The Law And Morals

[LionHeart]

Oh, I can't wait for the Academy Awards!

There's this really beautiful film I'll be cheering for.

Perhaps you've heard of it? It's about two human beings who fall in love.

Except the two human beings just so happen to both be dudes.

[CharlieDesRosiers]

*gasp!*

Oh, no!

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

(I am still having a problem understanding what Snow thinks is the basis of law. Someone must think it is right or moral in their mind or there would be no law)

You said that all laws are based in morality. Nonsense. Some laws are but by no means all. There are laws that govern businesses like limited partnerships. Those laws are not based on ideas of "good" and evil. A Senator serves 4 years per term. It is not that a 3 year term is evil while a 4 year term is "good." Obiviously something beside good and evil is behind such laws. One of the reasons could be that having 3 year terms is too expensive in running too frequent elections and hiring and training new staff. Being cost effective is not the opposite of evil.

The fact that we seek order in business (including limited partnerships) is a moral point of view. What it comes down to is that if everyone conducted business in the same manner there would be no law. The reason someone thought of a law is because someone wanted to do something that someone else did not agree was "lawful". Thus the different moral view.

Though we do not think of driving on one side or the other as a moral choice we realize that there ought to be order in driving or people get killed (which is a moral judgment). No one would think of passing a law that requires everyone to drive on the right side of the road until someone goes against the norm and drives on the opposite side that everybody else thinks should be the proper order. Note that there are no laws about where on a sidewalk somone can walk according to the direction they are walking.

Again I state there will never be a law passed until one segment of the population wants to impose their moral view of what ought to be on a segment of the population that thinks otherwise. The only reason for defining the length of a term is because somewhere someone will want a different length of the term (for moral reasons). Someone will want to make an exception for whatever moral they think suits them. Which is an attempt to force their moral choice on everyone else that disagrees with them.

The Traveler

[Snow]

The fact that we seek order in business (including limited partnerships) is a moral point of view. What it comes down to is that if everyone conducted business in the same manner there would be no law. The reason someone thought of a law is because someone wanted to do something that someone else did not agree was "lawful". Thus the different moral view.

Though we do not think of driving on one side or the other as a moral choice we realize that there ought to be order in driving or people get killed (which is a moral judgment). No one would think of passing a law that requires everyone to drive on the right side of the road until someone goes against the norm and drives on the opposite side that everybody else thinks should be the proper order. Note that there are no laws about where on a sidewalk somone can walk according to the direction they are walking.

Again I state there will never be a law passed until one segment of the population wants to impose their moral view of what ought to be on a segment of the population that thinks otherwise. The only reason for defining the length of a term is because somewhere someone will want a different length of the term (for moral reasons). Someone will want to make an exception for whatever moral they think suits them. Which is an attempt to force their moral choice on everyone else that disagrees with them.

The Traveler

Well congratulations Traveler.

You've completely redefined the word morality in a way that renders it meaningless to the vast majority of English speakers.

You know - I can win every single argument I ever engage in if I just get define every word in what ever way I choose to define it. In this case you might well have said that all laws are based on spinach and then gone on to define spinach as a system of order and coordination and on right versus wrong choices.

[Guest Syble]

The guy at the Stake Center never actually had any sort of relations which broke the Law of Chasity. He basically committed suicide because people thought of him like they did, and he felt he had no out.... which is often the case with people who commit suicide for any reason.

Lets play this out..... if I truly believed the religion was true, and I had same sex feelings, that I did not feel I could conquer, are you suggesting that suicide is the best course of action to take? This is a serious question, and one that gay people raised in your church have to consider in a real way.

FWIW, I have posted on LDS boards for many years. I do not know of a single gay person, who was a member of this religion, and posted on boards, who stuck with the religion. And all except one kept the Chasity law until they left. Every single one of them tried very very hard. But they were not welcome nor understood. Unlike you, who I suggest keep your religion because it works for you... anybody who feels any sort of same sex attraction.... I suggest in a serious way they should leave. This religion is a brutal brutal place for those folks. They have no religious home, nor love, nor understanding. It is often quite sad.... as it was in the case of the young man who died at the Stake Center.

I understand what you are looking at, but I think you missed the point I made that it isn't always sin, but a suseptability to propaganda and through such evil spirits. Once engulfed by evil spirits they sin.

Knowing that you are under the influence of evil spirits is not easy, especially in the world we live in today.

