Traveler

Thanks for the responses: One of the characteristics of spirituality is an inner awareness. I am suggesting that there is a spiritual nature that when one becomes inwardly aware of truth the spiritual result is joy. This joy is express to others in a manner that all that share the spiritual awareness of joy in a circle of love and compassion. At the same time those that are not connected with truth have no inner awareness of joy and as a result radiate a sour attitude that destroys the circle of joy, love and compassion. Jesus warned about “false teachers” that would destroy the flock (awareness of joy in a circle of love and compassion). Shakespeare said it this way – “To thy own self be true and it shall follow as the night the day – thou cannot be false with any man.” One indication of someone that is connected to truth – self aware of truth – is an attitude of joy which is part of the light of Christ. The Traveler

One of the interesting expressions is the idea concerning the folly of youth and the wisdom of age. Although I was impressed with the lovely young lady I met and married; the power of love and the strength of our marriage came years later as we grew older together knitting our differences into a wonderful and beautiful tapestry. I realize that many take stock in the love at first sight concept – which I also hold but the love generated at first sight is not the power from which everlasting relationships are made. It is only a beginning. And so I believe it is with truth. Many times we become convinced of a thing early on – but that is not really the power of truth. For me, the beginning of truth is like planting a seed that even when it first begins to grow is quite tender and requires great care and attention. The power of truth is what comes with time and seasons. It does not narrow our understanding of things but expands and add to all things we encounter. It does not create contradictions but is a greatly prized treasure that is always growing. As time passes it become less of a mystery and more of something that should be plain and simple to everyone. Doubts of it fade over time and the joy of it expands. I realized that many abandon truth during the early seemingly inconveniences; their youthful joy is replaced with sour disposition and cranky demeanor. Is it ignorance that is bliss and knowledge that turns people into enemies? I do not think so. I am convinced that truth and knowledge is what makes a person kind when it is the only source around them. It is truth that turns a person to kindness when all others are convinced there is no reason or place for compassion. When other see only despair it is the truth and those that enjoy it that lives for joy even through the darkest nights of despair. Does my belief in Christ limit me and what I can do – not really? My faith in Christ and living according to his gift of truth opens me to divine possibilities and the pursuits of G-d. The Traveler

There are two ways to be aware of that which takes place around us. There is a spiritual awareness and a physical awareness that involves our 6 senses. The fullness of knowledge, which is divine joy comes from knowing the truth of all things both spiritually and physically - it is the only way that man can truly be free. The Traveler

Jason's answer to this was the Law of Karma and reincarnation. I like that. The standard Unitarian/Universalist answer I have heard is: Yes, Hitler will be saved. Isn't the love of God extravagant and glorious? After all, who can outsin the love of God? Nobody has that much power! Furthermore, regarding the quality of heaven--it's all about God. It's his creation, and he will assure that--as we say in government--"Controls and checks are in place to assure that deficiencies do not repeat. I do not agree with Universalism, but it does blunt many of the criticisms non-Christians level at as "judgmental" folks. Just a note about all this - I believe that everybody that wants to be saved will be saved. I also believe that those that do not want to be saved will not be forced into it. Jesus put it this way - "As a man thinks in his heart, so is he." This is a spiritual statement - not to be understood empirically. Someday when I have a lot of time and some on the forum are interested - perhaps I could offer my understanding of the vast difference between empirical logic and spiritual logic and how we tend to argue things that are understood by the spirit with empirical logic, notions and references - which is a critical error and horrible mistake. The Traveler

The rape is not a temptation or sin to her but to not be able to forgive or live a productive life would be when she reaches the age of accountability. If she were to die before accountability she is innocent - according to what I understand in scripture. What is your point?The Traveler

Jason: I believe you are mistaken on several points. For example, what points of temple worship are given in LDS scripture that are not in any of the ancient finds referred to by Das. Please note the scripture by chapter and verse. Some references form the Dead Sea Scrolls that correspond to LDS revelations. The Book of Enoch as compared to the Pearl of Great Price - Specifically the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses. References to the Priesthood of Melchizedek - The Doctrine and Covenants and the DSS Testaments of the Patriarchs. The Traveler

So hardships, afflictions and personal trials cannot ever be included in what is a temptation?BTW - I consider my self a supper strong Christian - I can resist anything but temptation. The Traveler

I think you do not understand The promise offered in Corinthians - It is my understanding that only those that enjoy the covenant protection of G-d cannot be tempted beyond what they can endure.The Traveler

