Traveler

I stated in an earlier post in this thread that I believe knowledge and freedom are inseparable. The opposite I also believe is true – that is that ignorance and bondage are also inseparable. What I would like to put to you is a question about history. How can anyone understand history without understanding the religious influences and cultures that are at the very center and core of shaping that history? If we do not understand all the influences in history – how can anyone understand current politics and social challenges? If someone is not versed in politics and social possibilities – how can they be free? Now I do not want to cram religion upon any unwilling person willing to be ignorant but for a person to stand up and declare ignorance as a desired or desirable situation – to me is not intelligent, free or wise. Decisions without being informed is never good or beneficial and a person will never be able to have a meaningful conversation with someone of diverse background if they do not understand the basic tenants of where they came from in history and society – and that includes the religion(s) that influence that history and society. What should a child be taught without any possible reference to religion? I cannot think of one thing - including science and mathematics which have roots in history and societies if there is to be any practical use or benefit of such things in the future. The Traveler

I would suggest "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. It is a rather simple read of very complex concepts and you can buy it new for under $6. at Amazon. The Traveler

As I understand the church is to teach correct principles and let the members govern themselves. Seldom does the church say anything directly and when they do it is my understanding that it is to insure the the members are informed. The Traveler

I define freedom in the same manner that Jesus did. There are things that must precede freedom and the number one element that must be, is knowledge. Without knowledge freedom is not possible. I believe that Satan is a liar because his lies cloud knowledge and therefore prevents freedom. It appears to me that knowledge is limited in the world and universe that we live in – therefore so is freedom. The opposite of freedom is bondage which is stimulated by ignorance. A person’s freedom is limited by their ability to obtain truth. Many define freedom as a choice but if you have the choice between what is behind 3 doors and you do not know what is there – that is hardly a choice and there is no freedom is such a thing. So – to limit knowledge is to limit freedom. For example there is no freedom to choose what one believes if they are ignorant. If they do not know the ramifications of Creationism and Evolution the choice to believe one over the other without knowledge is bondage and not freedom. I believe that any subject should be open to knowledge. Please understand that there are ways to obtain knowledge by ways other than indulgence. But to limit knowledge is to end freedom. To disallow the study of religion in public schools fosters ignorance and limits freedom. As far as your freedom interfering with my freedom? I am not sure that is possible. In every case that I have seen freedom limited I have also witnessed ignorance and a disregard for truth. Those that interfere with my freedom have in every case I have been in – have done so because they were uninformed about something – sometimes with no desire to be informed. I have come to trust informed decisions and distrust ignorant decisions. To me – it is not about freedom. It is about seeking truth and knowledge. There is nothing I value more than the seeking of truth and knowledge and those that will journey with me in the quest. The Traveler

One of the problems with a stoic is that the universe we currently live in is a fallen universe subject to the fall. One of the great miscues of religious thought is not understanding the fall. Our universe is a temporary or temporal universe. The payoff to G-d is the immortality and eternal life of man. Something contrary to the very universe in which we live. Another thought concerns what many call “sacrifice”. I believe this is mostly because the law and covenant of sacrifice is greatly misunderstood. Sacrifice does not mean to give up or do without – the root of the word and concept means to make sacred. Once we understand the “sacrifice” of Christ we can understand what is meant by also becoming sacred or sanctified ourselves. The root meaning of a saint is someone that is sanctified. The Traveler

