RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
I didn't quite get it either. Are Ron and I the grimy kids, or the fathers in this story? And if so, would Ron be the kind-hearted father? I don't recall ever striking my kids like the first father, so I know it doesn't apply to me, however I also wasn't so neglectful as he was to just say a few words and then walk off. My kids cleaned their rooms because it was expected of them, and if they didn't do it, they were punished (groundings, etc). I see God doing the same thing. Yes, occasionally our actions create their own illness/punishment, but on many occasions, God brings his wrath down upon his children. If you don't believe it, just read the scriptures. As it is, the 2nd Coming is described as the Lord coming in red clothing to stomp the grapes of the vineyard with a fury. Yet, there is also a softer side to God, as he patiently works with each of us--as long as we are willing to be worked upon. So, portraying God as either a harsh taskmaster on the one hand or as a milquetoast on the other is to paint God as being two dimensional. He isn't either of these, yet is both of them. And as I raised my children, I used both methods. And as I work with those around me, I use both methods as necessary. I don't just sigh and lecture from the bedroom door. I step into the room, offer to help clean things up, and insist that it is cleaned. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: I'm lousy at parables. Please explain. -Original Message- From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 6:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! Grimy Teeth ©2004 by Jonathan Scott Once upon a time there were two boys and they were the best of friends. Unfortunately for both though, they were both about as lazy as they could be. They would wake each morning from under their two piles of never washed blankets to stand in the middles of their never cleaned rooms to look out the grimy panes of their never washed windows to see the clutter that filled their never tended yards. And they were each happy. The disgust of their environment apparently did not disgust them. And each of them lived their lives contentedly amidst the grime, the roaches and the disease. One day, one boy's father saw his son desperately coughing as he lay contentedly upon his gray and sickly bed and the father knew that his son would soon become even more sick and possibly die. He knew that if the boy did not clean his world now that he might not live much longer. And so, out of fear for his son's well being, the father began to yell and scream at him. HOW CAN YOU LIVE LIKE THIS? he yelled. ANIMALS ARE MORE KEMPT! YOU SHAME ME WITH YOUR LAZINESS! he screamed. The father then picked up his hand and struck the boy across his face and the boy fell to the ground in tears. The father then stood over the boy and threatened to strike him again if he did not change his ways. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. spoke the boy in absolute fear through his gray and grimy teeth. CLEAN THIS ROOM AND THIS WORLD NOW OR WHEN I RETURN I SHALL BEAT YOU TO PIECES! yelled and screamed the father. The father then stood and left the room...leaving the boy to sit on the ground sick with fear. And so, the boy stood and began to clean. He was afraid. On that same day, the other's boy's father came to his room to see the filth and grime and disease of his son. He also was amazed at the extent of the grime. But, because the son was yet healthy and not yet in danger, he knew that he could take his time to teach the boy. Son, this is not good. You cannot live this way. If you continue to live like this, you will catch some sort of disease and you might die. Son, I love you. Please stand up and clean. OK father. said the boy through grimy teeth. He then rolled over in his gray and stained bed and went back to sleep. The father was sad, but chose to let the boy choose his own life. He kicked aside the empty cans and cereal boxes and made his way to the door of the bedroom. The next day, the father returned to see the boy still in bed. On the boy's face there was a rash. And when the father entered, the boy seemed to not be able to lay comfortably amidst the garbage. His body seemed to be in pain. Son, the pain that you are feeling and that rash that is on your face both come from the garbage that you live amongst. If you clean, your body will heal. Please clean. I love you. The son, understanding somewhat the message of his father stood from his bed and began to clean. The father smiled and left. The first boy managed to clean his room before his father returned and therefore wasn't beaten to pieces by him. As you can probably guess, that boy never loved his father. He was too afraid of him to love him. And so he lived
RE: [ZION] A few more representative quotes...
-Original Message- From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 11:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] A few more representative quotes... --Quoting President Hinckley -- There are those who would have us believe in the validity of what they choose to call same-sex marriage. Our hearts reach out to those who struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender. We remember you before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you as our brothers and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral practices on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of others With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. (Gordon B. Hinckley, Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World, Ensign, Nov. 1995) Jim, in another post aimed at me you wrote: I can seldom discern from your rhetoric exactly where you stand with regard to anything divinely inspired. Whether you are out of step is up to you, but when you seem to be advocating things that are clearly wrong, I feel prompted to either quit reading your comments, or respond when they seem to need correction. Thank you for posting several quotes from leaders of the church, all of which are framed by President Hinckley's proclamation above, which I fully and heartily endorse. I am one of many, apparently, who believes the proposed Constitutional Amendment will not serve the objectives delineated in President Hinckley's proclamation. Frankly, I don't think the amendment will make it out of Congress. If it does, it is highly unlikely that it will be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures. That's why I oppose going down this road: it will be costly (in dollars and goodwill), very divisive, and in the end it will all be for naught. That's why I believe it makes more sense to: 1) get the government out of the business of determining what is and what is not called a marriage; 2) to carefully think through and plan for how these alternative lifestyle matters and legal unions will be explained/taught to our children; 3) to ascertain how they will affect the free expression of religious beliefs in public settings; 4) and to teach how one should properly, consistently, and even-handedly despise sins but love sinners. If President Hinckley says that supporting the constitutional amendment is the only way to go on this matter, I will follow his lead. Otherwise, I am choosing to support President Hinckley's Proclamation on The Family by following the steps outlined in the paragraph above. Kind Regards, Ron Scott // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
It's not about either of you. You two were having a discussion about the difference between the law of Christ and the law of Moses. Ron's take seemed to be that the focus with Christ's plan was in forgiveness and repentance. Your take seemed to focus on the whole punishment aspect of the law of Moses. The part of the puzzle that I felt wasn't being discussed was that the punishments may not be punishments that God will be giving out personally, but rather punishments that natural consequences will be dealing out. Seeing the punishments in this way puts God as our defender and mentor rather than as some kind of a two-faced psycho out there telling us how much he loves us, but at the same time tossing out huge and cumbersome commandments for us to follow and happily tossing the disobedient into huge lakes of fire and brimstone. In my story, both of the fathers cared deeply for their children. But, because one of the sons was literally but unknowingly on his death bed, the urgency of it all demanded that his father resort to drastic measures to save him. What the father did may have looked overly harsh, but compared with an early death, it wasn't. At the very least, what the father did gave his son more time. I don't condone physical abuse of children. It was just for the sake of the allegory. The law of Moses was very definitely unpleasant and I couldn't think of a different way to portray it in the story. I didn't quite get it either. Are Ron and I the grimy kids, or the fathers in this story? And if so, would Ron be the kind-hearted father? I don't recall ever striking my kids like the first father, so I know it doesn't apply to me, however I also wasn't so neglectful as he was to just say a few words and then walk off. My kids cleaned their rooms because it was expected of them, and if they didn't do it, they were punished (groundings, etc). I see God doing the same thing. Yes, occasionally our actions create their own illness/punishment, but on many occasions, God brings his wrath down upon his children. If you don't believe it, just read the scriptures. As it is, the 2nd Coming is described as the Lord coming in red clothing to stomp the grapes of the vineyard with a fury. Yet, there is also a softer side to God, as he patiently works with each of us--as long as we are willing to be worked upon. So, portraying God as either a harsh taskmaster on the one hand or as a milquetoast on the other is to paint God as being two dimensional. He isn't either of these, yet is both of them. And as I raised my children, I used both methods. And as I work with those around me, I use both methods as necessary. I don't just sigh and lecture from the bedroom door. I step into the room, offer to help clean things up, and insist that it is cleaned. Gary Smith -- Jonathan Scott // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 05:24 PM 3/22/2004, Ron Scott wrote in response to Jim Cobabe: Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for legitimate and traditional marriage. Nothing in the constitution envisions the degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any particular union of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal attraction. It seems that some equally thoughtful judges in Massachusetts and elsewhere disagree with you. By proposing the constitutional amendment, the proposers themselves and supporters indicate that they too don't agree with you. Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply wrong--in light of the Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . it is as much their [The Elders of Israel] duty to study correct political principles as well as religion, and to seek and know and comprehend the social and political interests of man, and to learn and be able to teach that which would be best calculated to promote the interests of the world.--John Taylor // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Worth reiterating...
I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue succinctly and precisely outline the present direction of church policy on the marriage controversy. The church is actively pursuing every means to defend traditional marriage, including representation in the courts and support for individual and group efforts to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. It would seem that we are not justified in failing to pursue these efforts, regardless of our regard for the chance of success or failure. President Hinckley explains our rationale for such efforts -- God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God. Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are _compelled_ by our doctrine to speak out... ...I commend those of our membership who have voluntarily joined with other like-minded people to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. (Gordon B. Hinckley, Why We Do Some of the Things We Do, Ensign, Nov. 1999) // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
-Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! At 05:24 PM 3/22/2004, Ron Scott wrote in response to Jim Cobabe: Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for legitimate and traditional marriage. Nothing in the constitution envisions the degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any particular union of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal attraction. It seems that some equally thoughtful judges in Massachusetts and elsewhere disagree with you. By proposing the constitutional amendment, the proposers themselves and supporters indicate that they too don't agree with you. Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply wrong--in light of the Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim. Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that judges have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S. Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as outlined in Article III, Section 2? http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction. It would be far easier, send a strong message to these activist judges, and protect this vital institution at the same time. http://www.thecbn.net/ http://www.thecbn.net/cbn040226.html -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle--George Washington // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
-Original Message- From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Worth reiterating... I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue succinctly and precisely outline the present direction of church policy on the marriage controversy. The church is actively pursuing every means to defend traditional marriage, including representation in the courts and support for individual and group efforts to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. It would seem that we are not justified in failing to pursue these efforts, regardless of our regard for the chance of success or failure. President Hinckley explains our rationale for such efforts -- It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment defining **marriage.** Likewise, I supported the *general aims* of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment but I DID NOT support passage of the amendment itself because I believed that the constitutional protections and entitlements for all (including women) were already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Regards the marriage isisue: I think the constitution as written is satisfactory and provides opportunities to craft laws that honor religious beliefs and honor the protections/entitlements afforded all by our constitution. Ron // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
At 08:46 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Worth reiterating... I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue succinctly and precisely outline the present direction of church policy on the marriage controversy. The church is actively pursuing every means to defend traditional marriage, including representation in the courts and support for individual and group efforts to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. It would seem that we are not justified in failing to pursue these efforts, regardless of our regard for the chance of success or failure. President Hinckley explains our rationale for such efforts -- It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment defining **marriage.** Likewise, I supported the *general aims* of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment but I DID NOT support passage of the amendment itself because I believed that the constitutional protections and entitlements for all (including women) were already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Regards the marriage isisue: I think the constitution as written is satisfactory and provides opportunities to craft laws that honor religious beliefs and honor the protections/entitlements afforded all by our constitution. Ron But I thought you did support same sex civil unions. Am I wrong? -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will not despair, for the cause of human freedom is the cause of God. --Joshua R. Giddings // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
When Richard Wilkins lays out a real constitutional argument I will be first in line to read it. So far, he resorts to bombast and preaching rather than jurisprudence. The local option you propose does have some major practical complications (as we have discussed), ones that could be sorted out however by reasonable, pragmatic people. But, Steven, thank you for acknowledging that one needn't wax heretical to oppose the the proposed amendment. Ron -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as outlined in Article III, Section 2? http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction. It would be far easier, send a strong message to these activist judges, and protect this vital institution at the same time. http://www.thecbn.net/ http://www.thecbn.net/cbn040226.html -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle--George Washington // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 08:29 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote: Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply wrong--in light of the Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim. Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that judges have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S. Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary. RBS Powers not given are powers denied. See the 10th Amendment: Quote The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. /Quote I do agree with you, that an amendment is not necessary. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Moral Anarchy is the seedbed of Tyranny--R. W. (Bob) Lee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
