RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

I didn't quite get it either. Are Ron and I the grimy kids, or the 
fathers in this story? And if so, would Ron be the kind-hearted father?  
I don't recall ever striking my kids like the first father, so I know it 
doesn't apply to me, however I also wasn't so neglectful as he was to 
just say a few words and then walk off.  My kids cleaned their rooms 
because it was expected of them, and if they didn't do it, they were 
punished (groundings, etc).
I see God doing the same thing. Yes, occasionally our actions create 
their own illness/punishment, but on many occasions, God brings his 
wrath down upon his children. If you don't believe it, just read the 
scriptures. As it is, the 2nd Coming is described as the Lord coming in 
red clothing to stomp the grapes of the vineyard with a fury. 
Yet, there is also a softer side to God, as he patiently works with each 
of us--as long as we are willing to be worked upon.

So, portraying God as either a harsh taskmaster on the one hand or as a 
milquetoast on the other is to paint God as being two dimensional. He 
isn't either of these, yet is both of them.

And as I raised my children, I used both methods. And as I work with 
those around me, I use both methods as necessary. I don't just sigh and 
lecture from the bedroom door. I step into the room, offer to help clean 
things up, and insist that it is cleaned.
Gary Smith



Ron Scott wrote:
 
 I'm lousy at parables. Please explain.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 6:23 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 Grimy Teeth
 ©2004 by Jonathan Scott
 
  Once upon a time there were two boys and
 they were the best of friends.  Unfortunately for
 both though, they were both about as lazy as they
 could be.  They would wake each morning from
 under their two piles of never washed blankets to
 stand in the middles of their never cleaned rooms
 to look out the grimy panes of their never washed
 windows to see the clutter that filled their
 never tended yards.  And they were each happy.
 The disgust of their environment apparently did
 not disgust them.  And each of them lived their
 lives contentedly amidst the grime, the roaches
 and the disease.
 
  One day, one boy's father saw his son
 desperately coughing as he lay contentedly upon
 his gray and sickly bed and the father knew that
 his son would soon become even more sick and
 possibly die.  He knew that if the boy did not
 clean his world now that he might not live much
 longer.  And so, out of fear for his son's well
 being, the father began to yell and scream at him.
  HOW CAN YOU LIVE LIKE THIS? he yelled.
  ANIMALS ARE MORE KEMPT!  YOU SHAME ME
 WITH YOUR LAZINESS! he screamed.
  The father then picked up his hand and
 struck the boy across his face and the boy fell
 to the ground in tears.
  The father then stood over the boy and
 threatened to strike him again if he did not
 change his ways.
  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.
 spoke the boy in absolute fear through his gray
 and grimy teeth.
  CLEAN THIS ROOM AND THIS WORLD NOW OR
 WHEN I RETURN I SHALL BEAT YOU TO PIECES! yelled
 and screamed the father.
  The father then stood and left the
 room...leaving the boy to sit on the ground sick
 with fear.
  And so, the boy stood and began to clean.  He was afraid.
 
  On that same day, the other's boy's
 father came to his room to see the filth and
 grime and disease of his son.  He also was amazed
 at the extent of the grime.  But, because the son
 was yet healthy and not yet in danger, he knew
 that he could take his time to teach the boy.
  Son, this is not good.  You cannot live
 this way.  If you continue to live like this, you
 will catch some sort of disease and you might
 die.  Son, I love you.  Please stand up and
 clean.
  OK father. said the boy through grimy
 teeth.  He then rolled over in his gray and
 stained bed and went back to sleep.
  The father was sad, but chose to let the
 boy choose his own life.  He kicked aside the
 empty cans and cereal boxes and made his way to
 the door of the bedroom.
  The next day, the father returned to see
 the boy still in bed.  On the boy's face there
 was a rash.  And when the father entered, the boy
 seemed to not be able to lay comfortably amidst
 the garbage.  His body seemed to be in pain.
  Son, the pain that you are feeling and
 that rash that is on your face both come from the
 garbage that you live amongst.  If you clean,
 your body will heal.  Please clean.  I love you.
  The son, understanding somewhat the
 message of his father stood from his bed and
 began to clean.
  The father smiled and left.
 