One of the big debates is if anything can happen by accident. I have yet to meet a scientist that believes in what is called random cause. The closest I have seen are various ideas in quantum mechanics and chaos theory. But this is a misnomer. The variances described in these theories are very narrow and each variance is a calculated probability. There is a difference between random occurrences and calculated probabilities. In general, a basic premise of science is that when necessary and sufficient parameters are known the outcome is determined and when the outcome is not determinable the reason is that sufficient and necessary parameters are not known. Very often apologist for religious theories intruding into science relies on what is often called the G-d of the gaps. In other words anything that is not understood or explained in science is therefore done by an unknowable G-d whose methods cannot be understood. With this construct any logical explanation of a previous mystery attributed to G-d becomes a threat to believing in G-d. Something else that Joseph Smith introduced into religious thought is that scientific truth and religious truth although different perspectives are parts of a whole and when truly understood never contradict. In addition Joseph Smith introduced that G-d is a master of natural law and therefore has no need to break or circumvent eternal laws. As I understand traditional concepts it is believed that G-d is so powerful that he does whatever he wants whenever he wants with no rhyme or reason. Therefore if rhyme or reason to anything divine is discovered then it disproves an all powerful G-d. It is my opinion that many traditional Christian concepts are driveled from philosophies of men mingled from time to time with some interpretations scripture. Thus the more truth that is known and understood the more such concepts fail and the more the gap is widened between science and religion. I believe Joseph Smith taught that the ultimate science is religion and vice versa. Or another way to put it is that the ultimate destiny of man is to become a knowledgeable and powerful creator capable of scientifically putting together a universe as complex as the one we currently inhabit. This also means that ultimate wisdom and intelligence includes ultimate love, compassion and mercy. Thus to an informed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints accepting Jesus is becoming one with him in every way that he is. To reject anything of G-d and not accept it as our own is to reject him. To say man cannot become a g-d is to say G-d cannot do such a thing. So the only thing to stop (or damn) us is our belief in him. The Traveler

Okay – To be honest I seldom read articles that try to cross science and religion and come to any conclusion. I feel that in almost all cases it is the two master’s paradoxes. Either scientific method is misrepresented to make religious ideology more appealing or vice versa. I did not find anything astonishing when I finely read the article. For me it was a no-op. As near as I can determine going beyond the article to modern science and religion there is no comprehensive definition of life. We have been unable to even define human life (via science or religion) to put an end to the abortion debate. The last time I checked we were still arguing about if virus is a life form or not. Small wonder that the origin of something not well defined is illusive. For me the article provided no new and exciting insight into science or the particular concepts of evolution. I consider myself a hard core evolutionist but to be honest I do not believe everything that is said by every evolutionist. The article did not shed much light to me concerning Joseph Smith. I also consider myself to be a hard core LDS but I do not believe everything that is said by every LDS. There was one thing in the article that I believe is misunderstood by lots of LDS and evolutionist concerning the contribution of Joseph Smith to thoughts about life and what life is. The concept given by Joseph is that life has no beginning or creation nor does it have an end or death. What he proposed was that what we call life was the uniting of something already living with physical stuff and death is the opposite; the separation of that which is alive from that physical stuff. Joseph associated already life entity to intelligence; intelligence being something that is capable of learning and changing. This looks a lot like evolution to me. But there is something that many religious thinkers have great difficulty considering. That is, that what makes something live was not created by G-d. That the act of divine creation was combining physical stuff (which is stuff that also already existed in various forms we call matter and energy in science) with that which is already life so that the living entity can react directly with the physical stuff in a manner that it could not previously. I have never found anything proven in science that contradicts this concept. I think the greater insight comes in considering the contribution Joseph has to the religious community. This is revolutionary to traditional concepts of G-d, his creation and origins or genesis of man as well as all other life. It provides a most revolutionary way to interpret and understand scripture. I personally find these religious concepts fascinating and intriguing. It truly puts the religious community on it head (with some possible exceptions to some far eastern religious concepts) and opens up opportunity for scientific discussion as well when we consider the event horizon of the Big Bang theory spoken of by Steven Hockings. But for many in both religion and science such things are forbidden territories of consideration. If there are any willing to journey into such forbidden territories – please consider The Traveler as one interested in your thought and discoveries. If you are willing to take some chances – I have many questions I would like to consider in such a journey. The Traveler

It is the pattern that was established 2000 years ago when the Pharesses and Scribes established the anti movement against Christ. For the main part the methods and arguments are the same. The Traveler

Black holes are very interesting and we are learning more about them all the time. For example it was just discovered that every galaxy has a “super black hole” at its center. Scientists are not sure what all the centered black hole does but the general idea is that galaxies cannot exist without a super black hole at its center. The other important thing to realize is that black holes are what all stars will become if they continue to evolve long enough. As far as being efficient – if you had a black hole powering your car you would get about 300,000 years worth of driving on a gallon of gas. This is based on the amount of energy released when matter is sucked into a black hole. Another interesting thing is that even though a black hole captures all matter near it there is a very strange thing that occurs with that matter called evaporation. This is a difficult thing to explain but is part of quantum mechanics. In essence it is a means for matter to escape and is determined by how much matter the black hole has. When this was discovered it caused major problems with the Big Bang theory – because a Black hole will evaporate before it will bang when taking on matter. Black holes may be more key to things – since they change physics and time and space - who knows but that they play a role in maintaining the fallen universe according to the fall of man and that when man is no longer fallen may also play a part in the purifying and eternal nature that will come to be. One thing a star will do just before becoming a black hole is what is called super Nova. I have wondered if a super nova was the star of Bethlehem that gave off enough energy to cause the ozone to become fluorescent causing continual light during the night in the Americas. And again another super nova that gives off enough energy to change the earth when Christ comes again. The Traveler