just sigh and lecture from the bedroom door. I step into the room, offer to help clean things up, and insist that it is cleaned. Gary Smith -- Jonathan Scott Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not make him a thoughtful one. Nor does it make him right. Nor does it mean he is following the Constitution. If they were to gage Constitutionality by the standard set by our Founding Fathers, they would have no question on the issue of homosexuality. In fact, they probably would have to reinstitute laws against it! It is my belief that the prophecy sometimes given to Joseph Smith, but definitely stated by Pres Benson, that the Constitution would hang by a thread and if it is to be saved it will be by the Elders of Israel, refers to homosexuality. John Adams and others have stated that the Constitution is for a moral people and none other. If we allow homosexuality to be normalized, then we will be giving up our moral clarity in exchange for a claim to freedom (in reality: licentiousness). We may as well claim freedom for molesting children and animals as to use this lame expression for homosexuality. Pres Packer once taught that we cannot use one virtue to beat up on another. Claims of freedom cannot be used to destroy other virtues, at least not without divine consequence. I believe the Church is standing up on this issue in many places because it is the key to saving the Constitution for a moral people, and for leaving it with some boundaries within which freedom can be enjoyed. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! At 05:24 PM 3/22/2004, Ron Scott wrote in response to Jim Cobabe: Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for legitimate and traditional marriage. Nothing in the constitution envisions the degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any particular union of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal attraction. It seems that some equally thoughtful judges in Massachusetts and elsewhere disagree with you. By proposing the constitutional amendment, the proposers themselves and supporters indicate that they too don't agree with you. Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply wrong--in light of the Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim. Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that judges have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S. Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary. RBS Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
But only if the current Constitutional powers are obeyed and honored. When we have mayors in San Francisco and elsewhere giving out marriage certificates in defiance of the law, then what piece of paper is there that can establish the law? And when judges overstep their proper role and legislate from the bench, then what happens if they ignore Congress? Or what happens if Congress does not have the cajones to moderate the courts? Pushing an amendment gives them reason to act on the lesser action of moderating the courts. Without the impetus given of an amendment, we have no pressure on Congress to act. So, even if it doesn't pass, or it takes years, I'm for the amendment going forth in discussion; if only to get Congress to do its duty. Gary Smith Steven Montgomery wrote: At 08:29 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote: Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply wrong--in light of the Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim. Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that judges have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S. Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary. RBS Powers not given are powers denied. See the 10th Amendment: Quote The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. /Quote I do agree with you, that an amendment is not necessary. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Moral Anarchy is the seedbed of Tyranny--R. W. (Bob) Lee Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
-Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! At 08:29 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote: Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply wrong--in light of the Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim. Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that judges have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S. Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary. RBS Powers not given are powers denied. See the 10th Amendment Shall we now debate the implicit, if not explicit meanings of the Bill of Rights until the cows come home? grin In any event, I'm pleased we agree: the amendment is not necessary. Put on your rain slicker and galoshes. Stormy weather's ahead. g. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
-Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not make him a thoughtful one. I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist judge is a negative description. By definition any appellate judge worth his gavel is an activist judge because he is often asked to interpret constitutional law. I daresay that one man's activist judge is another's strict constitutionalist. I recommend the following: instead of tossing about meaningless catch phrases, spend more time explaining what you mean, demonstrating why a particular court's decision violates the spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Email Caution
All--- I received a suspicious email earlier today purporting to be from my own domain at firstnephi.com. As FYI, you should never EVER receive anything from me or from my family's web site that would ask you to install software, give out passwords, etc. In this instance, it appears someone receiving this email may have been requested to install a virus or a trojan. (The attachment, which was a ZIP file, was deliberately omitted, and the password that's referenced would have unlocked the ZIP file.) Hopefully, no one else got this email. I send this warning out in the interest of caution. /Sandy/ On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:11:15 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello user of Firstnephi.com e-mail server, Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled because of unauthorized access. Pay attention on attached file. Attached file protected with the password for security reasons. Password is 72453. The Management, The Firstnephi.com team http://www.firstnephi.com (--- End of message ---) -- The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
Steven Montgomery wrote: If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as outlined in Article III, Section 2? http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction. This is why the pro-family forces are doomed to failure. They can't even agree among themselves about what needs to be done. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Activist Judges
RB Scott wrote: I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist judge is a negative description. By definition any appellate judge worth his gavel is an activist judge because he is often asked to interpret constitutional law. I daresay that one man's activist judge is another's strict constitutionalist. I recommend the following: instead of tossing about meaningless catch phrases, spend more time explaining what you mean, demonstrating why a particular court's decision violates the spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution. An activist judge is one that overturns precedent, common law, and common sense in his interpretation of the Constitution. In doing this he establishes precedent which is not the job of a judge. A judge is to judge, not create new law. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution Steven Montgomery wrote: If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as outlined in Article III, Section 2? http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction. This is why the pro-family forces are doomed to failure. They can't even agree among themselves about what needs to be done. --JWR I agree, John. Notice that yesterday the proponents of the amendment expanded language of the proposed amendment to give states the right to adopt same sex union legislation and even Orrin Hatch was dithering. Before this is over, I won't be surprised to see the church walk away from the whole deal because it is becoming increasingly obvious that the amendment will fail and even if it should pass will be about as sharply formed as, say, jello. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
RB Scott wrote: I do not support extramarital sex of any kind. What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined to permit a man to marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
RB Scott wrote: I agree, John. Notice that yesterday the proponents of the amendment expanded language of the proposed amendment to give states the right to adopt same sex union legislation and even Orrin Hatch was dithering. Where can I read about this? --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... RB Scott wrote: I do not support extramarital sex of any kind. What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined to permit a man to marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd answers. I've clearly stated that I am opposed to the state defining marriage, which I regard as a religious covenant. It seems to me that we have long acknowledged that what is permissible under the laws of the land may not be permissible in God's eyes. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Activist Judges
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Activist Judges RB Scott wrote: I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist judge is a negative description. By definition any appellate judge worth his gavel is an activist judge because he is often asked to interpret constitutional law. I daresay that one man's activist judge is another's strict constitutionalist. I recommend the following: instead of tossing about meaningless catch phrases, spend more time explaining what you mean, demonstrating why a particular court's decision violates the spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution. An activist judge is one that overturns precedent, common law, and common sense in his interpretation of the Constitution. In doing this he establishes precedent which is not the job of a judge. A judge is to judge, not create new law. --JWR Surely you recognize the subjective nature of such actions: his interpretations may not be yours. Insofar as precedents are concerned in the current thorny matter, it seems there are plenty of related common law precedents in Utah. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
Any newspaper in America, I presume. It was front page of the Globe today. I assume the NYT as well, although I have not yet read the Times today. RBS -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution RB Scott wrote: I agree, John. Notice that yesterday the proponents of the amendment expanded language of the proposed amendment to give states the right to adopt same sex union legislation and even Orrin Hatch was dithering. Where can I read about this? --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
RB Scott wrote: It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment defining **marriage.** Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex marriage. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... RB Scott wrote: It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment defining **marriage.** Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex marriage. --JWR I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should, therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as marriages. I also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will be represented/taught in primary and secondary public schools. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
RB Scott wrote: Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex marriage. --JWR I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should, therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as marriages. I also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will be represented/taught in primary and secondary public schools. So do you really think this will oppose same-sex marriage? I don't see how it will stop them from becoming common place. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 09:45 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote: But only if the current Constitutional powers are obeyed and honored. When we have mayors in San Francisco and elsewhere giving out marriage certificates in defiance of the law, then what piece of paper is there that can establish the law? And when judges overstep their proper role and legislate from the bench, then what happens if they ignore Congress? Or what happens if Congress does not have the cajones to moderate the courts? Pushing an amendment gives them reason to act on the lesser action of moderating the courts. Without the impetus given of an amendment, we have no pressure on Congress to act. So, even if it doesn't pass, or it takes years, I'm for the amendment going forth in discussion; if only to get Congress to do its duty. Gary Smith Well, even though I'm in favor of utilizing the power inherent in Congress vis a vis Article III, Section II of the United States Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of Federal Judges (And perhaps abolishing some Federal Courts altogether), and even though I think there are still problems with the amendment route, I did sign the petition urging passage of a Constitutional Marriage Amendment grin. So perhaps I'm just covering all the bases here. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] The only constant in the world is change--Karl Marx // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... RB Scott wrote: Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex marriage. --JWR I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should, therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as marriages. I also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will be represented/taught in primary and secondary public schools. So do you really think this will oppose same-sex marriage? I don't see how it will stop them from becoming common place. --JWR 1. Do you see the constitutional amendment, as now drafted, as an effective deterrant to same sex marriage? 2. If so, my concept is better because it reserves marriage blessings for the church. 3. If you're concerned about same sex cohabitation, neither plan forbids it. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly legal, as is heterosexual cohabitation, even though both are equivalent sins in the eyes of God. I do not see how the amendment as drafted will effectively prevent same-sex partnerships. Do you? And, if the proposed amendment loses, as I expect it will, we will likely have same sex **marriage** everywhere. There will be little room for negotiation, compromise, or local options. Nor will we be able to define how it will be presented in the schools (especially). The opportunity for a shades of gray solution will exist for a while yet (perhaps), thereafter the outcome will either be black or white. RBS P.S. I've expressed my opinion to several state and Federal elected officials, Republicans and Democrats. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote: -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... But I thought you did support same sex civil unions. Am I wrong? Support is probably not the right word, particularly given the explosive baggage that has been attached to practically everything in this debate. I do not support extramarital sex of any kind. Here some issues that I'm mulling over at the moment: 1) The state should not attempt to define/sanction ordinances of the church. The state should make laws that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The church should bless what it chooses to bless. I agree with you here. 2) As I read the constitution, the tax codes (for example) must ensure equal treatment under law for all people; special treatments/exemptions should be applied in uniform and consistent ways. No doubt certain kinds of well-defined domestic partnerships are of benefit to the state and therefore should be entitled to special taxation benefits/entitlements. Definitions of same ought to crafted very carefully and applied uniformly. Actually, I'm in favor of completely abolishing the income tax, and all its loopholes and exceptions, and replacing it with some type of national sales tax. This, in my opinion, is the only fair way to treat everyone as equals under the law. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Moral Anarchy is the seedbed of Tyranny--R. W. (Bob) Lee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote: I will continue to think...and will appreciate receiving relevant, thoughtful comments from any of you. RBS I don't think that you will have any problem with a dearth of commentary and opinion here on ZION. ;-) -- Steven Montgomery The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side. James Wilson // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
-Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! At 09:45 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote: But only if the current Constitutional powers are obeyed and honored. When we have mayors in San Francisco and elsewhere giving out marriage certificates in defiance of the law, then what piece of paper is there that can establish the law? And when judges overstep their proper role and legislate from the bench, then what happens if they ignore Congress? Or what happens if Congress does not have the cajones to moderate the courts? Pushing an amendment gives them reason to act on the lesser action of moderating the courts. Without the impetus given of an amendment, we have no pressure on Congress to act. So, even if it doesn't pass, or it takes years, I'm for the amendment going forth in discussion; if only to get Congress to do its duty. Gary Smith Well, even though I'm in favor of utilizing the power inherent in Congress vis a vis Article III, Section II of the United States Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of Federal Judges (And perhaps abolishing some Federal Courts altogether), and even though I think there are still problems with the amendment route, I did sign the petition urging passage of a Constitutional Marriage Amendment grin. So perhaps I'm just covering all the bases here. Tell us how you feel about the amendment now that we know there's a move afoot to change the language? grin What's Wilkins reaction to same? This thing is beginning to feel like an election year stunt gone haywire. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution
