Traveler
-
Posts
15791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Posts posted by Traveler
-
-
I am convinced that the first step into sin is selfishness.
I also believe the first step away from sin toward rightiousness is self sacrifice (Discipline)
The greatness of sin is the point at which we quit trying to overcomd selfishness and decide that our wants, desires and pasions trump everything else.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Snow+Mar 6 2005, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 6 2005, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Amillia@Mar 4 2005, 10:42 PMOriginally posted by -Snow@Mar 4 2005, 11:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Mar 4 2005, 09:38 AM
This discussion reminds me of one of my first trips to Japan. While traveling in the countryside I noticed vending machine after vending machine that sold beer open to the public. I ask my host if children were allowed to drink beer. They informed me that it is forbidden for children to drink beer. I then asked how they kept children from obtaining beer from the vending machines. They looked at me as though I was stupid and did not understand anything and said, “It is against the law.”
We train our children differently in the USA. Not just as parents but as a society.
The Traveler
I wonder why it is that Japan doesn't invent squat while the US is the creative engine that drives world technological and cultural creation.
You are kidding right?
Cause that just isn't true. It's absolutely true. There is no doubt that it is true.
Japanese invent nothing and with the exception of cheap animated cartoon, create no world adopted culture.
I agree with Snow - the German scientist and inventers in the USA are better than the German Scientist and inventers in Japan.
However, we cannot say the same for our teachers or educational system or manufacturing
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by Snow+Mar 4 2005, 10:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 4 2005, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Traveler@Mar 4 2005, 11:29 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Mar 3 2005, 10:38 PM
Why are you so obsessed with what other people do with their genitals?
You may feel my post in response to fals claims concerning homosexuality an obsession. Why is it more important to you to label obsessions rather than identify the truth verses errors on this subject?
My concern is that if the lies are told often enough and the truth shut out the lies will become believed and an generation will be lost. For example is homosexuality genetic because the brains of homosexuals are different? Does science support this notion? - yet I do not see you accusing the person that presented this as scientific fact, as being obsessed with homosexuality - Why?
Why are you obsessed with only calling calling those that oppose homosexuality as being obsessed with it?
The Traveler
-
Homosexuality is a cognitive activity - Cognitive activities are learned.Originally posted by Snow@Mar 3 2005, 10:38 PM
Why are some Mormons so obsessed with homosexuality?
It is not the point that there is homosexuality - the point is that the truth is being hidden and a lie told over and over again until the lie is believed instead of truth.
Therefore the question is what should someone do if they are aware of a lie. I am much more concerned with those that are so obsessed that they turn againt the truth and those that support it.
The Traveler
-
Originally posted by curvette+Mar 3 2005, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 3 2005, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Mar 2 2005, 06:39 PM
Society can exist and thrive without any homosexuality. I am sorry if this truth offends anyone. I am sorry so many cannot accept this truth.
I have felt this way for some time about brunettes. We can exist and thrive perfectly fine without them. So what's the deal? Why are they still around?
You have taken my point out of context. Perhaps it was my fault in not expressing it correctly. Men and women involved in reproduction are necessary for society to survive. There is reason and need for a man and a woman to reproduce. Therefore society has reason and need to support marriage of a man and woman in marriage. The point is that there is no correspondent need for homosexuality.
There is need for genetic diversity - I disagree with the implication that genetic diversity likewise serves no purpose. This is the problem I have with apologist of homosexuality – they give untrue arguments. In essence they lie about what homosexuality is and make comparisons that are in every way false and do not apply. This troubles me. Convince my skepticism with truth please.
We are talking about cognitive activity. What I am suggesting is that the cognitive activity of homosexuals not be recognized in the same manner as the cognitive activity from which society is rewarded with another generation.
Now if we are going to argue over the notion of give us what we want because we want it and need not reason or logic – that is another approach but I am not so convinced. Mankind has created some of it’s greatest blunders with this approach to logic and reason.
The Traveler
-
This discussion reminds me of one of my first trips to Japan. While traveling in the countryside I noticed vending machine after vending machine that sold beer open to the public. I ask my host if children were allowed to drink beer. They informed me that it is forbidden for children to drink beer. I then asked how they kept children from obtaining beer from the vending machines. They looked at me as though I was stupid and did not understand anything and said, “It is against the law.”