  The first boy managed to clean his room
 before his father returned and therefore wasn't
 beaten to pieces by him.  As you can probably
 guess, that boy never loved his father.  He was
 too afraid of him to love him.  And so he lived

RE: [ZION] A few more representative quotes...

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 11:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] A few more representative quotes...

--Quoting President Hinckley --
There are those who would have us believe in the
validity of what they
choose to call same-sex marriage. Our hearts reach out
to those who
struggle with feelings of affinity for the same gender.
We remember you
before the Lord, we sympathize with you, we regard you
as our brothers
and our sisters. However, we cannot condone immoral
practices on your
part any more than we can condone immoral practices on
the part of
others…

With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth,
with so much of
deception concerning standards and values, with so much
of allurement
and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world,
we have felt to
warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the
First Presidency and
the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a
proclamation to the
Church and to the world as a declaration and
reaffirmation of standards,
doctrines, and practices relative to the family which
the prophets,
seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly
stated throughout
its history…

“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of
chastity, who abuse
spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family
responsibilities will
one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the
disintegration of the family will bring upon
individuals, communities,
and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and
modern prophets…
“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of
government everywhere
to promote those measures designed to maintain and
strengthen the family
as the fundamental unit of society.”  (Gordon B.
Hinckley, “Stand Strong
against the Wiles of the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995)

Jim, in another post aimed at me you wrote: I can seldom discern
from your rhetoric exactly where you stand with regard to
anything divinely inspired.  Whether you are out of step is
up to you, but when you seem to be advocating things that are
clearly wrong, I feel prompted to either quit reading your
comments, or respond when they seem to need correction.

Thank you for posting several quotes from leaders of the church,
all of which are framed by President Hinckley's proclamation
above, which I fully and heartily endorse.

I am one of many, apparently, who believes the proposed
Constitutional Amendment will not serve the objectives delineated
in President Hinckley's proclamation.

Frankly, I don't think the amendment will make it out of
Congress.  If it does, it is highly unlikely that it will be
approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures. That's why I
oppose going down this road: it will be costly (in dollars and
goodwill),  very divisive, and in the end it will all be for
naught.

That's why I believe it makes more sense to: 1) get the
government out of the business of determining what is and what is
not called a marriage; 2) to carefully think through and plan for
how these alternative lifestyle matters and legal unions will
be explained/taught to our children; 3) to ascertain how they
will affect the free expression of religious beliefs in public
settings; 4) and to teach how one should properly, consistently,
and even-handedly despise sins but love sinners.

If President Hinckley says that supporting the constitutional
amendment is the only way to go on this matter, I will follow
his lead.  Otherwise, I am choosing to support President
Hinckley's  Proclamation on The Family by following the steps
outlined in the paragraph above.


Kind Regards,

Ron Scott

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Jonathan Scott]

	It's not about either of you.  You two were having a 
discussion about the difference between the law of Christ and the law 
of Moses.  Ron's take seemed to be that the focus with Christ's plan 
was in forgiveness and repentance.  Your take seemed to focus on the 
whole punishment aspect of the law of Moses.  The part of the puzzle 
that I felt wasn't being discussed was that the punishments may not 
be punishments that God will be giving out personally, but rather 
punishments that natural consequences will be dealing out.  Seeing 
the punishments in this way puts God as our defender and mentor 
rather than as some kind of a two-faced psycho out there telling us 
how much he loves us, but at the same time tossing out huge and 
cumbersome commandments for us to follow and happily tossing the 
disobedient into huge lakes of fire and brimstone.
	In my story, both of the fathers cared deeply for their 
children.  But, because one of the sons was literally but unknowingly 
on his death bed, the urgency of it all demanded that his father 
resort to drastic measures to save him.  What the father did may have 
looked overly harsh, but compared with an early death, it wasn't.  At 
the very least, what the father did gave his son more time.
	I don't condone physical abuse of children.  It was just for 
the sake of the allegory.  The law of Moses was very definitely 
unpleasant and I couldn't think of a different way to portray it in 
the story.

