Traveler

The Law by Frederic can be read in one evening. But something I beleve should be understood - Frederic knew many of the founders of our nation. Those men that risked all in forming our constitution. He believed in the great experiment of our Constitution. There were a number of flaws that he saw in our country. For example slavery he felt would be a major problem that must be ended for freedom and real free economy to have a chance. Another Idea he puts forth is that the law should 1. Protect the innocent. 2 Punish the guilty. Law used for any other purpose is unjust. Perhaps you can offer some explanation as to why you think such a society living by such laws is problematic. Why should someone else be entitled to plunder that which someone else has produced by their own labor? Is this not in essence what labor unions are all about - or at least should be all about? Usually the problem with intelligent thought is when someone wants to make an exception. Sort of the idea since there are 2 survivors and only one life vest - then I want it. This is not what I am saying. It is a matter of someone that made their life vest with materials available to everyone before they got on the ship and now someone that refused to work to build a life vest now in danger seeks the law to plunder the labor of someone else. Frederic points out that it takes less effort to plunder than it does to labor, therefore, there will always be pressure to plunder, especially when there is a large population that has been willing to labor. This is exactly what we see in the USA today. A large middle class with a great work ethic and we also see a variety of political ideas that want to plunder the middle class to fund various ends. The truth is - today the middle class is the goose that lays the golden economic egg. If we decide, as a nation to plunder and kill the goose to feed the poor or some other program (when I say kill I mean use the labor without preserving or supporting that class that is providing the labor) – we will destroy the future and run out of golden eggs. And this is exactly what we have seen in the development of the “Great Society” as an experiment beginning in the 60’s. Our government welfare programs have required a steady increase not just in $$$$ but in percent of the GNP. What began as about 2% is now approaching 20%. And poverty has both increased – not just in % of population but in effect on the population, things such as crime, health and fitness, and economic viability. We also see a shrinking middle class and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. The exact effect projected by Frederic. Use the law to plunder honest labor and the class that produces will diminish. The Democrats want to extract more from the middle class to fund social programs – they say they want to plunder the rich but the truth is there is not near as much to plunder from the rich (they are fewer in numbers) than from the middle class. The Republicans want to empower the rich to plunder everyone else in what they call capitol investment. Though they call it free enterprise – that is not true. If I had more time I would outline how Microsoft plundered stacker software in a classic case of how the rich plunder from the labor of the middle class. Perhaps some other time. The Traveler

Not my ideas but those of Frederic - I just happen to agree. You may want to read his work. But from my understanding. 1. Education - in freedom and free enterprise, principles of economics. 2. Support of laws that do not alow Plunder and protect those that labor. 3. Repeal of laws that demand plunder and protect those that refuse to labor. The Traveler

There is no problem with dating. There is a problem with exploitation. In reality there does not need to be an age difference in order to be exploitation, but for what ever reason it seems to show up most often when there is a large age difference. - my opinion The Traveler

I wanted to comment concerning the Democratic and Republican parties as they relate to free enterprise in the US market place. I am a student of Frederic Bastiat. According to his theory there are two ways to obtain wealth. 1. To work hard by your own labor and industry. 2. Plunder wealth from others. Since Plunder requires less effort man will by nature - if given the opportunity select plunder over labor. Frederic theorizes there are two kinds of plunder. First Criminal plunder. This is the activity of criminals plundering what others have produced. Second in legal plunder. This is extortion by law taking the production of others. Socialism is a form of legal plunder as is many mislabel capitalized investments. True free enterprise rewards each according to their labor. My communist friends in the Democratic Party like Cal and their cousins socialist in the Republican party think there are flaws in honest free enterprise. These are not flaws but misuse by those that call themselves Capitalist - but in reality they are just another kind of Socialist - except they believe only a select few should be allowed to live on the labor of the many. This is not free enterprise but another form of plunder. If you need help understanding the principles upon which this country was founded I suggest you purchase Frederic Bastiat’s book “The Law”. You can get it from Amazon.com for less than $5. If you think you are ready for more try Frederic Bastiat’s book “Economic Fallacies”. No one has the right to plunder the labor of others. The Traveler

You should be able to have a calling right away. Make sure it is understood you are ready to accept a calling - make a covenant promise now with the Lord to do what ever he ask of you.Going to the temple may take a while. If you are not going on a mission or getting married or are currently married; preparing for the temple will take longer than a year. Receiving a Patriarchal Blessing is between you and your bishop. I suggest you take your time. If you feel you need a blessing to help you right away - ask your home teachers or Bishop for a Priesthood blessing. Being a new member I suggest (in addition to scripture) you read Talmage "Jesus The Christ" and "Articles of Faith". Also read Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness". The Traveler