We train our children differently in the USA. Not just as parents but as a society.
The Traveler
-
Simple my friend - the source of material and the gate to the material is held responsible. For example if someone is making adult material available on the internet for access by children they are accountable under the law - as well as parents that allow access to the internet.Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 3 2005, 02:44 PM
I agree. But how are we to keep the youth from accessing these things? I know my kids got them at school from friends and associates who stole them. Who would be held accountable?
surveilance is becoming more and more prominent, but life is becoming just one big movie huh? of us!
Since the Supreme Court was under pressure by the United Nations then any nation that allows it citicizens to place adult material on the internet where children can access it should be subject to international sanctions.
However, I am not sure the UN can handel the international sutff - considering the oil for food in Irac and the problem of peace keepers in Afraca. Maybe we should start with sanctions against the UN and have the UN inforce that. :)
The Traveler
-
I have thought about this for some time.
If children are not to be held accountable as adults (according to the Supreme Court and the United Nations as well as many international watch dog groups) it should be a crime to introduce children to any adult information such as entertainment (music, videos movies etc), literature or any other material that would encourage them or allow them to make adult decisions for which they cannot be held accountable. Freedom of expression and freedom of speech cannot apply – If children are not accountable then society must protect all children until they are 18 and accountable and cannot allow them to be used or influenced to perform adult acts. Violation of their youth must be considered child molestation and a felony. I do not think society can survive without accountability.
The Traveler
-
Men and women are created in the image of G-d - how can there be a lesser sex? I can understand that a dog, or cow is a lessor creation but I do not believe a women is a lesser creation nor do I believe a Christian would even suggest such a thing.
The Traveler
-
Matthew 7:15-16 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"
The above scripture is one of the most misquoted and misunderstood scriptures in the Bible. What are the fruits of "false prophets"? In the example given by Christ, he tells us of men that gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles. What a strange thing to say - men do not get grapes from thorn bushes or figs from plants that produce thistles. You get grapes from grape vines and figs from fig trees.
Your problem is that you are gathering LDS grapes from Baptist thorn bushes. You should get Baptist fruit from Baptist and LDS fruit from LDS otherwise you fall pray to false prophets.
The Traveler
-
I am concerned with the deteriorating relationship between society and its support of the core family (loving father and mother) as a necessary institution for the preservation of society. I am concerned for the following reasons:
1. The current declines in recognizing the importance of core families.
2. The concept that homosexual families should be as valued by society as much as core families.
3. The idea that the cognitive function of homosexuality (sexual orientation) is scientifically demonstrable to be preset in individuals prior to birth and is changeable by any intelligent cognitive learning process. In other words that scientific studies support the notion that the cognitive sexual functions are preset and cannot be altered or learned even with extreme methods.
Lets deal with each issue beginning with number one. In the 60's, American society produced a counter culture call the hippy movement. This movement was comprised of intellectual social dropouts. They touted drugs and an assault on the core family in a social experiment they called the “Free Love” movement. The concept of “Free Love” was the beginning of what was called the “sexual revolution”. Under the guise of freedom, participants of the “Free Love” movement introduced a new morality where reproductive relationships were glamorized to be more enjoyable without family responsibilities, commitments or sacrifices. The icons of the new social order under the sexual revolution banner were free uncommited individuals that sought nothing but their own pleasures. They scoffed at the responsibilities or cares of families and children.
The effect of the movement was rather debilitating among the women of the movement that found themselves pregnant with unwanted children. The result was a spinoff of the “Free Love” movement that recognized that women’s freedom was curtailed by children and pregnancies. The quick and easy solution was abortion on demand that gave rise to both the “Liberated Male” and “Liberated Female”. A Liberated Male was devoid of responsibilities, commitments or sacrifices of families and children. Likewise the Liberated Female was also devoid of responsibilities, commitments or sacrifices of families, home and children. The process of giving life to another generation was stripped of dignity and honor and what was left was plain and simple sex for play without consequences. Children were not considered human creatures while developing within the womb. This has always been a puzzle to me. If they are not human creatures then what kind of creatures are they? On demand abortion appears to me to be a strange hate of one’s self genetical identity. A hate so strong to justify the killing of a possible replication. Somehow society was convinced that by sacrificing one’s offspring is necessary in order for there to be true freedom and for culture to progress to an new enlightened level.