There is a thread and discussions about the necessity of Baptism. One particular poster clams that Jesus is all that is necessary. If we accept Jesus nothing else is necessary. What is this Jesus that is being referenced? At first I thought that this poster that was talking that Jesus is all that is necessary is nuts. After considering his posts a little more carefully I am inclined to think that he is right for the most part. But there are some critical differences. The first principle that LDS believe is necessary is “Faith in the L-rd Jesus Christ”. The point I am trying to make is that having faith in Jesus is where many seem to wander off with ideas about religion that to be frank – concern me. What I want to point out is that I believe we need to believe in Jesus as the source of the “way the truth and the light”. But it appears to me that many consider the scriptures as the “way the truth and the light”. Let me use Baptism as the example. Well if the question is asked: “Is Baptism necessary?” How do various individuals from different faith and religion respond? If they worship, follow and believe that Bible scripture is “the way the truth and the light” then their answer will be based on scripture. But if they worship, follow and believe that Jesus is “the way the truth and the light” then their answer will be based on the example of Jesus. Because Jesus was baptized and I accept him and his example then the only conclusion I can draw when someone says that baptism is not necessary, especially if they rely on various scriptures and interpretation of scripture – then they accept scripture or at least the interpretation of scripture and not Jesus. Somewhere they depart from Jesus and have to believe that “His way” is not really necessary. That the example of Jesus is not “the way the truth and the light”. In fact as near as I can tell, baptism is the only thing Jesus ever did for himself to insure he was on the right path. The other things Jesus did were for other and because of his love for them. May I add one other thought here? We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that there were other religious groups other than John the Baptist that were performing baptisms. But Jesus did not receive any other baptism but the baptism of John. I am speculating but I wonder if someone is not connected, as Jesus was, with someone to baptize with authority as was John that they would come to realize that their baptism was not that significant and realizing it was not part in helping them draw near to G-d that they would conclude that all baptisms are no more important than was theirs. One thing that I would consider – When I consider baptism I would not consider a baptism from a religion that did not think or believe it to be necessary. I want to be on the right path and the right way. I do not want to be on the maybe if you want to or like to but not really necessary way or path. If something is acceptable to Jesus – that is good enough to me to conclude – ya, this is necessary. The Traveler

There is a story about a 5 year old boy that came home from his first day in kindergarten with a note pined to him that read as follows: “I promise not to believe everything you boy says happens in your home if you promise not to believe everything he says happens in school.” My point is this: Just because a child says something does not mean that it is true. If a child is being taught to kill then there may be some intervention needed by the state. But I am concerned that this is the case being brought up. Not long ago I remember a young man in the news in Oakland California that killed a policeman and many individuals of the same minority claimed the young man was a hero for killing a policeman. There was no outrage in the press or efforts by the state to remove children from parents involved in protesting for the young man for murder. I am concerned that the state and media have a bias that will not help dispel racial tensions in this country – because it appears to be very much one sided. The Traveler

Directed at what? Getting over the blame from those in society that think they are better? Or for those in society that blame someone trying to protect them? One thing I do not understand is why we glorify, even in our entertainment, those that run from the police putting at risk the lives of all kinds of innocent people (including children) and then call the perpetrators innocent victims when someone risks their life to stop them. Where is the logic in that? The Traveler