Cal: If Kerry is a Marxist, then Bush is a Nazi! Both characterizations are extreme distortions of reality. Me: It always amazes me how liberals distort truth. If you were really informed you would realize that Nazi’s are Socialists - granted Bush comes close because he is not a real conservative but there is a greater problem problem. Nazi’s are also nationalistic. The Bush border policy does not qualify Bush as a Nazi. The fact is Nazi’s were Left wing socialists. True conservatism is not socialism - Communist mislabel their enemies as part of their “Big Lie” attempting to distance their brand of socialism from that of the Nazi’s.. Cal: First, I'm really not much interested in what the Communist party of the United States has to say. I'm sure it is an insignificant fringe group, and there is no shortage of them. Secondly, if this party has the same platform as the democrats, then whoopy for them. (Perhaps we should tell them to go get their own positions on issues and stop copying the democrats.) I make no apology for the fact that some goofy fringe group has the good sense to follow the democrats. I suspect what you are really doing is trying to tie the democrats to the Marxist ideology. Preposterous. Marx hated capitalism. Democrats don't oppose capitalism--we do want to make sure that the abuses of capitalism are kept under some kind of reasonable control. Frankly, I really have no idea what you are talking about when you accuse Kerry of being a Marxist. And I don't think you actually do either. If you want to convince me that you have a clue, then bring up a specific issue, and let's have at it. Me: Ignorance is such bliss. Following is a pre World War II document circulated to the communist party in the United States of America which outlines their activity over the last 80 years: A. Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, destroy their ruggedness. B. Get control of all means of publicity thereby: 1. Get people's minds off their government by focusing attention on athletics, sexy books, plays and other trivialities. 2. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. 3. Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding them up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy. 4. Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. 5. By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce fear of inflation with rising prices and general discontent. 6. Foment unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders. 7. By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues, honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. C. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext with a view to confiscating them and leaving the population helpless. Now from a World Net daily news article by Hal Lindsey: In the aftermath of Election 2000, angry partisan Democrats vowed to do everything in their power to make the Bush presidency a failure and to defeat him in 2004 "by whatever means necessary." In the process, they've managed to undermine voter confidence in our election system to the degree that the State Department has asked the Europeans to monitor this election for fairness. They've managed to convince voters that the election isn't fair because the voting machines are suddenly too complicated for old people and minorities. There have been endless stories about Florida this year and how to avoid a "repeat of Election 2000" by improving the voting system. While nothing is idiot-proof, old people and minorities managed to elect Bill Clinton twice using the same equipment. It didn't need to be overhauled until it somehow misfired and elected George Bush instead. No matter how many times they recounted, George Bush still got more votes than Al Gore. Therefore, there must be something wrong with the voting equipment. Nothing appears to be above exploitation. John Kerry even dedicated a speech he delivered on Monday to the late actor Christopher Reeve. Kerry said he knew the "Superman" actor for about 15 years through family and dedication to the same causes, and said Reeve left him a long voice-mail on Saturday thanking him for campaigning on the possibilities of a cure for conditions like his. It had been originally reported that Reeve died on Sunday after slipping into a coma on Thursday following complications from treatment for a bed sore. After John Kerry's speech, reports of Reeve's death were changed to remove the reference to Thursday in order to make it possible for Reeve to call John Kerry and leave a long message for him on his answering machine on Saturday night. Evidently, Kerry didn't know about the "coma" part until after the speech, but his well-oiled damage-control team was already on it. A blogger on Free Republic provided one example of the "before and after" media manipulation that kept John Kerry from having another "Christmas in Cambodia" moment like the ones that keep coming up every time he tries to exploit the dead. And if exploitation, media manipulation and outright lies don't work, how about voter intimidation? GOP Chairman Marc Racicot issued, as part of a GOP press release, a copy of a letter he sent to the president of the AFL-CIO. As of yesterday morning, the only place you can read it is a website in Spain. In it, Racicot asked organized labor to end its campaign of violence against Bush-Cheney political offices and Bush supporters. Among the incidents cited by Racicot: A coordinated labor protest at more than a dozen campaign and party headquarters across the country. In one protest in Orlando, the office was vandalized and one campaign worker had their arm broken in the melee. In Canton, Ohio, a Bush-Cheney '04 staffer was forced to lock herself in an office while another break-in was in progress. Gunshots were fired into Bush-Cheney '04 offices in West Virginia, Florida and Tennessee, windows broken in West Virginia and campaign staffers threatened. In Wisconsin, a supporter of the president had a swastika burned into his front yard simply because he had a Bush-Cheney '04 lawn sign. Disinformation, voter fraud, organized violence, outright lies, exploitation and media manipulation. Those were the principle tools used by the Nazis to bring Hitler to power in 1933 Germany. Me Again: Now some more about Kerry: He has never attempted to distance his stand from that of the Communist Party Of the United States of America. Not during the Viet Nam conflict and not since. He never gave names, specific dates or specific places of US war crimes but with only innuendo attempted to implicate all US service men and never once ever criticized the communist in Viet Nam - ever. His efforts in behalf of the communist inspired the communist of North Viet Nam to erect a special memorial honoring Kerry. Twice he met with the Communist in Paris during peace talks - both times while still an officer of the US military and contrary to military law and while the US was still in conflict. The Kerry campaign while accusing Bush of keeping his military records secret have kept secret the military records of Kerry’s court martial following these events only disclosing a re-discharge in 2001. And Dan Rather has never made any comment to encourage Kerry disclosure. Let me also state that I am not a Republican - I left that party over criminal action taking place during the Nixon years. I believe if America had any idea what the Republican party was doing to America, the citizens of this country would drag the party heads into the streets and execute them. But for every evil the Republicans have done the Democrats have done 10. There is a reason no one knows Kerry political plans of socialized employment, health care, retirement and economic control. It is all part of the plan of Communism to end freedom and free enterprise in America. The Traveler