The result of this social rejection for the care of children has been staggering. In some parts of the country more children are killed through abortion than are allowed to live through birth, of those borne the majority will be born out of wedlock without the benefit of a loving father and mother. Even more will be raised in single parent homes as the family structure crumbles around them. So prevalent is this reversal in caring for children that the majority of children in the entire population base of the United States will not be raised by their father and mother together in a family unit. The breakup of families is the largest single cause of poverty in our country. The crime rate is highest among the children from broken homes. And the once great educational institution that lead the world has become a joke. In science the USA education is last among industrial nations. In geography only backward Mexico provides a worse understanding of geography through education..
The goose that lays the golden egg (a healthy intelligent next generation for society) is in critical need. I believe this is not a time to experiment any farther, it is a time to be concerned about the attitudes of society and the needs for society to nurture and preserve families with parents willing to sacrifice shellfish inclinations. It is time to turn society to once again allow for the benefit of children.
This then bring me to my next point: 2. The concept that homosexual families should be as valued by society as much as core families. For the life of me I do not understand why. I have begged for just one single reason expressing society’s need for homosexuality to survive and the only responses I have received is that I am not logical or scientific. I am told that I must produce a reason that homosexual partners are not beneficial to justify my scepticism. And no reason is offered why society must allow homosexual marriage. I am convinced that not even the proponents of homosexual relationships have even a remote clue of any possible benefit or need for society. I am very concerned when proponents of a notion want to force their unproven experiments on the rest of society without any logic as to why. I believe there is no real supporting need - NONE. The need does not exist. Without the need I do not think this is a time to experiment. Society can exist and thrive without any homosexuality. I am sorry if this truth offends anyone. I am sorry so many cannot accept this truth.
Now let us talk about scientific evidence concerning cognitive functions in humans. Pont #3. I have pointed to the work of such scientist as Pavlov and Skinner that have demonstrated that there are methods that show that even the lowest cognitive levels of learning can alter cognitive functions in humans. There are no studies in history to show “sexual orientation” as the single cognitive exception. But there is an interesting history concerning sexual orientation.
In 1974 the American Psychiatric Association declared that same sex reproductive behavior was not an illness and therefore is not to be treated. This did two things. First it ended any attempts to treat homosexuality and secondly it ended all research, funding of research, or publication of any research associated with homosexuality as a disorder. It is interesting that the 1974 declaration was not a result of any study nor was there any effort to scientifically provide any basis of the declaration for any scrutiny. It was simply a political motivated declaration without proper scientific backing. Some may disagree with my observation of a complete lack of scientific backing - and claim that the burden of scientific proof is with anyone that thinks cognitive activities can be altered. I though Pavlov and Skinner did that. Why is reproductive cognition different that all other cognitive activity?
There has been scientific studies that prove humans learn their cognitive activities - resent progress demonstrates that the arguments that the proponents of the notion that reproductive cognitive are preset and not learned are sadly mistaken, wrong and without scientific basis . Obviously the efforts of such science will not come from the American Psychiatric Association. Instead the scientific proof comes inadvertently from the science of neurology in the study of the human brain development and it functions during development. National Geographic in its March edition of this year details studies that disprove every notion perpetuated by apologist that the cognitive actions of homosexuality are preset and unlearnable.
First unscientific claim. Homosexuals realize their sexuality was determined by the time they were born. Quoting from National Geographic: “Her first memory is of the thrill of going to the store with her mother to pick out a special dress, pink and lacy. She was four years old. She does not recall anything earlier because her hippocampus, part of the limbic system deep in the brain that stores long-term memories, had not yet matured.” Scientific fact - no one is capable of remembering the first few years following birth. An individual claiming homosexual attractions from birth are making a claim that is impossible for them to have known.