I didn't quite get it either. Are Ron and I the grimy kids, or the
fathers in this story? And if so, would Ron be the kind-hearted father? 
I don't recall ever striking my kids like the first father, so I know it
doesn't apply to me, however I also wasn't so neglectful as he was to
just say a few words and then walk off.  My kids cleaned their rooms
because it was expected of them, and if they didn't do it, they were
punished (groundings, etc).
I see God doing the same thing. Yes, occasionally our actions create
their own illness/punishment, but on many occasions, God brings his
wrath down upon his children. If you don't believe it, just read the
scriptures. As it is, the 2nd Coming is described as the Lord coming in
red clothing to stomp the grapes of the vineyard with a fury.
Yet, there is also a softer side to God, as he patiently works with each
of us--as long as we are willing to be worked upon.

So, portraying God as either a harsh taskmaster on the one hand or as a
milquetoast on the other is to paint God as being two dimensional. He
isn't either of these, yet is both of them.
And as I raised my children, I used both methods. And as I work with
those around me, I use both methods as necessary. I don't just sigh and
lecture from the bedroom door. I step into the room, offer to help clean
things up, and insist that it is cleaned.
Gary Smith
--
Jonathan Scott
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

At 05:24 PM 3/22/2004, Ron Scott wrote in response to Jim Cobabe:

Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for
legitimate and
traditional marriage.  Nothing in the constitution
envisions the
degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any
particular union
of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal
attraction. 
It seems that some equally thoughtful judges in Massachusetts and
elsewhere disagree with you.  By proposing the constitutional
amendment, the proposers themselves and supporters indicate that
they too don't agree with you.
Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply wrong--in light of the 
Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim.

--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. . . it is as much their [The Elders of Israel] duty to study correct 
political principles as well as religion, and to seek and know and 
comprehend the social and political interests of man, and to learn and be 
able to teach that which would be best calculated to promote the interests 
of the world.--John Taylor

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


At 05:24 PM 3/22/2004, Ron Scott wrote in response to
Jim Cobabe:

 Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for
 legitimate and
 traditional marriage.  Nothing in the constitution
 envisions the
 degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any
 particular union
 of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal
 attraction. 

It seems that some equally thoughtful judges in
Massachusetts and
elsewhere disagree with you.  By proposing the constitutional
amendment, the proposers themselves and supporters
indicate that
they too don't agree with you.

Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply
wrong--in light of the
Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim.

Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are
not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that judges
have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the
those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S.
Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the
matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary.

RBS

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Worth reiterating...



I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue
succinctly and
precisely outline the present direction of church
policy on the marriage
controversy.  The church is actively pursuing every
means to defend
traditional marriage, including representation in the
courts and support
for individual and group efforts to oppose the
legalization of same-sex
marriage.  It would seem that we are not justified in
failing to pursue
these efforts, regardless of our regard for the chance
of success or
failure.  President Hinckley explains our rationale for
such efforts --

It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO
NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do
not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment
defining **marriage.** Likewise, I supported the *general aims*
of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment but I DID NOT support
passage of the amendment itself because I believed that the
constitutional protections  and entitlements for all (including
women) were already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Regards
the marriage isisue: I think the constitution as written is
satisfactory and provides opportunities to craft laws that honor
religious beliefs and honor the protections/entitlements afforded
all by our constitution.

Ron

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[Steven Montgomery]

At 08:46 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Worth reiterating...