Traveler--now I KNOW you are cracked. In case you hadn't noticed, calling someone a Communist went out of vogue about 15 years ago. Get current dude! If Kerry is a Marxist, then Bush is a Nazi! Both characterizations are extreme distortions of reality. Up until one week ago the Communist Party listed Kerry as their Party choice for President at their website. A political problem I am sure. But you have not pointed out the difference between the Kerry positions and that of the Communist Party of the United States. In fact I can't tell the difference between your stand and that of the Communist Party. Why not do us all a favor and visit the site and tell us how you differ? Afraid to admit it? The Traveler

Perhaps the delusion Ray has over Bush being a good president is because Ray is comparing Bush to Bill Clinton (the most celebrated and documented liar since Hitler to ever be elected to power in the free world). Or maybe he is comparing the warped Bush to the even greater disaster, John Kerry. In that Kerry and his Marxist ideas (this including all other registered candidate’s platforms) is by choice the enemy of freedom and democracy , and most closely resembles the ideology of the Communist Party of America (which has sought for the destruction of freedom and democracy for more that 3/4 of this century. For reference you can visit the website of the Communist Party of America at <www.cpusa.org> If you do not think Kerry is a Marxist in support of Communist policy - please take the time to visit the Communist Party’s website and point out an article at that site, to which Kerry has an opposing opinion. I would like to believe that the communist have not penetrated the Democratic party to the extent that they could have one of their own rise to such power and run for president. At least visit and tell me who is freedom and democracy and the enemy of Communism - Bush or Kerry? The Traveler

How soon do we forget what is not advantageous to our political agenda. Following is a quote from Anthony Lake’s book “6 Nightmares”: *Iraq has declared that it possesses thousands of gallons of anthrax and botulism toxin, enough to wipe out the population of the Earth several times over. It also has four metric tons of VX-a nerve agent so deadly that a single drop can kill. Who is this Anthony Lake spewing such a lie about Iraq and WMD’s. I quote from his bio: Anthony Lake served as national security advisor to President Clinton from 1993 to 1996. He first joined the State Department in 1962, eventually serving as an aide to Henry Kissinger, and returned to the department in the Carter Administration. He is currently a professor at Georgetown University and lectures extensively across the country. How interesting that Anthony is not among the Democrats accusing President Bush of lying about WMD’s in Iraq. Interesting too that he was the leading expert (not a expert but the leading expert) of such things during the Clinton administration. I would also point out that in 1996 he was nominated by Clinton for head of the CIA, but the Republicans in the Senate blocked the nomination for strictly political reasons – Anthony upset over politics withdrew his name. Can anyone even think of the conservative Republicans placing politics over security of our nation’s citizens? - No more than the compassionate liberal Democrats would sacrifice the lives of innocent children for their politics. I would point out three things concerning Anthony’s declaration. First that he draws attention to the Biological and chemical WMD in Iraq after the first “Gulf War” when the UN was attempting to oversee the destruction of WMD’s in Iraq. Which brings us to the second point: There is not a single indication of the slightest shred of evidence of any attempts by Iraq to ever destroy any WMD’s or WMD production capability by the UN or anyone else. The third point concerns Iraq use of WMD’s on at least 3 separate occasions. When the above statement was made, Iraq had ample time to continue to produce even more WMD’s than were ever used. Even taking into account the Gulf war destroying WMD production capability there is still enough production time to more than replace any WMD’s that were known to have been used. In other words there was greater time to produce WMD’s after the last known use compared to the time needed to have produced them for use. The political question asked now in our current election environment - is why Bush lied about WMD’s in order to start the war – since none were found (not true because some – but very little – were found) in Iraq. But the problem behind this stupid claim of a Bush lie is that Bush did not hatch the lie about WMD’s – if it is a lie, Clinton would be the liar that planted it and cultivated it in his administration. If we can believe anything from the Clinton administration we can wonder tonight as we go to sleep => Since the Clinton administration said (and the Bush administration agreed – a rare thing in politics) Iraq had WMD’s sufficient to kill the population of the entire earth – SEVERAL TIMES OVER – And since no one seems to know what happened to any of the WMD’s (or for that matter even cares), could any or even the smallest fraction of these biological and chemical agents have found there way into the hands of organizations with desires to smuggle them into the USA for use against our population? And in full view of current politics – who’s fault will that be? Who is arguing that there is no possibility, what-so-ever, of any WMD’s from Iraq to have any connection to organizations intent on using them in the USA? They are asking you to bet you life and freedom on it in the upcoming election – divided on this issue mostly on party lines. Why the division now when it was once one of the few things agreed upon between the two previous administrations? I am not a fan of Bush or the Republican party – he is not a good president and the Republican party, as well as the Democratic Party, are nothing more that power brokers for those that delight in exercising power over citizens. But what I cannot understand is, in this question of national security – why is it that so many offer their freedom and life to those that claim there is no concern over the missing WMD’s from Iraq. Such stupidity is just too much of a bad example of blind politics and the core of how 9/11 could happen or be used or forgotten in favor of political agendas. But then Anthony and I are obviously misinformed in this matter. Dan Rather is a much better source to trust – He and other such types are careful guardians of truth and can be trusted to never misuse their standing to give false impressions to favor their political agendas. The Traveler

