Traveler

I mostly agree with you but it is my impressions that the things you point to as indications of the end are in reality the norm throughout history and not a resent exception. The Traveler

Could we say that the use of the term “Easter” as the designation of a most sacred religious holiday among Christians is an indication of the paganization of traditional Christianity? The Traveler

To me the difference between love and lust is as follows: Love – Caring for others more than self. Lust – Caring for self more than others. As for modesty. I believe true modesty is when our dress and our desire in the dress of others reflect honor and respect. We do not need to hide beauty to present ourselves with honor and respect. Sometimes I believe religions go too far (especially with women) in extreme dress that hides and masks the beauty that G-d created. Some (usually men) are so carnal that anything beautiful about a woman entices them to abandon their divine purpose of love and seek to selfishly enslave themselves and others in their lust in the opposite sex. Also there is much more to modesty than dress. Someone can be dressed modestly and still behave immodestly. I believe that too much focus on dress and not behavior will confuse young teenage boys and girls during critical times for their development of social graces. The Traveler

To me opposition is the innate duplicity of possibility. Even with G-d there is a possibility of evil but with G-d the propensity of evil has been overcome through the principles of sacrifice, charity and mercy. It appears to me that the primary vehicle with G-d to exercise good is always through covenant. I believe the first element of evil is indulgence in selfishness. The first element of good is the opposite which is the discipline and sacrifice for others. I believe that the reason Satan is bound during the Millennium because of light and knowledge. It is my personal belief that the reason that many choose evil during mortality is because they are beguiled until overcome by habitual and addictive behaviors. Which is the opposite of discipline which is the root of true worship and the freedom and liberty of mankind. The Traveler

My question is - where do you draw the torture line between what is and what is not torture? Detaining someone from their families is a form of torture. Trying to convince an enemy that they are wrong to be killing you could be considered torture. Any interrogating of an enemy can be argued to be torture. Separating captured enemies can be considered torture. I would like to tell a little story. While I was attached to an intelligence unit we had a training exercise where several US pilots were dropped off in a wilderness area and our unit captured and interrogated them. There were rules in this exercise – we could not do any permanently physical damage like cut them or break bones. We could slap them but were instructed not to draw blood. The pilots were given information that they were instructed not to divulge. The longest any of the pilots lasted in interrogation was about 20 minutes – most buckled within 5 minutes (we did not water board). My point here is that no one should expect that we treat enemy combatants better than we treat our own during training. When someone says no torture – I believe we need to be clear what that means. I would submit that being in combat – a full blown firefight is itself torture for all involved. So if someone is completely against torture does that mean that we never return fire in combat because that could be considered torture? The other point that I believe is most important is that we never make this a matter of political debate and political posturing. To do so I believe is subjecting our combat troops to a brand of torture and threat to what they must do to survive the horrors that they must live through. As I have stated – I do not believe in punishing the captured enemy but I do believe in interrogating them for every bit of information they have. BTW as a side note: I would never criticize any military person for divulging any information to the enemy if they were captured. The Traveler

Where did the term Easter come from and where in history was it first used? The Traveler

We should never see one's pollitics as acceptable based upon the failures of another. The Traveler

You should on both accounts. The Traveler

I do not think low of you and I look forward to more discussions with you on this and other topics. I personally enjoy considering your thoughts and the spirit that accompanies them. The Traveler

By definition the KJV or King James Version of the Bible is English. Currently the LDS church has not developed any other versions of the bible in any other languages other than the Spanish version soon to be released. I do not know how many languages the LDS topical guide and bible dictionary has been translated. BTW – I have attended the LDS church in Tainan while doing consulting in Taiwan. Of all the places I have attended church I am most impressed with the Taiwan Chinese members. I am sure that your wife is a blessing unto you. The Traveler