Scientific fact - the first few years of a baby’s life marks the fastest learning in the life of humans. Quoting from National Geographic: [following birth] For the next 18 months, Corina was a learning machine while older brains need some sort of context for learning - a reason, such as a reward, to pay attention to one stimulus over another - baby brains soak up everything coming through their senses.” During the first years of a babies life they are learning and have no way to remember how learning happened. Young children learn what ever they are exposed to they do not exhibit choice in what they learn.
Scientific fact - in normal humans cognitive activity is established and reinforced by repetitive learning. Quoting from National Geographic: “Then, just weeks away from birth, the trend reversed. Groups of neurons competed with each other to recruit other neurons into expanding circuits with specific functions. Those that lost died off in a pruning process scientist call ‘neural Darwinism’.”
This neural Darwinism causes the brain to respond to cognitive learning activity taking place not just at birth but throughout the life of every individual. Not genetics or preset orientations that some claim define how the brain develops. (Note according to National Geographic this new understanding is less than 10 years old) Scientific fact - Differences in normal brain development is related to cognitive activity not the myth that because the brain is different in homosexuals because homosexuality is genetic and not learned. Quoting from National Geographic: “Blind people who read Braille show a remarkable increase in the size of the region of their somatosensory cortex - a region on the side of the brain that processes the sense of touch - devoted to their right index finger. Violin players show an analogous spread of the somatosensory region associated with the fingers of their left hand, which move above the neck of the instrument playing notes as opposed to those of their right hand, which merely holds the bow.”
Not all neural functions and learning are developed at the same time. Quoting from National Geographic: “Ten years ago most neuroscientists saw the brain as a kind of computer, developing fixed functions early,’ says Michael Merzenich of the University of California, San Francisco, a pioneer in understanding brain plasticity. ‘What we now appreciate is that the brain is continually revising itself throughout life.”
How does this play for individuals that are convinced prior to adulthood that they are homosexual? Quoting from National Geographic: “The last area of the brain to reach maturity is the prefrontal cortex, where the so-called executive brain resides - where we make social judgments, weigh alternatives, plan for the future and hold our behavior in check. ‘The executive brain doesn’t hit adult levels until the age of 25,’ says Jay Giedd of the National institute of Mental Health, one of the lead scientists of the neuroimaging studies. ‘At puberty, you have adult passions, sex drive, energy, and emotion, but the reining in doesn’t happen until much later.’ It is no wonder teenagers seem to lack good judgment or the ability to restrain impulses.”
This is why children, adolescents and young adults must be convinced of sexual experimentation before their brain is able to “weigh alternatives” and “hold behavior in check”. Encouraging cognitive sexual activity, especially experimentation with self sex (same sex) cognitive activities will cause their brain to develop (via neural Darwinism) to an infinity of the cognitive activity undergoing repetition. Since this activity takes place before their brain can weigh alternatives and hold behavior in check they will be convinced that this particular activity is beyond such executive functionality. Experimentation in children becomes method, method becomes habit and habit becomes addiction - a cycle completed and etched in to their developing neural complex before the prefrontal cortex has opportunity to develop and intelligently rein in the process leading to addiction causing them to think of it as an orientation.
Raising children to be open minded and to consider exploring sexuality without the gray matter mature enough to make judgments to who they are and to insure reason will be a decisive element in controlling the cognitive part of their reproductive activity, is plain and simple poor parenting. Such parents create a great danger of rendering their impressionable youth slaves to sexual passions rather than master of their cognitive self. Such bad judgement and lack of concern is a form of child abuse as much as refusing to educate children in other essential matters.
Again I repeat my objections.
1. For society to survive core families must be nurtured, sponsored and encouraged for society to survive. This includes institutionalizing and defining marriage between a man and a woman for the rearing of children. Society needs to cognitively prepare and provide incentive for responsible parents for the next generation to follow them. This is best done by the cycle of example of real parents throughout society living in a loving environment.
2. Core families with loving fathers and loving mothers need to be recognized as the single most superior method to insure a healthy, intelligent and able to control their urges, next generation.
3. Homosexuality ( instalment of same sex cognitive reproduction activity) is not preset at or near birth any more than any other cognitive activity. Science supports the notion that humans are an intelligent species capable of learning cognitive activity.