Snow: Can you name someone in congress that is not a millionair? The Traveler

Curvette: Thank you - I am pleased when someone that usually disagrees with me finds something to agree with. You are right - I have worked for years and it will never happen.The Traveler

Snow: What you seem to have missed is; currently only the idle rich can run for office especially at the national level. If you do not have 1 mil of your own money you have no chance in today's political system. But lets take someone running for county commission. Why would someone run for that office and spend 2 million of their own money? Because the county commission oversees zoning and the re-zoning of property can make land much more valuable (specially farm land). The process or re-zoning will make someone multi millionaires. Sometimes this is the primary reason someone seeks office or seeks to have connections for someone running for office. It is why someone will contribute large amounts of money - since there is no accountability in our current system the citizens have no idea what returns high contributors get for their contribution. Twenty years ago when I was a member and active with "Common Cause" the money received in campaigns had a ratio of about 100 to 1 for dollars contributed by non voting organizations compared to citizens - guess who gets represented. When I lived in Washington I was the state coordinator for the PTSA (Parent Teacher Student Association) with our lobbyist. I will tell you this - ever piece of legislation we asked for sponsorship was not only sponsored but passed exactly as we wanted. Usually on the first day of legislation. Anything we opposed was defeated. Not one exception. I will bet you cannot get anything more than a form letter from your representative. I know we live in a dream world but I believe the government should be of, by and for the people not political action committees. You are correct about one thing - most people I have encountered that are involved in the power of party politics think it is stupid to allow average citizens any say in government and do many things to keep the truth and power from the public. I once sat in a meeting when funds were hidden and changed to keep the public (especially opposition) from the possibility of criticism. Not because the funds had not been spent correctly but because it was not part of the original budget. There is a saying the if you want to know who has power in politics - follow the money. In today’s world money has a greater say than voters. On rare occupation grass routes movements will start out to make a difference but in every case I have seen the politics of money will eventually take over any political movement in this country. For years I have tried to find a way to take money out of politics and return the power to citizens. It may be stupid but that is how I feel and think. The Traveler

Introduction: In light of the many misleading political statements (kind way of saying lies). I am offering one man’s political views - my own. Our once great nation has abandoned principles for a corse of tyranny. Politics has forgotten freedoms and rights of citizens and become a battle ground for seizing power from the populace and forcing a minority agenda. I believe politics should define the legal means by which differing segments of the population deal with each other and their differences. I am aware that “the majority should have the majority say” is not without flaws but all other methods are in every way more destructive of rights and freedom in society. Corrupt politics: This is anything aimed ad bringing someone to political office or governing law to ratification under false or unsubstantiated premisses. Example: I believe President Bush should be voted out of office because he had an agenda of war with Iraq. This is a display of corrupt politics. It could be correct to say President Bush should not be president because of several official documents or sworn statements that prove he had an agenda of war with Iraq. (Just a side note - to produce forged documents or false statements should be a felony which should end forever all guilty parties from ever participating directly in any political process.) Campaign financing: I believe campaign financing is the single most corrupting influencing in American politics. In my mind the only way to turn away this corruption is to strictly enforce three new laws of campaign financing: One - no non voting entity can contribute money or disperse any information without contributing the same amount of money and same means of dispersing information to all candidates. This means that political action committees or businesses (including news agencies) cannot favor a candidate during the campaign process - only individuals registered to vote in the specific election. Two - No candidate can spend more of their own money on their campaign that any of the other candidates running for the same office. If they wish to use their own money above what other have committed it must be distributed equally among all candidates. Three - all contributions (amount and who contributed) must be made public before they can be used. Violation of these three laws would result in forfeiture of the candidate office or presentation or passage of supported measures. Representative Seniority: There is a pecking order in the halls of our representation that invites political underhandedness. It is called the seniority system. It determines who serves on what committees and what laws are presented and the form in which they are presented. It is at the core of how our government represents it citizens. I believe a change is necessary based on how the representative represents their constituent citizens. I believe seniority should be determined in the following manner: The percentage of votes actually cast for the candidate to all registered voters in the representative’s area or district. The representative with the highest ratio has their first choice of committees as chair. All representatives are selected in ranking order - regardless of party affiliation. This will insure that a representative represented those that vote for them. Compensation of Representatives: First off representatives should serve the public - not live off of them. I have a big problem with representatives making more than the people they represent. It has a tendency of making the representatives think they are more important than their constituents. I believe they should receive a stipend of no more than the average (within 10%) salary of their constituents and only while congress is in session. In addition they may receive housing in government supplied dorms or apartments comparable to housing supplied by the government for servicemen in the military. Also they should be able to eat for free in government cafeterias. There should be no retirement, gifts, junkets, perks or any kind of extra compensation for services. Government service should not be a profession. One exception of retirement could be offered to the president that should have two additional offers. One a lifetime privilege to government housing (on the same level as military servicemen) access to PX and compensation on the par of retired officers in the military. And no double dipping if they already have access to a government retirement program they get nothing extra. In summary I do not support any political party. I was raised Republican in a family that exerted great political influence. I have experienced first hand the evils of political corruption. We do not live in a free country. The worse of it is all the dirty political tricks that are paid for by the freedoms of citizens. The best way to spot corruption in politics is complete endorsement of one party and complete blame of the other. (See war thread for many examples). Welfare reform really means that more money will be collected from citizens and less money distributed to the needy. Social security is anything but secure and is so corrupt that if any other retirement program was run in a like manner our representatives would demand that the overseers of the program be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. We have been so lied to by both parties about war, taxes, education, public services, and the role of government we have forgotten what freedom is or what a free citizen is. Every military conflict since World War II have been illegal wars undeclared by congress. No president has the right to attack anybody, or anything without a declaration of war. The meaning of war has become so meaningless and common that it is applied to efforts concerning poverty, drugs, crime and almost any public concern. The only result of war should be surrender or treaty. Any citizen aiding the enemy by protest or other action should be tried by military court for treason and executed if found guilty. But we no longer take war seriously - our wars have become political banter and complete disgrace. Education has become so political and subject to federal regulation that our teachers and system have become the worse of all other industrial nations on the planet. There is no one more responsible than the idiots that blame one party and praise the other. We are trading our freedoms for party membership - and both of the major parties intend to divide the country with such hatred that civil war may be the only solution. I am ashamed of our political partisans and extremist. The Traveler