I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue
succinctly and
precisely outline the present direction of church
policy on the marriage
controversy.  The church is actively pursuing every
means to defend
traditional marriage, including representation in the
courts and support
for individual and group efforts to oppose the
legalization of same-sex
marriage.  It would seem that we are not justified in
failing to pursue
these efforts, regardless of our regard for the chance
of success or
failure.  President Hinckley explains our rationale for
such efforts --
It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO
NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do
not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment
defining **marriage.** Likewise, I supported the *general aims*
of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment but I DID NOT support
passage of the amendment itself because I believed that the
constitutional protections  and entitlements for all (including
women) were already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Regards
the marriage isisue: I think the constitution as written is
satisfactory and provides opportunities to craft laws that honor
religious beliefs and honor the protections/entitlements afforded
all by our constitution.
Ron
But I thought you did support same sex civil unions. Am I wrong?



--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We will not despair, for the cause of human freedom is the cause of God.
--Joshua R. Giddings
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution

[RB Scott]

When Richard Wilkins lays out a real constitutional argument I
will be first in line to read it.  So far, he resorts to bombast
and preaching rather than jurisprudence.

The local option you propose does have some major practical
complications (as we have discussed), ones that could be sorted
out however by reasonable, pragmatic people.

But, Steven, thank you for acknowledging that one needn't wax
heretical to oppose the the proposed amendment.

Ron

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution


If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a
Marriage Amendment
because activist judges have misinterpreted the
Constitution (See the URL
immediately below), then why not simply limit their
jurisdiction as
outlined in Article III, Section 2?

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html

Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a
constitutional amendment,
but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their
jurisdiction. It would be
far easier, send a strong message to these activist
judges, and protect
this vital institution at the same time.

http://www.thecbn.net/

http://www.thecbn.net/cbn040226.html


--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that
morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded
to the influence of
refined education on minds of peculiar structure,
reason and experience
both forbid us to expect that national morality can
prevail in exclusion of
religious principle--George Washington


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
--

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

At 08:29 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:

Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply
wrong--in light of the
Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim.
Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are
not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that judges
have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the
those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S.
Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the
matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary.
RBS
Powers not given are powers denied. See the 10th Amendment:

Quote
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or 
to the people.
/Quote

I do agree with you, that an amendment is not necessary.



--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moral Anarchy is the seedbed of Tyranny--R. W. (Bob) Lee

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

First, the father should be the same individual for both children. The 
difference being one child is willing to live a higher law, with the 
other needing to be prodded along.

I didn't focus on the Law of Moses. I focused on eternal laws of God. 
You'll note that I not only quoted from the Old Testament, but also from 
the DC, which clearly is not Mosaic in nature. When Christ tells us in 
DC 19 to repent or suffer even as he did, regardless of whether the 
punishment is a natural cause or not, Christ set the bar. Repentance is 
a requirement of the Celestial Kingdom, and so is a requirement of 
Celestial Law.

Seemingly, there is more mercy in the law of Christ than in the Mosaic 
Law. But this is only true on physical punishment. Spiritually, the 
requirements for Celestial glory is much higher than that for the 
Terrestrial (Mosaic Law) glory.  So, to pretend that there are two 
fathers, when in reality there is one, doesn't work. Second, it is a 
matter of God giving a lower law to children who aren't ready to live 
the higher law.  Of your own children, what is the age limit you give to 
drive a car? Are some allowed to stay up later than others? How about 
dating age?  You see, even we give differing rules to our own children, 
based upon age and maturity. So also does God.

While our smallest children may not understand the nuances of a lecture, 
they will understand physical disciplining, even if it is to stand them 
in a corner or timeout. Meanwhile, a more mature child may get enough 
out of just a discussion or request. We adjust the rules and how we mete 
them out according to maturity, ability and willingness to live them.

With these as guidelines, I'd change your parable to one father of two 
boys.  One boy is rather mature, while the other is childish. One 
requires a stern hand (not necessarily a swipe against the face), while 
the other follows closely the guidance given. The Father does show love 
to both children, and reminds them of it continually (even as the Lord 
told ancient Israel constantly through Isaiah and others). The younger 
child eventually learns from the chastising that there is a better way - 
obeying out of love, rather than fear.