At 11:38 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote: Steven Montgomery wrote: If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as outlined in Article III, Section 2? http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction. This is why the pro-family forces are doomed to failure. They can't even agree among themselves about what needs to be done. --JWR But I did sign the petition urging passage of a marriage amendment. I'm willing to cover all bases. However, I haven't seen Wilkins mention *anything* at all about the article III, section 2 option. -- Steven Montgomery html a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3; img border=0 src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalogosmall.jpg; width=406 height=100/a /html http://www.stoptheftaa.org // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
-Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... SNIP --RON-- 2) As I read the constitution, the tax codes (for example) must ensure equal treatment under law for all people; special treatments/exemptions should be applied in uniform and consistent ways. No doubt certain kinds of well-defined domestic partnerships are of benefit to the state and therefore should be entitled to special taxation benefits/entitlements. Definitions of same ought to crafted very carefully and applied uniformly. --Steven-- Actually, I'm in favor of completely abolishing the income tax, and all its loopholes and exceptions, and replacing it with some type of national sales tax. This, in my opinion, is the only fair way to treat everyone as equals under the law. As I didn't ask a question, I can accuse you providing a non-responsive answer grin. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
-Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote: I will continue to think...and will appreciate receiving relevant, thoughtful comments from any of you. RBS I don't think that you will have any problem with a dearth of commentary and opinion here on ZION. ;-) Dang, I forgot to underscore **relevant.** // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 02:05 PM 3/23/2004, you wrote: Tell us how you feel about the amendment now that we know there's a move afoot to change the language? grin What's Wilkins reaction to same? This thing is beginning to feel like an election year stunt gone haywire. RBS The marriage amendment is doomed to failure. That's my opinion and how I feel. That's exactly why I support the never mentioned alternative--urging Congress to use their powers under article III, section 2 to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Far on the right, her dogs foul Scylla hides:Charybdis roaring on the left presides,And in her greedy whirlpool sucks the tides;Then spouts them from below: with fury driv'n,The waves mount up and wash the face of heav'n.But Scylla from her den, with open jaws,The sinking vessel in her eddy draws,Then dashes on the rocks--Virgil // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Okay, how about 200+ years of laws being interpreted a certain way, only to have judges granting new rights to certain minority groups. There are a lot of black ministers meeting in Atlanta today to fight the gay marriage acts in Georgia. They are demanding that gays not equate their movement with Civil Rights, since gays are not being forced to drink from a separate water fountain, sit in the back of the bus, or prevented from voting. Nor have they been enslaved. When judges ignore the rights of the majority, in favor of only the minority, then we have a serious problem. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not make him a thoughtful one. I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist judge is a negative description. By definition any appellate judge worth his gavel is an activist judge because he is often asked to interpret constitutional law. I daresay that one man's activist judge is another's strict constitutionalist. I recommend the following: instead of tossing about meaningless catch phrases, spend more time explaining what you mean, demonstrating why a particular court's decision violates the spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution. RBS Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Judging
At 07:22 PM 4/22/2004, you wrote: I went with my 11 year old on a school choir trip today to Calgary for a choral festival performance. rest deleted Hey Tom. Check the time and date on your computer. Your last email on ZION was dated 4/22/2004 at 7:22PM grin. It sure makes a mess out of my email sorts. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Our leisure, even our play, is a matter of serious concern. There is no neutral ground in the universe: every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counter-claimed by Satan. C. S. Lewis // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is okay? If the state gets out of the marriage business and some strange religion chooses to marry off its virgins to animals, is that then something that should be lawful, simply because the government isn't into marriage issues? I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide down if it doesn't have some controls. While I don't necessarily want the federal government to make laws on marriage, I do want the states to be able to control their own destiny. If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to Mass. But it shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... RB Scott wrote: I do not support extramarital sex of any kind. What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined to permit a man to marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd answers. I've clearly stated that I am opposed to the state defining marriage, which I regard as a religious covenant. It seems to me that we have long acknowledged that what is permissible under the laws of the land may not be permissible in God's eyes. RBS Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
So, in effect, you are not opposing anything. You are simply giving up on the fight against moral crimes against society. On the same note then, why do we not have the state get out of managing crimes altogether. Let it all be resolved in the civilian courts. Someone murdered? Why have prisons, when we can just have the family sue the person! Or, perhaps the family will thank the murderer for doing in a crummy member of the family! President Hinckley wrote a book a few years ago entitled, Standing for Something. If taking a stance means we raise the white flag, then we may as well just condemn all the world to despair and sin. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex marriage. --JWR I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should, therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as marriages. I also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will be represented/taught in primary and secondary public schools. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Black ministers should speak their minds. However, as the discussion was about activist judges I will point out that major civil rights decisions were written by activist judges. The nation is the better for their activity. I'll stick by my assertion that activist goes with the assignment to the Supreme Court and appellate courts. On the other subject, please give me an example of the 200-year history of laws/legal interpretations that define marriage. Finally, I agree with the black ministers: gays are not entitled to be classified as a minority group. Nevertheless, individuals are also entitled to seek the full protection of the law, as Steven will confirm. RBS -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! Okay, how about 200+ years of laws being interpreted a certain way, only to have judges granting new rights to certain minority groups. There are a lot of black ministers meeting in Atlanta today to fight the gay marriage acts in Georgia. They are demanding that gays not equate their movement with Civil Rights, since gays are not being forced to drink from a separate water fountain, sit in the back of the bus, or prevented from voting. Nor have they been enslaved. When judges ignore the rights of the majority, in favor of only the minority, then we have a serious problem. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not make him a thoughtful one. I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist judge is a negative description. By definition any appellate judge worth his gavel is an activist judge because he is often asked to interpret constitutional law. I daresay that one man's activist judge is another's strict constitutionalist. I recommend the following: instead of tossing about meaningless catch phrases, spend more time explaining what you mean, demonstrating why a particular court's decision violates the spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution. RBS Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
I think we should go for both of them. If one fails, we have an alternative method. As it is, there probably will not be a perfect solution, but in this case some solution may be better than allowing SSM from proliferating. Gary Smith Steven Montgomery wrote: At 02:05 PM 3/23/2004, you wrote: Tell us how you feel about the amendment now that we know there's a move afoot to change the language? grin What's Wilkins reaction to same? This thing is beginning to feel like an election year stunt gone haywire. RBS The marriage amendment is doomed to failure. That's my opinion and how I feel. That's exactly why I support the never mentioned alternative--urging Congress to use their powers under article III, section 2 to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Far on the right, her dogs foul Scylla hides:Charybdis roaring on the left presides,And in her greedy whirlpool sucks the tides;Then spouts them from below: with fury driv'n,The waves mount up and wash the face of heav'n.But Scylla from her den, with open jaws,The sinking vessel in her eddy draws,Then dashes on the rocks--Virgil Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
Gary: It's not easy to annoy me, but you're getting close. I wish you'd take greater care in reading my posts, and assessing the reality of the current situation before shooting off half-baked accusations. Think what you may. Have a pleasant night. Ron -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... So, in effect, you are not opposing anything. You are simply giving up on the fight against moral crimes against society. On the same note then, why do we not have the state get out of managing crimes altogether. Let it all be resolved in the civilian courts. Someone murdered? Why have prisons, when we can just have the family sue the person! Or, perhaps the family will thank the murderer for doing in a crummy member of the family! President Hinckley wrote a book a few years ago entitled, Standing for Something. If taking a stance means we raise the white flag, then we may as well just condemn all the world to despair and sin. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex marriage. --JWR I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should, therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as marriages. I also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will be represented/taught in primary and secondary public schools. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
Are you related to Red Davis? -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is okay? If the state gets out of the marriage business and some strange religion chooses to marry off its virgins to animals, is that then something that should be lawful, simply because the government isn't into marriage issues? I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide down if it doesn't have some controls. While I don't necessarily want the federal government to make laws on marriage, I do want the states to be able to control their own destiny. If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to Mass. But it shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... RB Scott wrote: I do not support extramarital sex of any kind. What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined to permit a man to marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd answers. I've clearly stated that I am opposed to the state defining marriage, which I regard as a religious covenant. It seems to me that we have long acknowledged that what is permissible under the laws of the land may not be permissible in God's eyes. RBS Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
-Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! At 02:05 PM 3/23/2004, you wrote: Tell us how you feel about the amendment now that we know there's a move afoot to change the language? grin What's Wilkins reaction to same? This thing is beginning to feel like an election year stunt gone haywire. RBS The marriage amendment is doomed to failure. That's my opinion and how I feel. That's exactly why I support the never mentioned alternative--urging Congress to use their powers under article III, section 2 to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Dang, the right and the left could meet in the middle on this one. How novel. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
No, but I know the guy. Don't agree with him on everything. But all I can say is I cannot judge you, Ron. Only your words. And if you feel offended by my judging of your words, then either I am truly misunderstanding them (as are others, I might add), you are failing at putting your true feelings/intentions down in words, or you are saying what you mean and are offended because my words cut to the core? I am not sorry for my words against gay marriage or gay activities of any kind. I pray for those who have this illness (I see it on the same level as drug addiction or alcoholism, but as a graver sin). But I don't cut them slack simply because they have several television programs on now that showcase them. Nor do I cut them slack because they have a victim mentality. They are in need of repentance, much more than they need a kind word from me. I don't want to make them feel good in their current circumstances, just so they can burn in hell later for not repenting. Recognition of an addiction is the first step toward resolution. And with addicts of any kind, it is a difficult row to hoe; but one they must hoe regardless of any circumstances. But to ignore their actions and lifestyles is to encourage them to greater demands, until they no longer are on the fringes, but in the center of the attention. The BoM shows that slippery slope, and I don't think I need to be involved in it. As with Jacob, if I want to have my garments clean from others' sins, I must speak out boldly against serious sins, whether it is popular or not, whether it is enjoyable to do or not. I don't know how you feel on things, Ron; because you say one thing, but then your words seem to contradict. Or at least your words portray a willingness to ignore others' sins because you fear to appear judgmental. If I'm misreading this, please let me know, because I do want to understand your position. But if your words say something I disagree with, I'll be clear to question those words in order to get you to clarify (which I must admit, seems to be a hard thing for you to do, as you usually waive off opportunities to specify what you really mean). If I agree, I'll say I agree. If I totally disagree, I will attempt to be kind, but I may show harshness to words that contradict themselves, as I feel you have done in the discussion with gay marriage. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: Are you related to Red Davis? -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is okay? If the state gets out of the marriage business and some strange religion chooses to marry off its virgins to animals, is that then something that should be lawful, simply because the government isn't into marriage issues? I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide down if it doesn't have some controls. While I don't necessarily want the federal government to make laws on marriage, I do want the states to be able to control their own destiny. If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to Mass. But it shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... RB Scott wrote: I do not support extramarital sex of any kind. What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined to permit a man to marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd answers. I've clearly stated that I am opposed to the state defining marriage, which I regard as a religious covenant. It seems to me that we have long acknowledged that what is permissible under the laws of the land may not be permissible in God's eyes. RBS Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
, I use both methods as necessary. I don't just sigh and lecture from the bedroom door. I step into the room, offer to help clean things up, and insist that it is cleaned. Gary Smith -- Jonathan Scott -- Jonathan Scott // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Maybe I and Ron are wrong.
2 Nephi 23:9 9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. 2 Nephi 23:11 11 And I will punish the world for evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay down the haughtiness of the terrible. 2 Nephi 23:17 17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver and gold, nor shall they delight in it. Mede: one of an Indo-European people, related to the Persians, who entered northeastern Iran probably as early as the 17th century BC and settled in the plateau land that came to be known as Media (q.v.). Britannica CD 98 Standard Edition ©1994-1998 by Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 2 Nephi 23:19 19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. 2 Nephi 23:22 22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her day shall not be prolonged. For I will destroy her speedily; yea, for I will be merciful unto my people, but the wicked shall perish. -- Jonathan Scott -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] another approach
I do not know if this idea has any merit, but wanted to get your opinions. granted, it may not hold water with some of our faith, and probably less water with those who are not of our persuasion or are secular in their orientation. perhaps we are taking the wrong approach in determining what is consitutional/not constitutional in this current debate over same sex marriage. maybe a better approach would be to ask if the Church supports the particular item or not. would it be correct/valid to say that if the church supports a matter regarding the law of the land, then that particular item is also constitutional? Bob Taylor ** There are no coincidences, only small miracles. Author Unknown ** // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
