[ZION] Einstein and religion
Allow me to come back here just long enough to tell you about a link I found while researching some work (no, really). Someone here was writing about the idea that God is dead and related things about 20th-century beliefs and disbeliefs. I found a link wherein Albert Einstein discusses some ideas about a personal God and such. His words are sixty or seventy or more years old, but I still hear their themes underlying the words of a great many irreligious people, so I thought they might be relevant: http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm I've said it before: As a philosopher, Einstein was one heck of a physicist. Back to my happy exile. Stephen // /// 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] Genetic Republicans
-Ron- REPUBLICANISM SHOWN TO BE GENETIC IN ORIGIN This is about as funny as the Hillary Clinton joke posted a few days ago, and in about as good taste. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Genetic Republicans
I have an amazing tolerance for perversity, which perhaps explains why I abide your insufferable sanctimony with grin and a groan. My friends, I've had enough of taking (and witnessing) abuse in what is supposed to be a friendly forum. If I were more mature, I would follow the example of Tom, Jim, Johnna, and a few others, and ignore it, seeking instead to help those who promulgate such hatefulness. But I'm not, so there you are. Sincere best wishes to the many here whom I consider friends. See you around. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] The Return of the King
-Tom- I found the Tolkein movie that I watched (something about rings I think) Just curious if there's a Tolkien movie that isn't about rings... to be a tiresome road movie where the heroes kept getting into impossible situations for no apparent reason and then being rescued in the best Greek tragedy tradition by deux ex machina. Not sure why you find _deus ex machina_ to be tiresome, though in any case I disagree that much if any of the conflict resolution in Tolkien's writings qualifies as such. (Qualifies as _deus ex machina_, I mean. I won't argue about matters of taste, like whether a given story is tiresome.) As for getting into impossible situations for no apparent reason, you may have to give some examples to clue in those of us who don't know what you're referring to. The Potter stuff is similar, but at least mildly entertaining, Apparently there are a few others, here and there, who find the Tolkien movies at least mildly entertaining. I just prefer reading Narnia and having the challenge of sorting out the strong Christian symbols running around the outside of the storyline. Allegory is certainly much easier on the reader, as long as he shares with the author the underlying knowledge necessary to interpret the allegory correctly. Tolkien, though himself a devoted Christian (in fact, he converted C. S. Lewis, if I recall correctly), explicitly denied any allegorical intent in his writings. The result is that the reader has to work a little harder, dig a little deeper, and try to understand his symbolism within the framework the author used to construct the fable -- which in essence is what Tolkien's so-called trilogy is. Granted, not everyone enjoys such a mental workout. They get little reward for their efforts, and thus find it tiresome. Maybe that is what you were referring to, though since you were commenting on the recent movie version and not the books, I really don't know. But I do know that since beginning to reread Tolkien in my forty-first year, I have been immensely enjoying the depth of imagery and texture of narrative that quite escaped the notice of my half-aged self two decades ago. I certainly enjoy allegory as much as the next fellow, but my respect for Tolkien has deepened. However, if the movie adaptations have left you with the sour taste of a contrived-resolution road movie, you perhaps ought not to waste your time reading the books. I can only imagine what the spectre of Tom Bombadil would do to your blood pressure. Hey, I'm Tom Bombadil, Tommy Bom-bom-ba-dil-lo! My head is a sieve, and my brain is like Bril-lo! I dance and I sing, and I sing and I dance! I'm a jolly old godling in search of my pants! Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] The Return of the King
-Tilly- Last winter I decided to take the Beecroft challenge and see what really was in Pride and Prejudice Till! I'm flattered. And glad to hear you enjoyed it, eventually at least. Her style has to grow on you, I guess. Orson Scott Card, LDS writer of fiction/science fiction/fantasy, has complained that most present-day authors eschew developing the character of good guys because, as they claim, bad guys are more interesting. Card maintains that the good guys are actually far more interesting, and that evil is essentially banal. That is exactly the viewpoint I get from Austen novels. Her protagonists are interesting, engaging, honorable if flawed, while the antagonists are ultimately revealed to be veneer-thin and distastefully similar in their smallness. Or that's my view of things. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Very cold news sources
-Ron- network of stringers in virtually every berg in the world. Enjoying the mental picture of CNN correspondents huddled, shivering, on various icebergs floating around the north Atlantic... A visiting Asian* seated himself on an airplane next to the window, and was shortly joined by a man wearing a yarmukle. This second man kept glancing over at the first with an unmistakeably hostile air. Finally, after they had taken off, the man with the yarmukle turned to the Asian and said, I just want you to know that I will never forgive what you Chinese did to us at Pearl Harbor. Stunned, the Asian sat in silence for a few moments, then finally said, It wasn't the Chinese that attacked Pearl Harbor; it was the Japanese. In any case, I'm neither Chinese nor Japanese. I'm Korean. The other man replied, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, what's the difference?, and turned smugly away. They sat in silence for a few more minutes, whereupon the Asian said to his seatmate, I just want you to know that I will never forgive what you Pennsylvania Dutch Jews did to the Titanic. The Jewish man looked askance at the Asian and said, Don't be an idiot. The Pennsylvania Dutch aren't Jews, and in any case, it was an iceberg that sank the Titanic. The Asian replied, Goldberg, Pittsburg, iceberg, what's the difference? Stephen *I learned a short while ago that the term Oriental is now considered offensive, unless you're talking about restaurants (Oriental food is still acceptable, at least for the time being). The preferred term is Asian, which seems rather vague to me -- are we talking about Arabs, or Slavs, or Jews, or...? // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Sons of Perdition
-Ron- I love the way some of you apply gospel doctrine in your lives. Amazing. I've gotta tell you, Ron, that I've been thinking exactly the same thing while reading your posts to this list for the last week. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] My intro
Who am I? Think back to high school. Remember the coolest kid there? He was incredibly smart, but so athletic that the jocks wanted to hang with him anyway. He was so good-looking that the cheerleaders all wanted to date him, but his girlfriend was the friendly but shy girl with braces that no one (besides him) ever noticed was beautiful until she was a senior. He was the guy who was always nice to freshmen, even geeky ones; who didn't back down to any of the bullies, even when they were bugging others instead of him; who got along with all the teachers and the administrators, but still managed to be everyone's favorite person. Every parent wanted their daughter to date him and their son to be just like him. He was voted Most Likely To Succeed, and at your 20-year reunion, he was the one to show up with his old girlfriend (now wife) with pictures of their ten children and an agreeable and understated manner belying his twenty-million-dollar profit from selling off his biotech company, which you read about in _The Economist_ a couple of months ago. Remember that guy? Now remember his socially-inept, clumsy, nerdy little zit-faced brother who stammered a lot and wet his pants during the sex ed segment of Health class? That's me. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] Hai karate?
About seventeen years ago, I lived at BYU with my cousin in a big old yellow polygamist house in Provo (5th East and 7th North, across the street from the laundromat there) that had been divided into four apartments. The smallest of those apartments was inhabited by a guy who taught ninjutsu, that is, ninja stuff. Really. He and his students (eight or so) would take large, sneaky steps around the yard with a three-foot sword tucked into their sash, slitting imaginary throats and throwing ninja stars at the tree trunks. Sometimes they wore those little face-hiding scarves. My cousin and I always felt safer knowing we lived by a ninja, and it had some entertainment value, as well. So my question is: Does anyone on this list do martial arts-type stuff? Any ninjas, or karate kids, or judo choppers, or boxers, or Muay Thai kickboxers? Any of that stuff actually work in a practical self-defense situation? My kids took aikido for a while, which was very fun for them and all, but got way too expensive for us, and I never thought it looked very useful for any actual self-defense purposes. Anyone care to educate me? Samurai Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION]
// /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] Mother Teresa
Christopher Hitchens hates Mother Teresa. This is not a secret. Given some of Hitchens' proclivities, I am not necessarily prone to uncritical acceptance of his viewpoint, but the man is very intelligent and, I think, makes a few good points. (Not that I know enough about the issues to make an informed judgment.) Given the praise of Mother Teresa taking place when I first returned to this list a few weeks back, I thought some might find this piece interesting, even despite its URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090083/ Excerpt: MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had beenshe preferred California clinics when she got sick herselfand her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility? The rich world has a poor conscience, and many people liked to alleviate their own unease by sending money to a woman who seemed like an activist for 'the poorest of the poor.' People do not like to admit that they have been gulled or conned, so a vested interest in the myth was permitted to arise, and a lazy media never bothered to ask any follow-up questions. Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the 'Missionaries of Charity,' but they had no audience for their story. George Orwell's admonition in his essay on Gandhithat saints should always be presumed guilty until proved innocentwas drowned in a Niagara of soft-hearted, soft-headed, and uninquiring propaganda. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Dungeons and Dragons
-Cousin Bill- It decided I would be a Chaotic Good Half-Elf Bard. -JWR- I'm a neutral, good, human, fighter, ranger. I'm a confused bipolar half-Romulan smuggler accountant. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Nehors - was: Unconditional Love
-Ron- Ah, the Church of Ezra resurrects itself. Who is its profit: Reed? I don't understand this. Why would the prophet's words in General Conference constitute the Church of Ezra? And why would Reed Benson be called its profit? While I don't know Reed Benson personally, I have had a few dealings with him, and he has always struck me as being very honest and open, not someone who goes about seeking to cash in on his father's name or position. Or have I misinterpreted your comments? Sorry if that's the case; maybe you can clarify them for me. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Repentance from adultery (was: RE: Is God's Love Unconditional?)
-Ron- But a more important question: Why do people on ZION focus so intently on such things -- judging others in particular -- anyway? Who authorizes us to hold people to artificial standards that may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with the gospel Christ taught and can not be applied uniformly across the church organization? What useful purpose is served? I'm certainly not qualified to speak for anyone on this list other than myself. In my case, my intent was not to judge others or hold anyone to standards, artifical or otherwise. It was simply an attempt to address John's challenge to substantiate what he called a three strikes and you're out rule. The useful purpose being served is, I suppose, the clarification of doctrinal misunderstanding and the building of friendship and fellowship through conversation. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] Definitions (was: RE: Eternal Life vs. Immortality)
-Ron- To me, immortality and eternal life have the same meaning. Your definition of immortality is mine for salvatation. Yours for eternal life is mine for exaltation. I think you meant salivation. ;)~ --(drool) This points up once again that which I personally believe to be the basis for almost all philosophical pondering: The definition of words. Obviously, we must have common word definitions in order to communicate. Almost as obviously, the Lord has historically used existing words in a given language to represent concepts that are actually above or beyond the accepted meaning of the word; witness eternal life, a state which we believe comes to those who have died. I believe this is the case with God's hatred of sinful and unrepentant individuals. Some object to the term hate, thinking that somehow it lessens God's majesty or perfection to hate anyone or anything; or perhaps they're afraid that if perfect love does not preclude hatred, maybe God won't love them. As I wrote before, I don't understand the psychological reasons, even in myself, that people have such a strong reaction to the clear scriptural teaching that God's love is conditional. Nor do I believe that God's hatred of the unrepentant wicked is spiritually similar to my hatred of that mean bully who picked on me in school when I was a boy. But still, God uses the word hate to represent his feelings, so I don't think we're authorized to correct him on that point. As to your specific example of eternal life vs. immortality, I believe current prophetic usage of the terms has established that eternal life == exaltation, while immortality == resurrection. You may hold private definitions, of course, but in public conversation one generally reverts to the established meanings. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Repentance from adultery (was: RE: Is God's Love Unconditional?)