I will say those who cannot see their predicament in the same light (as someone who is not what he seems) are going to have a difficult time in the church. In fact those who don't agree that the bofm is of God and not written by JS and that prophets do live on the earth today... have a very difficult time in the church as well.

I will state this clearly so as to no be misunderstood. Homosexuality is a choice. Maybe it is a subconscious choice and the people suffering from it don't understand it any more than any other mentally ill persons.

I will also state that most humanity today have hidden things from themselves that they could not bring to the surface without a specialists help. So I am no isolating this condition to only the gays. It is a condition everyone shares to some degree or another.

Enters the need for the Holy Ghost. With the Holy Ghost, a specialist is not needed. The Holy Ghost can expose to you what you are hiding from yourself. The kicker is this: you have to be willing to accept his help. You have to be spiritually humble enough to ask for and receive this help.

Thus I say, we are all sinners. Some are just able to use the Holy Ghost to see their sin and address that sin and become cleansed. Others can't. Unfortunately many socially do not feel acceptable in the church and do not feel they are in the wrong and you and I both know that if we don't acknowledge our sin we cannot over come it. Gays do not believe they are sinning. But their gay tendancies testify otherwise.

I hope you see the difference.

[Snow]

I moved the last three posts on homosexuality to the Open Discussion forum and deleted a good many of the ones that were left. Not all posts were inflammatory but many were and I tried to repair the thread without excessive intervention.

In the future, please discuss sexual issues in the Open forum. Futhermore, posts on sexuality or homosexualtiy must show restraint and be in keeping with the spirit of kindness and reasonable discussion. Trolling, flaming, inflamatory posts will not be tolerated, not even in the Open forum.

Remember, even one, regardless of the cross they have to bear, is a child of God.

[prisonchaplain]

I am saying is that when there is not complete agreement on what is "absolute right" - whose opinion becomes law? What I am saying that the process that establishes how we agree upon "absolute right" is more impotant than what any single person or group thinks is "absolute right".

In a society and government such as ours, agreement comes through the political process. In order for government to interject itself into moral standards, the level of agreement must be quite strong. 50.1% is usually not enough of an approval rate to garner dramatic change.

Additionally, there are times when a weak majority may get a prohibition (or permission) passed, but the law ends up being more symbolic than anything else (just how often were sodomy laws actually prosecuted, anyway?). And, quite often, such laws are eventually overturned (55 saves lives!).

When in doubt (and we're in doubt quite often), 'tis best to do nothing.

Finally, in areas that are truly moral in nature, we develop moral strength when we choose to do what is right, rather than being coerced by government force to comply. Self discipline is far healthier for society than a populace that is constantly learning "not to get caught."

[prisonchaplain]

On another thread Ari called for the Government to insert itself into the bedroom of consenting, even married adults, and legislate which sex practices they should be permitted to engage in.

Besides being creepy I can think of few things that are so opposed to the principles of liberty upon which this country was founded.

My guess is that most sodomy laws were symbolic in nature. They were enacted by politicians appealing to a fundamentalist Christian electorate, as a way of saying we will stand for righteousness and goodness. I could also understand that, with government engaging in higher tech. surveillance than ever before, that what was once symbolic could indeed become

I am scratching my head wondering what on earth you are talking about.

US Senators serve 4 years in office as a matter law. Limited partnerships have one or more general partners and one or more limited partners as a matter of law. California, as a matter of law, is an at-will employment state.

How is any of that an issue of morality?

Well, of course, not every law is a statement of morality. But, most are. It is immoral to drive at so high a rate of speed that the risk of accident becomes significant, so we have speeding laws. Other traffic laws--ditto. It is foolish, and perhaps immoral, for members of society not to be willing to defend their neighbors, so we pay taxes for military, law enforcement, and courts. Our drug laws are an obvious community standard that is legislated.

So while contract law, business law, etc. might often be process-oriented, most laws have an element of morality to them. So, the old canard that we cannot legislate morality, is simply not true. I'm fairly certain this was Traveler's point.

[Snow]

So while contract law, business law, etc. might often be process-oriented, most laws have an element of morality to them. So, the old canard that we cannot legislate morality, is simply not true. I'm fairly certain this was Traveler's point.

That was one of his points. Another of his points was that ALL laws are based on morality.

