesus is we should be concerned of our own sins and not the transgressions of anyone else. Perhaps others feel differently and would offer themselves as an example of one that is forgiven for those, like myself that are yet struggling with one thing or another.

Just a note on a few things: 1. Is it possible that man evolves from a single cell creature called a zygote? - Point: it is possible for things to evolve very rapidly with the correct “presets”. I would point out here that if it was not for the scientific advances in understanding DNA no one would know that a human zygote is different from the zygote of a monkey. This distinction is not in scripture. 2. Concerning chance – I believe this is a reference to the question of random events or the possibility that something can happen that is not somehow linked to something previous – in other words: everything that exist has a cause. As far as I know it has never been scientifically proven that something can come about with a cause that enables it. The closest possibly is quantum mechanics. But even then there are linked relationships of cause and effects. 3. Does G-d give commandments that cannot be ever be possibly broken? If G-d gives a commandment does that not imply that something else is possible? Please note that G-d commanded that all the living things reproduce after their own kind. Why would he give that commandment if there was no other possibility? The Traveler

C'mon Traveler, you can't claim something like that without hooking me up with some scriptures. :) What leads you to believe what you wrote above? Examples from the Old Testament, or any book of scripture? I believe we are talking about the Hebrew term “Olah” sacrifice or burnt offering. Olah comes from the root “Ayin-Lamed-Hei” which means ascension. The sacrifice was performed in three parts: 1. The pouring out, spilling or shedding of blood upon the alter. The blood is then burned, usually with oil. 2. The burning of the animal (often still alive) until all is consumed – Symbolic of complete submission to G-ds will. ( note reference to Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane) 3. The death and ascension to G-d of the sacrifice that is carried to G-d in the smoke and odors. The Olah offering was made from cattle, sheep, goats or birds depending on the wealth of the person offering the sacrifice – often made in agreement with the priest. This is also know as the sin offering and was given to expiate sin. Please note the importance in the symbolism – that the sins of the one for which the offering was given was not considered complete or the person pure until the ascension to G-d of the sacrifice. Even though it is said in scripture that the sin was paid by the “shedding of blood” the sacrifice for sin required all three parts for the purification. Note the problem of King Saul and other sacrifices that were unacceptable signifying that there is more involved than the shedding or “spilling” of blood. It is my impression that your view is too narrow if you exclude the blood spilt in Gethsemane as part of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sin. My opinion. The Traveler

The shedding of blood is associated with death but in some of the symbolism, including ancient blood sacrifice, blood was shed in "preparation" of the sacrificial death or killing.The Traveler

Very good thoughts, Old Tex. It is my understand that the covenant Saints of G-d will not become the “main” ingredient in the bread of society that exist in the world during the “last days” but rather the leaven that causes the whole loaf to rise.The Traveler

Thank you for taking time to understand. In response to your question; I do not believe that any thoughts are unique to an individual. I have tried to express this notion – encouraging a understanding of the source of our thoughts. Such a concept encountered hostility. This particular concept (of a man and a woman working together to fulfill their covenants) has roots with Hugh Nibly. And yes, I have pondered this teaching carefully. I believe the oneness in marriage covenant is so important that it is more important that a man and a woman are one in their marriage that such oneness precedes one or the other being right on their own.The Traveler

But the cross was not the only time and place that the blood of Christ was shed and when he died on the cross and was pierced it was water and not blood that issued.The Traveler

I believe the Creation story in scripture explains in a most beautiful manner the great sacrifice and effort required by G-d to bring about all that was necessary to sustain life. It was not a trivial effort where G-d snapped his all powerful fingers and it was done in less than a blink of an eye - in truth it required great investment and sacrifice by both the Father and the Son. And I believe G-d wanted that to be the most important part of the scripture creation explanation.The Traveler

The point that was lost is that we are all weak. We are all unprofitable servants that require help. But once we realize that we can as the Father and the Son have done – that is sacrifice for the benefit of others, we become strong and powerful so that through our sacrifice and the sacrifice of Christ we become strong and powerful in the resurrection – Even as Christ was born weak and suffered all that can be brought upon the weak – he demonstrated how such that is weak becomes mighty, strong and powerful – even over death. The Traveler

This is a most interesting thought - That man would partake of the fruit was within the plan of G-d. The method in which Satan was able to separate Adam and Eve in the manner in which the fruit was taken was not what G-d intended - Thus Satan thought to subvert the plan of G-d. The Traveler traveler, are you saying that partaking of the fruit was not part of the plan? if so what is your understanding of the primary lesson points i quoted earlier in this topic? I am not sure how you missed my point - G-d planned that Adam and Eve would partake of the fruit but I believe that G-d wanted them to make that decision of sacrifice together. Satan knew that G-d set the table that the greater good would be acomplished by partaking of the fruit and that in time Adam and Eve would decide together to make the sacrifice for the benefit of mankind. What Satan did was cause a break down in the covenant to act as "one" and force Adam and Eve apart in partaking of the fruit - This is why Satan never aproached to two together. Note too that when ever G-d addressed Adam and Eve he addressed them together. Satan is still seeking that a man and a woman should not covenant together as one. Not much has changed. The Traveler

Just something quick for a friend. Most scientists can accept the idea of intelligence behind the evolution of the universe and life on earth but stop short with the idea that it all started 6000 years ago. Most of my colleges understand the problems of the "event horizon" as it relates the size of the universe being too big and the containment problems for the "Big Bang" theory. We can see things in open space that are more than 6000 light years away and things that are separated by more than 6000 light years. As long as the 6000 years is part of any creation theory it will automatically be dismissed as scientific heresy. The Traveler

I do not understand your struggle - the New Testament (Book of Acts - as well as the apostle Paul) indicate that the intent was to have a succession of Apostles; thus showing the Apostolic plan of succession. The succession claimed by the Catholic Church is, without question to any one that has reviewed history, not a succession of Apostles but a succession of Bishops.The plan to maintain the structure of Priest overseeing covenants being lost in history is nothing new. By the time of Christ the Levites had been mostly replaced by the Pharisees that date back to Jonathan Maccabeus killing off the established Levite Priests governing the Jews about 174 BC and establishing his own variety. The Traveler