-Grampa Bill- Not at all certain of this, but it appears that this might be instruction rather than doctrine. In this matter, I would be much more inclined to trust the understanding of a bishop/former bishop than my own. (Especially since my understanding of this principle is, as I mentioned, pretty shaky to begin with.) Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Whom God hateth
-Stephen- However, as I pointed out, the very wording of the scriptural verses I cited shows that God hates the person or people being named [Note that I believe you were replying to an earlier, erroneously-sent version of my email. Possibly I expressed myself somewhat more clearly in the later version.] -Ron- Really? Would God hate the man if the man repented of his sins? I think not. Agreed. Ditto the rest of your citations. Sorry, I'm missing your meaning. Ditto in what way? That God would cease to hate the repentant individual in each case? As I mentioned above, I agree with you on this point. Glossifying the scriptures is very human. Even you indulge. Moi? Shirley ewe jest. (In fact, I think assigning such glosses is almost unavoidable in mortality, and I'm certainly as mortal as anyone. The best we can do is remain conscious of this failing and try to stem it where possible.) I noticed you have not mentioned the oft-quoted advice: love the sinner, hate the sin. And good advice it is. But I was seeking to establish the specific point that the scriptures teach that God does indeed hate some individuals, and try to establish the larger point Elder Nelson addressed, that God's love is not unconditional. So the good advice you quote above didn't seem germane. Such, I think, underscores the point I tried to make. Then perhaps we're trying to make different points. If your point is that God loves us struggling sinners despite our wretched state, I think you've succeeded -- though I doubt anyone here disagreed with you to begin with. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] About Marc
-Steven- I think highly of you too. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider and be a part of ZION again? Steven, I'm flattered that you even remember me. My good friend John has asked that I return, as well. Guess he thought there wasn't enough bickering on the list... As you might be able to tell from my delayed response, I have very little time these days for online correspondence, but I will keep my Zion membership active and see if I can contribute occasionally. Thanks for the warm welcome. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Wish List
-JWR- I am compiling a wish list of people I miss, people that I wish would actively participate on the list. Would any of you care to help me make my wish list? Any such list would be doubtless incomplete, but in addition to those you've listed, I would have to add (of course) Marc Schindler, as well as Chris Grant (a worthwhile addition to any list) and Greg Prince (who probably didn't fit in here as well as some others politically, but who always had thoughtful posts and compelling ideas). Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Apostate Cat
-Tom- The version of my poem that you have posted was a reworked version by Stephen Beecroft. Please disregard my previous post. ;) Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Wish List
-JWR- You may be getting this news late, but Marc Schindler passed away in his sleep a little more than a week ago. I will miss him terribly. He was a real pillar of the Zion list. Yes, I had heard. In fact, I resubbed to Zion a while ago to express my condolences. I figured if we were making a wish list, though, I could wish as I wished... Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] About Marc
Dear friends, I've resubscribed so that I might express to you my sense of loss at Marc Schindler's passing. I did not always treat Marc with the respect he deserved or give adequate weight to his opinions in some matters; shamefully, I used this very forum more than once to express my displeasure at him. In fact, I thought very highly of Marc and learned much from him, not just about history and politics but about email communication, maturity, and tolerance for diverse and seeming wrong-headed opinions. As I wrote to Marc's father and brother and a few other people, this world is a better place for Marc's having lived in it, and I only hope the same can be said for each of us when our time comes to leave this sphere. I've offended many of you with my insensitive blundering, or my sharp tongue, or my occasional sarcasm, or my strange sense of humor that often sounds like sarcasm. For that, I apologize and ask your forgiveness. Though I am no longer a part of this forum, I have fond memories of it and its participants, and sincerely wish you the best. Stephen // /// 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
[ZION] Conditional divine love
Some time ago on this very list (probably its incarnation on zilker.net or some other pre-Topica server), a rather heated discussion -- imagine that! -- arose regarding, of all topics, God's love. Some of us claimed that the scriptures clearly teach that God's love is conditional, given to some more than to others, and dependent in its intensity on the actions and heart of the recipient; while others steadfastly maintained that God's love is unconditional, that he loves the rankest, vilest sinner just as much as he loves the most virtuous of men and women. I thus find it interesting that this month's Ensign includes an article by Elder Nelson extolling the *conditional* nature of God's love. I definitely recommend the article to all, which starts on page 20 of the February 2003 Ensign. Some relevant quotations follow: While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as *unconditional*. [emphasis in original] With scriptural patterns of conditional statements in mind, we note many verses that declare the conditional nature of divine love for us. Examples include: [John 15:10; DC 95:12; John 14:23; Proverbs 8:17; Acts 10:34-35; 1 Nephi 17:40; John 14:21] Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly 'unconditional' can defend us against common fallacies such as these: 'Since God's love is unconditional, He will love me regardless...'; or 'Since ''God is love,'' He will love me unconditionally, regardless...' These arguments are used by anti-Christs to woo people with deception. Divine love is perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal. The full flower of divine love and our greatest blessings from that love are conditional -- predicated upon our obedience to eternal law. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
RE: [ZION] Conditional divine love
-Geoff- Great post! According to the prophets, then it appears that there are actually two types of love: 1. Divine love 2. Unconditional love They are not one and the same. However, it is true that our Heavenly Father has and exercises both, and that we are commanded to do likewise. Would you agree? Not quite, I don't think. While it is true that God is love, it is not true that Love is God. That is, love is not an overriding or ultimate principle wherein everything and everyone is loved. I believe that unconditional love is nothing more than a linguistic construct. I think it's false as a concept, nonexistent, nonsensical, without meaning, just like sinful God or miserable exaltation are nonsensical and meaningless. All love, even God's love, is conditioned or predicated upon the laws set forth (by God) that govern it. Parents may think the love for their child is boundless and unconditional; but let that child turn against the parents and everything they have stood for and tried to build, and actively seek their destruction, the destruction of their other children, and the desecration of all that the parents consider holy, and the parents, while mourning their child's loss and hoping for his return, are likely to find that their love is conditional after all. In this vein, I don't think we're commanded to exercise unconditional love, which wouldn't even make any sense anyway if that term is an oxymoron. I think we're commanded to love as God loves, but as Elder Nelson pointed out, divine love is not unconditional. We are commanded to forgive all men, and to show forth the love of Christ; but I don't think this means any sort of unconditional love. Admittedly, like all philosophical discussions, this becomes a matter of defition and semantics. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
RE: [ZION] Conditional divine love
-Geoff- I guess in order to clear up the semantics issue, we would need to turn to the scriptures and words of the prophets and determine how / when they use the term unconditional love. Agreed. I'm quite sure you'll find the term absent from scripture. However, as you note, other (and recent or current) leaders have used the very term. Yet Elder Nelson says it's false. How to rectify the two? Well, we could try some sort of seniority argument, but I personally think that's baloney. Here's my rectification, fwiw: The term unconditional love is well-known and evokes a certain emotional reaction. People have a sort of gut-level understanding of that feeling. I believe Elder Maxwell and the others who used the term unconditional love were probably attempting to rouse that gut-level reaction, rather than making a philosophical commentary on the nature of divine love. On the other hand, Elder Nelson was very specifically making exactly such a philosophical commentary. For that reason, my resolution is to accept the words of Elder Maxwell and others in the spirit in which I believe they were intended, similar in meaning to what Elder Nelson calls divine love, while accepting Elder Nelson's clear teachings at absolute face value. Here is the real kicker - does God still love Lucifer? What about the Sons of Perdition? Not sure why this is such an issue for many people, though I know it is. I don't pretend to speak for God or how he feels about this or that topic; nevertheless, according to any meaningful scriptural definition of love, it seems clear to me that God does not and in fact cannot love Satan. God is merciful, of course, and since he embodies mercy, he will show to Satan and his followers as much mercy as he can, which basically means confining them to a kingdom of no glory. But love in any true, saving, exalting sense of the word cannot be a trait that Satan evokes in any heart. Revulsion, abhorrence, perhaps pity, even mercy, but not love. The other question is this: Does divine love encompass the command to forgive all men? Are we to love those who hurt, abuse, and murder us with divine love or unconditional love? I assume the two are intimately related, though I don't pretend to understand the connection exactly. Interesting discussion. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
RE: [ZION] Conditional divine love
-Elder Nelson- Divine love is perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal. The full flower of divine love and our greatest blessings from that love are conditional -- predicated upon our obedience to eternal law. -George- Stephen, this statement seems to negate your earlier idea that love is conditional. Not sure why you say that. Elder Nelson's sentence that you quoted above plainly reads, The full flower of divine love [...] [is] conditional. Other phrases that I quoted before include: [D]ivine love [...] cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. [M]any verses [...] declare the conditional nature of divine love for us. [D]ivine love and blessings are not truly 'unconditional' It seems to me that Love from our Father and our Savior is unconditional Elder Nelson appears not to agree. The blessing may be conditional, but surely not the love. Elder Nelson does not make that distinction. If Elder Nelson said any different than that I would be disappointed, but I will read the article. Hope you enjoy it. Please don't be disappointed, though. It might turn out that he's just restating in different words something you already believe. If he really is teaching something different, then rejoice that we have leaders who can teach us such important fine points. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
[ZION] You're back!