Gary: I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. I don't appreciate be asked absurd questions that have no bearing whatsoever on the issues we're discussing. And, I get annoyed when you assume I believe one way when the post to which you're responding clearly suggests just the opposite. If my purpose in being here was only to tweak and debate I would respond to your rather silly assumptions and questions (and infuriate John in the process). As I am here to discuss, I refuse to respond to bait and other nonsense. If you want to *talk* seriously, have at it. You'll find me an active and responsible participant. If you simply want to attack and twist my comments, ridicule and posture, kindly put me in your kill file. To reiterate: not once have I written that I favor gay marriage, yet you insist that I do. Not once have I written that I condone homosexual activities, yet you assert that I do. I am quite willing to make personal judgments of other people. When I do, I attempt to be even-handed about it to wit: I think that extramarital heterosexual and homosexual intercourse are equivalent violations of the laws of God. Do you? I suspect not. If I'm right, this probably explains most of the difficulty you're having with my posts. Ron -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 5:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... No, but I know the guy. Don't agree with him on everything. But all I can say is I cannot judge you, Ron. Only your words. And if you feel offended by my judging of your words, then either I am truly misunderstanding them (as are others, I might add), you are failing at putting your true feelings/intentions down in words, or you are saying what you mean and are offended because my words cut to the core? I am not sorry for my words against gay marriage or gay activities of any kind. I pray for those who have this illness (I see it on the same level as drug addiction or alcoholism, but as a graver sin). But I don't cut them slack simply because they have several television programs on now that showcase them. Nor do I cut them slack because they have a victim mentality. They are in need of repentance, much more than they need a kind word from me. I don't want to make them feel good in their current circumstances, just so they can burn in hell later for not repenting. Recognition of an addiction is the first step toward resolution. And with addicts of any kind, it is a difficult row to hoe; but one they must hoe regardless of any circumstances. But to ignore their actions and lifestyles is to encourage them to greater demands, until they no longer are on the fringes, but in the center of the attention. The BoM shows that slippery slope, and I don't think I need to be involved in it. As with Jacob, if I want to have my garments clean from others' sins, I must speak out boldly against serious sins, whether it is popular or not, whether it is enjoyable to do or not. I don't know how you feel on things, Ron; because you say one thing, but then your words seem to contradict. Or at least your words portray a willingness to ignore others' sins because you fear to appear judgmental. If I'm misreading this, please let me know, because I do want to understand your position. But if your words say something I disagree with, I'll be clear to question those words in order to get you to clarify (which I must admit, seems to be a hard thing for you to do, as you usually waive off opportunities to specify what you really mean). If I agree, I'll say I agree. If I totally disagree, I will attempt to be kind, but I may show harshness to words that contradict themselves, as I feel you have done in the discussion with gay marriage. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: Are you related to Red Davis? -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is okay? If the state gets out of the marriage business and some strange religion chooses to marry off its virgins to animals, is that then something that should be lawful, simply because the government isn't into marriage issues? I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide down if it doesn't have some controls. While I don't necessarily want the federal government to make laws on marriage, I do want the states to be able to control their own destiny. If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to Mass. But it shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... RB Scott wrote: I do not support extramarital sex of any
[ZION] Testing legality
In my view, the restoration has a poor record of success when it comes to testing the laws of the land in court. For more than 150 years it has been a dismal and discouraging effort for the saints of God to importune the courts for redress. In legal matters regarding everything from trivial personal harassment lawsuits against Joseph Smith, on up to the testing of the constitutionality of federal anti-polygamy laws, the church has waged and consistently lost many important legal battles through the courts at every level. Having personally sustained my own significant trauma at the handling of the courts, I shrink from the very suggestion that we might obtain any kind of satisfying judgement in the several legal matters currently concerning the general body of the church. But, notwithstanding my own reticence, and even in the face of confusion within the ranks regarding these matters, we are clearly obligated to follow the consistent counsel of the brethren in this matter. The saints have always been instructed to make every effort to work within the law. We believe in honoring and sustaining the law of the land. In many instances throughout church history, church members have been horribly abused at the hands of the system which should have protected them. Yet they always continued to press for justice and sound judgement. I can see no other alternative. In the case of the assault on marriage laws, I honestly believe it may be a futile effort. But we ought to follow the example set by our stalwart predecessors, in exhausting every recourse to obtain legal settlement of the current issues. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Testing legality
Hello, Jim thanks for your response. evidently age and education have not sharpened my writing skills very much. everything you stated was/is true-- historically, the Church has not fared well in the hands of the U.S. legal system. However, I was asking the opposite question: would it be correct/valid to say that if the church supports a matter regarding the law of the land, then that particular item is also constitutional? I hope this makes my question a bit more clear. Bob Taylor In my view, the restoration has a poor record of success when it comes to testing the laws of the land in court. For more than 150 years it has been a dismal and discouraging effort for the saints of God to importune the courts for redress. In legal matters regarding everything from trivial personal harassment lawsuits against Joseph Smith, on up to the testing of the constitutionality of federal anti-polygamy laws, the church has waged and consistently lost many important legal battles through the courts at every level. Having personally sustained my own significant trauma at the handling of the courts, I shrink from the very suggestion that we might obtain any kind of satisfying judgement in the several legal matters currently concerning the general body of the church. But, notwithstanding my own reticence, and even in the face of confusion within the ranks regarding these matters, we are clearly obligated to follow the consistent counsel of the brethren in this matter. The saints have always been instructed to make every effort to work within the law. We believe in honoring and sustaining the law of the land. In many instances throughout church history, church members have been horribly abused at the hands of the system which should have protected them. Yet they always continued to press for justice and sound judgement. I can see no other alternative. In the case of the assault on marriage laws, I honestly believe it may be a futile effort. But we ought to follow the example set by our stalwart predecessors, in exhausting every recourse to obtain legal settlement of the current issues. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ** There are no coincidences, only small miracles. Author Unknown ** // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Scalia and Lawrence v. Texas
Does anyone know how I can find an online copy of Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas? I've Googled, and all I can find are news stories, not the actual dissenting opinion. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Scalia and Lawrence v. Texas
John W. Redelfs wrote: Does anyone know how I can find an online copy of Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas? I've Googled, and all I can find are news stories, not the actual dissenting opinion. --JWR Nevermind. I found it. Sorry to bother you. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Spit It Out
RB Scott wrote: To reiterate: not once have I written that I favor gay marriage, yet you insist that I do. Not once have I written that I condone homosexual activities, yet you assert that I do. I think I see a possible source of misunderstanding here, Ron. Instead of saying, ...not once have a written that I favor gay marriage, yet you insist that I do, why not say, I am opposed to gay marriage, yet you insist that I am not? Instead of saying, Not once have I written that I condone homosexual activities, why not say, I don't condone homosexual activities? It seems to me that you typically talk around a topic instead of getting to the thesis sentence. Instead of taking a position and then defending it, you speak in hypotheticals and as a result you come across as evasive, and unwilling to be pinned down on your own position. It is probably just a difference in the way we communicate. But it leads to misunderstanding. Do you remember Gordon Banks? The man was brilliant in debate. His chief tactic was to never make a positive statement but to mercilessly attack the positive statements of others. In other words, he was all rebuttal with no statement. Also, he would usually write super short posts of one or two lines making it very difficult to shoot him down because he presented such a small target. I used to try to pin him down on his own feelings and opinions, but it was almost impossible. He was a master at answering questions with questions, and changing the subject to avoid saying anything that somebody could argue with. After all, his job was to shoot down the arguments of others, not vice versa. I finally got so frustrated trying to get him to take a stand, that I resorted to taking stands for him and attributing them to him. The tactic worked once in a while. If the words I put in his mouth were far enough off the mark, he would occasionally actually tell us what he really thought. But it annoyed him and was like pulling teeth for me. Have you ever noticed how the Democratic Party platform usually has a lot of ambiguous, self-contradictory rhetoric in it? Almost every assertion or statement is cancelled out by some other assertion or statement elsewhere in the document. If a writer is vague or ambiguous enough, it is almost impossible to prove him wrong because he hasn't really said anything. I think that a lot of us misunderstand your posts because you don't come right out and say what you mean. We end up assigning meanings, and invariably we get it wrong. For an example, you have repeatedly said that you believe that the law under the Constitution ought to guarantee equal rights. Well, duh. I have never met anyone who consciously felt that the law should discriminate and persecute various minorities. But what do you really mean when you say it? Does that mean that you think that homosexuals should be able to marry? Or does it mean that you think that people who oppose same sex marriage are Neanderthals trying to hijack the Constitution to pursue their own agenda? What? How can we talk around this for so long and still remain ignorant about where you stand? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have been clear, and I'm just muddled in my understanding. But from where I sit, a lot of your discourse seems to talk around the topic without ever really stating your position. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand your otherwise lucent prose. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === I know of nothing in the history of the Church or in the history of the world to compare with our present circumstances. Nothing happened in Sodom and Gomorrah which exceeds the wickedness and depravity which surrounds us now. --President Boyd K. Packer, February 28, 2004 === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Scalia and Lawrence v. Texas
Here's the court's url http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01slipopinion.html -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Scalia and Lawrence v. Texas Does anyone know how I can find an online copy of Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas? I've Googled, and all I can find are news stories, not the actual dissenting opinion. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] another approach
Bob, I do see your point about constitutionality. It is an interesting idea. If I understand correctly, you are imagining what would result if we begin from an axiomatic assumption that church doctrines reflect the true constitutional ideal, and we might use this standard for judging whether laws are constitutionally sound. I think your suggestion basically meshes with my own thinking on such matters. It is far more important to me to consider the counsel of prophets of God, in deliberating on of matters of justice. It truly seems like things would be a lot different if there were enough judges who applied this kind of vision and discernment. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey
I sing (soprano, mostly, but can sing alto when needed) and play piano. I'm not the greatest at piano but, with practice, I can play passably enough to be the pianist in sacrament meeting when our regular pianist/organist is out of of town. I used to take clarinet lessons, but only because my mother made me. Back then, I quit as soon as I could because of that. I now wish I'd continued with the clarinet. Heidi the fair [Original Message] From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 3/19/2004 3:37:32 PM Subject: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey How many of you play a musical instrument? How well do you play? I'm curious about the musical makeup of the Zion list. John W. Redelfs sings well, plays the piano fairly, and the violin poorly. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] another approach
Jim-- thank you for articulating what I was trying to say. perhaps if I hang out more with the members of Zion, some of that may rub off on me. Bob Taylor Bob, I do see your point about constitutionality. It is an interesting idea. If I understand correctly, you are imagining what would result if we begin from an axiomatic assumption that church doctrines reflect the true constitutional ideal, and we might use this standard for judging whether laws are constitutionally sound. I think your suggestion basically meshes with my own thinking on such matters. It is far more important to me to consider the counsel of prophets of God, in deliberating on of matters of justice. It truly seems like things would be a lot different if there were enough judges who applied this kind of vision and discernment. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ** There are no coincidences, only small miracles. Author Unknown ** // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Declare war on us, we'll love you for it
of defeated countries, anyway. It doesn't seem fair to us. I'm not sure we what all we should have done; forced the Soviets back to their borders, for one thing. Then, perhaps, abolished the German state (which was forcibly cobbled together anyway), and humanely but firmly enforced a diaspora of Germans throughout the world. Then we could have allowed private parties to move in and willingly bear the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure. Oh wait, these are darkie policies. The German's white skins exempted them from such treatment. Lucky sons-a-guns, it saved 'em from the atomic treatment, as well. White power, y'all. Gary: No, cultural shifts can be forced from without. If we were to take a group of people and begin force-feeding them new ideas over several decades, it would eventually begin to affect them as a whole. They already have leaders who are force-feeding them ideas. You'd have to destroy those leaders first. In fact, you'd have to destroy all existing factions, Mao-style, before you could reshape the nation to suit your needs. For example, just a few decades ago, homosexuality was considered aberrant behavior in the USA. Due to a media push to re-educate the populace, the average American now accepts it as part of normal society (although most will say: as long as it isn't in their own home). The sexual revolution succeeded because Americans wanted it to. We wanted to get our glandular kicks and so we allowed the destruction of morals that is reaching it's last stages today. Gary: Not change overnight. But over a period of a few decades, and they will begin to forget authoritarianism and cherish the freedoms they have. Only if they know what freedom is. === The code of the schoolyard, Marge! The rules that teach a boy to be a man. Let's see. Don't tattle. Always make fun of those different from you. Never say anything, unless you're sure everyone feels exactly the same way you do. - Homer Simpson // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Declare war on us, we'll love you for it
Jack Redelfs wrote: I ... read Will Ariel Durant's _History Of Civilization_ series twice) ... Grampa Bill exclaims: Yikes!!! The BLT's home schooling must'a been rough! Love Y'all, Grampa Bill in Savannah With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine! // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Vote Now!