For the record - I do not worship the Bible or for that matter any scripture. I believe that the way, the truth and the light is in Christ - not the Bible or any other scripture. I believe the only way to avoid contradictions is through the light of Christ and the worship of him – not the Bible or any scripture. I believe the only purpose of scripture is to bring us to Christ. The reason that there are many churches is because of too much reliance and worship of scriptures and debates over meaning. Using scripture to prove or disprove others view of doctrine is the methods of Pharisees – not Christians. We see very clearly and Jesus proves to us that following him will create controversy and disagreement with the experts in scripture – just as he created controversy with the best experts (Scribes and Pharisees) of scripture of his day. One of the main arguments against Christ by the Scribes and Pharisees is that he contradicted scripture. I would also point out that the false believers (experts in scripture) that accused Jesus, refused to consider his “deeds” but attacked him for “blasphemous” or false doctrines. Note that the definition of blasphemous is that which denigrates G-d. Jesus taught that a blasphemous tree cannot produce good loving fruit therefore he counseled his followers to consider the fruit of deeds of love to discern and not doctrine. Therefore we should look to those that are an example of truth and not to those that say they know truth. Or in other words we should look to those that give example of the love of being saved and not to those that say they are saved. The Traveler

Quantum mechanics is better understood when considering that matter and its properties are organized and capable of intelligence. It is also interesting to me that Joseph put forth the idea that the universe is organized based on suns (and other star types) that are sustained by divine power. Although Joseph did not state it specifically black holes are an evolutionary sun and the engines of galaxies. And I might add that black holes are the most efficient engines known to exist. In the book of Enoch the L-rd tells Enoch that all matter (in our universe subject to the fall as revealed by Joseph Smith) will degenerate to a corrupt state which G-d will cleanse and restore to a purified state in stars. The Traveler

I believe Jesus' words meant that the "acts" and "leters" of his apointed apostles would be recorded and considered sacred scripture according to the covenants. Not only will Baptism go forth to all but so with the teachings that prepare them for baptism. Had I not met and conversed with you I would not have taken this statement or seriously considered it. Others I have encoutered have not left such an impression.The Traveler

Covenants that involve G-d. The Traveler

But the Saudi Royal family was in great danger because of Sudam and Iraq. Interesting that Iran is not Arabic and is not Sunni but has been most careful not the cross the Saudi Royals. Iraq will remain unstable because the Saudi Royals cannot tolerate the Shiite majority taking a majority control of Iraq. Also keep in mind that the Saudi Royals control the opium trade in Afghanistan. The Traveler

Jesus answered your question (John 14:12). And the proof is the Book of Mormon that is a companion witness to the New Testament that Jesus came into the world - and not to the Jews only but to others of the covenant of the house of Israel (other sheep that are not of the fold of the Jews) as prophesied in the New Testament. I would also submit that only in the teachings of the LDS is the gospel preached, according to prophesy, to every nation, kindred, tongue and people for in no other Christian faith is the gospel preached to those nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples that died without hearing. But without the faith to believe such things are possible no amount of proof will ever suffice. And many – according to prophesy; have prepared themselves not to have faith in such things in the same manner that the Pharisees and Scribes by their religious traditions and their expert and studied interpretations of scripture rejected Christ. The Traveler

No - what you are saying does not make sense to me at all. You say that faith is the only key then you talk about Satan getting an advantage. It is not by the grace of G-d that Satan gets or does not get the advantage you need to understand scriptures. Satan gets an advantage when people of faith do not do their part – do not blame this on G-d. Again consider forgiveness. Forgiveness does not come by grace only but by grace after the works of forgiveness. How can a person be forgiven without the works of forgiveness? Jesus said himself by his own mouth that without the works of forgiveness there is no forgiveness from G-d (Matt 6:14-15). Who is a greater authority than Jesus? Do you think Paul’s opinion is greater that Christ? The works of forgiveness must come before the grace of forgiveness. There are no such exceptions in scripture except by misinterpreting scripture and misinterpreting scripture is a device of Satan. (See Luke 4:10-11) How can you have salvation except you have forgiveness and can you have forgiveness without the works of forgiveness? I do not think so. To believe to be forgiven without the works of forgiveness is falling to a device of Satan to prevent one from preparing themselves to receive the grace of G-d unto forgiveness. But you insist on doing it your way – I cannot stop you; only recommend that you consider otherwise. The Traveler