Since I started this mess I thought I would give some opinion about where it has gone. Pont 1: I believe that we legislate morals into law. In fact morals are the only laws that man can make and enforce. We cannot change and enforce the universal gravitational constant, the value of pi or anything other than our morals. Point 2: Whose morals – the majority. Often I disagree with the majority but I believe if I use the force of law to install my morals over that of the majority I am creating a state of tyranny. I believe anyone that installs any laws contrary to the morals of the majority is creating a state of tyranny. Point 3: The majority can make mistakes but the mistakes of minorities have always been worse in the long run. Point 4: Our morals are not what we say – they are what we do. If we live by the rule of law (and I think we should) then any and every exception is the law. Point 5: I believe it is stupid and foolish and evil to waist a good human life because of our personal flaws. Point 6: I am aware that the US Supreme has ruled that a fetus during the 1st trimester is not human life. I believe that ruling is in error because we know that the fetus meets all the criteria for life – therefore the question is not if there is life but if the life is human. I use the logic of elimination. Since it cannot be proven that a fetus is some other life other than human then it must be human. This is an extension of the innocent until proven guilty concept. If anyone disagrees with this concept – may I ask – how do we prove that any life is a human life? Especially those people that are handicapped? Where is the line drawn between that which is human and that which is not? The Traveler

The first responsibility is to those involved in the cause. The secondary responsibility is to the family and friends (support group) of those involved in the cause and the last responsibility is to society. Let us not get this backwards There is a gross misunderstanding here in government funding. The idea was started in 1960 when it was discovered that if just 2% of the USA gross national product was transferred to the poor, we could do away with poverty. Since 1960 the amounts and percent has increased so that we are now transferring over 20% yet we have worse poverty. Funding has not been slashed – we have made the situation worse. Just a side note here - The USA takes over 60% of funds from poverty programs to support the bureaucracy. Not one of the programs you are talking about as proven to help has done anything to reduce the number of high-risk children. Just because something is better than feeding children to crocodiles does not mean that it is a good and desirable thing and must be supported. We know what is best for children and that is what must be encouraged or we contribute (either directly or indirectly) to the abuse of children. I would like to see your data that adoration has had any significant effect on reducing abuses to children and convincing anyone that would abuse children from such a thing. I feel quite differently – The attitude that justifies adoration is the basis of abusive attitudes and is more justification than a deterrent. It is very much part of the problem and not at all a solution. At best it is a band aid that does noting to prevent anyone from preventing or avoiding more wounds. The best of man has evolved from much worse - your sense of helplessness is not a true sense. Just because someone believes a thing does not mean it is true. Almost everyone that takes a life believes there is justification - It is said that Baby Face Nelson believed his killings was doing the world a favor. No - I have not had anything to do with the Republican Party since Nixon. I have been political active and served as the legislative chairman (over all the lobbyists) for the PTSA in the state of Washington. I also was involved in the Presidential campaign of Alan Keys. The Traveler

Thank you for posting - some day I would like to enjoy a personal discussion. I would, however, point out that Constantine had little to do with establishing what scriptures and version of ancient text would be most considered in the canon as it is corrently presented through out the many modern versions (which hardly indicates that a real canon of the Bible even exist today). I believe if we were to look at the largest single contributor to our modern Biblical canonic text it would be Charlemagne and diffidently not Constantine (who many feel was never "really" a Christian). The Traveler

Sometimes I believe we do history an injustice when we say that such and such is the reason for some thing that happened. Seldom do the gates or doors of history swing on one hinge. Most likely there are many factors that contribute to important events of history. In the cases of Joseph Smith and Jesus the Christ we can be sure that there were more than religious factors (doctrine) at play in their death. Besides religious factors there were political, social, and economic factors. As we study the rich evidence left to us by historians concerning Joseph Smith and Jesus we may take many view and try to understand theses view from our current perspective. Personally I am of the mind that for many, doctrine is just a cog in their power machine. Often it is not about truth or about bringing light and understanding as it is saying, “I am right and you are wrong.” Another way of saying, “I am better than you.” When action and deeds would demonstrate otherwise. Although there are some similarities in the crucifixion of Christ and the martyrdom of Joseph we must be careful not to over simplify the role each projected into the eternal consequence of their dying. I will speak to my opinion about the death of Joseph Smith Jr. I regret that religion played the role it did. It is sad that so many Christian leaders of the time did little or nothing to prevent or advise their members about participating in such a thing and not much more afterwards to bring about reconciliation. I congratulate PC on his efforts to bring an attitude of reconciliation. I also regret that many LDS (including myself) have used this and other events of history to maintain an attitude holier than thou. Neither the death of Jesus or Joseph should be used to think anyone trying to live a good life today should be discouraged in their religious efforts – what ever their religious devotion is. It is time to do the right thing and cheer the right – regardless of who makes the effort. We all have sad things in our past. Let us quit living in the past and prepare for what is coming very soon in all our futures. The Traveler