Missed me, huh? I knew you couldn't stay away for long. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
RE: [ZION] Worship Christ
-Paul- there are times in my life when I sneak a prayer to Jesus only without thinking of the Father. I wouldn't teach this at the church pulpit, or what not, but I am telling my friends (you) in private that sometimes (not often) I just want to focus my thoughts on Christ alone and tell him that I love him and need him-- he is my brother. This tone does come from the Book of Mormon. I don't know if this is appropriate or not. I rather suspect not, based on Christ's teachings and the example set by our leaders, but I am not sure. Note that in the Book of Mormon, they only prayed to Christ directly when he was physically standing in front of them, as he himself pointed out (3 Ne 19:22: Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and THEY PRAY UNTO ME BECAUSE I AM WITH THEM). -Jon- Ya know, now that you mention it, I don't think that there is anything wrong with having a little talk with Christ. The gratitude I am certain we all feel for Christ and what He did for us is well beyond anything that I can express in words. Are we then also justified in praying to our celestial Mother? I don't believe so; people who have taught this particualr thing have been excommunicated for apostasy. Perhaps praying to Jesus is somehow entirely different. But to my small mind, our prayers are directed to the Father and to him alone. If Jesus comes to visit me, I'll pray to him; otherwise, I think it's probably not appropriate. That's just my viewpoint, of course. Do whatever you feel right about doing. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law
-George- When God created this universe -Jon- He did not create this universe. He caused it to be organized. Big difference! The prophets and the scriptures are unanimous in declaring that God did, indeed, create the heavens and the earth. Cause to be organized is what create means, just like when you create an email or a songwriter creates a song. George is right in his usage. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Unsolicited, irrelevant opinion
IMO: Topica is no worse than many other free mailing-list services, and is better than many. Its downtime is actually relatively small, all things considered. Zion has a history on Topica that now stretches back three and a half years -- quite a long time in Internet-speak. Finally, if the Topica Zion list is abandoned and deleted, all messages in the archive will be lost. I know of no good way to retrieve those from Topica beforehand. Now perhaps I overestimate the worth of those archives; I just know I find them useful. Personally, I'd rather stay with Topica, and probably will not move over with the list. But that's just my opinion, not worth the electrons it's printed with. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
-Stephen- I would be surprised if any man or woman can name something that God cannot do, whether because of the limitations of natural law or anything else, that doesn't fall into this class of false-by-definition. -Chet- He cannot lie. He cannot disobey any of his own commandments. He cannot go back on his word. These are not false-by-definition On the contrary, they are false by definition, or else false by wording choice. Here is the logic: God cannot lie means either 1) God is incapable of lying, that is, he does not possess the moral capacity to tell an untruth or lead others astray through false communication; or, 2) God constantly and unfailingly chooses not to lie, at the peril of his very existence as God. In the former case, this is not an inability with God. Rather, it is a linguistic trick acknowledging God's perfect status; he is a Being in whom all truth independently dwells. He *cannot* lie, because whatever he says is, by definition, true. Saying in such a situation that God is unable to lie is clearly a verbal joust along the lines of saying that God is unable to make a stone so big he can't lift it. In this case, the idea is certainly false by definition -- God's word itself being defined as truth. In the latter case, saying God cannot lie is really another way of saying God will not lie, since those who hold to idea #2 impute to God the ability to sin. It's not correct to say he can't in the sense of it's outside his ability, but merely means he can't in the sense that he will cease to exist as God if he does. This, then, is not an example of something God is actually unable to do, but rather an example of something God merely refuses to do. (I personally do not hold to this latter line of argument, but the point is, even if you do, you can't use it as an example of something God can't do, except in a verbal sleight-of-hand.) Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
-Jon- God cannot rob justice to pay mercy. How's that? Nope. Another false-by-definition, as well as (I think) a misquotation of scripture, which says that *mercy* cannot rob justice. I already brought up the example that God cannot save people in their sins, which is clearly a false-by-definition nonsensical phrase -- save and sinful condition are mutually exclusive. Robbing justice to pay mercy is another nonsensical phrase, coined exactly so that by the juxtaposition people could see that it doesn't make sense. False by definition. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] can't be a sealer
-Paul- No one got back on the subject of why a man can't be a sealer in the temple if he has been divorced even by no fault of his own. I don't know why. I don't think it matters. Being a sealer is not a right, and in the strict sense is not even a privilege. It is a calling, just like being a gospel doctrine teacher or a bishop or an apostle. We don't control our callings. We merely accept them as they come. If the Lord's Church has a policy not to call divorced men as sealers, what of it? A man needn't be a sealer to gain eternal life. He needn't even hold any certain Priesthood office, so long as he holds the Priesthood itself. Whether we work as a sealer in the temple, or as the prophet to head the Church, or as one who opens a dispensation, is as irrelevant to our salvation and exaltation as whether we were asked to be the second grade hall monitor during the first week of the year when we were seven. If we seek after God and do as we're asked, we will inherit the unimaginable -- all that the Father hath. I'm just glad we have temple sealers. I'm also glad we have brain surgeons, but I don't particularly want to be one. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Article in Science on genetic diversity
-Marc- Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subsclusters that often correspond to individual populations. What?! Is this suggesting the outrageous proposition that commonly-defined racial characteristics are gasp! genetically based? General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks Wow. I guess it is. Who would have believed such a counterintuitive idea? (Besides myself and most of the adult population of the western world, I mean.) Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Worship Christ
-Paul- What do you mean we don't worship Christ? I worship Jesus Christ and so do the prophets of every dispensation. [...] I agree with you on this John and submit the following to Marc which I think shows that we must worship Christ as well as his Father and not just in name only: [...] Bruce R. McConkie, BYU Devotional speech, 2 March 1982: Let us set forth those doctrines and concepts that a gracious God has given to us in this day and which must be understood in order to gain eternal life. They are: 1. We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense--the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator. I don't believe Elder McConkie's teachings on the topic conflict with the other quotations you provided, and it does clearly teach that we do not worship Christ in the same sense as we worship the Father. I can't speak for Marc, of course (heaven forbid I try!), and truthfully I don't even remember the context of what he said; but in my mind this teaching gives validity to the doctrine that we don't worship Christ. At this point, I think it's all a matter of definition. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Microsoft interview questions
The funnest thing about interviewing at Microsoft are the famous (or infamous) interview questions, of which you're likely to get at least one per interview. A classic example is: You have three closed barrels in front of you, one filled with black marbles, one filled with white marbles, and one filled with a mix of black and white marbles. You also have three labels, one to a barrel, reading Black, White, and Mixed. You are told that each barrel has the wrong sign on it. You are allowed to draw one marble from a barrel. What is the least number of marbles you can draw to put the signs aright, and from which barrel(s) do you draw it/them? *(Answer below) Here's one I just got this afternoon that I hadn't heard before, though I'm pretty sure it's an old question: You wish to market a climbing chain consisting of some lengths of chain that can be joined together by carob-beaners (removeable links). Regular chain links are dirt-cheap; carob-beaners are very expensive. You want to market a chain set that can be used to create a chain of any length between one and twenty-one links, without any left-over links. (That is, you must have exactly 21 links in your kit, including carob-beaners.) What is the least number of carob-beaners you must include in the kit, and what are the lengths of chain you must also include? **(Answer below) Stephen (SPOILER: Answers below) * Draw one marble from the barrel labeled Mixed, since you know it's either the black or the white barrel (it isn't mixed -- the labels are all wrong). Put the appropriate label on that barrel, move the remaining Black or White label onto the now-unsigned barrel, and put the Mixed label on the remaining barrel. ** Short answer: Three carob-beaners, four lengths of chain as follows: 7 links, 7 links, 3 links, 1 link. Longer answer: You can quickly show that two carob-beaners is insufficient for making the correct combinations, since you must then have a three-link chain (your carob-beaners only combine for two links), and then a six-link chain (your three-link chain and carob-beaners only combine for five links). Two carob-beaners will only allow you to join a maximum of three lengths of chain; so your third length has to be 21 - 6 - 3 - 1 - 1, or ten links long. However, you have no way to make a nine-link chain: 6 + 1 + 1 = 8, and 6 + 1 + 3 = 10 (you can't directly join the six-link and three-link chains without a carob-beaner). So (Point #1) you will require at least three carob-beaners. Now, if you have three carob-beaners, that means you can have up to four lengths of chain. But how do you go from a 20-link chain to a 21-link chain? You have to add on a single link. That last link is either one of your carob-beaners (in which case you can only have three lengths of chain, not four), or else you have to have a one-link length of chain. You can quickly show that three carob-beaners and three lengths of chain won't work, so (Point #2) one of your four chain lengths must be a single link. Once you see these two points, you can play with the combinations and figure out the chain lengths that will allow you to do it with three carob-beaners. If anyone has insight how to arrive at an answer faster, please do tell. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Microsoft interview questions
-Marc- No wonder Microsoft's spellchecker is so lousy ;-) (carabiners, from a German word for carbine hook. Ah. I had never seen/heard the term, and the guy (Russian) called/spelled them carob-beaners. I wondered how that term had come about. What's a carob bean, anyway? But I had nothing to do with Microsoft's spell-checker. Otherwise, it wouldn't suggest Bereft every time I write my name. IIRC, aren't Italy's alpine police known as carabinieri?) Yes, the special forces guys who carry machine guns. Also known as carob-beaners. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
-Marc- We LDS do *not* believe God is omnipotent in the sense the Romans used this term -- we believe he's subject to natural law, Perhaps you believe so. I don't. God's word defines natural law. He is the master, not the subject. That is why he is called the Lawgiver. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
-Stephen- God's word defines natural law. He is the master, not the subject. That is why he is called the Lawgiver. -Jim- Yes, I thought that was a significant point to emphasize. Interesting that we independently arrived at a similar conclusion, even using similar wording. Almost like we were both listening to the same doctrine... Perhaps this is just another one of those silly, figurative notions that unenlightened fundamentalists like me trip over so often. Probably so. I would weep for your pitiful, ignorant state, but you're above my visual range. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
-Marc- The problem arises out of the word natural, and is a limitation of our language. By natural are we referring to the corruptible telestial world, or are we referring simply to the fact that there are higher laws which are natural but which operate in *their* realms, and which we by their and our very nature cannot comprehend? I'm using the term in its latter connotation. I don't disagree with this. My hesitation comes in labelling God as something other than omnipotent, even in saying that God isn't omnipotent in the sense the [Roman Catholics] believed. The fact that other religions don't understand the meaning of words like omnipotent does not negate the fact that God is truly all-powerful, far, far beyond any remote possibility that we have to imagine it. No, God can't do undoable things, like save people in their sins, or make a thing simultaneously exist and not exist. But these things are ultimately tautologically false; that is, they defy their own definition. I would be surprised if any man or woman can name something that God cannot do, whether because of the limitations of natural law or anything else, that doesn't fall into this class of false-by-definition. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Subject to natural law
-John- It is my understanding of Mormon doctrine that the laws by which Heavenly Father became and exalted being are coeternal with him. They are uncreate. And it was by obedience to these laws that he because God. My understanding follows Jim's quotation of Joseph Smith's teachings and of the scriptures; that God *instituted laws* among us. Whether those laws were pre-existent or not seems of little import. Remember, Marc's comment was that God is subject to 'natural law'. This is demonstrably untrue; God is above nature, has created nature, and has instituted her laws. Physicists now postulate that our universe was born perhaps 13 billion years ago, and that the laws of physics that we observe came into being at that point. If this is the case, then since we Latter-day Saints consider God to have been the creator of this universe, we could certainly imagine that he might have chosen whatever other set of physical laws to exist instead. We might also imagine that, as creator of the universe, he exists in such a state as to be able to effect whatever changes in it that he sees fit -- that is, he is above the universe, not subject to it. He could, for example, travel faster than light, an event that doesn't even have a well-defined meaning to us. I don't pretend the above is LDS doctrine. Rather, it is compatible with LDS doctrine, and is the closest I can come to reconciling doctrinal truth with scientific understanding. In any case, I feel quite sure that God is the Lawgiver, the creator of the universe, the God of nature, and thus to claim that he is subject to 'natural law' is incorrect. The idea that he made all the laws included those by which he progressed to become a God is a Protestant idea. Hardly. Protestantism rejects as blasphemous the very idea that God pregressed to become a God, so they certainly have no opinion on whether he created the laws that led to that exaltation! Besides, the laws governing God's exaltation are not the point under discussion; rather, we're talking about natural law and whether God is subject to it. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Curiosity About Alma 1:21
