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!
First, the father should be the same individual for both children. The difference being one child is willing to live a higher law, with the other needing to be prodded along. I didn't focus on the Law of Moses. I focused on eternal laws of God. You'll note that I not only quoted from the Old Testament, but also from the DC, which clearly is not Mosaic in nature. When Christ tells us in DC 19 to repent or suffer even as he did, regardless of whether the punishment is a natural cause or not, Christ set the bar. Repentance is a requirement of the Celestial Kingdom, and so is a requirement of Celestial Law. Seemingly, there is more mercy in the law of Christ than in the Mosaic Law. But this is only true on physical punishment. Spiritually, the requirements for Celestial glory is much higher than that for the Terrestrial (Mosaic Law) glory. So, to pretend that there are two fathers, when in reality there is one, doesn't work. Second, it is a matter of God giving a lower law to children who aren't ready to live the higher law. Of your own children, what is the age limit you give to drive a car? Are some allowed to stay up later than others? How about dating age? You see, even we give differing rules to our own children, based upon age and maturity. So also does God. While our smallest children may not understand the nuances of a lecture, they will understand physical disciplining, even if it is to stand them in a corner or timeout. Meanwhile, a more mature child may get enough out of just a discussion or request. We adjust the rules and how we mete them out according to maturity, ability and willingness to live them. With these as guidelines, I'd change your parable to one father of two boys. One boy is rather mature, while the other is childish. One requires a stern hand (not necessarily a swipe against the face), while the other follows closely the guidance given. The Father does show love to both children, and reminds them of it continually (even as the Lord told ancient Israel constantly through Isaiah and others). The younger child eventually learns from the chastising that there is a better way - obeying out of love, rather than fear. Gary Smith Jonathan Scott wrote: 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
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] For
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
First, the father should be the same individual for both children. The difference being one child is willing to live a higher law, with the other needing to be prodded along. Ok. I agree. Although my guess is that that will make the story a little more bewildering. I didn't focus on the Law of Moses. I focused on eternal laws of God. You'll note that I not only quoted from the Old Testament, but also from the DC, which clearly is not Mosaic in nature. When Christ tells us in DC 19 to repent or suffer even as he did, regardless of whether the punishment is a natural cause or not, Christ set the bar. Repentance is a requirement of the Celestial Kingdom, and so is a requirement of Celestial Law. Seemingly, there is more mercy in the law of Christ than in the Mosaic Law. But this is only true on physical punishment. Spiritually, the requirements for Celestial glory is much higher than that for the Terrestrial (Mosaic Law) glory. So, to pretend that there are two fathers, when in reality there is one, doesn't work. Second, it is a matter of God giving a lower law to children who aren't ready to live the higher law. Of your own children, what is the age limit you give to drive a car? Are some allowed to stay up later than others? How about dating age? You see, even we give differing rules to our own children, based upon age and maturity. So also does God. While our smallest children may not understand the nuances of a lecture, they will understand physical disciplining, even if it is to stand them in a corner or timeout. Meanwhile, a more mature child may get enough out of just a discussion or request. We adjust the rules and how we mete them out according to maturity, ability and willingness to live them. With these as guidelines, I'd change your parable to one father of two boys. One boy is rather mature, while the other is childish. One requires a stern hand (not necessarily a swipe against the face), while the other follows closely the guidance given. The Father does show love to both children, and reminds them of it continually (even as the Lord told ancient Israel constantly through Isaiah and others). The younger child eventually learns from the chastising that there is a better way - obeying out of love, rather than fear. Ok. Gary Smith Jonathan Scott wrote: 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,
[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 --^