Gary Smith

Jonathan Scott wrote:
 
   It's not about either of you.  You two were having a 
 discussion about the difference between the law of Christ and the law 
 of Moses.  Ron's take seemed to be that the focus with Christ's plan 
 was in forgiveness and repentance.  Your take seemed to focus on the 
 whole punishment aspect of the law of Moses.  The part of the puzzle 
 that I felt wasn't being discussed was that the punishments may not 
 be punishments that God will be giving out personally, but rather 
 punishments that natural consequences will be dealing out.  Seeing 
 the punishments in this way puts God as our defender and mentor 
 rather than as some kind of a two-faced psycho out there telling us 
 how much he loves us, but at the same time tossing out huge and 
 cumbersome commandments for us to follow and happily tossing the 
 disobedient into huge lakes of fire and brimstone.
   In my story, both of the fathers cared deeply for their 
 children.  But, because one of the sons was literally but unknowingly 
 on his death bed, the urgency of it all demanded that his father 
 resort to drastic measures to save him.  What the father did may have 
 looked overly harsh, but compared with an early death, it wasn't.  At 
 the very least, what the father did gave his son more time.
   I don't condone physical abuse of children.  It was just for 
 the sake of the allegory.  The law of Moses was very definitely 
 unpleasant and I couldn't think of a different way to portray it in 
 the story.
 
 I didn't quite get it either. Are Ron and I the grimy kids, or the
 fathers in this story? And if so, would Ron be the kind-hearted father? 
 I don't recall ever striking my kids like the first father, so I know it
 doesn't apply to me, however I also wasn't so neglectful as he was to
 just say a few words and then walk off.  My kids cleaned their rooms
 because it was expected of them, and if they didn't do it, they were
 punished (groundings, etc).
 I see God doing the same thing. Yes, occasionally our actions create
 their own illness/punishment, but on many occasions, God brings his
 wrath down upon his children. If you don't believe it, just read the
 scriptures. As it is, the 2nd Coming is described as the Lord coming in
 red clothing to stomp the grapes of the vineyard with a fury.
 Yet, there is also a softer side to God, as he patiently works with each
 of us--as long as we are willing to be worked upon.
 
 So, portraying God as either a harsh taskmaster on the one hand or as a
 milquetoast on the other is to paint God as being two dimensional. He
 isn't either of these, yet is both of them.
 
 And as I raised my children, I used both methods. And as I work with
 those around me, I use both methods as necessary. I don't 

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not make him a 
thoughtful one. Nor does it make him right. Nor does it mean he is 
following the Constitution.  If they were to gage Constitutionality by 
the standard set by our Founding Fathers, they would have no question on 
the issue of homosexuality. In fact, they probably would have to 
reinstitute laws against it!

It is my belief that the prophecy sometimes given to Joseph Smith, but 
definitely stated by Pres Benson, that the Constitution would hang by a 
thread and if it is to be saved it will be by the Elders of Israel, 
refers to homosexuality. John Adams and others have stated that the 
Constitution is for a moral people and none other. If we allow 
homosexuality to be normalized, then we will be giving up our moral 
clarity in exchange for a claim to freedom (in reality: licentiousness). 
 We may as well claim freedom for molesting children and animals as to 
use this lame expression for homosexuality. Pres Packer once taught that 
we cannot use one virtue to beat up on another. Claims of freedom cannot 
be used to destroy other virtues, at least not without divine 
consequence. I believe the Church is standing up on this issue in many 
places because it is the key to saving the Constitution for a moral 
people, and for leaving it with some boundaries within which freedom can 
be enjoyed.

Gary Smith



Ron Scott wrote:
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:10 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 At 05:24 PM 3/22/2004, Ron Scott wrote in response to
 Jim Cobabe:
 
  Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for
  legitimate and
  traditional marriage.  Nothing in the constitution
  envisions the
  degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any
  particular union
  of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal
  attraction. 
 