You are correct about many things in Vietnam. The USA could have won that conflict and ended it within months at any time. Some facts about Vietnam. 1. Vietnam had one major railroad that supplied the entire country. That railroad was never touched or damaged during the entire war. We never even tried. 2. Vietnam had one major industrial area that was never touched or damaged during the entire war. We never even tried. 3. Vietnam had 2 mayor agricultural areas that were never touched or damaged during the entire war. We never even tried. 4. The US air force developed a method to permanently shut down the Ho Chi Min trail that supplied Vietnam from China. After one week of operations the program was permanently canceled by President Johnston. The reason we did not end that conflict was for political reasons. The sad thing that has been lost in history is why Vietnam ever became a problem in the first place. One other interesting fact. During the 80’s I was working at Boeing on the original B1 bomber project. When we had the fly off we were able to demonstrate that the B1 could deliver a nuclear device within 3 feet of any target anywhere in the world undetected. One week later President Carter canceled the project. Years later Ragan revived the program but modified the new version to remove all the technology that allowed the B1 to avoid detection. It is also interesting to me that the B2 bomber uses alternate stealth technology that still allows detection though minimal. The technology we developed for the B1 that made it indictable has been permanently removed from the 4 original B1 bombers and scraped. The team that developed the counter measures technology has been scattered to never work together again. The USA will never win a conflict or war with its current political landscape that believes winning is too cruel. The Traveler

I am most impressed with the ancient Egyptians. Their mathematics allowed them to calculate harmonic wave lengths of colors 6,000 years ago. Something we could not do duplicate in modern times 150 years ago. And they did it and the solution to the square root of one without irrational number theory. The Traveler

I believe the Law of Mercy and it corresponding covenant was as much in effect as was the law of justice and associated covenant. Is not the covenant of Mercy to save someone from eternal damnation or perdition? One interesting thing we see in scripture is the destruction of cities and civilizations in order to prevent certain things from happening. The term used in scripture is "ripe” in iniquity. We also learn from scripture that mercy cannot rob justice – there must always be a payment made. I find it interesting that some think to second guess the L-rd based on their parameters in mortality. There are two deaths. The death of the physical body is insignificant compared to the second death. In fact we all will die the physical death. I believe death is a step in the eternal plan of mercy. What better death is there than that which is for a good cause or divine purpose? The Traveler

Including the financing of the last election – especially the winner that interestingly had more money from big business intrest than any cantidate in the history of our country. The Traveler

I do not read Elphaba’s posts so I do not know what she said. But torture is a very interesting topic to me because I served with an intelligence unit during the Vietnam conflict. There are some things that I have come to understand about my experience. During war military personal are expected to kill to preserve our country and it citizens. Well, how about killing someone that is unarmed and indicating they want to surrender? In Vietnam this was as likely to be a trap or ambush as it was an actual surrender. The point I want to make here is that in war time if one side is bound by rules that the other side is not – the result most likely will be that one side will have a killing advantage. The side that has the greatest killing advantage historically wins wars. If there is an exception – I have never heard of it. Next thought. I learned that during the first about 20 minutes when someone is taken into custody is the best time to get good and vital information that is useful. If torture is to be used (physical or mental) this is the opportune time. I know this sounds horrible but if you are trying to stay alive and keep your comrades alive this is critical and may be your only chance. The problem with torture in my mind is when it is used as a means of punishment and not for information. I am all for ending torture as a means to inflict punishment but anything that limits a means to gain information is nuts, suicide and a direct aid to enemies in a time of war. After a week in captivity torture is – without a doubt in my mind a means of punishment and psychological control and dominance. I also believe that it is easy to determine if someone is after information or inflicting punishment. Some say that torture does not produce good information. This is because they do not understand how information gathered by more than one source can be put together to create intelligence. Anyone should know that information from any single source is unreliable. They should also know that any information should be collaborated and verified before being acted upon. It is also my opinion that no civil court should ever have jurisdiction of any military personal while they are involved in combat and that any information that is deliberately and knowingly released concerning combat situations that helps or aids the enemy should be an act of treason punishable by death. I know this sounds harsh but I do not care what reason our country and politicians have to send our troops into combat (I call it combat because some may thing war is something else) then lets us not hold the troops accountable for trying to survive the treats the face and instead hold our politicians accountable if anybody. If we let our dogs lose let’s not get upset if they start biting someone we did not intend to be bitten especially understanding that we trained our dogs to bite anyone that threatens. The Traveler