The Traveler
-
Perhaps you will inform me why Eastern Orthodoxy refuses to release or allow to be translated or published the most complete and earliest collection of New Testament documents. Documents that were discovered at Mt Sinai over 150 years ago? If you are so interested in getting the word of G-d out to the world why are the most accurate documents known to exist being withheld? Is it because something that has been missing from the Bible that is in the Book of Mormon is also in these documents? Something simular to some of the manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls like the one that identifies the Son of G-d as the Messiah was know in ancient times prior to the advent of Christ?Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 2 2005, 05:32 PM
Traveler,
I think you have Roman Catholicism mixed up with Eastern Orthodoxy. I'll try to clear up the mistakes.
The Traveler
-
#1 Peter had the keys - if those keys of the kingdom had remained so would have the Kingdom. The Orthodox kingdom is organized and established with different keys and operates more like a Roman or other such kingdom than the kingdom of the Jesus and his Apostles. The selection of Biblical Books is exactly which books and which version of ancient text? By who and when and changed how many times? What ancient version is correct?Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 05:18 PM
If the Chruch has the authority as you say and that truth is in the Bible then I missed it.
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (St. Matthew 16:19)
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (St. John 14:26)
Through Christ's authority, and the Holy Spirit's guidance, the Church can make authoritative decisions on what is part of the Gospel, and what is not.
I believe that your church does the same thing, Traveller.
In fact, if I remember there is scripture that says - Man is to live by every word that comes from G-d - not by every word that comes from a church.
Well, Traveller, Orthodox believe that the Bible is the word of God. And the last time I checked, most Mormons believe that as well.
We were talking about truths that are not in the Bible - right?
Yep. But let me clearly state that there is no truth that is not in the Bible.
Let me get this stright - in your church the authority of what is scripture comes from the men of the church.
As inspired by the Holy Spirit and empowered by Christ the Son.
Does the existance of you church not come from authority of the word of G-d?
The Authority comes from God through the Son and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
You do realize the circular noncense of caliming that each exist from the authority of the other?
I don't believe I said that. I stated that Orthodox do not place Scripture above Tradition (eg Church Fathers). They are equal. That's not circular reasoning.
The LDS operates very differently under the power and authority of a prophet that is chosen in the same manner as the Apostles were in the New Testament – not like Roman emperors.
#2 You may believe that the Bible contains EVERY word that has come from G-d but the LDS do not. I did not say that the Bible does not contain any words of G-d just that it does not contain them all. If the Bible has all truth why would the church Fathers have to add anything (even one word of clarification)? I also do not believe that the word of G-d comes in versions in our day or in ancient times. I do not believe the men inspired by the Holy Ghost would burn a man at the stake for translating and publishing a Bible into English and then change their mind and publish an English version based on his translation.
The Traveler
-
Come on my friend - you asked for things missing in the Bible - I have responded that Jesus is the only way - including for Prophets in the Old Testament.Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 04:27 PM
I am glad you agree that Jesus is the only way - perhaps you would demonstrate how Moses received commandments from G-d without Jesus as the Mediator and the only way for such things. If he is the only way as you say - Why did not Moses recognize Jesus? It is because this important truth is missing.
Traveller,
You still have yet to answer any of the questions I've requested of you. If you have no answer, then please just say so and the rest of us can move on with the discussion. Bringing up irrelevant topics does nothing to support anything you've claimed thus far.
If Jesus is the only way why is it that no prophet in the Old Testament recognizes Jesus. The Book of Mormon indicates that all the prophets - encluding those of the Old Testament testified of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon testified of Jesus by name prior to his birth. Do you claim that no Prophet of the Old Testament knew of Jesus and his importance to man?
This is a truth missing from the Old Testament which is part of the Bible - now you must agree that it is missing - provide a Old Testament reference or admit that Jesus really is not important to everybody. You tell me - Which is it???
The Traveler
-
Is baptism a doctrine prior to the time of Christ? I see this as revelant and you deny that such baptisms existed. Is any thing that happened before the birth of Christ inportant or not. Why do you have a NT.Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 04:25 PM
You can argue if you like about the importance of Baptism.