 It seems that some equally thoughtful judges in
 Massachusetts and
 elsewhere disagree with you.  By proposing the constitutional
 amendment, the proposers themselves and supporters
 indicate that
 they too don't agree with you.
 
 Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply
 wrong--in light of the
 Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim.
 
 Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are
 not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that judges
 have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the
 those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S.
 Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the
 matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary.
 
 RBS
 
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

But only if the current Constitutional powers are obeyed and honored. 
When we have mayors in San Francisco and elsewhere giving out marriage 
certificates in defiance of the law, then what piece of paper is there 
that can establish the law? And when judges overstep their proper role 
and legislate from the bench, then what happens if they ignore Congress?

Or what happens if Congress does not have the cajones to moderate the 
courts? Pushing an amendment gives them reason to act on the lesser 
action of moderating the courts. Without the impetus given of an 
amendment, we have no pressure on Congress to act. So, even if it 
doesn't pass, or it takes years, I'm for the amendment going forth in 
discussion; if only to get Congress to do its duty.

Gary Smith

Steven Montgomery wrote:
 
 At 08:29 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:
 
  Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply
  wrong--in light of the
  Church's teachings on this subject, as well documented by Jim.
 
 Must I point out to you, of all people, that church teachings are
 not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide that judges
 have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the
 those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S.
 Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the
 matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary.
 
 RBS
 
 Powers not given are powers denied. See the 10th Amendment:
 
 Quote
 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
 prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, 
 or 
 to the people.
 /Quote
 
 I do agree with you, that an amendment is not necessary.
 
 
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Moral Anarchy is the seedbed of Tyranny--R. W. (Bob) Lee
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


At 08:29 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:

 Obviously these thoughtful judges are simply
 wrong--in light of the
 Church's teachings on this subject, as well
documented by Jim.

Must I point out to you, of all people, that church
teachings are
not part of the U.S. Constitution, which is the guide
that judges
have pledged to support and uphold. It's quite obvious that the
those who support the amendment also believe that the U.S.
Constitution does not give judges sufficient guidance on the
matter. Otherwise, an amendment would not be necessary.

RBS

Powers not given are powers denied. See the 10th Amendment


Shall we now debate the implicit, if not explicit meanings of the
Bill of Rights until the cows come home? grin  In any event,
I'm pleased we agree: the amendment is not necessary.  Put on
your rain slicker and galoshes. Stormy weather's ahead. g.

RBS

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not make him a
thoughtful one.

I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist
judge is a negative description. By definition any appellate
judge worth his gavel is an activist judge because he is often
asked to interpret constitutional law.  I daresay that one man's
activist judge is another's strict constitutionalist.  I
recommend the following: instead of tossing about meaningless
catch phrases, spend more time explaining what you mean,
demonstrating why a particular court's decision violates the
spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution.


RBS

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

Re: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution

[John W. Redelfs]

Steven Montgomery wrote:
If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment 
because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL 
immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as 
outlined in Article III, Section 2?

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html

Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, 
but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction.
This is why the pro-family forces are doomed to failure.  They can't even 
agree among themselves about what needs to be done.  --JWR

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution


Steven Montgomery wrote:
If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a
Marriage Amendment
because activist judges have misinterpreted the
Constitution (See the URL
immediately below), then why not simply limit their
jurisdiction as
outlined in Article III, Section 2?

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html

Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a
constitutional amendment,
but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction.

This is why the pro-family forces are doomed to
failure.  They can't even
agree among themselves about what needs to be done.  --JWR


I agree, John. Notice that yesterday the proponents of the
amendment expanded language of the proposed amendment to give
states the right to adopt same sex union legislation and even
Orrin Hatch was dithering.  Before this is over, I won't be
surprised to see the church walk away from the whole deal because
it is becoming increasingly obvious that the amendment will fail
and even if it should pass will be about as sharply formed as,
say, jello.