There is a problem in understanding covenants. D&C 84 teaches some things about covenants and how we are tied to G-d through his servants in covenant. I do not know if this will be understood but covenants are not about an individual. We (the LDS) are a covenant people not a lot of covenant individuals. It is by covenant that we become a united body and one with G-d and the saints of G-d. Supporting you leaders does not always mean that you agree with them – If you disagree there are ways to support them and let your concerns be known. This covenant is often compared to the covenant of marriage. Would you or your loving partner ever make a mistake in your marriage covenant? And how should your spouse treat you concerning your mistake. By going inactive with their covenant before G-d? Thinking of salvation in terms of you and what you get is not part of the discipline of a “disciple” of the Christ or the covenant to love G-d and others as yourself. The great question one should ask is “Are you part of the problem or are you part of the solution?” If you are certain there is a better way then you should demonstrate that better way. Show us – don’t just talk about what you think is wrong. One last statement about G-d unchanging. Most of us think of the “Eternal” G-d in a temporal sense. There was an ancient concept that “Eternal” was outside of time and had nothing to do with time. The eternal concept had to do with something that could not be altered in the “NOW”. The eternal concept had to do with the effects of now in that that which is eternal is not changed with the now. The now is a spiritual concept – it is a concept outside of time and place. It is what and who we are as well as what and who G-d is. This is the great mystery – to be aware and prepared for now is the essence of eternal. The Traveler

The problem with death is that it is final for the one that dies. All the excuses you talk about as being worse than death are temporary. Everything you say is hopeless someone has survived and lived a fruitful life. I sorrow that killing and deciding to kill comes so easy to you. Yes, I know you have said that killing can be hard. As hard as you say it is you seem to not want to consider any alternative. I think it is all a great lie - the evil of killing or taking an innocent life is done with love and compassion. As bad as you claim that it is for the mother and their horrible circumstance - they are willing to "Live" in it. The hypocrisy is classic. They would rather not die despite their hardship but none the less they will take away an innocent life. I do not buy it. You call the unborn a fetus – a rather non-human term; yet that “fetus” is unique in all this vast universe and there is not another life form, anywhere, that is more like the mother than that unborn human fetus. Your efforts to detach any humanity from the unborn is chilling. There is a saying – What you do looks like you. There is a better course. There is a better attitude about life and the challenges of life. There is a way to make life livable and it begins by making life livable for others and no longer pursuing death to inconvenient innocence as a solution. The Traveler

Your arguments and points are interesting - But I have no idea at all to what they are directed. I have only stated that taking the life of an unborn child has nothing to do with ending the cause of unwanted pregnancies. Before this discussion is moved to any other point of view or concept – I want to make sure that everyone understands I will not accept any arguments as being rational that results in the taking of an innocent life. I see no reason to discuss any other points while this one remains open.The Traveler

Thank you for your efforts. I do want to make clear that I believe there are a few problems with your logic. I understand, I think, why you are having a problem. That is why I try very hard to keep focused on the right things and not get side tracked. 1. It is hard for me to come up with a scenario where there is an unwanted child yet to be borne and there was not an abuse of a woman and even possibly a man and still possible is an individual that has abused themselves. Just because there have been serious abuses already I am not willing to sacrifice an unborn child to ease the stress on someone already so concerned with themselves they are willing to take the life of another. 2. I do not like the logic of mercy killing. I do not accept at all that since things are tough or going to be tough for somebody that we should kill them so they do not have to suffer. It is bad enough when someone wants to end it for themselves because things are tough but when they want to end it for someone else – well to me that is an indication of insanity (criminal insanity – which is the worse kind of insanity I know of). That person should not be allowed to make important life choices. I would also point out that in the last 200 years it is most likely the best time and opportunity in history for people to rise above difficult circumstances. None of us would be here today if it was not for someone willing to sacrifice a great deal (perhaps even their life) for their children (the next generation). 3. I also have a hard time with the concept of – we should not force someone in to not taking another life. I think this is as good example as any of when force ought to be applied – that is to save a life. I am glad you have compassion for someone – if I could just convince you to have compassion for the “innocent” one in this whole mess. The only reason to have any law is to “FORCE” someone to do something that they do not want or intend to do. When it comes to taking a life – I think it is time to use force to stop such a thing. 4. I do not like it when people in position of power (what ever that power is) over someone else are determined to solve problems – not by doing something about the root cause of the problem but instead by wasting resources trying to alter the result of the problem. Such efforts are dishonest and even criminal. No sane person with any kind of intelligence is going to cheer efforts to change outcomes while fighting against any efforts to consider first doing something about the cause(s). 5. I find it interesting that you are accusing me of judging someone – which I have but not to seeking to end their life but you do not mention the horrible judgment of someone that judges another life not worth even existing. There is something very wrong when there is a problem and some are determined to solve that problem by laying the greatest punishment on someone that did noting to cause the problem. This logic is like giving every one on the high way a $1000 fine because they let a crazy driver pass them or run into their parked vehicle that was in a place 50 feet off the road. The first object of the law must be to protect the innocent – the more innocent first. The second obligation of the law is to punish the guilty. It is corrupt for any society or government to think first to protect the guilty by punishing the innocent. I do not find any of your excuses for taking a life acceptable. If someone is trying to take your life, I hope that you would remember my arguments and use them to their fullest – I would strongly suggest that you not use any of the arguments you have used in this discussion thus far. Do you really believe this stuff you are saying or are you just trying to make some point about another opinion or view? I know there are points of view and arguments – I am just quite surprised when someone pretends to believe such nonsense – that is, till such nonsense is directed at them. If and when such a thing should happen to you I would hope that I would be around to protect your life. You may want to keep someone like me around – just incase. The Traveler