the gospel will be condemned to the spirit prison until we can figure out the mess that will be caused. We as members of God's church must oppose such efforts. Harold Stuart // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
That's a cop out. A touchy, feely, liberal cop out. You either need to defend your position, or give ground. The Bible is VERY clear that Christ preached repentance. In Matthew 4:17, it tells us that From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. This is literally the first thing he did after baptism and his 40 day fast. What was the last thing Jesus did? He stood with his disciples and told them: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have ccommanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20). And what did he command them to teach? Repentance. How about in our day? Let's try DC 19 on for size: 13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the acommandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name; 14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them; 15 Therefore I command you to repentrepent, lest I asmite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your bsufferings be sorehow sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have asuffered these things for all, that they might not bsuffer if they would crepent; 17 But if they would not repent they must asuffer even as I So, while he will forgive IF we repent, we must suffer even as He did, if we do not. In fact the blessing of forgiveness and mercy is something I truly hope and wish for, but I don't gamble on it. I work for my salvation, repenting as fast and as hard as I can, to ensure I merit that forgiveness. As to those who believe Christ is super-forgiving of sinners, let's see what Nephi says in 2Nephi28: 8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be bmerry; nevertheless, fear Godhe will justify in committing a little sin; yea, elie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a fpit for thy neighbor; there is gno harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. 9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish cdoctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark. 10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them. 11 Yea, they have all gone out of the away; they have become corrupted. 12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. So, Nephi tells us that some in the last days are going to push the extreme forgiveness idea of Christ. I'm sure you aren't as extreme as some evangelicals who think that a mere belief in Christ merits exaltation. But such are called false teachers with false doctrine. And, in fact, the blood of the saints shall cry against them! Now, I believe God is very forgiving. After all, he offers a kingdom of glory to almost all his children. However, that does not extend to exaltation. DC 76 describes the exalted as the valiant ones, not the wishy-washy. In Revelation, God says he will spew the lukewarm out, so as to give us no misgivings as to what is required for exaltation. Now, just where are these scriptures that you seem to believe in? And no, it isn't a matter of semantics. We agree that Christ is merciful, but modern prophets have also told us that mercy cannot rob justice. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: Gary: Look, I don't think we're ever going to agree. I'm probably as aware as you are as to what God taught and what he didn't. I think are differences are in approach. I'm inclined to teach the gospel, you seem inclined to preach repentance. I'm inclined to believe that God must be a pretty forgiving God if he's willing to forgive the sins of repentant sinners like you and me. I believe that God wants to include as many people as He possibly can...and that it's my job to do my bit to ensure the roster is as large as possible. You take a different tack. Good luck to you. Our purposes are the same, more or less even if our methods are different. Ron -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Vote Now! How about his prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed by God for its sins? Since Christ is God, he was doing more than just foreseeing an event - he was being Judge, Jury and Executioner. He will do it again at the Second Coming. We must remember that the Mosaic Law was a lower law
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Only he can fully judge us, but the Lord calls upon mankind to judge. Why else have judges in Israel? And we can often tell if a person has repented or not, by whether they have abandoned their sins. Someone living in a gay relationship and pushing for gay rights has not abandoned his sins, therefore, has not fully repented. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: Ron Scott: Did I suggest otherwise? I don't think so. I'll suggest that repentance is between the sinner and the Lord. Period. Only the Lord knows true repentance and only the Lord is capable of judging us according to all of our good works and of offering all of us His grace -- after all we can do for ourselves. Did I misunderstand Him? RBS Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
-Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! That's a cop out. A touchy, feely, liberal cop out. You either need to defend your position, or give ground. Oh phooey. You're itching for a fight and I'm not going to give you one, no matter what names you call me or how you twist my words. As I noted earlier, I emphasize the teaching instructions from Christ; you emphasize the repentance message. Both lead to the same end. I just happen to think my way is more productive. You're entitled to do as you will. Have a good time. I'd argue that teaching effectively always provokes repentance whereas crying repentance from the rooftops does not always provoke learning and true repentance. By the way, the last thing Christ did on this earth was forgive. Ron Scott The Bible is VERY clear that Christ preached repentance. In Matthew 4:17, it tells us that From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. This is literally the first thing he did after baptism and his 40 day fast. What was the last thing Jesus did? He stood with his disciples and told them: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have ccommanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20). And what did he command them to teach? Repentance. How about in our day? Let's try DC 19 on for size: 13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the acommandments which you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my name; 14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them; 15 Therefore I command you to repentrepent, lest I asmite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your bsufferings be sorehow sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have asuffered these things for all, that they might not bsuffer if they would crepent; 17 But if they would not repent they must asuffer even as I So, while he will forgive IF we repent, we must suffer even as He did, if we do not. In fact the blessing of forgiveness and mercy is something I truly hope and wish for, but I don't gamble on it. I work for my salvation, repenting as fast and as hard as I can, to ensure I merit that forgiveness. As to those who believe Christ is super-forgiving of sinners, let's see what Nephi says in 2Nephi28: 8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be bmerry; nevertheless, fear Godhe will justify in committing a little sin; yea, elie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a fpit for thy neighbor; there is gno harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. 9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish cdoctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark. 10 And the blood of the saints shall cry from the ground against them. 11 Yea, they have all gone out of the away; they have become corrupted. 12 Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. So, Nephi tells us that some in the last days are going to push the extreme forgiveness idea of Christ. I'm sure you aren't as extreme as some evangelicals who think that a mere belief in Christ merits exaltation. But such are called false teachers with false doctrine. And, in fact, the blood of the saints shall cry against them! Now, I believe God is very forgiving. After all, he offers a kingdom of glory to almost all his children. However, that does not extend to exaltation. DC 76 describes the exalted as the valiant ones, not the wishy-washy. In Revelation, God says he will spew the lukewarm out, so as to give us no misgivings as to what is required for exaltation. Now, just where are these scriptures that you seem to believe in? And no, it isn't a matter of semantics. We agree that Christ is merciful, but modern prophets have also told us that mercy cannot rob justice. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: Gary: Look, I don't think we're ever going to agree. I'm probably as aware as you are as to what God taught and what he didn't. I think are differences are in approach. I'm inclined to teach the gospel, you seem inclined to preach repentance. I'm inclined to believe that God must be a pretty forgiving God if he's willing to forgive the sins of repentant sinners like you and me. I believe that God
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Harold Stuart wrote: [RB Scott] I'm inclined to believe that God must be a pretty forgiving God if he's willing to forgive the sins of repentant sinners like you and me. I believe that God wants to include as many people as He possibly can...and that it's my job to do my bit to ensure the roster is as large as possible. You take a different tack. Good luck to you. Our purposes are the same, more or less even if our methods are different. You see, the only way that one can be included in that roster is to repent and become clean through the blood of Christ. Verses 20 and 21 are pretty clear -- the gospel we must preach is the gospel of repentance. If you don't teach repentance, you don't teach the gospel. Too many of us are like Neville Chamberlain. We think that evil can be won by appeasement. The idea is that if we just compromise a bit here and give a little there all will be well. The problem is that compromise and negotiations only work between honorable men. Satan knows that every time we compromise with him we give up our power. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. The current battle is not over civil rights, as some would claim. That's just a smokescreen. The real battle is for the salvation of souls. Sexual sins are real, addictive, and terribly difficult to overcome. People who cannot overcome these sins receive God's righteous judgment. Can we not see the plan of the evil one? More and more of the things that condemn people to eternal damnation are being integrated into society. Abortion, which in but the rarest of cases is nothing more than cold-blooded murder, now enjoys a legally protected place in our society. The problem is that murderers are damned. Adulterers, fornicators, and those who practice other gross sexual sins have a legally protected place in society. The problem is that those who unrepentantly practice sexual sins are damned. Society embraces those things it legally protects. It tells those who live within it that it is OK to do those things. If a society teaches its people to do evil, it encourages them to be damned. God has repeatedly destroyed such societies. WE ARE NOT EXEMPT! The struggle, as I see it, is on two levels. The first, obviously, is that of good vs. evil in absolute terms. If we have a testimony of the Gospel, and particularly if we've gone through all of its saving ordinances, then we know what's good, what's evil, or at least we have a better idea as between the two. Consequently, we see trends within our society that are disturbing and even alarming, we can speak to those things from that frame of reference. This first struggle is a deeply personal one, in that we work out our own salvation (then concurrently work on our family's) before we work on the salvation of others. The second struggle is that because of apostasy, there are clearly different ideas as to what constitutes salvation, which in turn leads to different ideas as to right and wrong. This struggle is within society itself, and probably has been that way from the beginning. Now what the Lord says to us personally and through the scriptures is clear and unmistakable, but part of that is because of the witness of the Holy Ghost, and part of that is because some of our scriptures are unique to us. Where things become more problematic is within society itself, because 1) apart from the Restored Gospel, there's no witness of the Holy Ghost (only the light of Christ, if at all); 2) there are no common scriptures--no one even agrees on the translation of the Bible that should be used; and therefore, 3) There doesn't seem to be a common consensus as to what ought to be the basic principles this society should operate under. Or the core values, as I told Ron a while ago. And yet one of the basic principles America was founded on involves the freedom of society to worship how and where it may, which by necessity seems to place all religious beliefs, all scriptures, and all concepts of right and wrong on the same playing field... regardless of what sort of a testimony we may have regarding them. Or to be plain about it: How do we allow for people to believe and worship where and how they may without also accepting or tolerating evil...? I actually agree with you as to what you wrote. It's how we apply these things to society as a whole that's part of what I'm wrestling with. All the best, /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
-Original Message- From: Sander J. Rabinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! SNIP Now what the Lord says to us personally and through the scriptures is clear and unmistakable, but part of that is because of the witness of the Holy Ghost, and part of that is because some of our scriptures are unique to us. Where things become more problematic is within society itself, because 1) apart from the Restored Gospel, there's no witness of the Holy Ghost (only the light of Christ, if at all); 2) there are no common scriptures--no one even agrees on the translation of the Bible that should be used; and therefore, 3) There doesn't seem to be a common consensus as to what ought to be the basic principles this society should operate under. Or the core values, as I told Ron a while ago. And yet one of the basic principles America was founded on involves the freedom of society to worship how and where it may, which by necessity seems to place all religious beliefs, all scriptures, and all concepts of right and wrong on the same playing field... regardless of what sort of a testimony we may have regarding them. Or to be plain about it: How do we allow for people to believe and worship where and how they may without also accepting or tolerating evil...? Well put, Sandy. To me -- others will surely differ -- the divinely-inspired U.S. Constitution is the guide for how we should deal with such matters. In asserting that the Constitution is divinely inspired, God suggests that that equality, rule of law, and freedom to worship and choose right from wrong are paramount. The Constitution does not -- need not -- endorse evil doing per se, but it should continue to give us the right to choose for ourselves and, within reason, make shades of gray assessments as society correctly or incorrectly (ultimately) deems appropriate. If God intended that we should be compelled to behave ourselves, a different cast of characters would have emerged victorious in the pre-existence. I actually agree with you as to what you wrote. It's how we apply these things to society as a whole that's part of what I'm wrestling with. I think God intends us to wrestle a lot. It seems define what this life is all about. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 11:10 AM 3/22/2004, you wrote: Thus sayeth the self-appointed Judge in Israel. By the way, who's pushing for gay rights here? I've seen a few here calling for equal treatment under the law for all, which is something guaranteed by our divinely inspired constitution. RBS Yes, but equality before the law and equal treatment under the law for every liberal scheme coming down the pipe is two different things. -- Steven Montgomery html a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3; img border=0 src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalogosmall.jpg; width=406 height=100/a /html http://www.stoptheftaa.org // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 02:24 PM 3/22/2004, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! At 11:10 AM 3/22/2004, you wrote: Thus sayeth the self-appointed Judge in Israel. By the way, who's pushing for gay rights here? I've seen a few here calling for equal treatment under the law for all, which is something guaranteed by our divinely inspired constitution. RBS Yes, but equality before the law and equal treatment under the law for every liberal scheme coming down the pipe is two different things. True enough. I wasn't talking about schemes, however. I wuz talking about people. RBS Ok grin. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle--George Washington // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Major Announcement