If you define morality very broadly (for example - it is moral to drive 64 miles an hour on the highway but immoral - and hence evil - to drive 66 miles an hour) I guess you could find tenuous and convoluted ways to make that case for many laws. But, how can you say MOST. I personally have no idea how many laws of what kinds there are. I know that the or one of the most regulated industries in the country is the nursing home industry. There was books full of laws that specify, for example, how many holes per square inch the window screens should have and how many foot candles of lights the over-bed lights must have. I suggest that the number of holes per square inch in screens in not a matter of good and evil. I imagine there are more procedural and mechanical laws in existence than there are laws that can properly be understood in terms of good and evil.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

So while contract law, business law, etc. might often be process-oriented, most laws have an element of morality to them. So, the old canard that we cannot legislate morality, is simply not true. I'm fairly certain this was Traveler's point.

That was one of his points. Another of his points was that ALL laws are based on morality.

If you define morality very broadly (for example - it is moral to drive 64 miles an hour on the highway but immoral - and hence evil - to drive 66 miles an hour) I guess you could find tenuous and convoluted ways to make that case for many laws. But, how can you say MOST. I personally have no idea how many laws of what kinds there are. I know that the or one of the most regulated industries in the country is the nursing home industry. There was books full of laws that specify, for example, how many holes per square inch the window screens should have and how many foot candles of lights the over-bed lights must have. I suggest that the number of holes per square inch in screens in not a matter of good and evil. I imagine there are more procedural and mechanical laws in existence than there are laws that can properly be understood in terms of good and evil.

In terms of quantity of laws, you may well be right. In relation to whether or not morality can be legislated, the point that a significant number of laws attempt to enforce morality, Traveler is right. 64 vs. 66? The line has to be drawn somewhere, in order to enforce the moral imperative against driving at a rate that signficantly raises the risk of accident. The point is not whether all or most or a signficant # of laws enforce morality--the point is that morality can be and is legislated.

[Snow]

I agree with that but that's not what he said or not all he said.

[Traveler]

I agree with that but that's not what he said or not all he said.

The additional point I have attempted to make in relation to all laws is that every law that comes into existance is an effort by one segment of the population to exercise control or power or authority over another segment of the population that does not want it. Those that believe they are right, regardless of what-ever side they are cought believe they are "morally" correct to use the force of law.

My point is that Law is nothing more than one segment of a population attempting to control another segment. If there was not a disagreement there would be not need for the attempted control. If the controlling segment did not believe there was a benefit or need and a sresult they approved of; there would be no compelling need. This is in essence what I believe to be a social moral, which is the very defination of law or the attempt to controll.

The Traveler

[Guest bizabra]

<div class='quotemain'>

The guy at the Stake Center never actually had any sort of relations which broke the Law of Chasity. He basically committed suicide because people thought of him like they did, and he felt he had no out.... which is often the case with people who commit suicide for any reason.

Lets play this out..... if I truly believed the religion was true, and I had same sex feelings, that I did not feel I could conquer, are you suggesting that suicide is the best course of action to take? This is a serious question, and one that gay people raised in your church have to consider in a real way.

FWIW, I have posted on LDS boards for many years. I do not know of a single gay person, who was a member of this religion, and posted on boards, who stuck with the religion. And all except one kept the Chasity law until they left. Every single one of them tried very very hard. But they were not welcome nor understood. Unlike you, who I suggest keep your religion because it works for you... anybody who feels any sort of same sex attraction.... I suggest in a serious way they should leave. This religion is a brutal brutal place for those folks. They have no religious home, nor love, nor understanding. It is often quite sad.... as it was in the case of the young man who died at the Stake Center.

I understand what you are looking at, but I think you missed the point I made that it isn't always sin, but a suseptability to propaganda and through such evil spirits. Once engulfed by evil spirits they sin.

Knowing that you are under the influence of evil spirits is not easy, especially in the world we live in today.

I will say those who cannot see their predicament in the same light (as someone who is not what he seems) are going to have a difficult time in the church. In fact those who don't agree that the bofm is of God and not written by JS and that prophets do live on the earth today... have a very difficult time in the church as well.

I will state this clearly so as to no be misunderstood. Homosexuality is a choice. Maybe it is a subconscious choice and the people suffering from it don't understand it any more than any other mentally ill persons.

I will also state that most humanity today have hidden things from themselves that they could not bring to the surface without a specialists help. So I am no isolating this condition to only the gays. It is a condition everyone shares to some degree or another.

Enters the need for the Holy Ghost. With the Holy Ghost, a specialist is not needed. The Holy Ghost can expose to you what you are hiding from yourself. The kicker is this: you have to be willing to accept his help. You have to be spiritually humble enough to ask for and receive this help.