I would be surprised if any man or woman can name something that God cannot do, whether because of the limitations of natural law or anything else, that doesn't fall into this class of false-by-definition. Sorry for the weenie-speak. Let me try again: I disbelieve that any man or woman can -- and in fact defy anyone to -- name something that God cannot do, whether because of the limitations of natural law or anything else, that doesn't fall into this class of false-by-definition. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Natural Law
-George- Much of what is quoted by Sis Black is from a paper by LaMar Garrard, God, Natural Law, and the Doctrine and Covenants Brother Garrard may well have been my wife's and my favorite teacher at BYU, even though we only ever had him for one class. When he came in the first day, I thought he was the goofiest-looking teacher I had ever seen. By the end of the term, I thought his face reflected the countenance of Jesus Christ. In fact, it was from him that I most forcefully learned that God is the Lawgiver, the very point we're discussing now. He's also the teacher who effectively pointed out that we do indeed believe in salvation by grace, despite what many Latter-day Saints mistakenly believe and even teach. I also took a genealogy course from Sister Black, which I enjoyed quite a bit. I worked harder in that class than in any other religion class I ever took. I got very good marks all the way through on tests and projects, but only pulled a 'B' on the final. My course grade: B+. I've never quite forgiven her for that... (Not that I'd normally be unhappy with a B+ in a tough course, but it's the only religion class I ever took that I got less than an 'A' in, and I honestly thought I'd earned an 'A'. Ah, well. Cue the violins. At least I know how to spell carob-beans.) Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Re: New guy
-Val- Can this list handle another Cobabe?? :-o No, we can't have two Cobabes. At least one of them has to be the primary Babe. I suppose they'll have to decide between themselves which is better-looking. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] The Two Towers (LOTR)
-Gary- Also, if you send the answers to this list, make sure to warn everyone that there is spoiler information involved. Good call. WARNING!! This message contains SPOILER INFORMATION!! Don't read it unless you already know everything it says! In which case, reading it is superfluous. But then, I'm talking to a bunch of people that participate in an email discussion list, so I'm being redundant. 1) What is Gollum's real name? Mullog. 2) What is the name of the king's evil advisor? Francie Ducros. 3) What is an Ent? The wife of an Ooncle. 4) Who is Gollum's friend that helps him? That would be Mr. Valium. 5) How does Frodo escape the tower? The firemen get him with their ladder rig. 6) How many palantiri are there total, and how many are known of by the end of book 3? The same number as before I got here. If you've lost some of your palantiri, don't try to pin the blame on me. 7) What army does Aragorn raise to help him win a major battle? An army of those fast-growing Star Wars clones. Just kidding! He probably just raised himself some army Ents. As you know, they are social ensects, and can thrive in one of those glass-sided Ent farms. That should do it. If you can answer these questions, then I agree that you remember the books remarkably well. About time you made that admission. (By the way, which books are we talking about?) Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Temperature conversion chart
-Stacy- How do I decrease my sensitivity to cold? Convert to Celsius. If you find yourself getting cold at a mere 59 degrees Farenheit, for example, people will laugh and mock and point their finger at you and call you various unpleasant names, like weenie or pansy-girl or Gary Smith. But if you convert to Celsius, you won't get cold until it's a bone-chilling 15 degrees out -- and who could blame you? Impress your friends by basking in 38-degree water. When they express amazement, tell them you're afraid you won't see eye-to-eye with them until it's forty below. If nothing else, they'll be too confused to continue making fun of you. Ever-helpful, Stephen the Sage // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Canada: Bush is an idiot
-Marc- A customer is not in any way responsible for what one of its subcontractors say unless it is in the context of both of them acting together. -Stephen- So then, why do you bother including the disclaimer at the end of each of your posts? -Marc- I don't follow you. I don't have any clients, nor am I anybody else's client on this list. I have faith in you, Marc. If you keep on trying, I'm sure you'll finally get it. But I *will* tell you why I started putting that disclaimer on all of my email. Once, on a non-LDS list, a geography list on about.com moderated by a young geography prof at UCDavis, someone took exception to something I said and threatened to take his complaint to my boss. What?! You mean, you were threatened with having your views attributed to the guy signing your paycheck? Whoda thunk that a customer (or employer) is indeed often implicated, fairly or not, in the words of its subcontractors (or employees)? Amazing! -Marc- If you can't even get that right, it's no surprise that you get everything else wrong, too. -Stephen- Thanks for the kind words. -Marc- Hey, it's my job. Seriously? You get paid for being insulting? Just pointing these things out, like you like to do. Who watches the watchers? Marc Schindler, of course. -The Watchers Watcher- Jim was wrong, as I've demonstrated on several ocasions. I don't care about his dictionary definition. Ducros is no Ari Fleischer. -Stephen- So then, the dictionary is only correct if it agrees with your personal definition? -The Watchers Watcher- He was wrong when he said it was a public statement -- he's never retracted that, even after being shown that it wasn't a public statement. It was a statement made in a public setting, which makes it fair game. But I don't recall you going ballistic over the public vs private nature of the statement so much as Jim's use of the term politician to describe Ducros. And it is illogical to claim that because I disagree with someone's interpretation of a dictionary in use in one particular country, that I therefore hold an idiosyncratic definition of my own. How about that? And here I thought it was illogical to maintain that you were correct in the face of proof that you are wrong. Silly me. Hello? Hello. How's it going? Nice tantrum you're throwing. There are far more anglophones outside the USA than inside the USA. Well, that pretty much sums up the argument, doesn't it? Assuming for a moment that Jim's dictionary definition of politician is, as you insist, strictly an American usage: Jim's an American. Do you expect him to quit using his native tongue just because he's talking to Marc Schindler? I confess, I had no idea just how important you are. I explained the difference between Ducros and Fleischer. Yes, you did. Exhaustively. Repetitively. In minute detail. And, above all, condescendingly. (And thanks for that.) I have worked with provincial counterparts of Ducros. I think I can speak on the basis of direct experience. Ah. I see. You're looking for genuflection. Allow me to be the first: All Hail Marc Schindler, The Wise, Compassionate, and Darned-Near All-Knowing! -The Watchers Watcher- Your ignorance just makes you look silly. -Stephen- How true this is. Thanks again for more kind words. -The Watchers Watcher- Well, you're the one who's used to being in the keep 'em straight saddle. Not familiar with that saddle. I assume that what you're saying is that, despite the condescending tone you take with others, you don't like being publicly corrected or shown to be in error. And why should you? Heaven knows you've performed enough public service to the rest of us provincial ignoramuses (or should I say, Americans -- or even Republicans) by gently cluing us in via your wondrous condescension toward us and your genial manner, that you should be far removed from anyone actually daring to offer a different opinion from yours, much less actual correction. I'm in complete agreement. I meant nothing personal or insulting. Of course you did not. Just another example of my silliness! Why, I am sure you would happily tell your boss, your co-worker, your wife, or your dinner-party guest, Your ignorance just makes you look silly. How could they possibly take offense at that? It's neither personal (except perhaps for the you part) nor insulting (except perhaps for the ignorance and silly parts). Thanks for pointing that out. Your clarifications are so helpful, and your strict, self-searching honesty refreshing. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:
RE: [ZION] Canada: Bush is an idiot
-Marc- A customer is not in any way responsible for what one of its subcontractors say unless it is in the context of both of them acting together. So then, why do you bother including the disclaimer at the end of each of your posts? And please read properly: it was the *Alberta* government in the MediaWorks situation, not the *Canadian* government. Good point, duly noted. If you can't even get that right, it's no surprise that you get everything else wrong, too. Thanks for the kind words. Jim was wrong, as I've demonstrated on several ocasions. I don't care about his dictionary definition. Ducros is no Ari Fleischer. So then, the dictionary is only correct if it agrees with your personal definition? Your ignorance just makes you look silly. How true this is. Thanks again for more kind words. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Canada: Bush is an idiot
-Marc- Odd that we get critized for merely reacting to the U.S. but now a truly insignificant molehill is over-shadowed by a mountain, and all the Marc, I'm baffled at your insistent glee on this topic. I have seen no mountain regarding this. I would have missed the initial report altogether if not for Jim's pointing it out, and would probably have thought nothing of it afterward had you not gone ballistic. The first newspaper report I've noticed of it was in Tuesday's, I think, Seattle Times, on page A10. About three column-inches (47.6 Canuck-Celsius-column-centimeters). It may have been bigger news in DC, giving many there a laugh, but I really don't think many Americans paid much attention to it. But I suppose that's bad, too. Either we don't pay enough attention to Canada and Canadians, or we pay too much attention. As I mentioned before, I suspect you're merely demonstrating that famous Canadian thin-skinnedness. IMore tommmorow, but I'm glad to see you've dropped your claim that she was a politician. Jim did not drop that claim, as far as I can tell. At least, I hope he didn't. He was right. Why don't officials have the right to free speech? Who says they don't? Publishing private conversations overheard in a public setting is hardly comparable to, say, bugging someone's telephone. Secondly, Jim, you don't seem to have read the article you posted, just as you misremembered what the nature of the position. But he did not misremember the nature of the position. The article does *not* say that any public officials or politicians said anything. It was a private company, MediaWorks, who made the comment True, so you are technically correct about Jim being in error. But he is correct in spirit. MediaWorks was acting in its capacity as a contract media advisor to government. So while the Canadian government did not make the comment, their hired help did. In either case, it reflects on the Canadian government. Are you going to admit you were wrong in both instances, truly hoist by your own petard regarding the nature of both incidents. I really don't understand your bloodlust here. Jim was right, not wrong, in his assessment of Ducros as a politician, as he clearly demonstrated by appeal to a dictionary definition. Why are you so insistent that Jim admit his supposed error? Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Coffee, tea or eternity?
-Marc- W/L 5/8 BELOW Any plumbers out there who can read toiletese? ;-) I'm neither a plumber nor fluent in toiletese, but I suspect the first number is the tank capacity, while the second refers to the total amount of water per flush. Septic Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Canada: Bush is a moron
-Jim- Canadian politician calls President Bush a moron. -Marc- It wasn't a politician, it was an aide, Huh? That's like saying, It wasn't an animal, it was a housefly. Of course she is a politician. Do you mean that she is not an elected official? That much is clear, but really doesn't impact Jim's point. and it was in a private conversation at a social event, All the more reason to keep one's mouth shut instead of spewing such bile. How humiliating for her, and deservedly so. *No politician* said this -- Ducros hasn't been elected to anything, she's just Chrétien's communications director. I don't think politician and elected official are necessarily synonymous, which is apparently your understanding. So you think that Colin Powell is not a politician? George Stephanopolous was not a politician? I disagree. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Canada: Bush is a moron
-Marc- OK. And? A civil servant fits none of these definitions. You don't think she qualifies as one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government? You don't think she is a person engaged in party politics as a profession? I think she very clearly qualifies under at least those two definitions. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Coffee, tea or eternity?
-Paul- PS. Hi Jack! Tut, tut. We don't make such overt terroristic threats on this list. A Pauled, Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Something Else To Ponder
-Stacy- I've long suspected that psychoactive drugs, while helping someone to feel better, also lessens perception of personal revelation. Am I right? I'm no authority on the matter, but I believe you are. As a general rule, it seems transparently obvious to me that altering one's brain chemistry can't lead to closer communion with the Spirit of God. Individual exceptions doubtless exist regarding those who supplement their natural deficiencies with attempted replacement; for example, I doubt epilepsy _per se_ brings people unto Christ, so Dilantin or something of the sort may well put those so afflicted in a literally better frame of mind. One of my favorite missionary companions, who became a close personal friend both during and after my mission, told me of his pre-mission, pre-Church-activity drug usage. He said that, in retrospect, a cocaine high reminded him of nothing so much as a deep spiritual experience -- except that there was no communion with the Spirit, and that true spirituality doesn't end with a crash that leaves the person suicidal. He believed that many drug users crave this feeling of spiritual peace and serenity, and that's why they become addicted. I realize you probably weren't talking about illegal drug usage, but I thought it a relevant insight anyway. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] No Desire To Discuss What Is Forbidden
-Marc- My only fear in bringing Pamela Anderson into the discussion was that I might be accused of artificiality (tiddly-BOOM) chemistry_humor As our Mexican neighbors might say, Si! Si! /chemistry_humor Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Pamela Lee Anderson: poster girl of a different sort now
I'm quite sure that the mere mention of Pamela Lee Anderson violates several elements of the charter. Which means I'll probably get booted now. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Social Mormons (was: Liberal dems unveil...)
-Ronn- (FWIW, I've been unable to find out why there is apparently no such compound as 1,7-trimethylxanthine. Perhaps because the 1,7 and the tri prefixes are mutually exclusive? Just a guess. :) Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Social Mormons (was: Liberal dems unveil...)