RBS

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[John W. Redelfs]

RB Scott wrote:
I do not support extramarital sex of
any kind.
What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined to permit a man to 
marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend?  --JWR

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution

[John W. Redelfs]

RB Scott wrote:
I agree, John. Notice that yesterday the proponents of the
amendment expanded language of the proposed amendment to give
states the right to adopt same sex union legislation and even
Orrin Hatch was dithering.
Where can I read about this? --JWR

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...


RB Scott wrote:
I do not support extramarital sex of
any kind.

What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined
to permit a man to
marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend?  --JWR


Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd answers.  I've
clearly stated that I am opposed to the state defining marriage,
which I regard as a religious covenant.  It seems to me that we
have long acknowledged that what is permissible under the laws of
the land may not be permissible in God's eyes.

RBS

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Activist Judges

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Activist Judges


RB Scott wrote:
I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist
judge is a negative description. By definition any appellate
judge worth his gavel is an activist judge because
he is often
asked to interpret constitutional law.  I daresay that
one man's
activist judge is another's strict constitutionalist.  I
recommend the following: instead of tossing about meaningless
catch phrases, spend more time explaining what you mean,
demonstrating why a particular court's decision violates the
spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution.

An activist judge is one that overturns precedent,
common law, and common
sense in his interpretation of the Constitution.  In
doing this he
establishes precedent which is not the job of a judge.
A judge is to
judge, not create new law.  --JWR

Surely you recognize the subjective nature of such actions: his
interpretations may not be yours.  Insofar as precedents are
concerned in the current thorny matter, it seems there are plenty
of related common law precedents in Utah.

RBS


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
--

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution

[RB Scott]

Any newspaper in America, I presume.  It was front page of the
Globe today.  I assume the NYT as well, although I have not yet
read the Times today.

RBS

-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution


RB Scott wrote:
I agree, John. Notice that yesterday the proponents of the
amendment expanded language of the proposed amendment to give
states the right to adopt same sex union legislation and even
Orrin Hatch was dithering.

Where can I read about this? --JWR


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
--

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[John W. Redelfs]

RB Scott wrote:
It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO
NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do
not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment
defining **marriage.**
Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex marriage.  --JWR

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...


RB Scott wrote:
It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so
to me. I DO
NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for
opposing it do
not include (at this point) supporting a
constitutional amendment
defining **marriage.**

Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex
marriage.  --JWR

I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state
should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should,
therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft
legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships
it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may
choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as marriages.  I
also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such
changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will
be represented/taught  in primary and secondary public schools.

RBS


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
--

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[John W. Redelfs]

RB Scott wrote:
Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex
marriage.  --JWR
I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state
should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should,
therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft
legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships
it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may
choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as marriages.  I
also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such
changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will
be represented/taught  in primary and secondary public schools.
So do you really think this will oppose same-sex marriage?  I don't see 
how it will stop them from becoming common place.  --JWR

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

At 09:45 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
But only if the current Constitutional powers are obeyed and honored.
When we have mayors in San Francisco and elsewhere giving out marriage
certificates in defiance of the law, then what piece of paper is there
that can establish the law? And when judges overstep their proper role
and legislate from the bench, then what happens if they ignore Congress?
Or what happens if Congress does not have the cajones to moderate the
courts? Pushing an amendment gives them reason to act on the lesser
action of moderating the courts. Without the impetus given of an
amendment, we have no pressure on Congress to act. So, even if it
doesn't pass, or it takes years, I'm for the amendment going forth in
discussion; if only to get Congress to do its duty.
Gary Smith
Well, even though I'm in favor of utilizing the power inherent in Congress 
vis a vis Article III, Section II of the United States Constitution to 
limit the jurisdiction of Federal Judges (And perhaps abolishing some 
Federal Courts altogether), and even though I think there are still 
problems with the amendment route, I did sign the petition urging passage 
of a Constitutional Marriage Amendment grin. So perhaps I'm just covering 
all the bases here.