Thus I say, we are all sinners. Some are just able to use the Holy Ghost to see their sin and address that sin and become cleansed. Others can't. Unfortunately many socially do not feel acceptable in the church and do not feel they are in the wrong and you and I both know that if we don't acknowledge our sin we cannot over come it. Gays do not believe they are sinning. But their gay tendancies testify otherwise.

I hope you see the difference.

BIZ: Um, did I just read you as saying that homosexuals are MENTALLY ILL? I sure hope not. . . .

Criminy!

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

The guy at the Stake Center never actually had any sort of relations which broke the Law of Chasity. He basically committed suicide because people thought of him like they did, and he felt he had no out.... which is often the case with people who commit suicide for any reason.

Lets play this out..... if I truly believed the religion was true, and I had same sex feelings, that I did not feel I could conquer, are you suggesting that suicide is the best course of action to take? This is a serious question, and one that gay people raised in your church have to consider in a real way.

FWIW, I have posted on LDS boards for many years. I do not know of a single gay person, who was a member of this religion, and posted on boards, who stuck with the religion. And all except one kept the Chasity law until they left. Every single one of them tried very very hard. But they were not welcome nor understood. Unlike you, who I suggest keep your religion because it works for you... anybody who feels any sort of same sex attraction.... I suggest in a serious way they should leave. This religion is a brutal brutal place for those folks. They have no religious home, nor love, nor understanding. It is often quite sad.... as it was in the case of the young man who died at the Stake Center.

I understand what you are looking at, but I think you missed the point I made that it isn't always sin, but a suseptability to propaganda and through such evil spirits. Once engulfed by evil spirits they sin.

Knowing that you are under the influence of evil spirits is not easy, especially in the world we live in today.

I will say those who cannot see their predicament in the same light (as someone who is not what he seems) are going to have a difficult time in the church. In fact those who don't agree that the bofm is of God and not written by JS and that prophets do live on the earth today... have a very difficult time in the church as well.

I will state this clearly so as to no be misunderstood. Homosexuality is a choice. Maybe it is a subconscious choice and the people suffering from it don't understand it any more than any other mentally ill persons.

I will also state that most humanity today have hidden things from themselves that they could not bring to the surface without a specialists help. So I am no isolating this condition to only the gays. It is a condition everyone shares to some degree or another.

Enters the need for the Holy Ghost. With the Holy Ghost, a specialist is not needed. The Holy Ghost can expose to you what you are hiding from yourself. The kicker is this: you have to be willing to accept his help. You have to be spiritually humble enough to ask for and receive this help.

Thus I say, we are all sinners. Some are just able to use the Holy Ghost to see their sin and address that sin and become cleansed. Others can't. Unfortunately many socially do not feel acceptable in the church and do not feel they are in the wrong and you and I both know that if we don't acknowledge our sin we cannot over come it. Gays do not believe they are sinning. But their gay tendancies testify otherwise.

I hope you see the difference.

BIZ: Um, did I just read you as saying that homosexuals are MENTALLY ILL? I sure hope not. . . .

Criminy!

That's how I took it!

I am also wondering if Syble thinks that if you have the Holy Ghost, you don't need a specialist or medicine for depression, or other mental disorders.

[Ray]

Moral – ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just

Immoral – wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest

Point: All “decent” and “good” laws are “moral” laws, but that doesn’t mean that if certain laws were changed they would then become “immoral” laws… as it is possible to go from “good” to “better”.

Example: Changing highway speed limits from 70mph to 80mph would not necessarily be "immoral"… although I personally believe it would not be a “good” idea to do that.

[Traveler]

Moral – ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just

Immoral – wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest

Point: All “decent” and “good” laws are “moral” laws, but that doesn’t mean that if certain laws were changed they would then become “immoral” laws… as it is possible to go from “good” to “better”.

Example: Changing highway speed limits from 70mph to 80mph would not necessarily be "immoral"… although I personally believe it would not be a “good” idea to do that.

Thank you for responding Ray. Do not think that I disagree with what you are saying but even though everyone may agree on your defination of Moral and Immoral - what one segment of the population may believe is ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just another segment of the population may believe the same to be wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest

For example if you listen to someone from one of the political parties they will assure you that the leaders and supporters in their party are the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just and the leaders and supporters in the other party are the wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest.

Even in the case of O.J. Simpson over 90% of blacks to this day believe he was set up (innocent) and over 90% of whites believe he got away with it (guilty).

It is not that I want to get into which political party is what or O.J.'s innocients or guilt. The question is who gets to say with the force of Law - "We are the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just and if you do not agree you are the wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest? The ones that agree with you? Or the ones that disagree with you? What is the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just way to settle the issue?