-Ronn- (FWIW, I've been unable to find out why there is apparently no such compound as 1,7-trimethylxanthine. Oops. I meant 1,7-dimethylxanthine . . . Also called paraxanthine; described as an adenosine receptor ligand and a major metabolite of caffeine at http://www.sigma-aldrich.com/rbi/datasheet/a005dat.pdf Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Hogwarts and all
-Stacy- Don't you know that'll just irritate Protestant Fundamentalists worse than anything else? They'll think we're Satanists for sure! Strong evidence, indeed, in arguing for the virtue of Harry Potter books... Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Evolution's missing link
-Gary- Here is the evolution of Michael Jackson's face http://anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html This is one of the saddest things I've ever seen. I'm not even a fan, and I feel terrible for him. The gospel could heal this man, but I doubt anything else could. How nightmarish his life must be, to willingly submit to such mutilation. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Answer to life
-Gary- what if the person isn't using Euclidean mathematics? Then 9 times 6 may NOT equal 42. [...] -Jon- Then 9 times 6 equals 46. And that IS the correct answer. -Marc- In the decimal system, of course, you decidigicist, you... Just occurred to me: 9 x 6 = 42 in base 13, and 9 x 6 = 46 in base 12. Obviously, Gary and Jon are simply off-base. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] A Whirlwind Trip South
-Stephen- I wish I could, Stephen. But there isn't any coastal route from the Seattle area to Prince Rupert. Nonsense! There's always a route. Oh, do you mean a route you can drive your car through? Never mind. You mean you can't get in any of the building because they laid you off? Shame on them. I left Microsoft a little over a year ago and have been working as a contingent staffer, basically a contract player. I can't work for more than a year at a time without taking a mandatory break in service of 100 days. So that's what I'm doing now. Now that you are no longer working for Microsoft, do you still have the tenacious loyalty to them that you used to feel? I don't know how much personal loyalty I ever felt toward Microsoft -- some, I suppose. I feel none now, nor have I in well over a year, at least. Microsoft is a corporation and will do what it thinks it needs to do to keep its corporate interests satisfied. If keeping me happy helps them, they'll keep me happy. Otherwise, they won't. That is the nature of business in America. I enjoy working at Microsoft. It's a stimulating and rewarding work environment. They hire gobs of very smart, very competent people. I always feel stretched working there. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider working elsewhere, with non-MS technology. I would and I am. How is the job hunt going? Far more slowly than I had anticipated, to tell the truth. The job market in the Seattle area is so slow, I'm starting to look elsewhere. Thanks for asking. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] A Whirlwind Trip South
-Stephen- -Stephen- I wish I could, Stephen. But there isn't any coastal route from the Seattle area to Prince Rupert. Amazing. I quoted myself. No, wait, that was actually John. I just got confused and thought he was me because he's going to be in Utah with me. Except that I don't live in Utah. This is so confusing... I picked my wife up at the airport late last night. We didn't get to bed until after 2:00. I plead sleep deprivation. The Real Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] One party rule?
-Irwin- Thanks for the clarification. We are not even married yet and I need to be corrected. (grin) -John- After you are married, you will get all the correction you need. That's what I thought at first, but Michelle informs me that this is a slanderous falsehood. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Answer to life
-Gary- what if the person isn't using Euclidean mathematics? Then 9 times 6 may NOT equal 42. And if he is using Euclidean mathematics? Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] a whirlwind trip south
-Marc- Seriously -- did you guys hear about a case back east somewhere, New York state, iirc, where a tech had inadvertently left an oxygen cylinder in the room, and when the MRI was turned on, it got sucked right into the core, killing the poor patient (a young boy) instantly. Unless MRI technology has changed significantly in the last 7-8 years, I find this a bit hard to swallow. An MRI uses a huge, powerful magnetic field, on the order of 1-2 Tesla. This field is static and always on. In fact, there is (or at least, there used to be) a big red Quench button in the MRI room, used to shut off the magnet. A surefire way to experience a sudden job change was to press the button without sufficient cause. Anyhow, performing the MRI involved introducing relatively small changes to this huge magnetic field (using another coil or coils) at varying frequencies. So turning on the MRI should not result in any perceptible change in the magnetic field, which is pretty constant as far as things like keys and oxygen tanks go. Ronn can explain more, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't think I could have an MRI because my sternum (breastbone) looks like the inside of a Canadian Tire store (or Home Depot or whatever your hardware chains are called) -- it's all wired together with titanium wire. Plus the sleeve of my heart valve is made out of silver, and the valve posts are also titanium. The rest is kevlar and dacron, of all things. But anyway, lotsa metal. As far as I know, only ferromagnetic materials pose a danger. I don't think either titanium or silver is ferromagnetic, though I could be wrong. And as you point out, the techs can mathematically correct for the presence of metal, which will introduce distortions whether or not it's ferromagnetic. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Magnetic Personality
Googling on mri kill boy oxygen gave a couple of hits that looked like confirmations. The first hit was 404; the second was a safety site (http://www.altair.org/hazard.html) that included this warning under Magnetic: Ferrous metal objects can pose a danger near high powered magnets, such as a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit because the maagnet draws magnetic objects to it. Flying items can hurt and kill, including a young boy who died in 2001 from injuries after a metal oxygen tank was brought into an MRI unit, flew toward the magnet, and struck him in the head. This sounds more likely; someone foolishly wheeled a steel tank into an occupied MRI unit, resulting in tragedy. Not exactly a confirmation of the event out of the realm of urban legend, I realize, but I can believe it. Hope it didn't really happen, though. Stephen Marc A. Schindler wrote: It couldn't have been a CAT scan, which is just a glorified, spinning x-ray machine, basically. I heard it was an MRI. I don't dispute Stephen -- he sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but I can't remember any more than what I wrote. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stephen Beecroft: -Marc- ... a tech had inadvertently left an oxygen cylinder in the room, and when the MRI was turned on, it got sucked right into the core, killing the poor patient (a young boy) instantly. Unless MRI technology has changed significantly in the last 7-8 years, I find this a bit hard to swallow. I heard the story pretty much as Marc described it. I didn't hear a retraction. Maybe it wasn't an MRI or was a CAT scan or something, or maybe the report wasn't accurate, but I do remember hearing about it a few months ago on the radio and reading about it in the paper. Larry Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on Winston Churchill Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Magnetic Personality
-Tom- It seems that the incident actually did happen. Here's a typical report that came up when I did a Fetch search on MRI killing Guess you're right. Here's another: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/mri010731.html How sad. I know it's old news by now, but still, how tragic. Stephen // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
-Steven quotes _The New American Magazine_- This current display, therefore, repeats the notion that the dropping of the bombs by the U.S. brought Japan to the peace table and saved countless lives on both sides. But this historical view, like the original commentary intended for the exhibit, is not supported by the facts. Just to be clear: If the net effect of dropping two atomic bombs was to kill 100,000 of the enemy and thereby save _one_ American life, it would have been the moral duty of the commander-in-chief to do so. I doubt you can convince me that Americans would not have died had the bombs not been dropped; therefore, in my moral calculus, at least, dropping the bombs was the only moral decision Truman could have made. But in fact the Japanese had sent peace feelers to the West as early as 1942, only six months after the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. More would come in a flood long before the fateful use of the atomic bombs. I see. So, the enemy starts asking about peace twenty or so weeks after taking out your strategic harbor, and therefore you're supposed to believe they're sincere. Do I have that right? Here was an enemy who had been trying to surrender for almost a year before the conflict ended. Um, that would have been 1944. What happened to six months after Pearl Harbor? In her book, Brown supplied abundant evidence about the immense perfidy that kept the Japanese from surrendering until such time as the Soviets were ready to enter the war against Japan and the American forces had dropped the atomic bombs on civilian populations. Yes, Mark presented a web site detailing this same evidence a few years back. Interesting reading, perhaps with some truth to it. But in the end, it's bogus. All Japan had to do was to broadcast their unconditional surrender and they would have been spared. Blockade or no, Japan struck first and picked the fight, committing unspeakable atrocities in the warfare. If they didn't want to lose face by open surrender, that is their own fault, no the US's. Toshikasu Kase, an official of the Japanese Foreign Office, delivered a highly confidential message to the interned British ambassador, Sir Robert Craigi. It contained a discreet hint regarding the eventual restoration of peace. Emanating from Japanese Foreign Minister Togo, this message stated, Should it happen that the British Government became desirous of discussing or negotiating peace they would find the Japanese Government ready to be helpful. Yet we mannerless Americans, with no grasp whatsoever of the subtle nuances of civilized etiquette, just went on ahead and bombed them, all because of a little misunderstanding over a Hawaiian naval base. Yes, I see your point. In his 1952 book Fleet Admiral King, Admiral Ernest J. King reported President Roosevelt's 1942 understanding that by the application of sea power, Japan could be forced to surrender without an invasion of her home islands. This attitude, shared by most of our military leaders, would quickly be abandoned by the President. Instead, the costly island-by-island advance of U.S. forces northward through the Pacific continued. Hmmm. Might that be because Admiral King perhaps didn't witness the attempted taking of Italian peninsula, an Axis ally that actually had a lot of population who secretly sided with the Allies, and who in any case didn't plan to fight -- and that still resulted in a bloody campaign starting from the south and spanning the length of the country, a country roughly the size of Japan? If a comparatively friendly foe like Italy would be untakeable by naval forces alone and require extensive, bloody infantry warfare, why should the commander-in-chief have supposed that Japan, the original aggressor, a country whose pilots willingly sacrificed themselves to mess up carrier decks, would lay down and become docile under a similar situation? The only unwavering stipulation sought by anyone in the Japanese peace party was the retention of the Emperor and the continuance of the monarchy. Perhaps the Japanese leaders ought to have realized that unconditional meant just that, and that they had long ago (say, 7 Dec 1941) forfeited any right to name the conditions of their surrender. This sort of post facto second-guessing lies somewhere between silly and offensive. If my son were fighting in the Pacific theater, I would demand his (and my) commander-in-chief to protect his life, even at the cost of the enemy's lives. That's the CIC's job, second in priority only to winning the war. As far as I can tell, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki achieved both ends. To repeat: Japan could have broadcast their surrender at any time, even six months after Pearl Harbor. They could have broadcast an unconditional surrender in July 1945. They could have broadcast it after Hiroshima. They chose to wait. Whose fault is that? Stephen
RE: [ZION] Taliban in Pakistan
-Steven- Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. Like Jim, I don't know what constitutes moral high ground in a war. Note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial cities, and thus legitimate targets, just like Dresden. If the US was going for demoralizing civilian casualties, why didn't they nuke Tokyo? Since 1945, there has been a moratorium in usage of nuclear weapons during war, one which the US has scrupulously observed, and in fact has even taken a lead role in carving out such international law. In 1945, no such law existed. It's anachronistic (and worse) to try to hold the US of 1945 to a code of conduct that didn't exist at the time. I think a demonstration about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same purpose. Maybe, or maybe not. In either case, I think this suggestion is naive at best. Developing nuclear weapons was hugely expensive -- so now the US is supposed to give up its advantage of surprise by openly announcing to the enemy its secret weapon, giving them a demonstration, no less? That's simply not how it's done. I doubt any intelligent and honest military commander would have done any such thing. To repeat: Japan was the aggressor. They killed many of our men and women in battle, and tortured and killed many other POWs. They committed atrocities that are even now being discovered, disclosed, and rued. At any time, they could have openly surrendered and been spared the further consequences of war. They chose not to. That is not the US' fault, no matter how you slice it. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Social Mormons (was: Liberal dems unveil...)