What did Clinton do in Ksovo and Bosnia? – I thought it was the military? If it was such a grand success why is the US military still there and not the UN? Why did Clinton fire the commander that got our downed pilot out – was it because of the photos of the mass grave were caused by the side the president did not back? You tell me. Ya I know the commander went in against orders and it cost him his job – but then you don’t care – do you? All you want is someone other than a liberal to blame and a idiot like Clinton in office. Who cut the surveillance budget almost in half and cut off all the ground surveillance operatives? Why do you think the intelligence is such a mess? Who messed with it and broke it? And the aspirin factory was not in Ksovo or Bosnia that was bombed to turn attention away from what your flawless president was doing with interns. You tell me – why bomb an aspirin factory and kill innocent non-military peoples? Do you have any idea what a war crime and a war criminal is? We were not at war, there was no non compliance to anything, there was no threat and only CIA intelligence was used. Do you know why CIA intelligence and not military intelligence was used? Of course you don’t you don’t even know or care where the aspirin factory was or you would not defend the idiot. Pres Bush is not a good president – he does not belong in office and needs to be voted out but he is not the worse president of recent history. Not even close. If you cannot see it – what kind of an idiot would put at risk the entire nation for sex with someone he really did not even care about – the same kind of idiot that would hold up everybody for more than an hour at LAX airport over a hair cut? And you will defend this nut case? The Traveler

Point #1: No WMD’s in Iraq? The brilliant logic says that if Saddam had WMD’s he would have used them. And of course everyone knows he did not hide any weapons but fought the USA with everything he had. This logic will keep our country safe and insure no WMD’s from Iraq will ever find their way into the hands of teariest. Point #2: No connection to teariest in Iraq. Iraq had no military plans except for national defense - they conformed to the mandates of the UN and there was no misuse of the oil for food funds. Current reports that the UN was involved in billions going towards weapons in Iraq just are not true? Lets bet our security and the lives of our children on that one. Point #3: 9/11 and the reason to go to war in Iraq were the result of intelligence blunders. And what great president cut the budget, pulled out all the ground intelligence for exclusive surveillance by satellite creating the worse intelligence decline ever in the history of our country? Was this the same president that fired the Naval commander for going and getting a downed American piolet that took photos of the mass graves in the former Yugoslavia - that just happened to implicate the side the president said we must help? (A real president would have honored both) Or the President the bombed an aspirin factory to draw attention away from his lies about sex with a white house aid and said he did it because he could? Yes by George if you can’t trust one political party by darn you can trust the other. Pardon me, is my sarcasm showing? The Traveler

