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

I will give my opinion - please understand this is my opinion. All the spirit children of the Father that kept their first estate obtained the title of "perfect in the spirit". In fact it is my opinion and understand that, we, as spirit children of the Father had perfected such a state of spiritual perfection that there was nothing left for us to do, or prove as spirits. I believe we all are the g-ds of heaven spoken of in Genesis. I believe that having a physical mortal experience was necessary and the very core of G-d's brilliant plan of happiness and salvation. We knew that without a physical mortal experience we would become "damned" souls - stopped short of the Glory of G-d the Father. I would also point out that "perfect" in the ancient understand of the prophets that penned the scriptures meant to be complete. I have stated this before that I believe we stumble over worthiness much to often in thinking of perfection. It is not about the past it is about the now. Being perfect has to do with the forward thinking of being prepared and not the backward looking in thinking worthiness. I have no problem with those that refuse to prepare to be a G-d, like G-d and living as a G-d with G-d. We all have our agency. We are all in the process of preparing for our next life - I challenge all to prepare in the "way" or "manner" of G-d. Think about it: Step 1. Have divine faith in Christ. 2. Repent (which is a change of heart and mind - or the heart and mind of G-d). 3. Baptism by someone standing in and taking the proxy place of G-d as though they were G-d. 4. Receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost - which is the same as saying - receive the gift of G-dlyness or in other words G-dhood. The Traveler

We are talking about a whole chapter. If this is what you see then it is enough. If not, you may elect to ponder more about the fall of man (Adam) and all that entails. If you want to teach these points as doctrine and not your opinion - perhaps you ought to consider informing the first presidency and see if it is indeed worthy to be called doctrine and not opinion. The Traveler

What I have learned about wrestling with pigs in the mud: You will get covered with mud and the pigs will enjoy every minute of it. The Traveler

I try to be sensible about things. Why I oppose nationalized health care and national insurance. 1. The basic concept of insurance is to cover catastrophic events that would bankrupt a person or family. Insurance is not intended for common events. If you insure for normal costs you are working against yourself because you must pay to cover the insurance company as well as for your health care. Co-pay is deceptive. You should pay the full amount for normal or standard health care – any other program will become too expensive and will bankrupt all that participate and will make normal health care too expensive for normal people (which we already have). 2. The US government has demonstrated that it requires over 50% operating costs to run any social program. It may not start out at such high cost but every opportunity there will be lobbyist convincing legislators that more money is needed to run the program and because of the nature of public need – no one will dare oppose improving the program. This means that you can double what ever your cost is now in taxes and that means that every one must pay twice as much for the same benefit they currently enjoy. The great lie of our modern era is that the rich will pay taxes for social programs. This has never been the case at anytime in history and it is not the case now. In the USA taxes are paid by the middle class and as taxes have increased the economic stability of the middles class has diminished. Yes there should be health insurance for extreme ticket items in health care. I have no problem with a government program to subsidize such a health plan for the poor but I oppose anyone having access to anything without their personal investment and commitment (even concerning divine salvation) – I believe to do otherwise destroys character and discourages initiative and prudence and encourages the prodigal and waist. I also think it is interesting that the two biggest health problems in the USA are associated to improper diet and exercise and the two most often methods of treatment offered by our health care is drugs and surgery. The other thing I find interesting is that our health care does not want to help anyone that intends to pay directly for their care. The Traveler

What do you mean "so-called stipend"? It is a fact they receive one.Elphaba Edited: I'm thinking about the GA's and the Law of Consecration. I'm asking this because I really don't know. Do they all live on their stipends? And is that considered living the Law of Consecration? Thanks, E It is not a stipend by defination that implies some common amount or money only. They recieve according to their needs (often not in money) and it is generally not known which recieves more or less than the other but is between the person and their bishop. CrimsonKairos gave a very good indication of how the law of Consecration is lived. The Traveler BTW there are many members that live the Law of Consecration - mostly through fast offering funds.