In other news, NASA will announce a major scientific finding Tuesday at 2:00PM eastern time. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/opportunity_announcement_040322.html -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Recall the new star that announced the birth at Bethlehem? It was in its precise orbit long before it so shone. We are likewise placed in human orbits to illuminate. Divine correlation functions not only in the cosmos but on this planet, too. After all, the Book of Mormon plates were not buried in Belgium, only to have Joseph Smith born centuries later in distant Bombay. (Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Conference Report, Saturday Morning, Oct 2002) // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Grimy Teeth ©2004 by Jonathan Scott Once upon a time there were two boys and they were the best of friends. Unfortunately for both though, they were both about as lazy as they could be. They would wake each morning from under their two piles of never washed blankets to stand in the middles of their never cleaned rooms to look out the grimy panes of their never washed windows to see the clutter that filled their never tended yards. And they were each happy. The disgust of their environment apparently did not disgust them. And each of them lived their lives contentedly amidst the grime, the roaches and the disease. One day, one boy's father saw his son desperately coughing as he lay contentedly upon his gray and sickly bed and the father knew that his son would soon become even more sick and possibly die. He knew that if the boy did not clean his world now that he might not live much longer. And so, out of fear for his son's well being, the father began to yell and scream at him. HOW CAN YOU LIVE LIKE THIS? he yelled. ANIMALS ARE MORE KEMPT! YOU SHAME ME WITH YOUR LAZINESS! he screamed. The father then picked up his hand and struck the boy across his face and the boy fell to the ground in tears. The father then stood over the boy and threatened to strike him again if he did not change his ways. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. spoke the boy in absolute fear through his gray and grimy teeth. CLEAN THIS ROOM AND THIS WORLD NOW OR WHEN I RETURN I SHALL BEAT YOU TO PIECES! yelled and screamed the father. The father then stood and left the room...leaving the boy to sit on the ground sick with fear. And so, the boy stood and began to clean. He was afraid. On that same day, the other's boy's father came to his room to see the filth and grime and disease of his son. He also was amazed at the extent of the grime. But, because the son was yet healthy and not yet in danger, he knew that he could take his time to teach the boy. Son, this is not good. You cannot live this way. If you continue to live like this, you will catch some sort of disease and you might die. Son, I love you. Please stand up and clean. OK father. said the boy through grimy teeth. He then rolled over in his gray and stained bed and went back to sleep. The father was sad, but chose to let the boy choose his own life. He kicked aside the empty cans and cereal boxes and made his way to the door of the bedroom. The next day, the father returned to see the boy still in bed. On the boy's face there was a rash. And when the father entered, the boy seemed to not be able to lay comfortably amidst the garbage. His body seemed to be in pain. Son, the pain that you are feeling and that rash that is on your face both come from the garbage that you live amongst. If you clean, your body will heal. Please clean. I love you. The son, understanding somewhat the message of his father stood from his bed and began to clean. The father smiled and left. The first boy managed to clean his room before his father returned and therefore wasn't beaten to pieces by him. As you can probably guess, that boy never loved his father. He was too afraid of him to love him. And so he lived the rest of his days in fear. He was never very happy. And he was never grateful for the health and long life that his father had given him. The second boy struggled with cleaning his entire days. After years of filth, sickness, and inconvenience though, the boy began to understand and to change. The boy eventually learned to clean of his own free will and loved his father for having cared enough about him to teach him. He had health and a long life and loved his father till the end of his days. -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! That's a cop out. A touchy, feely, liberal cop out. You either need to defend your position, or give ground. Oh phooey. You're itching for a fight and I'm not going to give you one, no matter what names you call me or how you twist my words. As I noted earlier, I emphasize the teaching instructions from Christ; you emphasize the repentance message. Both lead to the same end. I just happen to think my way is more productive. You're entitled to do as you will. Have a good time. I'd argue that teaching effectively always provokes repentance whereas crying repentance from the rooftops does not always provoke learning and true repentance. By the way, the last thing Christ did on this earth was forgive. Ron Scott The Bible is VERY clear that Christ preached repentance. In Matthew 4:17, it tells us that From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. This is literally the first thing he did after baptism and his 40 day fast. What was the last thing Jesus did? He stood with his
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
I'm lousy at parables. Please explain. -Original Message- From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 6:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! Grimy Teeth ©2004 by Jonathan Scott Once upon a time there were two boys and they were the best of friends. Unfortunately for both though, they were both about as lazy as they could be. They would wake each morning from under their two piles of never washed blankets to stand in the middles of their never cleaned rooms to look out the grimy panes of their never washed windows to see the clutter that filled their never tended yards. And they were each happy. The disgust of their environment apparently did not disgust them. And each of them lived their lives contentedly amidst the grime, the roaches and the disease. One day, one boy's father saw his son desperately coughing as he lay contentedly upon his gray and sickly bed and the father knew that his son would soon become even more sick and possibly die. He knew that if the boy did not clean his world now that he might not live much longer. And so, out of fear for his son's well being, the father began to yell and scream at him. HOW CAN YOU LIVE LIKE THIS? he yelled. ANIMALS ARE MORE KEMPT! YOU SHAME ME WITH YOUR LAZINESS! he screamed. The father then picked up his hand and struck the boy across his face and the boy fell to the ground in tears. The father then stood over the boy and threatened to strike him again if he did not change his ways. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. spoke the boy in absolute fear through his gray and grimy teeth. CLEAN THIS ROOM AND THIS WORLD NOW OR WHEN I RETURN I SHALL BEAT YOU TO PIECES! yelled and screamed the father. The father then stood and left the room...leaving the boy to sit on the ground sick with fear. And so, the boy stood and began to clean. He was afraid. On that same day, the other's boy's father came to his room to see the filth and grime and disease of his son. He also was amazed at the extent of the grime. But, because the son was yet healthy and not yet in danger, he knew that he could take his time to teach the boy. Son, this is not good. You cannot live this way. If you continue to live like this, you will catch some sort of disease and you might die. Son, I love you. Please stand up and clean. OK father. said the boy through grimy teeth. He then rolled over in his gray and stained bed and went back to sleep. The father was sad, but chose to let the boy choose his own life. He kicked aside the empty cans and cereal boxes and made his way to the door of the bedroom. The next day, the father returned to see the boy still in bed. On the boy's face there was a rash. And when the father entered, the boy seemed to not be able to lay comfortably amidst the garbage. His body seemed to be in pain. Son, the pain that you are feeling and that rash that is on your face both come from the garbage that you live amongst. If you clean, your body will heal. Please clean. I love you. The son, understanding somewhat the message of his father stood from his bed and began to clean. The father smiled and left. The first boy managed to clean his room before his father returned and therefore wasn't beaten to pieces by him. As you can probably guess, that boy never loved his father. He was too afraid of him to love him. And so he lived the rest of his days in fear. He was never very happy. And he was never grateful for the health and long life that his father had given him. The second boy struggled with cleaning his entire days. After years of filth, sickness, and inconvenience though, the boy began to understand and to change. The boy eventually learned to clean of his own free will and loved his father for having cared enough about him to teach him. He had health and a long life and loved his father till the end of his days. -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! That's a cop out. A touchy, feely, liberal cop out. You either need to defend your position, or give ground. Oh phooey. You're itching for a fight and I'm not going to give you one, no matter what names you call me or how you twist my words. As I noted earlier, I emphasize the teaching instructions from Christ; you emphasize the repentance message. Both lead to the same end. I just happen to think my way is more productive. You're entitled to do as you will. Have a good time. I'd argue that teaching effectively always provokes repentance whereas crying repentance from the rooftops does not always provoke learning and true repentance. By the way, the last thing Christ did on this earth was forgive. Ron Scott The Bible is VERY clear that Christ preached
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Ron Scott wrote: -- Thus sayeth the self-appointed Judge in Israel. --- Actually, in the church our judges are appointed by inspiration from God. They are not self-appointed nor is their administration a form of political spoils for the party in power. Just in case you did not realize this. Ron: --- By the way, who's pushing for gay rights here? I've seen a few here calling for equal treatment under the law for all, which is something guaranteed by our divinely inspired constitution. --- Our US constitution is designed to promote a common level of morality. It was not intended to protect evil behavior, nor to shelter those who advocate such behavior. As far as it serves those evil purposes today, it has become an instrument as twisted and evil in intent as the wicked minds of those who so pervert the moral basis for our laws. Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for legitimate and traditional marriage. Nothing in the constitution envisions the degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any particular union of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal attraction. There exists a very pragmatic and functional rationale for promoting traditional marriage in the body of law. Attempting to expand the definition of marriage to include perverted sexual behavior threatens the benefit we incur from that rational basis. And of course, it plainly proposes to lend legitimacy to immorality, which contradicts the very purpose of all laws. No amount of sophistry can cancel the clear message our church leaders have delivered on this matter. They are consistent and unanimous in raising the level of concern regarding the threat to our society. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Well put, Sandy. To me -- others will surely differ -- the divinely-inspired U.S. Constitution is the guide for how we should deal with such matters. In asserting that the Constitution is divinely inspired, God suggests that that equality, rule of law, and freedom to worship and choose right from wrong are paramount. The Constitution does not -- need not -- endorse evil doing per se, but it should continue to give us the right to choose for ourselves and, within reason, make shades of gray assessments as society correctly or incorrectly (ultimately) deems appropriate. If God intended that we should be compelled to behave ourselves, a different cast of characters would have emerged victorious in the pre-existence. We don't have to make sure the constitution is doing anything. There's no should involved in it whatsoever. That's the beauty of it. It takes care of itself. We can vote however we want to vote. If we want to be a bunch of bigoted fools we can. And the laws we get from our bigotry will hurt us until we get them off of the books. The constitution gives us the mechanism by which we can do whatever we want to do with some order. It insures that the people be the ones to choose...be it for good or evil. The constitution though requires that the people that are doing the voting be mostly righteous...or at least righteous enough. If the people aren't and the laws that get created are too bad, the entire government structure may fall apart. It's kind of what we're seeing now with abortion and gay marriage. I actually agree with you as to what you wrote. It's how we apply these things to society as a whole that's part of what I'm wrestling with. I think God intends us to wrestle a lot. It seems define what this life is all about. RBS 3 Nephi 6:5 5 And now there was nothing in all the land to hinder the people from prospering continually, except they should fall into transgression. 3 Nephi 6:15 - 17 15 Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this--Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world. 16 And thus Satan did lead away the hearts of the people to do all manner of iniquity; therefore they had enjoyed peace but a few years. 17 And thus, in the commencement of the thirtieth year--the people having been delivered up for the space of a long time to be carried about by the temptations of the devil whithersoever he desired to carry them, and to do whatsoever iniquity he desired they should--and thus in the commencement of this, the thirtieth year, they were in a state of awful wickedness. 18 Now they did not sin ignorantly, for they knew the will of God concerning them, for it had been taught unto them; therefore they did wilfully rebel against God. 3 Nephi 6:30 30 And they did set at defiance the law and the rights of their country; and they did covenant one with another to destroy the governor, and to establish a king over the land, that the land should no more be at liberty but should be subject unto kings. 3 Nephi 7:6 6 And the regulations of the government were destroyed, because of the secret combination of the friends and kindreds of those who murdered the prophets. 3 Nephi 7:8 - 10 8 And thus six years had not passed away since the more part of the people had turned from their righteousness, like the dog to his vomit, or like the sow to her wallowing in the mire. 9 Now this secret combination, which had brought so great iniquity upon the people, did gather themselves together, and did place at their head a man whom they did call Jacob; 10 And they did call him their king; therefore he became a king over this wicked band; and he was one of the chiefest who had given his voice against the prophets who testified of Jesus. That's all it takes guys...36 verses. Peace to war. Prosperity to ruin. 6 years...36 verses. -- Jonathan Scott -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] General Conference
Session of the general conferences of the church have become one of the greatest recurring events in my life. I look forward with great anticipation to hearing addresses from the brethren and sisters the Lord has called to lead us. In the best of times, thier counsel is uplifting and adds to my joy. In times of trial and challenge, their words inspire and add hope. There will be much to ponder, following this next conference session. Those with ears to hear will be rewarded and instructed. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Judging
This controversy about judgement is a straw man that is raised regularly. It usually comes up because someone has suggested a context in which we clearly ought to pass some kind of judgement. The always-ironic response from so many is so consistently and so stupidly predictable -- Oh, but you're being judgemental -- you dare not presume to judge! Judging is _bad_. The incipient irony is alway so deliciously bitter-sweet. :- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
-Original Message- From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 7:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! Ron Scott wrote: -- Thus sayeth the self-appointed Judge in Israel. --- Actually, in the church our judges are appointed by inspiration from God. They are not self-appointed nor is their administration a form of political spoils for the party in power. Just in case you did not realize this. The first reference was to Gary Smith, who is not my bishop, nor is he an appointed judge in Israel. RBS Ron: --- By the way, who's pushing for gay rights here? I've seen a few here calling for equal treatment under the law for all, which is something guaranteed by our divinely inspired constitution. --Jim Cobabe-- Our US constitution is designed to promote a common level of morality. It was not intended to protect evil behavior, nor to shelter those who advocate such behavior. As far as it serves those evil purposes today, it has become an instrument as twisted and evil in intent as the wicked minds of those who so pervert the moral basis for our laws. Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for legitimate and traditional marriage. Nothing in the constitution envisions the degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any particular union of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal attraction. It seems that some equally thoughtful judges in Massachusetts and elsewhere disagree with you. By proposing the constitutional amendment, the proposers themselves and supporters indicate that they too don't agree with you. There exists a very pragmatic and functional rationale for promoting traditional marriage in the body of law. Attempting to expand the definition of marriage to include perverted sexual behavior threatens the benefit we incur from that rational basis. And of course, it plainly proposes to lend legitimacy to immorality, which contradicts the very purpose of all laws. Immorality is not the issue here. Immorality was endorsed by the legislature of Utah and other state legislatures/courts years ago. The proposed amendment does not do anything to eliminate immorality. No amount of sophistry can cancel the clear message our church leaders have delivered on this matter. They are consistent and unanimous in raising the level of concern regarding the threat to our society. Sophistry? I beg your pardon. Has the Church indicated that people who believe the courts should decide the matter, as mandated by the divinely-inspired constitution, are out of step with the church and its teachings? Please point me to the statement. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Ron Scott wrote: I'm lousy at parables. Please explain. Here's my interpretation. I hope that I am not too far off the mark. 1) The filth represents sin, generally, through the individual choices of the children involved. The effects of the filth represents the effects of sin. 2) The children represent ourselves. 3) To be cleansed represents repentance by way of the Gospel. 4) The first father represents an unrighteous plan to bring people to repentance, namely: The use of force, coercion, and fear. 5) The second father represents a righteous plan to bring people to repentance. Applicable scriptures: DC 121:44-46, and Moses 4:1-2. Charity and long-suffering would appear to be key. 6) The second son genuinely repents because he realizes he needs to change, then takes action accordingly. The first son only takes action so as to APPEAR outwardly to repent. Inwardly, that person doesn't yet see the need to change. 7) Thus, the second son is on his way to salvation. The first son's spiritual status remains in question. * * * Still, having laws on the books doesn't mean that we seek to compel people to do right, but rather, there is an overriding interest to regulate certain things to allow society as a whole to operate in a free and righteous manner. If there were no laws, or if laws ratified or encouraged immoral acts, I submit that it becomes significantly more difficult for either father to teach his son about repentance. All the best, /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Vote Now!