I started this thread to see why people are concerned with big government and not big business. I was raised in a political (Republican) family. I left the Republican Party because of the Nixon scandal and my discovery of the vast corruption within the party. Since denouncing the Republican Party I have attempted to become involved in other parties but I have discovered one of two things. One: If a political party has any ability to effect political policy the party is completely dominated by non-voting money interest. What I am saying here is that the political parties with clout are controlled by monies that come from entities (corporations, businesses, unions or any other number of interest with deep pockets – keep in mind that the segment of the population that donates as registered voters over $1,000 comprises less than 3% of the citizens of this country). Voting individuals have very little effect in determining political policies of parties on the national level because the political parties can survive without their monitory contribution and cannot survive with only such contributions. Two: is the opposite of #1. That is if a political party is not dominated by non-voting money interest they have no political clout. All money interest is driven by profits generated by businesses. But not all big business opportunities are driven by profit. Let us take for example the great depression. Prior to the great depression private families and individuals owned about 90% of America’s farm land. Today this has reversed and 90% of American’s farm production comes from corporate owned farms. Now let us take our current circumstance. Most conservatives are concerned about the federal government taking over and controlling the banks. But that is not the trend or what is really going on. It is interesting to me that since the great depression there is one private entity that has been steadily gaining more power and control over banking interests. Have you guessed it yet? It is the Federal Reserve Bank and no one is talking about it. Not the Democrats or the Republicans. And it is all happening while each of the parties is trying to focus everyone’s attention somewhere else. Most conservatives are so worried about big government that they have forgotten the danger of big companies – especially big companies with monopolies or collections of individuals that sit on each other’s boards granting themselves bonuses as well bonuses to corporate managers that feed into their control rather than bonuses based directly on company profits. And this my friends is not capitalism and in my mind could be worse than socialism. Can you spell Gadianton Robbers? The Traveler

With all things considered – what is worse or the more corrupt? Big all powerful government or Big all powerful business? In the end is there that much of a difference? Is it possible to have one without it taking over the other? The Traveler

I am a mathematician and physicist. I learned in high school that math is not a true science but a language of science. Interestingly math is what I call a perfect language for one cannot lie without misusing the language and anyone that understands the language of math can tell immediately when someone is lying mathematically. I find many similarities in the constructs of mathematics and attributes of G-d. For example the idea that knowing the truth will set you free. Also if one thinks of the various mathematical theories as covenants there are amazing parallels. For example: integer number theory will allow solutions to various concepts but rational number theory increases solutions without denying integer number theory. So also can one “progress” in covenants with G-d. I can say that mathematics is one primary reason that I am LDS and have difficulty with many other religious paradigms. The Traveler

It is interesting that the title of the “son of the morning” is given to Lucifer. This title, even more than “first born”, is an indication of a chronological elder and is not really associated with Jesus. It is possible that Jesus is the chronological eldest of all the Father’s children but I cannot find a conclusive reference in scripture. What I do find interesting is that in all cases where a type and shadow is given in scripture of two siblings (brothers) claiming divine inheritance that it is always given to the younger. Another interesting point is that Lucifer is acknowledged as an “anointed one” (Ezek. 28:14) which in the ancient Hebrew latterly means Messiah. Another interesting reference is that Lucifer (Satan) is also called the “covering Cherub” (Ezek. 28:14 & 16) which has reference to the two Cherubim before the symbolic throne or Mercy Seat of G-d that was commanded to be built for the ancient tabernacle and temple of Israel. One covering Cherub is on the right hand of G-d and one on the left hand of G-d. When Moses was commanded to create this symbolic reference for the tabernacle the scriptures tells us that the two were to face each other. The literal translation of the ancient Hebrew is “and the two BROTHERS will face or oppose each other”. In the ancient covenants of Kingdoms the right hand side of the throne is always the designated place for the noblest, second only to the Suzerain. Nowhere in any traditional Christian doctrine have I ever seen any reference as to who the brother of Satan could possibly be at the throne of G-d for the judgment of mankind to oppose Satan – despite the fact that the scriptures testify that the rightful place of Jesus Christ is at the right hand of G-d (Acts 7:55:56) and that all the symbols of righteousness associated with a Cherub are also given to Jesus. For example in Genesis 3:24 a Cherub is identified as the symbolic and covenantal “keeper of the way to the tree of life” in the garden of G-d. The scriptures testify that Jesus is the one and only divine proctor or overseer of “the way” for man to return to G-d. I would note at this point that the LDS are highly criticized for identifying Jesus and Lucifer as brothers; both being spiritual children of G-d the Father. Yet no critic of the LDS that I have ever encountered has the slightest clue who the other Messianic brother that stand before G-d in opposition of Lucifer the accuser might possibly be. They are criticizing in complete ignorance of the whole truth presented in scripture interpreting only those passages they wish and ignoring those that do not suit their purposes of accusing. BTW Jesus tells us that he is that advocate with the Father. The Traveler