I'm going to need you to lead me by the hand on this one Traveler. I'm not as smart as you think I am, that's not enough to go on. Try Romans Chapter 5 for a starter. The Traveler

"Scrip" is not the same thing as "script". What, then, should I make of the following? Main Entry: scrip Function: noun Etymology: alteration of "script" Date: 1590 1 : a short writing (as a certificate, schedule, or list) 2 : a small piece 3 a : any of various documents used as evidence that the holder or bearer is entitled to receive something (as a fractional share of stock or an allotment of land) b : paper currency or a token issued for temporary use in an emergency from http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwdictsn Gandalf: you need to understand that your post and approach to this subject appear more in line with a "Troll" than a member (especially a new member) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. You may want to refer to your LDS scriptures (if you have them) - specifically to the Bible Dictionary under "Scrip”. This appears to be an old sectarian notion of scripture. There is a difference in relying on the L-rd and on your speaking abilities to obtain monies and other necessities if someone likes what you preach. I see monies gathered to help the poor, the fatherless and the widows but I see Peter as a working fisherman, I see Paul as a tent maker and Jesus as a carpenter. None of them went to any university to obtain a degree to teach, none of then attended religious classes to justify receiving money (or giving simony) for their office. None of them took a purse that contained their earthly treasure. Today many serve with their own money – some serve from donations from others. All serve and receive the loving kindness (and other gifts) from those they teach even gifts from those of lesser means. This is all done without flaunting any wealth they may or may not have living as equals with the poorest the serve with them. Personally I believe very strongly that your criticism of missionaries is ill placed and is given in ignorance – I am curious (but not excited) to see where you intend to take such discussion The Traveler

You make some interesting points but I believe you have some "wires" crossed with Gethsemane and the cross - It was on the cross that Jesus declared that he had been forsaken by his Father in Heaven. There is also something else you may consider if you like. Jesus suffered for sin but he died for something else. That something else is criticle in understanding that Christ was indeed the "way" - even the keeper of the way or path to the "tree of life".The Traveler

I should have further clarified. Their stipend is paid from revenue that comes from Church investments. No tithing funds are used. I believe a few of them who have been successful in their lives actually donate the stipend back to the Church. It is also a set amount; they don’t receive more if the investments turn a larger profit. There is some misunderstanding here. the GA live what is called the "Law of Consecration". Most of the GA's have given up estates greater that the so called stipend they recieve. None of this is in fact the point. May I use my own mission as an example. Prior to my mission I earned and set aside a sum of money that was then distributed to me through out my mission. I did not take money with me but only received money as I had need. There was more than one time when the money did not come at the apointed time and all the money I had recieved had been spent (I kept very careful records) but every time I went for cash there was enough to cover our needs even though I had spent more cash from my wallet than I had placed in there the previous month - and not by a small or insignificent amount. You may choose to think I am stupid or foolish as you like - The truth of the matter stand independent of who believes it. The Traveler

Sorry I have been away so long: I determined to spend 40 days fasting in the wilderness (South West USA Desert) after my LDS mission and service in the Army. This was a troubled time of my life in which there was much anger and disappointment towards my fellow man (and women). I thought my desert fast would be much different than it was. To be honest I expected something glorious along the line of a burning bush. Interestingly enough I did not recognize anything at the time as being out of the ordinary. However, I have found myself explaining and understanding so many things by referring to this spiritual quest. Let me now finish my thought about “living water”. I have referred to drinkable water of the desert as a symbol of living water. I have indicated that such water gives of itself and its life giving power to all that encounter it. It gives life to the parched desert that cannot have life without water. I have contrasted this to “waters of death” that instead of giving life it ###### the life out of everything that encounters it. It takes and does not give. But there is something more in Christ for in partaking of the living waters of Christ; we will never again thirst. I understand this to mean that we become living water giving life to all we encounter. Because we do not thirst we no longer ###### the water out of things we encounter but rather give water to those that are in need. Water – I do not believe is doctrine, though doctrine may be a part of living water it is not the living water. We do not dream of drinking water and talk of water for such dreams and talk (or just doctrine) does not quench thirst and giving such lifeless water leaves the person even more thirsty when they awake. Giving living water is a sacrifice that threatens your life – even as the life of Jesus was given till he had none for himself – and not just for your friends that you dearly love so but even for the lowest of all slimy or hardening non-believing creatures that you encounter in the desert. The Traveler