To continue the discussion with Jack and how we are affecting the culture in the Middle East, let me quote today's Best of the Web from the WSJ: The Road to Damascus http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/international/middleeast/20SYRI.html?ei =5007en=4d8abf351fb79399ex=1395118800partner=USERLANDpagewanted=allp osition In a story it buried in its Saturday edition, the New York Times reports that Iraq's liberation is emboldening opponents of the world's sole remaining Baathist dictatorship, in Syria: *** QUOTE *** A year ago, it would have been inconceivable for a citizen of Syria, run by the Baath Party of President Bashar al-Assad, to make a documentary film with the working title, Fifteen Reasons Why I Hate the Baath. Yet watching the overthrow of Saddam Hussein across the border in Iraq prompted Omar Amiralay to do just that. It gave me the courage to do it, he said. When you see one of the two Baath parties broken, collapsing, you can only hope that it will be the turn of the Syrian Baath next, he added, having just completed the film, eventually called A Flood in Baath Country, for a European arts channel. The myth of having to live under despots for eternity collapsed. *** END QUOTE *** Gary: I'd say that cultures of fear can be replaced with cultures that love freedom and hope. Here's one perfect example of a sub culture that was repressed by the Baathists beginning to emerge in the light of freedom. Gary Smith // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Judging
I went with my 11 year old on a school choir trip today to Calgary for a choral festival performance. On the bus I listened to a CD tape of a talk by Mike Wilcox called Noah Blindness It has some interesting insights into a number of things, including seers, and judging. He points out that the guilty are always very quick to invoke the complaint that they are being unfairly judged whenever their wickedness is condemned. The whole Abinadi vs. King Noah confrontation is based on this reaction. Verse 13 in Chapter 12 of Mosiah is just a bit of it, as the wicked priests protest against Abinadi's message: And now, O king, what great evil hast thou done, or what great sins have thy people committed, that we should be condemned of God or judged of this man? Tom -Original Message- From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 5:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Judging This controversy about judgement is a straw man that is raised regularly. It usually comes up because someone has suggested a context in which we clearly ought to pass some kind of judgement. The always-ironic response from so many is so consistently and so stupidly predictable -- Oh, but you're being judgemental -- you dare not presume to judge! Judging is _bad_. The incipient irony is alway so deliciously bitter-sweet. :- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Sorry had to teach a class. Ron Scott wrote: I'm lousy at parables. Please explain. Here's my interpretation. I hope that I am not too far off the mark. 1) The filth represents sin, generally, through the individual choices of the children involved. The effects of the filth represents the effects of sin. Yup. 2) The children represent ourselves. Yup. 3) To be cleansed represents repentance by way of the Gospel. Yes. 4) The first father represents an unrighteous plan to bring people to repentance, namely: The use of force, coercion, and fear. Almost. I was using him to represent the law of Moses. The people way back then were so close to death each and every day of their lives (lack of civilization...lack of good government) that it was imperative that they obey the gospel...right now. If they had been as lax in obeying the gospel as people are today, civilization itself might never have gotten off the ground. (My opinion.) Perhaps they needed an iron hand. (If you ever get the opportunity, read Little House on the Prairie. Back then, the gospel was vital to your existence...literally.) 5) The second father represents a righteous plan to bring people to repentance. Applicable scriptures: DC 121:44-46, and Moses 4:1-2. Charity and long-suffering would appear to be key. The second father represents the higher law that Christ brought. The civilization was formed. The laws existed and society was to some dependable extent obeying them. 6) The second son genuinely repents because he realizes he needs to change, then takes action accordingly. The first son only takes action so as to APPEAR outwardly to repent. Inwardly, that person doesn't yet see the need to change. Because the second father shows love for his children, the boy is not afraid...and therefore can work on his salvation for no other reason than for his own sake. He was truly working out his own salvation. 7) Thus, the second son is on his way to salvation. The first son's spiritual status remains in question. Right. Who know how the boy will change once the father is gone. * * * Still, having laws on the books doesn't mean that we seek to compel people to do right, but rather, there is an overriding interest to regulate certain things to allow society as a whole to operate in a free and righteous manner. If there were no laws, or if laws ratified or encouraged immoral acts, I submit that it becomes significantly more difficult for either father to teach his son about repentance. All the best, /Sandy/ Still keeping all of that mind. The fathers were never the ones giving out the diseases. Consequence did that. Both fathers cared for the welfare of their children. One just cared for it in a way that was preferable to the other. The fathers used two very different methods to keep their children safe. It's not a perfect analogy. In the first analogy, the father, if he loved the child, would have cleaned the room for him. Sorry, it was the best I could come up with. -- The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com Spring Hill, Tennessee -- Jonathan Scott // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
passionately nourishes families, while unbridled passion destroys families. (Disintegration of the Family Decried , LDS Church News, 1997, 03/29/97 .) -- Prophets of God have repeatedly taught through the ages that practices of homosexual relations, fornication, and adultery are grievous sins. Sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage are forbidden by the Lord. We reaffirm those teachings. . . . The Lord has proclaimed that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is intended to be an eternal relationship bonded by trust and fidelity. Latter-day Saints, of all people, should marry with this sacred objective in mind. Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip to such practices again. Having said this, I desire now to say with emphasis that our concern for the bitter fruit of sin is coupled with Christlike sympathy for its victims, innocent or culpable. We advocate the example of the Lord, who condemned the sin, yet loved the sinner. We should reach out with kindness and comfort to the afflicted, ministering to their needs and assisting them with their problems. We repeat, however, that the way of safety and the road to happiness lie in abstinence before marriage and fidelity following marriage. (Reverence and Morality, Ensign, May 1987, pp. 46-47.) (Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997], 9.) // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] A few more representative quotes...
and women in our enlightened era. Pauls list included uncleanness. As members of the Church entrusted with its holy temples, we are commanded that no unclean thing shall be permitted to come into [His] house to pollute it. That assignment requires great fortitude as well as love. In former days, disciples of the Lord were firm, and would suffer even unto death rather than commit sin. In latter days, devoted disciples of the Lord are just as firm. Real love for the sinner may compel courageous confrontationnot acquiescence! Real love does not support self-destructing behavior. (Russell M. Nelson, Teach Us Tolerance and Love, Ensign, May 1994) -- The Apostle Paul warned of these days: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Paul also taught that the Lord gave some, apostles; and some, prophets For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Eph. 4:11-14) In plainness and power President Hinckley teaches the eternal plan of salvation, rebukes sin, calls all people to repent and accept Christ and His gospel. The doctrines of eternal salvation are not unclear or uncertain, but rather they are consistent with revealed truths, both ancient and modern. President Spencer W. Kimball reminded us that the prophets constantly cry out against that which is intolerable in the sight of the Lord; against pollution of mind, body, and our surroundings; against vulgarity, stealing, lying, pride, and blasphemy; against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and all other abuses of the sacred power to create; against murder and all that is like unto it; against all manner of desecration. He continued: That such things should be found even among the Saints to some degree is scarcely believable. Sadly, however, we find that to be shown the way is not necessarily to walk in it (The False Gods We Worship, Ensign, June 1976, 4). Therefore, let us beware of false prophets and false teachers, both men and women, who are self-appointed declarers of the doctrines of the Church and who seek to spread their false gospel and attract followers by sponsoring symposia, books, and journals whose contents challenge fundamental doctrines of the Church. Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to Gods true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce. Like Nehor and Korihor in the Book of Mormon, they rely on sophistry to deceive and entice others to their views. They set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion (2 Ne. 26:29). Of such President Joseph F. Smith warned when he spoke of the proud and self-vaunting ones, who read by the lamps of their own conceit; who interpret by rules of their own contriving; who have become a law unto themselves, and so pose as the sole judges of their own doings (Gospel Doctrine, 381). Now let me give you a few examples of the false teachings of those who read by the lamps of their own conceit, who, though ever learning, are never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7) False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of Gods immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles. Regardless of which particular false doctrines they teach, false prophets and false teachers are an inevitable part of the last days. False prophets, according to the Prophet Joseph Smith, always arise to oppose the true prophets (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 365). However, in the Lords Church there is no such thing as a loyal opposition. One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of Gods prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed. And as Lehi of old counseled his sons, so this counsel is true for us today: And the Messiah
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 08:58 PM 3/20/2004, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Grampa Bill in Savannah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now! RB Scott wrote: Seriously, I don't recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder perhaps (but I don't recall it). Notwithstanding fairly twisted and bizarre interpretations, what Christ taught was forgiveness, not death. Actually he taught both. Unrepentant sinners could still expect the full penalty of the law upon them. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
At 09:00 PM 3/20/2004, you wrote: -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! RB Scott wrote: I think you've got it right. The old laws are off the books. If they become laws again, they ought to be enforced. What do I think the penalty ought to be for Sabbath breaking? Dunno. Let me consult with my Jewish and SDA friends. Seriously, I don't recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder perhaps (but I don't recall it). According to official Mormon doctrine, Jesus Christ is the premortal Jehovah. If that is the case, then we know that Jesus Christ preached death for quite a few offenses. --JWR I think too many get fixated and judging others, relishing damning others to hell. What Christ taught was that it is our responsibility to forgive all, to leave judgements to Him. I suspect when that great and dreadful day arrives, more than a few of us will be very, very surpised. RBS So then, let's just open up all the prisons and jails, let everyone go--obviously its not our place to judge rapists, serial killers and the like. Wouldn't that make our society grand? -- Steven Montgomery In democracy there are commonly tumults and disorders Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.--Noah Webster // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
Re: [ZION] Vote Now!
John W. Redelfs wrote: Hi Gary. My name's Jack, I'm the only son of the listowner. === Grampa Bill comments: Love your style... love your writing... love your dad! Visit us more often. Love Y'all, Grampa Bill in Savannah With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine! // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
-Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! At 09:00 PM 3/20/2004, you wrote: -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! RB Scott wrote: I think you've got it right. The old laws are off the books. If they become laws again, they ought to be enforced. What do I think the penalty ought to be for Sabbath breaking? Dunno. Let me consult with my Jewish and SDA friends. Seriously, I don't recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder perhaps (but I don't recall it). According to official Mormon doctrine, Jesus Christ is the premortal Jehovah. If that is the case, then we know that Jesus Christ preached death for quite a few offenses. --JWR I think too many get fixated and judging others, relishing damning others to hell. What Christ taught was that it is our responsibility to forgive all, to leave judgements to Him. I suspect when that great and dreadful day arrives, more than a few of us will be very, very surpised. RBS So then, let's just open up all the prisons and jails, let everyone go--obviously its not our place to judge rapists, serial killers and the like. Wouldn't that make our society grand? Exactly what I was suggesting. I'd better bite my tonuge. Someone will accuse me of attacking. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Vote Now!