I like to keep things as simple as possible. Perhaps you can help me to understand you view of tragedy. Please explain to me how a man and a woman that honor and respect each other for their manhood and womanhood and who truly love and honor themselves (as Shakespeare said – “to thine own self be true and it shall follow as the night the day - thou cannot be false to any man") – could come to the conclusion, as you have done and decide that any critter in all the universe that is as much as possible, like them, more than any other living thing, should never be borne. If they truly believe such a thing – maybe they are right; maybe such thing or kind of a thing should not ever be borne. I do not understand why anyone would support and uphold or even argue for such a mentality. The problem is not with the child - requiring the child to give it life to solve the problem of the parents is not the bright choice of a society that understand the importance of the next generation. The Traveler

The scriptures give us clues and types and shadows. In Matt 6:10 we learn that it is the will of G-d that what was once in heaven should become the template of what will come to pass on earth. Let us consider what has happened in heaven and see if such a paradigm fits what is happening on earth – in particular to these last days. Consider Revelation chapter 12 verse 4. Note the phrase “the third part”. I could go into a lot of detail here because many understand this to mean 1/3 of heaven. That is an incorrect understanding. This is an ancient mathematical expression that means heaven was divided into 3 parts. They do not necessarily mean equal parts just parts. It could have been half of heaven but I doubt it – likewise it could be 10% but I doubt that as well. The point is that there were at the time a division of heaven into 3 parts. One of those parts followed Satan and left heaven. It is interesting to note that mankind was divided into three parts following the flood and that heaven is divided into 3 parts or kingdoms in the resurrection. There is another clue as to what the make up of the other two parts was, see Abraham 3:22 and again in Alma chapter 13 verse 3. Therefore we know that there is among the three parts a part that is known as the noble and great or the valiant in Christ. We are also given clues as how to know for sure who are among that 3rd part. Now, before some reader starts patting themselves on the back and congratulating themselves on a fine job in the pre-existence - understand that to those given such a title is not for their glory. Note now the scripture in Luke 12:48. Here we learn that more is required of them in this life because they are given greater responsibility. Clearly those that are truly noble and great will demonstrate such divine nobility in the same manner that G-d’s chosen have always stood as an example and light to the world. I have never heard or read from one of G-d’s noble and great that their calling to nobility and greatness was fun and a fabulous way to spend your vacation or spare time. This is not like getting a Corvette for your 16th birthday because of your good grades. The Traveler

I see. So there is some sort of genetic connection to men and women who choose pleasure over children? Or do you see it as an absolutely learned behavior? Perhaps both?I want to make sure I have this right. You're saying, in a particular line, the majority of women will choose to abort the male and female children in order to satisfy their need for pleasure. This will continue with each subsequent generation of the line, because these women will continue to choose to abort their male and female children in order to satisfy their need for please. Eventually, all of the males and females will be aborted, and the line will be extinct. Is this what you are saying? Elphaba Note to Prison Chaplain: PC, I don't think this is tongue-in-cheek. I think he's serious. Evolution is not just biological. There is intellectual, social, political and even economic evolution. If you understand the process of evolution – each generation is in essence playing with the cards (genetic and otherwise) dealt by previous generations. Do you follow this logic? When a person chooses to abort their children rather than raise and teach them, they cut off any direct contribution they will pass on to the children of the next generation. If you understand the trends of evolution then the continuation of any mind set is throttled (not by its current popularity but) by its access to the next generation. It does not matter how any given mentality is passed on – it must be passed on or the evolution of it will end. It is a proven principle of evolution – what survives must be instilled in the next generation in a manner that will be passed on to following generations. The most successful at this simple principle of evolution has the highest propensity of survival – or continuing. So I ask the question. Am I a complete idiot or is there viable logic here – worth passing on to the next generation? The Traveler