-Jim- In my experience it is common to find social mormons with a misplaced sense of loyalty to such matters. They identify more strongly with sociopolitical ideology than with their faith in Christ. Funny you should write this, Jim. Just today, I was bathing in raw sewage, er, that is, reading the SL Tribune, and happened upon this article: http://www.sltrib.com/11092002/saturday/saturday.htm The article talks about a group of Mormons who strive for social justice and have branded themselves Mormons for Equality and Social Justice, or MESJ. One member paradoxically states that one of the unstated goals of the organization is that you can be both 'liberal' and Mormon. Another goes on to say: Sometimes it's hard to say I'm Mormon because of the political stereotype. Social Mormon, indeed. Note that it's not hard for him to say he's liberal among Mormons; rather, it's hard for him to acknowledge he's Mormon among liberals. In my personal experience, I find this fairly typical for those American Latter-day Saints who consider themselves politically liberal. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Home automation
-Jon- Yep - I have automated quite a bit at our bookstore, and some at my home (because I can never get any time to finish it. What area do you have in mind? Probably my basement family room, to start with. I've been dreaming about home automation for many years, and toying with the idea of implementation for 2-3 years now. A little over a year ago, I started working for the Microsoft eHome division, doing what amounts to home automation. I was in heaven for about three weeks. If a massive organizational restructuring hadn't moved me to a completely unrelated area, I would probably have been knee-deep into it. I got a call from one of my oldest and dearest friends a few days ago, someone I haven't seen in probably twelve years, though he was briefly a member of a couple of email lists I was on, including Zion. He was in town doing some work at MS as a vendor. We got together for a few hours after work and had a wonderful time. He is apparently quite involved in home automation, and has rekindled that spark in me. So I just wanted to know what others had been doing. I did a quick search yesterday and found out that, for many people, home automation is synonymous with X10. This might be problematic; I think X10 technology is a neat idea, but I'm not overly interested in using it in my own home, unless I decide it's really the best way. I'd rather drill some holes and run wires to each switch and whatnot. So if you've been using X10, or if you haven't, I'd like to know your reasoning and thoughts, what you've done, what's useful, what isn't, what you'd do differently, etc. Also, do you use voice recognition/control? That's a centerpiece of my own ideas, and fairly easily implemented with some of the MS libraries. I assume you use a computer (or two, or three) to control your automation. Do you use professional or available software, or do you roll your own? Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Mars Attacks
-John- Have any of you seen the comedy entitled Mars Attacks. It is hilarious, and one of my favorite, recent films. To each his own, I suppose. Michelle and I watched this some years ago, and we each thought it was one of the very worst, un-funniest, unpleasant movies we had ever had the misfortune of watching. It tried so hard to be over-the-top in cynical, gruesome humor, but instead it was mostly just unwatchable. The only reason we finished it was that it had come highly recommended by a couple of people, so we (or I) kept on saying, It _must_ get better than this. Unfortunately, it did not. Perhaps worst of all was not the grotesqueness of the humor, but its mind-numbing predictability. (NOTE: SPOILER ALERT) The funniest part of the whole movie, which merited a slight half-smile from me and an eye-roll from Michelle, was the usage of Slim Whitman music to explode the Martians' heads at the end of the movie. On the whole, pretty much a waste of my time from beginning to end. In contrast, I found _Death Becomes Her_ to be a very funny show, though the humor was so dark and gruesome that I did not think the humor was worth the experience. I wouldn't recommend the movie, but at least it was funny. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] OJ thoughtfully considers new info
http://www.msnbc.com/news/822149.asp?cp1=1 Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Sonia Johnson (was: Who is the House of Israel?)
-Marc- FWIW, this is exactly how I remember it, too. She also made a public snit about how her 12-year old daughter wasn't allowed to pass the sacrament. As I recall, her marriage broke up again and she declared she'd been a lesbian all along. Bit of a wacko. Wonder whatever happened to her? rant As far as I am concerned, Sonia Johnson is living proof of the inspiration in the Church. Since her excommunication (supposedly for supporting the ERA -- uh huh), she has shown her true roots as an ultra-radical man-hating feminist in the purest tradition of Andrea Dworkin. I am sorry for her ex-husband, moreso for her children (especially her son), and even for her -- but I am not sorry she can no longer appropriately be called a Mormon. /rant Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] You Just Don't Get It
-Marc- Are there people here who defend apostate sects? Or is this a high council talk ;-) Actually, I agree with John in this. It's one thing to say that some/many/most/all religions contain truths. It's quite another to say that God directed that they be established as a sort of halfway house for sinners in their journey to him. The former seems obvious; the latter is directly contrary to my understanding of God's dealings with us. Yes, good and honest men and women, working through the light of Christ, can bring to pass good works. That does not mean that those works, be they social contributions or religious organizations, are inspired by God, approved of him, or granted any special status outside what the Lord told Joseph Smith about the creeds of his (and our) day. I would not choose to lead into a conversation with a non-member by citing this fact, however. In some instances, our similarities are much more important than our differences. But let's not be deceived into believing that Such-and-such Church or sect or religion has been set up under the inspiration of God for the edification of his children. I disbelieve that, and in fact believe it to be in direct contradiction to our teachings, as I mentioned above. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] The veil
-Jim- One of the most significant meanings of the veil is the representation of our separation from God. Jim, it's great to hear you again (speaking symbolically :). In fact, I would say that the representation of our separation from God is the *primary* meaning of the veil, in all cases I've been able to identify. Interesting that that separation is sometimes considered necessary, even beneficial, though temporary, while at others, it's a curse. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] The veil
The symbolism of the veil is used several times in our gospel teachings, and in some different ways. They all seem to have one thing in common: The veil separates us from God. Usually that is good, or at least necessary; in one case, it is not. In the teachings of the gospel, I see at least five separate usages of the term veil: 1. The veil of forgetfulness is a God-given gift or feature of our second estate, preventing us from remembering our premortal life and thus requiring us to walk by faith. 2. The veil is often used in Mormon-speak in reference to death, such that those on the other side of the veil are the dead who await us in the spirit world. More generally, it is used to allude to a spiritual world (not always The Spirit World), as when I heard someone say, The veil is very thin at the birth of a child. I assume this usage of veil is somehow related to #1, though the exact relationship is not clear to me. 3. One of two physical usages of veil is, of course, the veil of the temple. In this sense, passing through the veil does not mean death, or even resurrection, but rather is a symbol of our gaining eternal life and entering the Lord's presence in his celestial kingdom. This may also be related to #1 above, though again I'm not sure exactly what the relationship is. 4. The other physical veil is worn by the sisters and used at certain, very specific points when doing temple work. In light of the above usages of veil, I find this fascinating. I would welcome discussion on this, except for two things: 1. I am not sure how effectively we could discuss its symbolism without violating sacred temple teachings and performances, or at the least making some on this list uncomfortable with the discussion; and, 2. I fear speculation or even informed discussion -- if informed discussion is even possible on this topic -- might offend some of the sisters here, and perhaps some of the brethren, as well. But I mention it for your consideration and for the sake of completeness. Make of it what you will. 5. Moses 7:26 mentions Satan veiling the earth with his chain, symbolizing (I believe) the captivity of sin and the blindness Satan causes in the hearts of men. Isaiah 25:7 also uses this symbolism. Just some musings during the gospel doctrine discussion yesterday. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Jerusalem Temple
-Marc- 107th, 108th. Whatever. 220, 221. Whatever it takes. Mr. Mom / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Quorum Brotherhood
-John- Play more, work less. And when you play, make sure it is a joint outing between you and your wife and children, and those of another elder in the quorum. Invite another elder with his family to your house for dinner, or if that is too much work, just invite them for a two family ice cream social. [...] if necessary, pass around a sign up sheet like we do with the missionaries. The point is, two families cannot become close if they never spend any time together. I believe what you've written here. It sounds right to me -- it has the ring of truth. So how is it implemented? Suppose I've been tasked with building quorum brotherhood. Do I just start making as many friends as I can? Honestly, I can't adequately maintain the friendships I have now -- and I'm out of work! I suppose the first thing is to get everyone on board the idea, that is, convert everyone to the idea that it's important to be a quorum brotherhood and that means spending time together. But I don't know a half-dozen men in my quorum that spend as much time with their families as they would like, much less with other friends. Seems like we should be *working* together, as well as playing. But when the quorum members work all over the place as happens in modern society, that doesn't lend itself well to spending work time together. I'm at something of a loss for ideas on how to bring such a thing about. We all have the same 24 hours every day. Nobody is too busy to make and build friendships if that is what they value. How we spend that 24 hours each day reflects our personality and priorities. True enough, but we don't have the tools (skills) necessary to build such friendships, or if we do, we don't know how to use them. Has anyone successfully led a quorum to become truly tight-knit, something beyond a group of mutually-acquainted (or not) men who vaguely like each other (or at least those they know)? Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] High Priests
-Mark- Moroni talks about teachers and priests. This is several hundred years after Christ, so the Nephites had the Melchizedek priesthood at that time and were not under the law of Moses. True enough. I was referring to earlier, pre-Resurrection references to teachers and priests. But you bring up an interesting point: Several of the Brethren have stated that since the Nephites were not Levites they never did have the Aaronic priesthood even when under the law of Moses. I did not realize this, having never heard these statements; but now that you mention it, it seems pretty obvious that the Nephites would not have had the Levitical Priesthood. Duh. The Moroni reference is interesting. The term priest itself implies a Priesthood office, and Moroni 4-5 show that priests as well as elders could consecrate the sacrament, which as far as I know is purely a Priesthood function. Furthermore, Moroni 3 talks about the *ordination* of priests and teachers, the identical wording (or the same ideas, if the prayer is not meant to be verbatim) used in each, suggesting that both priest and teacher were Priesthood offices. Since the Nephite post-Resurrection office of priest had the authority to administer the sacrament, it's tempting to say that those two offices were identical to the Aaronic Priesthood offices of priest and teacher that we have today. However, your mention above of the teachings of our leaders, which I assume to be correct (do you have an actual citation(s)?), demonstrates that the Nephites were not in possession of the Aaronic Priesthood; so if teacher and priest were in fact Priesthood offices, as seems likely, they must have been offices in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Other possibilities? Maybe the Nephites had some other type of lesser Priesthood, similar to our Aaronic Priesthood, and these were offices in that other Priesthood. Seems farfetched, but I have heard others talk about what they term the Patriarchal Priesthood as a separate thing from the Melchizedek Priesthood, or more correctly a subset of it. I have done no study of this issue, and the argumentation I've heard on it is most unconvincing; but if such a thing actually existed, then it's possible there was yet another Nephite Priesthood subset, similar to the Levitical/Aaronic and the Patriarchal. Another idea, one that to me seems more likely: If Joseph's use of the term ordain in translating Moroni 3 is taken more broadly, maybe as synonymous with set apart, another possibilitiy presents itself. Perhaps priest and teacher did not refer to administrative/functional capacities that today we call offices. Maybe they were more akin to what we today would term callings, like ward missionary and gospel doctrine teacher. The elders of the Nephite church in later times referred to the disciples, meaning specifically the leaders selected by Christ, or the virtual apostles of the Nephites. Maybe all Nephite Priesthood leaders were called elder. In that case, Moroni's statement that the elders or priests administered the sacrament would be like saying that the Church leaders or sacrament-administrators (i.e. those specifically authorized to administer the sacrament) took care of that ordinance. All speculation, of course; but knowing that the Aaronic Priesthood did not exist among the Nephites, and without further historical information, it may be the best we can do. They further state (IIRC) that they could officiate in the ordinances of the law of Moses through the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood. This makes sense. Since the Aaronic Priesthood is a part of the higher Priesthood, it is reasonable that any holder of the higher Priesthood could officiate in a duty of the lesser Priesthood. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] High Priest