I had a little time this labor day weekend so I thought I would add to the subject of Isaac as a type and shadow for Jesus. If there are questions concerning my comments to be directed to me, I suggest you e-mail me or I might not see it. In regards to Isaac as a type for understanding Christ. There are many notions posted with which I agree but there are a couple of missing points that I think are important. The view of history in scripture has a definite and deliberate spiritual slant. The scriptures do not just describe an event in history but also draw a spiritual line to link us with our ancient past and even beyond our ancient history to link us to events that occurred in heaven before man was found on earth. Read with me Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 9 ¶ The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun. 10 Is there [any] thing whereof it may be said, See, this [is] new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 11 [There is] no remembrance of former [things]; neither shall there be [any] remembrance of [things] that are to come with [those] that shall come after. Note the connection of things to things that have been to things that will be. Why is there such a reference of the eras of man to something that has been before? There is another important notion to this concept of repeating shadows in scripture. Consider Genesis chapter 41: 25 And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh [is] one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he [is] about to do. Now skip to: 32 And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; [it is] because the thing [is] established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass. In the economy of revelation G-d intends to manifest his secrets many times (thus the importance of the reinforcements coming from the testament of the Book of Mormon). In fact all scripture is a repetition of very few concepts or doctrines. Often when new revelation is given it may at first blush seem to be different but in the spiritual scheme of things, it is at the foundation the same spiritual information as something previously given. Now consider Isaiah 46: 9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [i am] God, and [there is] none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: All thing from the beginning to the end are declared by types and shadows in scripture. Finely see Matthew 6:10 “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.” Note that the things done on earth have been preceded and linked to what has been before in heaven. I hope that it can be seen that not only is there a shadow of things from or human past but that things that occur on earth are a shadow of what has been in heaven and that the events on earth are shadowed (preceded) by events that took place in heaven. The question asked is: if Isaac is a type of Christ, what then is the Ishmael type. Note that the type given has to do with two brothers in conflict over the “birth right” or heir of the covenant. This scenario of two brother in conflict is repeated many time in the scripture giving importance to its spiritual significance. Consider Cain and Able, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and Rubin, Ephraim and Manasseh, Nephi and Laman - the list can be continued. It is interesting to me that in all such cases the “birth right” or heir of the covenant was the younger brother. I would point out something now. Anciently the term “first born” did not mean the oldest. Although the first borne could be the oldest, the intended meaning was the most noble or highest born. Think of first class on an airplane. It means the best. First born literal meaning is the best born. When the first born of the Egyptians was taken by the angel of death in the days of Moses it meant that all fit for rule in Egypt of that empire were taken - ending the rule of that class that controlled Egypt. In Isaiah 14:12, Lucifer(or Satan) is called “son of the morning”. Anciently this meant that Lucifer was one of the oldest of the spirit children of the Father. In light of the shadows of contending brothers for the covenant throughout the scriptures, it would appear that Lucifer could have been the oldest. But the most important thing to note is that Jesus is the “first born” or the noble son of the Father. The scriptures tell us of something extremely important of something in heaven dealing directly with man’s salvation and the judgments and covenants of G-d. Exodus 25 is explaining how the Arc of the covenant at the temple (tabernacle) of Israel is connected directly to G-d and his covenants with man. So we read: 20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. The phrase “and their faces [shall look] one to another” in the ancient Hebrew if literally translated to English would say “and the two brothers shall face each other”. These two brothers that are given as a type and shadow in heaven will have a correspondence with brothers depicted in scripture on earth. Thus the types of brothers in conflict. The most common theme of brothers in scripture are brothers in dispute of the “birth right” or heir of the covenant. I believe the scripture intend to depict the conflict of brothers as the conflict between Jesus and Lucifer as the rightful Messianic or “Anointed” heirs of Heaven. I believe understanding this conflict between Jesus and Lucifer is basic and necessary to all true Christians that seek redemption It is a core doctrine that must be correctly understood in order that there be faith unto salvation in the redeemer - mediator of G-d the Father that is our advocate - Jesus Christ. Who is opposed in all things by the one that accuses - Lucifer or Satan. I am sorry I do not have time to develop this notion of Jesus and Lucifer contending as “Anointed” heirs of the kingdom of heaven - but then I have posted of this subject before, along with the many supporting scriptures. I would also point out that this doctrine of opposing brothers has never been countered with any response supported by scripture that gives any other possibility to the “anointed” heirs of heaven (brothers contending for the birth right) as being anyone other than Jesus (our Advocate) and Lucifer (our Accuser). At least no one has provided to me any scriptural alternative to this most important notion of true Christianity. If anyone has any scripture to identify anyone else as the rightful holder of contending titles - please e-mail me. Other wise I may not see your message. Good luck to all in your quest for truth. The Traveler

I am sorry that I did not make my intension more clear. I am not leaving with hard feelings or disappointment. I did not intend to make a show of it but I did want the forum to know I have made other commitments that will now will use up my spare time. I have enjoyed posting on the forum and have not sought for or encouraged the service for which I have been asked. I have joked that the one thing President Hinkley and I have in common is that we both have gone as far in the Church service as we can. But like so many things I was wrong. I had thought my travel schedule (that sometimes takes me out of the country for over a month at a time) protected me from certain kinds of service. To clear up a couple of things. I once had blond curley hair to go with my blue eyes but I have not had hair on my head to show since my mid 20's. However, my last checkup at the doctor he told me that I am in excellent health and the perfect weight for my height. I guess this is good because I have spent my life underweight. Perhaps I will post from time to time but I cannot followup or respond with any certainty. I feel you all deserve better than that so with a thank you, I wish you all good things. If I had left something undone it is the love and kindness I should have been more willing to give. Till we meet The Traveler

I could just leave without saying good-by. Personally I do not believe a good-by will make much difference. I am sorry, I just do not have time to answer questions and go back through personal notes for references - especially for those that do not care what the facts are. Before I go I did want to say 2 things. First - a sincere apology for those that found anger in any of my posts - I always attempted to avoid such things. Second - a much thanks for those that responded to my various posts. I have saved many responses and may someday may compile a book titled "Ten basic connections between ancient opponents of Jesus and their current counter-part’s opposition to the Latter Day Restoration". Should anyone wish to contact me personally you may do so by e-mail to <[email protected]> I will respond to any e-mail I find of reasonable nature. I am a traveler far from home - my quest is to return to my home and offer aid to any traveler in search for their way home. The Traveler