The point is that you are interpreting scriptures very much to your own liking or will. Let me give an example - Your reference to Romans 10:9-10. During the time in which Paul was talking about "confessing Christ" one would be put to death for such a confession in certain places. Performing the works of "confession" even unto death is a far cry from standing up in a friendly congregation and saying you confess Christ to their cheers. If one never does the real, true and complete works of confessing Christ – are they saved? The truth is that salvation comes through a covenant or bilateral partnership contract with G-d not by individual unilateral efforts – that is what the scriptures are really trying to tell us. This is how scriptures can and should be interpreted. If salvation was only a divine unilateral contract, every individual would have the same salvation as every other individual regardless of their “works” or “beliefs” or whatever you want to discern as different qualifiers or methods of earning a reward in heaven or a punishment in hell. (G-d is not a respecter of persons). If works are not rewarded in any way then we cannot say that works can condemn in any way as well. If works can condemn us then it is not grace that saves us it would be the works of not doing works of condemnation. If we are saved by grace only; then works do not and cannot have any part in part in the judgment (rewards or punishments) of G-d. But we are judged clearly by our works – according to every scripture that speaks of judgment. Therefore the only conclusion I can draw is that there is something very wrong with your interpretation of scripture. The Traveler

Who did you agree with following 9/11? The Saudi Royal Family? Just so you know where I stand - I do not think we will make any advances in ending mid-east terrorism while the Saudi Royal Family is in power. The Traveler

To expect more of others than you expect of yourself is the very definition of hypocrisy. Every human being will act like a thug when the situation is right for a long enough time. I have seen the gentlest people panic and endanger and threaten the lives of others. Anyone with life guard training realizes the danger of trying to rescue a drowning person. Should all such people experiencing panic under desperate situations be rejected by society and tried for attempted murder? If someone has never been in a life threatening situation it is easy to blame. I do agree when people in critical positions do not take their position responsibly and with honor according to the highest standards of what is possible then yes let us remove them from such positions. I have seen nothing and heard less that indicates that all the police involved have a history of being unreasonable or irresponsible. Let us not condemn someone for being in a high speed chase when they act like they have been in a high speed chase. The Traveler

I thought I would ask a question about your understanding of the gospel of Christ and your interpretation of Gal 1:8. If you are reading any published criticism of LDS doctrine I submit that such publication of a contrary gospel is exactly what Paul preached against. Anyone publishing another gospel other than the one they have received – even for criticism is exactly what Paul preached against. Are you among those that Paul condemns? The Traveler

There is more diversity among traditional Christians concerning the Bible, the source of the Bible and how the Bible is to be interpreted; then there is in the criticism of Mormon doctrine and the possible diversity from ancient understanding of ancient texts. Most Western Christians are familiar with Catholic and Protestant Christianity as traditions. But they are not as familiar with the varieties of Orthodox, Gnostic and Nestorian Christians of the Mid-East and East that have histories of doctrines and practices that predate the Protestant movements. The reality is that every LDS doctrine can be interpreted from the ancient Biblical texts and agreed variant readings of such texts that comprise the books that are found in any or all of the Christian traditions still active today. To say that LDS doctrine conflicts with the Bible is both a biased and uninformed opinion based on selective interpretations that in reality are rather narrow recent and limited. In addition we have Jewish traditions and variant readings of both Old and New Testament text – Remember that Jesus and his Apostles (as well as the writers of New Testament texts) were all of Jewish traditions. If you refuse accept LDS doctrine as possible interpretations of Biblical texts then you are likely wasting our time and efforts as well as your own, insisting something is that we know is diffidently prejudicial and greatly uninformed. Your threads will be quickly locked and no sane LDS will consider an intelligent conversation possible with you. Your interpretations and understanding of ancient Biblical scripture does not come even close to defining very much of the spectrum of Jewish or Christian thinking – so my question is why are you so concerned with LDS? The Traveler

It is very ease to sit back and say that this should not have happened. The truth is that adrenalin fueled reflex cannot be completely controlled by training. It is a fact and it will occur and the likelihood of the severity is increased when adrenalin continues for over 20 minutes or if the situation is perceived as increasingly more dangerous. Some can resist adrenalin fueled reflex for longer than others but regardless of all factors there is a breaking point of no return that once crossed the individual does not have control. The simple fact is that if anyone runs from police they risk aggressive reaction. It is not racial, it is not a lack of training – it is a fact. Just like when pulling the trigger of a gun a bullet will come out the other end and if something vital is in the way there will be severe damage – maybe even loss of life. There is no reason to blame the gun or the bullet. It is the fault of the finger that pulled the trigger. If we do not want humans (with human faults and limitations) as police trying to protect us then we might as well get rid of all of them now and let every person try to protect themselves. Doesn’t anyone recognize the similarity in every one of these videos reaching the public? The Traveler