-Gary- And I've done some research and determined that those who mentioned previously that [bishop] is a position in the Aaronic Priesthood are partially incorrect. I don't recall anyone saying it was a position in the Aaronic Priesthood; rather, they said it was an office in the Aaronic Priesthood. I believe this is beyond all dispute. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. Those who receive it otherwise (not of Aaron's lineage), receive it as an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood. I have never heard of bishop being considered a Melchizedek Priesthood office, except in the sense that the Aaronic Priesthood is a subset of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and therefore all Aaronic Priesthood offices (deacon, teacher, priest, and bishop) form a part of the structure of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Obviously, current Church practice specifies that any bishop hold the office of high priest, but that doesn't negate the fact that bishop is an Aaronic Priesthood office. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] High Priests
-Gary- You give some nice definitions, but can you show where these definitions come from? Mostly from the scriptures themselves. I am pretty sure that the Bible never explicitly specifies that Enos was Adam's grandson, but the meaning is clear enough that I can say that anyway. Similarly, Alma's meaning is not easily mistaken. I agree that the term high priest can have more than one meaning, but there are many Church leaders who would disagree with your Alma 13 assessment, and say that those were, indeed, high priests in the modern sense as you so put it. Name one. For my part, I name Elder Hilbig of the Seventy, who used the same gloss (if you care to call it such) as I have when he said last year in general conference: The prophet Alma explained that men ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood on earth have been 'called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling' (Alma 13:3). (I might also quote any number of other general authorities, e.g. Elder Maxwell, who in April 1986 general conference also followed this gloss, saying: In fact, we learn that all faithful men of the priesthood were 'called and prepared from the foundation of the world' (Alma 13:3)...; or the reference in Elder Nelson's October 1987 conference talk: Scriptures also relate that the Lord God foreordained priests prepared from the foundation of the world according to his foreknowledge. Thus, our calling to the holy priesthood was foreseen before we were born (see Alma 13:1-5). But, I won't bother.) I say that the term is an ancient one, No one disputes that the term high priest is ancient. that we were foreordained as high priests, according to Alma. No one disputes this, either. The dispute is Alma's meaning: I (and apparently the general authorities) say this means a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, while you say it only refers to those who hold the office of high priest. I use Occam's Razor on this, as your definition requires a twisting of terms (or redefinition, anyway). Perhaps you should tell Elders Maxwell, Nelson, and Hilbig about Occam's razor, so they can get their acts together. If Alma says faithful men were foreordained as high priests, why can't you accept it as it is written? I do accept it **as it is written**, Gary. In my view, it is you who does not accept it as written, insisting instead on applying your anachronistic definition. Remember, the office of high priest did not exist at the time Joseph Smith translated Alma's words. I mean, there are different MP titles given in the BoM, even though I grant they aren't exactly the same as we have today (obviously teacher was an office in the MP for the Nephites). Though this is off the main thread, it's an interesting side thread. I don't agree that teacher was a Melchizedek Priesthood office for the Nephites; the Melchizedek Priesthood was not generally held among the Jews, so I don't see why it would have been generally held among the Nephites, who were after all Jews and who were therefore under the law of Moses. If teacher was a Priesthood office, I expect it pertained to the Aaronic Priesthood; however, my supposition is that it was not a Priesthood office at all, but more like what we today would call a calling. In other words, a teacher was simply one who was authorized to teach. And are you trying to tell me that Abraham's desire to be a high priest just means he wanted to hold the MP? Yes. This is *exactly* what I'm saying. Why didn't he just say he desired to be a priesthood holder, then? He did. He said that he wanted to be a holder of the Priesthood of the patriarchs, the high Priesthood. That is, he wanted to be a high priest. That's not a Priesthood office, it's a holder of the Priesthood. Why do we have to twist his terms, when they are clear enough without redefining them? Because you are using an anachronistic application of the terms. Finally, we are told that there will be an ordination to become a god, that we will be set apart as kings and priests. Since you already hold the MP as an elder, why must one be reordained a priest? Let me turn the question back on you. Since you already hold the office of high priest, why must you be reordained a priest? Or are you suggesting that, as a high priest, you have no further need to be ordained a king and priest in the eternities, because you've already received all you need? BTW, I'm not teaching false doctrine. Nor did I say you were. I said that if the doctrine you preach were taught (note the subjunctive) as gospel, it would be false doctrine. I assume you are not teaching this speculation as gospel, so therefore it's not false doctrine. It's just speculation --
RE: [ZION] High Priests
Gary, all this side discussion about Alma 13 and such is interesting enough, and I'm happy enough to continue it -- though I suspect that, upon review of the relevant teachings and a careful rereading of Alma's words, you will agree that Alma 13 is much more inclusive than you've been thinking, and that it in fact applies to all Melchizedek Priesthood holders, not simply those who hold the administrative Priesthood office of high priest. But the central question remains: Where do you derive your doctrine that all men must eventually hold the Melchizedek Priesthood office of high priest in order to receive exaltation? That's the genesis of this thread, and I have yet to see any evidence that this doctrine exists in holy writ, or that it is taught by, approved by, or even believed by the general authorities. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] High Priests have money
-Paul- The Lord will not call a poor man to be an apostle. Poor people are just not good enough for the job. You have to have money. If I remember correctly, Elder Packer spent his professional life in the CES, a job practically guaranteed to keep you dressed in rags. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Figure the Odds
-John- Figure the odds. Only a dozen or so have been killed out of population of over 14,000,000. You chance of being killed is about the same as a meteorite landing on your head. Well...not really. I believe there is only one known case of a meteor striking a person -- and she survived. But hyperbole aside, your point is well-taken. In this last two weeks or however long this lunatic has been murdering people, how many in DC have been killed in drug transactions? How many have died in automobile accidents? The fear of the masses, though understandable, is based in what Marc would call innumeracy. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] High Priest
-Larry- Keys, where needed, are given to the person set apart for a calling. He only holds those keys until he is released. How about that? That's directly opposite to what a bishop told me years back. Thanks for the clarification. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] High Priests More Active Than Elders
-John- I have heard that half of all elders are inactive. But that fewer than 5 percent of high priests are inactive. Can anyone here confirm or deny this? I can't confirm or deny Church-wide, of course, but around here that's not the case. 50% is approximately right for the elders, probably a bit high, but 5% is definitely too low for the high priests. I speculate that by the time a man is called to be a high priest he has proven that his interest in the gospel is not a temporary thing. Elders, because they are generally much younger, have not lived long enough to demonstrate by their record that they will remain active no matter what. Maybe in some places, but I doubt that's the case here. Of the six elder's quorum presidents I have had in Redmond, four have been over 40 years old. Of the other two, one was a recent convert of about 26 years of age, and the other was in his early 30s and was clearly being fast-tracked and groomed for administrative service (he's currently in the bishopric). Our elder's quorum has also, until very recently, included a very active brother in his 50s and several very active men in their 40s. They had long since demonstrated by their record their activity. But we live in a very active area with lots of leadership-quality men, and I suspect the local leaders prefer not to make men high priests just because they have turned 30 or 40 or 50 or whatever. Just my suspicions. I do agree with at least one thing you've said: High priests are far more likely to be active than elders. This is to be expected, since high priests are the leaders, and the leaders are usually selected from among the most active and faithful of the Saints (men). But that should not be considered a slight upon those faithful Saints of whatever age who are elders. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] High priests
-Gary- The only person among Elders with keys is the Elders Quorum president. In other words, the only elder with keys is the presiding elder. Well, of course. And the only high priest with keys is the presiding high priest. Yet, his keys are limited. As are the bishop's or stake president's. He cannot perform most of his responsibilities without the okay of either the presiding high priest in the ward or the presiding high priest in the stake. Just as the presiding high priest needs the okay of his superiors to exercise his keys. He cannot authorize the ordination of elders. He cannot authorize the calling and setting apart of his counselors. Those are responsibilities (and keys) laid to the High Priesthood as those who officially preside. Not so. First, an elder holds the high Priesthood. Second, those keys reside only in the appropriate presiding high priests, not in the office of high priest. To preside over and hold all the keys of presidency, one has to be a high priest. No. Currently, one must be an apostle. A stake president cannot call and set apart another stake president. There isn't anymore salvation promised to a high priest as to an elder (as the MP is all that is required in this life), but eventually (presumably if not now, in the next life) one will have to be a high priest to preside over a presidency in heaven. You have already made this assertion. I just want to see some evidence of this claim. I guess you could say that elder does fulfill the minimum requirements for exaltation, at least in this life. But prior to us being kings and priests unto God and his Father we will have to obtain the right of presidency, which pertains to high priests in the high priesthood. Again, I would like more than your assertion that this is the case. Otherwise, why have the distinction? why not just have elder and leave it at that? Asking the question is hardly producing evidence. I could just as well ask, Why have deacons and teachers? Why have seventies? Or why not? The answer is the same: Because that is how the Lord chose to restore his Priesthood at this time. However, once exalted, one will have to have the right of presidency and to hold those keys, which keys belong to the high priest's office. Not so. There are two usages of the term keys that apply here, and your sentence above doesn't conform to either usage. The first is a key of knowledge, of the right to communicate with God by virtue of the Preisthood, such as DC 6:28, the keys of translation. The Aaronic Priesthood holds the keys of the ministering of angels; the Melchizedek Priesthood holds the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God (DC 84:19) and the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church (DC 107:18). These keys belong to the Priesthood itself, not to any particular office therein, and all those who hold and honor the Priesthood they hold have access to these keys. The second usage of the term keys is the right of presidency. These keys reside in the presiding authority, be he deacon, teacher, bishop, elder, high priest, or apostle. These keys are often associated with an office; however, no office of the Priesthood confers such keys on those ordained to the office. Rather, the keys are explicitly conferred on those called as leaders. You seem to believe that the office of high priest is both eternal (which I see no evidence for) and also the highest office (which is demonstrably false). I have never heard taught by any authorized person the idea that all men must eventually be ordained to the current office of high priest in order to achieve exaltation. I believe this to be a false precept. If you can substantiate it with something other than your say-so, I'd love to come to understand. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Voting and parties (was Re: Cuba and Castro)
-Marc- In the U.S. every voter registers for a party (or as an independent -- as I recall the rules vary considerably from This is not correct. -Mark- What? You mean to say that you cannot vote in the US unless you register your preference? Is that true? No, it is not true. Many states do require you to register in order to vote in the primaries, though. And if it is, what's the point of it? To make sure the Democrats in an area don't band together and elect a Republican candidate who can't possibly win the general election, and vice versa. Since your vote is secret, why register a preference? In a primary, you may only vote within your registered party if you live in a state with such rules. Some states don't have any such rules, which I consider to be a mistake (the lack of such rules, I mean). As to voting or supporting a party: I'm not sure that I follow what Elder Jensen was saying. What's the point of voting for a party if you don't accept their policies? Obviously, I can't speak for Elder Jensen, but I suspect the general authorities are concerned about the lack of opposition to the Republicans in Utah. This lack of political balance allows the Republicans to bend the rules and control state politics without an effective counterbalance. Personally, I'm not sure that's so much worse than the perpetual gridlock you so often get with more balanced state legislatures. In any case, it is vastly preferable to having a bunch of Democrats in charge. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Tweaking Canada