I wasn't presenting an argument about the importance of baptism. I was asking how believing in baptism prior to the Christian era somehow is a plain and precious truth lost to humanity. The remainder of your post is wholly irrelevent to this discussion.
I really do not want to argue just point out that there are things that are true and important that are not in the Bible. If Baptism is true and important the only question is if it is missing from the Bible prior the Christ. This ball is in our court. Did it exist or not?
The Traveler
-
If the Chruch has the authority as you say and that truth is in the Bible then I missed it. I do not see where in the Bible is says authority is given to determine what scriptures belong to a Bible. I find nothing in the Bible that indicates authority to create or define a connon. In fact, if I remember there is scripture that says - Man is to live by every word that comes from G-d - not by every word that comes from a church.Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 03:25 PM
That man does not have authority to create a Bible or say that the Bible contains all the word of G-d.
The Church does have the authority to determine which letters of the Apostles are true, and which are not true. Hence, establishing a canon (or rule) to determine the true from the false. The Orthodox Church has only closed the Canon on the New Testament. The Old Testament Canon is not fixed even to this day! As for the NT, closing it does not imply (as some RCC and Protestants unfortunately believe) that revelation from Christ has ceased. On the contrary, Orthodox teach that the Church Fathers continue to receive revelation and guide the actions of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
.
We were talking about truths that are not in the Bible - right?
Let me get this stright - in your church the authority of what is scripture comes from the men of the church. Does the existance of you church not come from authority of the word of G-d? You do realize the circular noncense of caliming that each exist from the authority of the other?
-
I am glad you agree that Jesus is the only way - perhaps you would demonstrate how Moses received commandments from G-d without Jesus as the Mediator and the only way for such things. If he is the only way as you say - Why did not Moses recognize Jesus? It is because this important truth is missing.Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 03:25 PM
All men have fallen and Jesus is the only way, truth and the light.
That's in the Bible, Traveler. Im asking for something pertinent to the Gospel that's only in the BoM.
The Traveler
-
You can argue if you like about the importance of Baptism. That you do not accept it as a precious truth is fine with me but Jesus was baptized - meaning he considered it precious. The importance of baptism as true principal is lost in the OT giving many Christians the impression that is is not necessary or that it does not matter who performs the baptism or how it is done. The fact that the vast array of Christias do not agree about the importance indicates how lost the truth is. Christians cannot even agree one the proper way to perform baptisms. Because of all the confusion from the Bible I can understand why you ask the question you do. It this truth was clear in the Bible there would not be any arguments about Baptism, but in case you have not noticed this particular doctrine caused a lot of Christians to treat other Christians in a very non-Christian manner during the 1600's.Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 03:25 PM
There was Baptism prior to the era of Jesus.
How is this a plain and precious truth? How does this add/amplify/diminish the gospel?
The Traveler
-
That Jesus is the Mediator between all mankind and the Father. That he did all things in the name of the Father but that he is not as great as the father. Not just in the NT but the Old Testament as well. In other words man really did fall and is in need of a redeamer - For all men including the time of the Old Testament.Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Feb 28 2005, 12:32 PM
OK. First of all, thanks to the Mod team for removing my "moderated" status. Makes things much easier for me.
Now on to the purpose of this thread. What teaching has the Book of Mormon specifically restored that was not in the Bible? And how is this a plain and precious truth of the Gospel of Christ?
Thanks.
There was Baptism prior to the era of Jesus.
All men have fallen and Jesus is the only way, truth and the light.
Also that there are scriptures not included in the Bible.
That man does not have authority to create a Bible or say that the Bible contains all the word of G-d.
That scripture is secondary authority to servents called of G-d.
That the Anti Christ will critisize the real followers of Christ (servants called of G-d) - saying they are not Christian based on doctrine and not on their fruits(woops this is in the Bible) Sorry.
The Traveler
-
Mormon Tea - sometimes called Brigham tea was a mainstay of the early saints in Utah. It is made from a desert sage that looks more like a tubular grass than sage. It is quite bitter but was sweetened, usually with honey but I think it is still awful. It is an excellent source of vitamin C.Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Feb 25 2005, 09:41 AM
BTW, what is Mormon Tea? Does it have something to do with the desert plant?