LDS did not enact any slavery laws - they were subject to them and it is a matter of our faith to be obedient to laws. You missed the point of freedom of religion and who the Trinitarians placed in slavery under the laws they passed.The Traveler

The Trinity was not a part of scriptrue - I present simple logic. If it was there would have been no need what so ever for any creed. But because it was not clearified in scripture man had to make a creed. My main point is that tradition Trinitarianism turned from the doctrine of Jesus Christ and established laws to accept their interpertations or die. I do not believe such doctrine is Christian. All that I have asked is a clear demonstration with source that there was a Trinitarian society that would allow others religious freedom. In fact any indication from 600 AD to 1650 AD. Please include your source. You suggested in your other thread that sources be provided, but you will provide none. You continue to bagger me for my sources but deny trinitarians seeking to enslave or kill non believers - yet you will not provide a single historical source that indicated that any established Trinitarian Church that would not seek death to those that disagreed with them. Please do not make any more statements about history without sources. You said that there were Trinitarians (something you need to prove) that were very different from the historical Trinitarians of the Dark Ages. If you are sure of such early Trinitarians provide your proof. How can I provide proof of something I do not believe exist? That is a little silly don't you think? What I said is that I have found no evidence of Christian love of enemies among historical Trinitarians. If you have proof why will you not provide it? How many times must I beg for your source? The Traveler The Traveler

Traveler, You make me laugh. First you say: QUOTE "I have found no Trinitarian society that would allow by law anyone to not believe in the Trinity without punishment of death until 1829." Then I reply: QUOTE "Apparently you haven't gone back in history early enough. Like, oh, I don't know....the first FIVE centuries of trinitarianism!" Then you say: QUOTE "First post on this thread from Jason: So, let's chat. Please reference your sources, so that all may study. I believe the first Trinitarian Creed was established in 325AD. I believe it was 394AD when the Alexandrian library was destroyed by the Trinitarian emperor of Rome Theodosius. Encyclopedia Britannica Please identify your Trinitarian Society that was kind to non believers (pagans) and source." So you're mad at me for not referencing my source, when you made the accusation without a reference?? Ok. First, provide me the source for your original accusation: That no trinitarian society would allow non-trinitarians to live until 1829. Second, ignore your source because they obviously haven't heard of the Bill of Rights established in 1789 by a Trinitarian society. Third, What do you mean by society? Are your referring to a government ruled by one who professes the Blessed Trinity, or a people who make the same profession, whether or not their government agrees? If the latter, should we define "society" based on race, customs, language, or religious majority? If religious majority, should they be limited to a geographical boundry? Thanks. I so regret that this poster finds the mistreatment of innocent human beings for strictly religious reasons so humorous – though not unusual for historical Trinitarians. In case anyone is interested in the historical Trinitarian lack of tolerance I quote from the “History of the United States of America” by Henry William Elson, The MacMillan Company, New York 1904. Chapter IV (Just for reference this account is referenced as official historical account by the State of Maryland.) Quote #1: “In 1649, the same year that in British history King Charles I was put to death, witnessed the famous Toleration Act in Maryland. By this act, the toleration of all Christian sects, a privilege that the people enjoyed in practice since the founding of the colony, was recognized by law.” I would point out the reason it was so recognized is because the founding of Maryland by Lord Baltimore (an English speaking Catholic) under the rule of the King of England (a Protestant). The act was established because Protestants from Virginia attacked and killed many Catholics (1635). This explanation replaces a number of pages of quotes from the above source. Quote #2: “The Toleration Act was very liberal for that period, but it would not be so considered in our time. For example, it did not ‘tolerate’ one who did not believe in the Trinity, the penalty for this offense being death.” Please take note of the harshness of the Trinitarian Apostasy from the teachings of Christ during the spoken time period – in the global Trinitarian view, non-Trinitarian religion was considered an “offense” worthy of death. Any time I have asked for some reference to show otherwise I am treated like a non-Trinitarian among traditional Trinitarians or given no response at all. This lack of Trinitarian tolerance now creates the backdrop for quote #3 – note the date of the Toleration Act. Quote #3: “not till 1826 – one hundred and seventy-seven years after this – did Jews and Unitarians gain full political rights in Maryland. Many Trinitarians still did not tolerate so-called Pagans and Infidels. One might ask how was it that non-Trinitarians were denied rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Generally we acknowledge the Bill of Rights as the Articles in Addition to and Amendments of the Constitution. Quoting from the Constitution Article : “Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” This may look like Trinitarians giving a little but it was very little. But the words were only used for other Trinitarians. Established law within the various states circumvented this federal article allowing Trinitarians to mistreat non-Trinitarians. This circumvention not only allowed for various punishments for non-believers but even slavery of non-Trinitarian peoples. Though the vast majority of slaves came from what was pagan Africa, blacks were not the only slaves. Anyone of non-traditional Trinitarian ancestry could be forced into slavery, as were many Native Americans and Asians. Also a note here – Maryland is the first state I have found to enact specific laws of Tolerance (not just in the USA but anywhere in the world) – first Trinitarinas were forced to become tolerant of other Trinitarian sects and then for certain other religions. Now quoting again form the USA Constitution ArticleXIII: “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Note section 2 gave congress power to override any attempt by states or other legal bodies to deny rights granted the general populous by the federal Constitution. This broad brush was used to fill the gap left by Article I and to insure rights – including religion to all peoples living in the USA, citizen or not. Ratification of Article XIII was not until the end of the civil war. It is interesting to note that even with the force of law certain Protestant Trinitarian denominations went underground and formed the dreaded KKK to continue their lack of tolerance as taught by Christ. I would also point out that it would appear that Trinitarians did not initiate any religious movements of tolerance until the time of the Civil War, except that they might enjoy it for themselves. This is backwards from what Jesus taught in Matt. Chapter 5. Small wonder Jesus said that there would be many that would claim to be Christian saying they have done “many good works in the name of Jesus”. But Jesus would say to them “I never knew you – depart from me ye workers of iniquity.” The Traveler