What mentality?Elphaba The mentality of logic to value pleasure over the life of another. The Traveler Okay, I think I just caught on to what you're saying. It took me a while. You're saying that women choose to have abortions because they would rather have pleasure than children. The more these women have abortions, the fewer children they have. The fewer children they have, the fewer children the next generation has. This next generation's women will have abortions because they choose to have pleasure over children, thus providing even fewer children for the future generation. Each subsequent generation's women continue to have abortions because they choose pleasure over children, and fially the line dies out. Thus, there are no more women to choose pleasure over children. Do I have it right? Elphaba Not just women - children do not happen in a vaccum. Men are more famious for persuing pleasure over the good of children (society). Must hurry - sitting at an airport catching a plain The Traveler

What mentality?Elphaba The mentality of logic to value pleasure over the life of another. The Traveler

Just a note about abortions: A few years back I was involved in a debate on this issue and presented the idea that there are some benefits that could come from abortions. For example it allowed to proceed without hindrances we would eventually eliminate that mentality from the gene pool. the Traveler

I am making thin post in honor of Prison Chaplin and his efforts to reconcile differences between LDS and Evangelicals. I admit that I carry a prejudice against most Evangelicals and have done so for years. I thought my prejudice to be a cleaver thing and now I would make public that my mind has changed – PC’s attitude and efforts are superior to my own. I have been slow on the up take in the attitude of reconciliation. I have thought that reconciliation meant that we solve our differences rather than consider the overwhelming similarities. I have desperately attempted in vain to prevent any reconciliation by bringing to the immediate forefront any difference I could find in our doctrines. Yet, I am adamant that intention and attitude express in divine love and compassion is a greater indication of a Christian than is doctrine. Oops. No one has to tell me the differences – I know what that is and I have an excellent handle on that. The purpose of this thread and post is to search out and agree on things LDS and Evangelicals can work together on. Since I really do not know that much about Evangelicals I will begin with a list of things from my LDS point of view that I believe could be expanded to Evangelicals for a team effort. 1. I believe the LDS welfare program could be combined and teamed with humanitarian efforts of Evangelicals. I believe our combined efforts to relieve the poor, the sick, the oppressed and the down trodden is an area that should be considered. 2. I believe the LDS and Evangelicals can work together to improve education. I think it could be possible to expand our youth programs to have exchanges and perhaps even competitions. Can you imagine “Church ball” including games with Evangelicals? I would love to combine efforts we have for seminary to put pressure on schools to broaden education to include religious elective religion classes for high school students that gives high school credits. 3. Family values and political influence. This is one area we should work together. I would like to define political values that can be supported by both LDS and Evangelicals. Some political issues I believe we have in common: Marriage: The support of marriage (a man and a woman) as a foundation of family to be honored and protected by law and society. Abortion: End late term abortions of choice. Once a child reaches a viable stage abortion can only be for prescribed medical needs. Protection of religion as a contributor to the state. 4. Community and social service and fellowship. I believe we can have exchanges and firesides where we share ideas on better living, investing, getting out of debt, food storage and other such things. I believe we could work together to clean up public parks and help clean up poor neighborhoods and areas of disasters. I think if I lived next to PC I might even mow his lawn someday when he is away on vacation – then deny I knew anything about it. I think I agree with PC – it is time to be better neighbors. Thanks PC The Traveler

Please remember that as you say these things it is not in dark corners but to the saints of G-d, his chosen anointed. Please be careful how you speak concerning the L-rd's anointed.The Traveler I would ask one question: Was Jesus' life taken or given at the cross? When the spear pearced his side what came out - blood? or was it water? And what does that mean? The answer my friend is that Jesus did not die because of the cross - or it would have been blood. The Traveler

I have played this game enough - for me it is not just about saying and speaking in openness - it is about hearing and listening in openness. I am through listening to anti-ness, be it anti-ness of this religion or that religion. I know enough about flaws - having made plenty myself. I desire to hear the gospel (good news) of Christ - I and done hearing those preach another gospel that they do not believe or understand. If you think you believe and understand the truth of Christ then I will listen but if you speak of any religion in the anti - you have lost my ears and my respect.The Traveler