I did not know brother Nibly as well as some. I do remember the old Maniview ward (6th north between 4th and 5th east if I remember) building where he attended church. Others in my family knew him better. Hugh was my brother's home teacher. I took a Book of Mormon class from brother Nibly at BYU. I found him quite eccentric and a typical absent-minded professor. He always wore an overcoat and carried an umbrella, even in summer just in case it rained. In the winter he wore rubber boots. I think I remember him wearing those boots in class - not sure now.
I do remember the final exam he gave in the class. He wrote on the black board "explain page 237 of the Book of Mormon". He then walked out of the class. About 15 minutes later he came back into class and laughed and said something like - "you really think I would do this to you for a final exam - He He." Then he wrote a different page on the black board. The second page was the final. Strange sense of humor. The spirit world has gained a great and noble High Priest.
The Traveler
-
How can anyone be a loving parent when they consider realizing their sexual lifestyle more important than children?Originally posted by pushka@Feb 13 2005, 10:41 PM
They would, I assume, teach them that anyone is capable of being a loving parent, regardless of gender or sexuality.
The Traveler
-
If you ask the question wrong you will not get the same answer as if you ask it correctly. Are you saying gay couples are to be considered as suitable as a man and a woman trying to have a loving family?Originally posted by pushka@Feb 13 2005, 10:24 PM
that also does not mean that gay couples are unsuitable to raise a family...
Having children is a sacrifice. I am sorry but I do not see the logic that gay couples are willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for children. It appears to me that there is something far more important to them than children. I agree that non-gay couples can also be wrapped up in a lifestyle more important to them than children but can we agree that with gay couples it is obvious in their declaration and support for that lifestyle that cannot produce children? Are you telling me gay couples do not understand what kind of relationships provide society with children?
-
I believe they will teach children that society really does not need families with loving fathers and mothers. That other arrangments are just as good if not better.Originally posted by pushka@Feb 13 2005, 10:24 PM
I wouldn't say that gay people are akin to crocodiles...what do you suppose they mean to do to the children they adopt?
The Traveler
-
Please enlighten me. What is more rational for chidren than a loving father and mother? What is so irrational about saying a loving father and mother is best for children and everything else consider by society is wrong for society?Originally posted by Snow@Feb 13 2005, 09:05 PM
Apparently you are for real, albeit irrational.
You are talking about what is best for or what children deserve. Great Traveler. Whoopee. I didn't refer to that. I did refer to your invention of what you imply that Pushka said when in fact she did not.
What is so irrational about expecting the most important qualification of a father than a willingness to be a father or expecting the most important qualification of a mother than a willingness to be a mother.
I am sorry if I misunderstand you both but I really thought both of you have said that society does not really need marriages of a man and a woman loving each other in the role of Father and mother, or that society should recognize any thing else as being just as good or as qualified. It appears to me you are bending what ought to be and making excuse for what sometimes happens.
I simply do not accept anything to be at all on the same level as a father and a mother providing love in a family. I think it is a mistake to suggest anything else to take that place. I think society has failed when so many think marriage is a right that does not have responsibility to the next generation. I am all for choice, but let's make sure we do not lie about the results of choice. Choosing a homosexual lifestyle will result in not having children. If someone does not understand that it should be explained to them and I do not think such a concept is irrational.
The Traveler
I Come Here, Yet I....
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Usually the reason is that English is a second language and people do not feel educated enough (in English) to enter a discussion. Plus the fact that in most cases when there is disagrement often postere will gang up on a poster. My Islamic friends for example are too timid to respond - especially after 9/11. And when they have posted they have been treated badly. Also in China there is a great interest in Chrisitanity and LDS and the only way they can get information is from the internet.
Sometimes I think I sould back off some subjects but then I realize that for someone that only has access to the internet, they could get the wrong impression about LDS doctrine. I try to make clear what is doctrine for those the lerk without posting realizing they may be from China, Saudi Arabia or some other place. For this I am known as obsessed with certain ideas because I try to make sure others understand, are opinions that are not part of the mainstream understanding of doctrine.
The Traveler