The Traveler

[Ray]

The question is who gets to say with the force of Law - "We are the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just and if you do not agree you are the wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest? The ones that agree with you? Or the ones that disagree with you? What is the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just way to settle the issue?

The Traveler

Is that a rhetorical question, Traveler?

Who else but God and His authorized representatives can truly settle the issues?

And yes, I know there are many people who "think" they know what God thinks about things, but that still doesn't lessen the fact that some of us truly know.

Heh, and if we can't manage to convince them during this lifetime, there will come a day of judgment when we can appeal to the Highest court.

[Traveler]

That's how I took it!

I am also wondering if Syble thinks that if you have the Holy Ghost, you don't need a specialist or medicine for depression, or other mental disorders.

I do not want to get into all that is being argued here but just to ask one question. Suppose some had a really bad headache and took an aspirin. A few moments later the headache goes away. Do we conclude that aspirin is “the cure” for headaches or is aspirin just a treatment of the symptom and not a cure of the cause?

If we say that aspirin is a true cure then we imply that the headache was caused by the person’s body not producing enough aspirin and therefore people that do not have headaches must therefore have aspirin in their systems to prevent headaches.

The point I would make is to be careful how you define your parameters that you do not paint yourself in a corner leaving no possible way to get to the truth of a matter.

The Traveler

<div class='quotemain'>

The question is who gets to say with the force of Law - "We are the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just and if you do not agree you are the wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest? The ones that agree with you? Or the ones that disagree with you? What is the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just way to settle the issue?

The Traveler

Is that a rhetorical question, Traveler?

Who else but God and His authorized representatives can truly settle the issues?

And yes, I know there are many people who "think" they know what God thinks about things, but that still doesn't lessen the fact that some of us truly know.

Heh, and if we can't manage to convince them during this lifetime, there will come a day of judgment when we can appeal to the Highest court.

I am exploring you thinking and wondering what your process was to come to your conclusion. Should not every person employing or experiencing the same process come to the same conclusion?

Sometimes I think people begin with the conclusion and then try to define a process that will validate it. Or they leave out some step(s) in attempting to explain their process to someone else.

There is one other possibility, Is your ability to realize – an internal thing to you or is it something that is external so that you must explorer, by a process, that can be validated by others?

Thanks again for listening.

The Traveler

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

That's how I took it!

I am also wondering if Syble thinks that if you have the Holy Ghost, you don't need a specialist or medicine for depression, or other mental disorders.

I do not want to get into all that is being argued here but just to ask one question. Suppose some had a really bad headache and took an aspirin. A few moments later the headache goes away. Do we conclude that aspirin is “the cure” for headaches or is aspirin just a treatment of the symptom and not a cure of the cause?

If we say that aspirin is a true cure then we imply that the headache was caused by the person’s body not producing enough aspirin and therefore people that do not have headaches must therefore have aspirin in their systems to prevent headaches.

The point I would make is to be careful how you define your parameters that you do not paint yourself in a corner leaving no possible way to get to the truth of a matter.

The Traveler

Well - obviously you're no doctor. Heachaches are not caused from the lack of aspirin but that does not mean that aspirin cannot cure a headached. One cause of headaches is caused by tension. Tension appears to produce prostaglandins which tell nerve ending to send a signal to the brain that the brain interprets as pain. Aspirin is a non-sterodial anti-inflamatory and inhibits the process by which prostaglandins are produced. Taking aspirin eliminates the pain that causes the headache.

[Traveler]

Well - obviously you're no doctor. Heachaches are not caused from the lack of aspirin but that does not mean that aspirin cannot cure a headached. One cause of headaches is caused by tension. Tension appears to produce prostaglandins which tell nerve ending to send a signal to the brain that the brain interprets as pain. Aspirin is a non-sterodial anti-inflamatory and inhibits the process by which prostaglandins are produced. Taking aspirin eliminates the pain that causes the headache.

It is a matter of treating the symptom or the cause. Though you think the headache is cured by treating the symptom - I see it as ignoring or masking the cause. If the real cause persist the headache will return when the effects of the aspirin wear off.

The Traveler

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Well - obviously you're no doctor. Heachaches are not caused from the lack of aspirin but that does not mean that aspirin cannot cure a headached. One cause of headaches is caused by tension. Tension appears to produce prostaglandins which tell nerve ending to send a signal to the brain that the brain interprets as pain. Aspirin is a non-sterodial anti-inflamatory and inhibits the process by which prostaglandins are produced. Taking aspirin eliminates the pain that causes the headache.