In a court of law in this country no witness is allowed to testify for someone else. Such a witness is considered a false witness. Do not the scriptures indicate that no man is to be judged without hearing him? I only ask that LDS be allowed to teach their doctrine as with all - Teach their doctrine not someone else's. Two terms in scripture translated into Devil are Advisory and Slandered. I would also point out that Jesus condemned the deeds of others but did not condemn them for doctrine. The concept that we are judged by G-d for our deeds and not doctrine is well documented in scripture. It is my personal belief that Satan and those that follow him will not teach the gospel love and of truth but will attack like wolfs. As for religious thought - there is an old saying: “If you cannot find anything good to say about someone it is better you do not say anything.” Jesus had his version in the Sermon on the Mt. When he said in essence treat others as you would have them (or G-d) treat you. It is my recommendation that we all follow the advice of Jesus - especially if we expect his forgiveness and grace. The scripture that says not to judge others can be better translated to say do not condemn others. But you can all do according the spirit that teaches and directs you. The Traveler

In the first public address where Jesus taught his doctrine he warned his followers for all time to beware false prophets and false teachers. The scriptures give many indications of how to identify a false teacher or prophet but may I make a simple suggestion? A true teacher of the teachings of Jesus Christ teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ. A false teacher teaches something else. Is this idea simple enough to grasp a concept here? A false teacher may teach some truth once in a while - perhaps even by accident but if they ever publish and teach false doctrine they are not a true teacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Agree or not? Now I would like the readers of this forum to consider something that is and has been going of since Joseph Smith proclaimed he had seen a vision. Various teacher of religion have been publishing and teaching their version of the LDS gospel of Jesus Christ. In almost every case the doctrine is distorted - at least according to my LDS point of view. Beside the fact they distort our doctrine I have another problem with them teaching our doctrine. Here is the problem I have with someone other than LDS teaching our doctrine. If our understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ is right then they should join with us in our faith in Jesus Christ. If it is not the true doctrine of Jesus Christ why would they teach it unless they are false teachers? Do we not agree that if a teacher teaches something other than the gospel of Jesus Christ they are a false teacher? Let us now open our scriptures to Galatians 1:6-9 6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. This scripture tells us that even if an angel tells you to do so the followers of Jesus Christ are not to teach any other gospel other than the true gospel of Jesus Christ. If they teach any thing else - “let him be accursed” I submit that it is a doctrine of Christ that his teachers only teach his gospel. So here is an sure fire way to identify a false teacher according to the gospel of Jesus Christ. If a LDS teaches Catholic doctrine - they are false teachers. If a Baptist publishes a book or pamphlet on LDS doctrine - they are false teachers. If some anti LDS poster comes onto a forum like this one and in any way tries to teach LDS doctrine or represent LDS doctrine in any light - know this, that they are a false teacher. Why? Because a true teacher of Jesus Christ will only teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you are a member of any organization that teaches and publishes doctrine of LDS or Jehovah Witnesses or any other faith other that what they say is the real gospel of Jesus Christ - you ought to find a different organization upon which to base your eternal salvation. If you are involved in any publications that teach any doctrine other than the doctrine of Jesus Christ - even if they say it is false - I recommend you turn from such false teachers and seek true teachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ that do not “pervert” the truth by teaching any thing else. The Traveler

Two points to ponder. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we can receive forgiveness of our sins. In the great plan of our G-d this a demonstration of his love and grace. But the atonement does one other thing - it makes it possible that we can also receive of the justice and blessings of G-d. This is known as exaltation. That we may be saved from sin in one important concept but we can also be blessed of G-d. But because G-d is just he can only give blessings to those that covenant with him and demonstrate their loyalty or obedience to the covenants. Only by obedience to covenants can anyone be exalted. Therefore it is important to covenant - the first covenant is baptism - and be loyal to you covenants with G-d. I would also suggest that one consider tithing, the word of wisdom, keeping the Sabbath holy, and the use of G-d’s name and title all as part of their covenants. Therefore we should ask ourselves not what is okay or not okay to do on the Sabbath but rather - what are my covenants. What have I promised the L-rd? You may even consider your lesson as part of your loyalty to your covenants and those that are in attendance of your class as a part of their loyalty to their covenants. I wish you well in your efforts. The Traveler

Thank all of you that will allow me my personal respects. Just as a point of interest to those of you who may not know the ancients that gave us the scriptures had such reverence for G-d that they all considered themselves unworthy to write his name even in giving us the holy scriptures. I cannot consider myself more worthy than them. The Traveler