I submit that your #1 is not accurate. In all cases in scripture when there was a dispute with siblings within a family for the birth right of the “first born” the birth right was given to the younger. The more accurate definition of first born would be most noble born. Think of obtaining a seat on a commercial aircraft. If you reserved a first class seat you would not expect that your seat was among the oldest or first installed in the aircraft but the better or best section of the aircraft. The first born of the Egyptians during the exodus of Moses was not the oldest but the best and brightest of Egypt. The slaying of the first born meant the end of that government class’s rule in Egypt. The Traveler

Many misunderstanding with scripture revolve around not understanding covenants. The commandment “Thou shall not kill” is not exactly an accurate translation – a more literal translation could read; “Thou shall not determine on your own who should be killed.” In fact the ancient Hebrew provides construct for just such interpretation for the 6th of the 10 commandments. This understanding has an effect in law surrounding the defination of murder, 1st degree murder or 1st degree manslaughter. In both the cases of Nephi and Abraham as well as many others in scripture that lived by covenant with the L-rd; that according to their covenants killed to protect their homes, liberty, family memgers and other times as commanded never came close to violating any covenant or commandment given by G-d. The Traveler

Most people that think they love chocolate as one of their most favorite things to eat do not really know what chocolate is like all by its self. In scientific terms we talk of learning at the lowest cognitive level of learning – by association as in Pavlov’s dog. Shakespeare once said: “Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems only that thinking makes it so.” So I wonder PC. What is more important in finding truth? That you have ability to “sense” truth or to “believe” to know the source of truth? I say believe because you admit you cannot prove to yourself how you know G-d is the source of truth. The Traveler

More green highlight: Two things I find interesting" 1. That you recognize your personal conclusions. 2. That you recognize that even when you speak with certainty (about most things) there is a possible flaw. The question I am trying to get to - is there anything that you do "Know" for sure and how do you know it? I believe if you are careful and consider this thought that there are things you do "Know" but how you know them may go against your paradigm of Knowing - you may be involved in a most interesting paradox. Most scientists I have encountered suffer this problem but never deal with it. The Traveler

Interesting - many years ago I had a Buick like that but the cloud was mostly because of a cracked block on one of the cylinders. The Traveler

There is another thought of interest concerning this scripture. As I have met with individuals whose life and culture has root in the ancient culture where Nephi and Laban clashed; I have witnessed a most interesting response. There is no concern that G-d would command Nephi to take Laban sword and cut off his head. They have told me that for Laban to die by his own sword by the loss of his head have great symbolic meaning in ancient Middle Eastern culture. They tell me that it is a witness to modern Israel and others of the Middle East that Laban had broken his covenants had been rejected by G-d. To them it indicates that Laban was worse than an infidel. One very devout Muslim told me that of all that he had learned about “Mormons” this to him and his people was the strongest sign that Joseph Smith was a prophet inspired of G-d because he was raised up in a culture that does not understand the ways of that ancient culture and this event would not be well understood in western Christianity. He tells me that there is no other reason for Joseph Smith to have written such a thing other than it came from G-d. I find this most interesting because in the title page to the Book of Mormon that reads as follows: (Blue highlight added by me) I am convinced that those that understand the history and place will understand and know that Joseph Smith is indeed a Prophet and that the Book of Mormon does in fact reflect history of ancient Israel and not modern Western civilization. The Traveler