-Stephen- Let's see if I understand what you wrote. Here is what I heard: I am not anti-US. Rather, I am anti-Big-Kahoona, and the US is the Big Kahoona right now. Please confirm if I have actual reason to laugh, or if I've somehow misunderstood you. -Marc- I think my original post was clear enough that it doesn't need further clarification. Agreed. As I've shown above, your meaning was crystal clear. I was just trying to give you a chance to back out gracefully. telepathic comments deleted You're just jealous that I do it so much better than you. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Voting and parties (was Re: Cuba and Castro)
-Marc- In the U.S. every voter registers for a party (or as an independent -- as I recall the rules vary considerably from -Stephen- This is not correct. -Marc- Please don't interrupt. Oops. My bad. I had thought this was John Redelfs' discussion list, not Marc Schindler's lecture hall. Silly me. If you read the whole post, I made clear that this was to vote in party conventions -- what you call primaries. Wrong. Your first paragraph was: Being a 'member' of a party in our Westminster system means something different than it does in the U.S. In the U.S. every voter registers for a party (or as an independent -- as I recall the rules vary considerably from state to state, as to how the states elect their delegates to the party national conventions). So to say that my late father was a Democrat means that he was registered as a Democrat. As it happens, this is pretty meaningless, because the vote is secret, and you can vote for whomever you like. This paragraph clearly was referring to the general election, since you said affiliation was meaningless and that you can vote for whomever you like, something not possible in primaries. Only in your next paragraph did you go on to discuss primaries. Even if you had made clear that this was to vote in...primaries, you're still wrong. In no sense is it true that [i]n the U.S. every voter registers for a party (or as an independent). A great many voters do not register under any affiliation whatsoever, and some states allow participation in primaries without a declared affiliation. tweak Maybe you should read your own posts more carefully. Alternatively, you could admit when you're wrong...oh, never mind. No use dwelling in a land of fantasy. /tweak Tweakin' Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] RE: Voting and parties
-Val- I am a good Mormon Democrat -Stephen- Then I'm willing to bet you're not a liberal Democrat. -Marc- Please don't define *our* language for us. Marc, I am talking to a fellow American here, not to an Aussie or a Brit. If your understanding of American politics too sparse to acquaint you with the commonly-used term liberal Democrat, then you should consider sparing yourself the embarrassment of demonstrating that ignorance in front of everyone. Liberal is still a perfectly fine word in the majority of the English-speaking world. Indeed, it is so in the US, too. But since this was a case of two Americans talking about American politics, the phrase had a well-understood meaning -- well-understood, that is, to those who understand American politics. Since you obviously do not, you would probably do well not to insert uninformed, meaningless etymological commentary. Helpfully, Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Voting and parties (was Re: Cuba and Castro)
-Marc- Exactly. I was referring to state party conventions, what you call in US English, primaries. Interesting. So, then, what did you intend to say when you wrote: So to say that my late father was a Democrat means that he was registered as a Democrat. As it happens, this is pretty meaningless, because the vote is secret, and you can vote for whomever you like. If you were referring to primaries, then why did you say that affilliation was meaningless, because...you can vote for whomever you like? This is clearly false, even in primaries. And you never did respond to the question of why your statement, [i]n the U.S. every voter registers for a party (or as an independent), was not false on its face, given that not all states require registration in a party to participate in primaries, much less the general election. Clarifyingly, Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] RE: Voting and parties
Now, now, Marc. Giving you the last word doesn't mean giving you license to misquote and make stuff up. To wit: You used the phrase [here] and elsewhere. It was the elsewhere that I was taking objection to. This is untrue. I did not use the phrase and elsewhere, as you yourself go on to admit: Your original: Much as some, American and otherwise, might find that hard to understand, I think it's tautological. And it's true. Many, both American and otherwise, find it hard to understand that one cannot be a faithful Latter-day Saint and a liberal Democrat -- meaning, of course, a supporter of the liberal element of the US Democratic Party, as is obvious from context. You appear to be a shining example of exactly that fact, since you seem not to admit the rather obvious truth of the statement (obvious to some of us, at least). In any case, I made no explicit or implicit claims about word meanings elsewhere other than the US. Feel free to have the last word, but don't use that opportunity to put words in my mouth. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Stop kicking the stuffing out of Turkey
-Psychic Marc- [Castro] saw revolution as the only way to break the endless pattern of Cubans electing democratic governments etc. -Confused Marc- Where's the beef, er, ideology? I deliberately avoided painting him in ideological colours. This is history as it happened If you can't see how your psychic analysis, or at least psychoanalysis, of Castro does not constitute history as it happened, but rather is an ideological gloss, then I'm powerless to help. However, as you take great pleasure in tweaking Americans, I expect that's what you're doing now. Stephen the Tweaked / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Stop kicking the stuffing out of Marc
-Stephen- If you can't see how your psychic analysis, or at least psychoanalysis, of Castro does not constitute history as it happened, but rather is an ideological gloss, then I'm powerless to help. However, as you take great pleasure in tweaking Americans, I expect that's what you're doing now. -Marc- Stephen, if you contribute something positive, I'll comment on it. Otherwise, why bother? Well, that's not very generous of you. After all, I often comment on your posts. :) How do you know what my emotional state is if and when I tweak Americans? Good point. I do not know. I assume the best. I suppose you could instead be filled with malicious glee, or perhaps are in the thrall of an uncontrollable compulsion. True, I am assuming that you're not shedding tears of pity or sorrow when you tweak, though that doesn't seem too difficult a leap of logic. If I'm wrong, then I'll recant and honor you for your deep, sympathetic nature, despite your rather unusual way of demonstrating that sympathy. You can read history, or ignore it with smug personal attacks. Your choice. Please name a personal attack I've made on you in this thread. Just one will do. You have yourself admitted to enjoying tweaking (as you call it) various groups, including Americans, so that can hardly be considered an attack. On the other hand, crying Ad hominem! is sometimes an effective way of diverting attention from the fact that you're wrong... History does not record that Castro saw revolution as the only way to control American hegemony. Marc Schindler may claim it's the case, but it's not history. It's ideology. And when you make an ideological claim while simultaneously telling someone that ideological analysis is an oversimplification, then say you didn't make any ideological claims -- well, I don't think it's terribly unusual that an observer might point out the inconsistency. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Stop kicking the stuffing out of Turkey
-Marc- Since this thread is fraying all over the place, here's a summary post of how I see the history of Cuba. [...] 6.That things aren't even worse in Central America and the Caribbean are thanks to an elder of Zion, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., whose Clark Memorandum diverted early 20th century attempts by the U.S. to become true imperialists like their British and French predecessors. Not sure how this (or any of the following points) has anything to do with the history of Cuba. Also, don't you think your above statement is an oversimplification? 7.I have no idea what Victor is talking about. Where does one get a card that says one is a liberal democrat? One can get that from me, for a small charge. Also, it's straitlaced, not straightlaced. The words have different meanings. Not according to www.m-w.com. They are listed as variant spellings of the same word. In any case, if you're going to be critical of spelling, you missed then, let's, forgiveness, afterlife, card-carrying, temple-going, and of course Latter-day Saint. But such things seem to me a case of attacking the messenger instead of the message, something I know you find distasteful. If he means all Democrats are liberal, then I suggest he discuss his problem with President Faust, a registered Democrat. Interesting. I did not get that meaning at all from what he wrote, nor did it even occur to me. Perhaps Canadians just can't understand American political talk... 8.An ideological approach is one where one demonizes an opponent by using a label in such a way as to divert one's attention from what actually happened in history. Ah. In other words, Steven's approach was ideological *because* he was demonizing an opponent with ideological tags, while your approach was clearly not ideological, since you weren't using your ideological tags to demonize Castro. But then, you were arguably demonizing the US. Of course, I expect you'd claim the US wasn't your opponent, so therefore it still doesn't fit your definition of an ideological approach. I'm just not sure I accept your definition, I guess. One of its particularly obnoxious tools, and the reason I left Zion-L once, is when they try to claim ecclesiastical/doctrinal authority for their perverted and hobby horse views. Again, I agree completely with this sentiment. As an example, those who try to leverage Elder Nelson's recent conference talk to bolster their sociopolitical views against US actions toward Iraq are obnoxiously wresting his ecclesiastical/doctrinal authority to support their perverted and hobby horse views. Wouldn't you agree? 9.Pointing out your own history to you doesn't make one anti-USAmerican. True enough. Rather, continually and disproportionately attacking US actions, past and present, and attaching such ideological tags as imperialistic and militaristic to the US, makes one anti-American, at least in my view. If you disagree with my reading of history, then prove me wrong, don't attack the messenger. That's the classic mistake of an ad hominem argument. So when the anti-Mormons say, Those twisted Mormons get NAKED in their temples! And they're POLYTHEISTS, like Hindus! And they teach that Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS!, your response is to say, Yup, you're absolutely right, no arguments here? Or do you concede that the messenger's presentation may indeed severely color the message? Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] Stop kicking the stuffing out of Marc
-Marc- Stephen, if you contribute something positive, I'll comment on it. Otherwise, why bother? -Stephen- Well, that's not very generous of you. After all, I often comment on your posts. :) -Marc- You skipped the word positive. On the contrary, that was my point. I *still* comment on your posts, even though... (but it's never very funny if you have to explain) -Marc- There's another possibility: that I simply present history and facts and let them speak for themselves without an ideological bias. Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh. That's good for a chuckle, Marc, but I doubt any of us believe it, including you. -Marc- You can read history, or ignore it with smug personal attacks. Your choice. -Stephen- Please name a personal attack I've made on you in this thread. -Marc- You called me anti-American, rather than addressing the actual points I made. No kidding? How about that. Can you find the citation where I did such a thing in this thread; that is, called you anti-American instead of address your actual points? Because I've looked, and I can't find it. Not to say I didn't do it -- I do have notorious swiss-cheese memory at times -- but I can't locate the offending post. And frankly, I don't believe it ever happened. But feel free to prove me wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be making unsubstantiated claims. tweak, tweak -Stephen- History does not record that Castro saw revolution as the only way to control American hegemony. Marc Schindler may claim it's the case, but it's not history. It's ideology. -Marc- Don't just say it. Prove it. Okay, how's this: STEPHEN: Hey, History, did Castro see revolution as the only way to control American hegemony in the Caribbean? HISTORY: Huh? What kind of stupid question is that? How the heck should I know what Castro saw or didn't see? STEPHEN: So, your answer is... HISTORY: No! Of course not! There. That should constitute a convincing proof. By the way, there's another fault in your logic when you assume that I intended to *define* ideology. It wasn't an assumption. It was an observation. You defined an ideological approach when you wrote, An ideological approach is one where... I didn't -- I said ideological readings of history is oversimplifying history. You said, or more properly, wrote: An ideological approach is one where one demonizes an opponent by using a label in such a way as to divert one's attention from what actually happened in history. This constitutes a definition (and an incomplete one at that) of an ideological approach. Not all summaries or oversimplifications are necessarily ideological. This was Aristotle's first logical fallacy: All Cretans are men does not imply that all men are Cretans. No, that fallacy is not oversimplification. Rather, it's the fallacy of confusing the group and the subgroup. In any case, I'm guilty of neither fallacy, as I have shown above. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
RE: [ZION] The Rulers of Darkness
-John- I just love your sarcasm, Stephen. In this case I'm sure we would agree. --JWR Actually, I don't love my own sarcasm. What comes out of my fingertips sounding silly and a bit over-the-top to me ends up seeming much more acidic and unpleasant than intended. You'd think I would learn to avoid sarcasm, since I can't seem to dilute it down enough. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