How about his prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed by God for its sins? Since Christ is God, he was doing more than just foreseeing an event - he was being Judge, Jury and Executioner. He will do it again at the Second Coming. We must remember that the Mosaic Law was a lower law - but still a law of God. Regardless of the punishment, the sin of homosexuality was still a sin that was punishable under the law. In earlier days in the USA, it was also considered a crime punishable under the law. And Just because it is no longer punished, does not make it heinous or sinful. And what Christ taught was not forgiveness, but repentance. Forgiveness is what was given AFTER people repented. Christ did not teach forgiveness to the Pharisees, but called them to repentance. He did not preach forgiveness to the Jews or Samaritans, but repentance. He forgave, because it was within him to forgive those He chose to forgive. Had his mission been nothing but forgiveness, he would forgive all mankind, including Cain. Instead, he came to bring balance between Justice and Mercy, but only on condition of repentance, which is what he preached. I think too many get fixated on what seems to be God's leniency. In reality, the commandments are clear, as are the rewards and punishments. We are not to judge where a person goes to in the next life, but we are to judge right from wrong. The JST of Matthew 7:1 tells us to judge righteous judgment. I don't condemn people to hell, that is God's job. I DO condemn sin, telling the sinner that if change does not occur in his/her life, the person risks hellfire. Calling people to repentance is a good thing to do, because only in repentance can God bring forgiveness. K'aya K'ama, Gerald (Gary) Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html LDS Evidences, Family History, Food Storage, etc. RB Scott wrote: Seriously, I don't recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder perhaps (but I don't recall it). Notwithstanding fairly twisted and bizarre interpretations, what Christ taught was forgiveness, not death. I think too many get fixated and judging others, relishing damning others to hell. What Christ taught was that it is our responsibility to forgive all, to leave judgements to Him. I suspect when that great and dreadful day arrives, more than a few of us will be very, very surpised. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION] Vote Now
Jewish conspiracy controlling the west? Did not Syria, Jordan and Egypt attempt to exterminate Israel only 31 years ago (supported by Saudi Arabia, I might add)? How does Saudi Arabia stand on human rights? How wide is suffrage in the Islamic world? Gary: You have to start somewhere. Was there anyone in Japan 60 years ago that wasn't an Emperor-loving kook? Remember the kamikaze pilots? Back then, they were the terrorists. There are a lot of Anti-Semitic peoples in the USA and Europe: skin heads, NeoNazis, members of Congress, etc. The cultural attitude of the Muslim world against Israel is real and deep. However, it can change slowly. Egypt has officially recognized Israel for the past 25 years, thanks to USA involvement (and bribes, which are cheaper than fighting wars). Jack: Although it is true that Iraq may eventually switch over to a strong democracy, this will only result after a genuine, grassroots cultural shift. Such a shift has to come from within; our meddling can only hurt, not help such a process. A brief invasion will solve nothing. Gary: No, cultural shifts can be forced from without. If we were to take a group of people and begin force-feeding them new ideas over several decades, it would eventually begin to affect them as a whole. For example, just a few decades ago, homosexuality was considered aberrant behavior in the USA. Due to a media push to re-educate the populace, the average American now accepts it as part of normal society (although most will say: as long as it isn't in their own home). Now the media is pushing further, to full acceptance. Those who oppose homosexuality are now the ones looked down upon as being out of step with society and the norm. While there are still many who openly oppose it, the vast majority of Americans, including LDS, have begun to accept it as more normal, thanks to Will and Grace. I've even found myself having to force myself back from that slippery slope of popular thought, and remember that we are talking about a heinous sin. Only in speaking out harshly against the sin have I refound my focus on this, in not accepting homosexuality as a normal part of society. Cultures change, especially when the media has the ability to work them over a few decades. Moses also found this out as he led the tribes for 40 years in the wilderness. After 40 years, the vast majority of the people were no longer acculturated to a slave mentality, but to a free and wandering peoples mentality. The culture had changed enough to be able to go in and conquer the land and possess it as free people. Cultures can change. It takes time. But I have a long term view of these things. I'm glad our forefathers also had such a long term vision, otherwise they might have given up at Valley Forge or when the Articles of Confederation failed. Jack: The heroes of the American Revolution were scions of a rich democratic tradition. The people of Iraq are inheritors of a factional, authoritarian tradition that we cannot hope to change by force. Gary: Not change overnight. But over a period of a few decades, and they will begin to forget authoritarianism and cherish the freedoms they have. K'aya K'ama, Gerald (Gary) Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html LDS Evidences, Family History, Food Storage, etc. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Gary: Look, I don't think we're ever going to agree. I'm probably as aware as you are as to what God taught and what he didn't. I think are differences are in approach. I'm inclined to teach the gospel, you seem inclined to preach repentance. I'm inclined to believe that God must be a pretty forgiving God if he's willing to forgive the sins of repentant sinners like you and me. I believe that God wants to include as many people as He possibly can...and that it's my job to do my bit to ensure the roster is as large as possible. You take a different tack. Good luck to you. Our purposes are the same, more or less even if our methods are different. Ron -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Vote Now! How about his prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed by God for its sins? Since Christ is God, he was doing more than just foreseeing an event - he was being Judge, Jury and Executioner. He will do it again at the Second Coming. We must remember that the Mosaic Law was a lower law - but still a law of God. Regardless of the punishment, the sin of homosexuality was still a sin that was punishable under the law. In earlier days in the USA, it was also considered a crime punishable under the law. And Just because it is no longer punished, does not make it heinous or sinful. And what Christ taught was not forgiveness, but repentance. Forgiveness is what was given AFTER people repented. Christ did not teach forgiveness to the Pharisees, but called them to repentance. He did not preach forgiveness to the Jews or Samaritans, but repentance. He forgave, because it was within him to forgive those He chose to forgive. Had his mission been nothing but forgiveness, he would forgive all mankind, including Cain. Instead, he came to bring balance between Justice and Mercy, but only on condition of repentance, which is what he preached. I think too many get fixated on what seems to be God's leniency. In reality, the commandments are clear, as are the rewards and punishments. We are not to judge where a person goes to in the next life, but we are to judge right from wrong. The JST of Matthew 7:1 tells us to judge righteous judgment. I don't condemn people to hell, that is God's job. I DO condemn sin, telling the sinner that if change does not occur in his/her life, the person risks hellfire. Calling people to repentance is a good thing to do, because only in repentance can God bring forgiveness. K'aya K'ama, Gerald (Gary) Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html LDS Evidences, Family History, Food Storage, etc. RB Scott wrote: Seriously, I don't recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder perhaps (but I don't recall it). Notwithstanding fairly twisted and bizarre interpretations, what Christ taught was forgiveness, not death. I think too many get fixated and judging others, relishing damning others to hell. What Christ taught was that it is our responsibility to forgive all, to leave judgements to Him. I suspect when that great and dreadful day arrives, more than a few of us will be very, very surpised. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
I have no idea. -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! What laws do you think? At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: What laws? -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now! At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet. A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Undecided D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the days of the people of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to avoid the penalty of the law. -- Steven Montgomery . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly strict--Jarom 1:5 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- /// /// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// /// // // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained within the law of Moses are many commandments, among them this one: (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death: (Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Steven Montgomery At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote: I have no idea. -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! What laws do you think? At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: What laws? -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now! At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet. A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Undecided D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the days of the people of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to avoid the penalty of the law. -- Steven Montgomery . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly strict--Jarom 1:5 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- /// /// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// /// // // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Steven Montgomery html a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3; img border=0 src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalogosmall.jpg; width=406 height=100/a /html http://www.stoptheftaa.org // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too. Cast that first stone, Steven. -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained within the law of Moses are many commandments, among them this one: (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death: (Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Steven Montgomery At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote: I have no idea. -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! What laws do you think? At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: What laws? -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now! At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet. A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Undecided D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the days of the people of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to avoid the penalty of the law. -- Steven Montgomery . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly strict--Jarom 1:5 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- /// /// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// /// // // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- /// /// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// /// // -- Steven Montgomery html a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3; img border=0 src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalo gosmall.jpg width=406 height=100/a /html http://www.stoptheftaa.org // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Hey, all l did was point out the penalty of the law--in the days of Moses and of the people in the Book of Mormon. Since we don't live under a theocratic government, death penalties for sabbath breaking and adultery does seem to be going way too far. Still, in most of the states of the union there used to be laws on the books against both Sabbath breakers and adulterers--perhaps we ought to start enforcing them again. What do you think the penalty ought to be? Or should we just turn a blind eye and let people ruin themselves in their own iniquity? -- Steven Montgomery At 09:04 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote: Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too. Cast that first stone, Steven. -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained within the law of Moses are many commandments, among them this one: (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death: (Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Steven Montgomery At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote: I have no idea. -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! What laws do you think? At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: What laws? -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now! At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet. A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Undecided D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the days of the people of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to avoid the penalty of the law. -- Steven Montgomery . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly strict--Jarom 1:5 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- /// /// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// /// // // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- /// /// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// /// // -- Steven Montgomery html a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3; img border=0 src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalo gosmall.jpg width=406 height=100/a /html http://www.stoptheftaa.org // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
I think Christ provided the answer, don't you? -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! Hey, all l did was point out the penalty of the law--in the days of Moses and of the people in the Book of Mormon. Since we don't live under a theocratic government, death penalties for sabbath breaking and adultery does seem to be going way too far. Still, in most of the states of the union there used to be laws on the books against both Sabbath breakers and adulterers--perhaps we ought to start enforcing them again. What do you think the penalty ought to be? Or should we just turn a blind eye and let people ruin themselves in their own iniquity? -- Steven Montgomery At 09:04 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote: Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too. Cast that first stone, Steven. -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained within the law of Moses are many commandments, among them this one: (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death: (Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Steven Montgomery At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote: I have no idea. -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! What laws do you think? At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: What laws? -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now! At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet. A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Undecided D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the days of the people of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to avoid the penalty of the law. -- Steven Montgomery . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly strict--Jarom 1:5 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- /// /// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// /// // // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- /// /// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// /// // -- Steven Montgomery html a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3; img border=0 src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalo gosmall.jpg width=406 height=100/a /html http://www.stoptheftaa.org // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- /// /// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// /// // // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
That's somewhat of a fallacious generalization, John. Yes, it is difficult and it takes time. But you know what, in business management terms, we see change as requiring time. When a business changes its culture, it requires years for the complete change over. Behaviorists will tell you that normally 20-30% will quickly adapt to the change, The middle 30% adapt over several months to a year, with a large number of stragglers that take a long time. Then there are those who never adapt, who end up leaving the company for another with a culture similar to what they used to know. So it is in society. For the Western nations (English speaking primarily), they took centuries to adapt. But Japan and South Korea are awesome democracies (non-English speaking) that have learned the values of freedom over a period of less than 50 years. A long time when one thinks of how impatient Americans are, but rather quick in geological terms. Why did Moses keep Israel in the wilderness for 40 years? It would take that long for those with centuries-long slave mentality to be replaced by a generation of people with a new non-slave culture and mentality. So it is with nations. It might take Iraq 40-50 years to switch over to a strong democracy. So what? It means our grandchildren's children will live in a world with one more free nation that isn't run by radical kooks. Cultures can change. It takes time. But I have a long term view of these things. I'm glad our forefathers also had such a long term vision, otherwise they might have given up at Valley Forge or when the Articles of Confederation failed. Gary Smith John W. Redelfs wrote: Tom Matkin wrote: The USA and her allies will successfully establish democratic rule in Iraq. A. Certainly B. Probably C. Maybe D. Unlikely E. Certainly not E. Certainly not. Democratic rule is a privilege that must be earned. The people of Iraq cannot have it given to them or established for them any more than I can give someone else my own character or discipline. All the USA can do is try to improve the circumstances for the growth of democracy. In most cases those interventions seem to about as successful as premature efforts interventions to help a chick hatch. I strongly agree with you, Tom. Freedom, and the western democratic traditions that establish and maintain freedom are a cultural phenomenon, not something that can be imposed from above. The roots of freedom in the west go back in the English speaking cultures to medieval Britain. That is why we have democracy in the USA, Canada, Australia, and a few other places. That is also why democracy is so tentative on the European continent, and almost nonexistent in non western nations. Democracy is a mind set that is engendered in families that understand and value fundamental, God-given human rights. Those families are almost all English speaking. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === I know of nothing in the history of the Church or in the history of the world to compare with our present circumstances. Nothing happened in Sodom and Gomorrah which exceeds the wickedness and depravity which surrounds us now. --President Boyd K. Packer, February 28, 2004 === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey
So, Tom, are you saying there is a link between playing the harmonica and being on death row? Maybe we should continue teaching kids to play the recorder so we don't raise a generation of harmonica playing thugs! ;-) As for me, I sing tenor. I've sung in two temple dedication choirs, in fact. I've tinkered with piano and guitar just a little bit, but not very good on either. I think anyone can play harmonica, since I've been known to play one in the past. Oh, and I love playing the recorder, which is probably the main thing that's kept me out of prison all these years. Gary Smith Tom Matkin wrote: -Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 19, 2004 2:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey How many of you play a musical instrument? How well do you play? I'm curious about the musical makeup of the Zion list. John W. Redelfs sings well, plays the piano fairly, and the violin poorly. I sing a bit. Bass in my quartet, and I sometimes have to handle the tenor when that guy doesn't show up but it's scary when I do. I used to play the flute and even blew the saxophone a time or two in a dance band that I played with. I love to beat on my guitar, but I have peripheral neuropathy in my hands and arm and I can't do it for long or without suffering the consequences. I was never any good at it. I love the harmonica, straight and blues. I'm not good but that doesn't stop me and with the blues harp who really knows the difference? I think they should throw away all those recorders in schools and teach the harmonica. Doesn't the USA have about a million people in jail at any one time? They could all be enjoying themselves playing the harmonica if they had been taught in grade school. Do you ever hear anyone on death row playing the recorder? Tom Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Ron, why is it that you attack the commandments of God like this? Christ, to this day, condemns sexual impurity, even though he doesn't demand us to stone people to death. Some judgments MUST be made, otherwise you end up with no law, no order, only anarchy. Lehi taught there is right and wrong, up and down, light and darkness; that without the opposites there would be no God. As it is, God has given a law: marriage and sex between man and woman who are legally and lawfully married. Never has God given even a little inference that he would change his mind on either adultery or homosexuality. Christ said what he said because the men involved were evil men. Each was guilty of adultery, probably with the accused woman (why else would they just happen to catch her but no man to take before Jesus?). They were being hypocrites, and he was pointing out their sin to them. Now, he told the woman to go and sin no more. He recognized her sin, and as Savior, gave her one more chance. That was his right as Judge. Since we aren't Christ, the Lawgiver, we must judge as best we can with the guidance God gives us. This means we must have laws on the books that ensure society's safety (no murder, no robbery, no cheating, and others that happen to be in the 10 Commandments - which happen to be more of the Mosaic Law you happened to condemn on homosexuality). Either Christ is for homosexuality, or he is against it. From what I've read in the scriptures (including Paul's words in the New Testament), and writings of modern prophets (note Pres Kimball in Miracle of Forgiveness, or the current missionary requirements of never having had a homosexual event) I'd say you are speaking with a forked tongue in attacking Steven. Either you believe the consistent teachings of the prophets, or you don't. Twisting Christ's words in one event in the scriptures, which He was using to condemn the wicked, only shows your troubling use of the scriptures to fit a different schema than the prophets have proclaimed. Steven mentioned the severity of the penalty for homosexuality to emphasize God's displeasure with it. He didn't say he agreed with the death penalty. As it is, most states have at one time or another had (or have) laws on the books against adultery and homosexuality. Yes, at one time some of these laws even included the death penalty for homosexuality. The reality is, homosexuality, whether in the closet or out in the open is a sin. In either situation, it denigrates and harms society. It will destroy society if it gets hold and full acceptance, just as we learn of Sodom and Gomorrah and others who have lived lives of debauchery. We cannot accept it, even in a tolerant PC way; as that is opening the door for accepting all sin. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too. Cast that first stone, Steven. -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained within the law of Moses are many commandments, among them this one: (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death: (Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Steven Montgomery At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote: I have no idea. -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now! What laws do you think? At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: What laws? -Original Message- From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now! At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote: Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet. A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Undecided D. Disagree E. Strongly Disagree If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the days of the people of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to avoid the penalty of the law. -- Steven Montgomery . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly strict--Jarom 1:5 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- /// /// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read
RE: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey
I play the Piano Carinet and Sing. None as well as I should, but I'm taking Clarinet lessons again. From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:36:38 -0900 How many of you play a musical instrument? How well do you play? I'm curious about the musical makeup of the Zion list. John W. Redelfs sings well, plays the piano fairly, and the violin poorly. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / _ Check out MSN PC Safety Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