It is a matter of treating the symptom or the cause. Though you think the headache is cured by treating the symptom - I see it as ignoring or masking the cause. If the real cause persist the headache will return when the effects of the aspirin wear off.

The Traveler

The ache in the head is caused by prostaglandins. Aspirin stops the production of prostaglandins. No prostaglandins = no ache in the head. How is that not a cure for the ache?

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

The question is who gets to say with the force of Law - "We are the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just and if you do not agree you are the wicked, depraved, corrupt, dissolute, and dishonest? The ones that agree with you? Or the ones that disagree with you? What is the ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, and just way to settle the issue?

Is that a rhetorical question, Traveler?

Who else but God and His authorized representatives can truly settle the issues?

And yes, I know there are many people who "think" they know what God thinks about things, but that still doesn't lessen the fact that some of us truly know.

Heh, and if we can't manage to convince them during this lifetime, there will come a day of judgment when we can appeal to the Highest court.

I am exploring your thinking and wondering what your process was to come to your conclusion. Should not every person employing or experiencing the same process come to the same conclusion?

Sometimes I think people begin with the conclusion and then try to define a process that will validate it. Or they leave out some step(s) in attempting to explain their process to someone else.

There is one other possibility, Is your ability to realize – an internal thing to you or is it something that is external so that you must explorer, by a process, that can be validated by others?

Thanks again for listening.

The Traveler

Oh, I see now.

I am exploring your thinking and wondering what your process was to come to your conclusion.

The process I used for coming to my conclusion that we must rely upon God and those He has authorized to help us know what is good and conducive to our happiness originated with my idea that there must be Someone with ultimate knowledge of all that is good, followed by my desire to know all that is good out of everything there is. Or in other words, to borrow some of the words from Abraham:

… I saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence (where I could and can be free to live as I desire to live in peace and greater happiness); and finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me (after hearing about the gospel and finding the gospel to be true), I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers. – Abraham 1

Should not every person employing or experiencing the same process come to the same conclusion?

Should? Yes. Is it easy in this world of conflicting messages? Not until you know to fully trust in God.

Sometimes I think people begin with the conclusion and then try to define a process that will validate it. Or they leave out some step(s) in attempting to explain their process to someone else.

Yes, I have seen some of that, with some people sometimes even using the scriptures to define a process that validates their own thinking. And while I can see that the knowledge and experiences of others can sometimes be helpful to us personally, I think it’s most important to realize that we need to learn the truth in the same way our “fathers’ learned it before us.

There is one other possibility, Is your ability to realize – an internal thing to you or is it something that is external so that you must explore, by a process, that can be validated by others?

Yes, of course, my ability to realize all that is good is internal within me, based upon my ability (or aptitude or skill or capacity) to recognize all good things when I “see” them, but everyone else who sees these things can also testify of them, and the greatest testimony that any of us can receive is a testimony that comes from God.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Well - obviously you're no doctor. Heachaches are not caused from the lack of aspirin but that does not mean that aspirin cannot cure a headached. One cause of headaches is caused by tension. Tension appears to produce prostaglandins which tell nerve ending to send a signal to the brain that the brain interprets as pain. Aspirin is a non-sterodial anti-inflamatory and inhibits the process by which prostaglandins are produced. Taking aspirin eliminates the pain that causes the headache.

It is a matter of treating the symptom or the cause. Though you think the headache is cured by treating the symptom - I see it as ignoring or masking the cause. If the real cause persist the headache will return when the effects of the aspirin wear off.

The Traveler

The ache in the head is caused by prostaglandins. Aspirin stops the production of prostaglandins. No prostaglandins = no ache in the head. How is that not a cure for the ache?

Sorry I still do not understand what you are trying to tell me. Is the root (real) cause of headaches tension or prostaglandins? :) BTW no head also = no headache. Just wondering - are you getting a headache yet?

The Traveler

[Snow]

Sorry I still do not understand what you are trying to tell me. Is the root (real) cause of headaches tension or prostaglandins? :) BTW no head also = no headache. Just wondering - are you getting a headache yet?

The Traveler

:) :) :)

In a way, headaches and their primal cause, be they tension or migrane, a still a bit of a mystery; but, you can take a way the tension and you still might have the headache. Take away or interfer with the prostaglandin and the tension headache goes away.

As always, I am not a real doctor. I just play on on LDStalk.