--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The only constant in the world is change--Karl Marx

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...


RB Scott wrote:
 Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex
 marriage.  --JWR

I have done this before. I support the proposition
that the state
should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should,
therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft
legislation that carefully and consistently defines
partnerships
it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships.
Churches may
choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as marriages.  I
also think considerable effort must be spent
determining how such
changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will
be represented/taught  in primary and secondary public
schools.

So do you really think this will oppose same-sex
marriage?  I don't see
how it will stop them from becoming common place.  --JWR

1. Do you see the constitutional amendment, as now drafted, as an
effective deterrant to same sex marriage?

2.  If so, my concept is better because it reserves marriage
blessings for the church.

3.  If you're concerned about same sex cohabitation, neither plan
forbids it. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly legal, as is
heterosexual cohabitation, even though both are equivalent sins
in the eyes of God.

I do not see how the amendment as drafted will effectively
prevent same-sex partnerships.  Do you?  And, if the proposed
amendment loses, as I expect it will, we will likely have same
sex **marriage** everywhere. There will be little room for
negotiation, compromise, or local options. Nor will we be able to
define how it will be presented in the schools (especially). The
opportunity for a shades of gray solution will exist for a
while yet (perhaps), thereafter the outcome will either be black
or white.

RBS

P.S.  I've expressed my opinion to several state and Federal
elected officials, Republicans and Democrats.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[Steven Montgomery]

At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
But I thought you did support same sex civil unions. Am I
wrong?
Support is probably not the right word, particularly given the
explosive baggage that has been attached to practically
everything in this debate.  I do not support extramarital sex of
any kind.
Here some issues that I'm mulling over at the moment:

1) The state should not attempt to define/sanction ordinances of
the church. The state should make laws that are consistent with
the U.S. Constitution. The church should bless what it chooses
to bless.
I agree with you here.


2) As I read the constitution, the tax codes (for example) must
ensure equal treatment under law for all people; special
treatments/exemptions should be applied in uniform and consistent
ways. No doubt certain kinds of well-defined domestic
partnerships are of benefit to the state and therefore should be
entitled to special taxation benefits/entitlements. Definitions
of same ought to crafted very carefully and applied uniformly.
Actually, I'm in favor of completely abolishing the income tax, and all its 
loopholes and exceptions, and replacing it with some type of national sales 
tax. This, in my opinion, is the only fair way to treat everyone as equals 
under the law.

--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moral Anarchy is the seedbed of Tyranny--R. W. (Bob) Lee

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[Steven Montgomery]

At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:


I will continue to think...and will appreciate receiving
relevant, thoughtful comments from any of you.
RBS
I don't think that you will have any problem with a dearth of commentary 
and opinion here on ZION. ;-)



--
Steven Montgomery
The most important consequence of marriage is, that
the husband and the wife become in law only one
person Upon this principle of union, almost all the
other legal consequences of marriage depend. This
principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed
and examined on every side. —James Wilson
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


At 09:45 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
But only if the current Constitutional powers are
obeyed and honored.
When we have mayors in San Francisco and elsewhere
giving out marriage
certificates in defiance of the law, then what piece
of paper is there
that can establish the law? And when judges overstep
their proper role
and legislate from the bench, then what happens if
they ignore Congress?

Or what happens if Congress does not have the cajones
to moderate the
courts? Pushing an amendment gives them reason to act
on the lesser
action of moderating the courts. Without the impetus
given of an
amendment, we have no pressure on Congress to act. So,
even if it
doesn't pass, or it takes years, I'm for the amendment
going forth in
discussion; if only to get Congress to do its duty.

Gary Smith

Well, even though I'm in favor of utilizing the power
inherent in Congress
vis a vis Article III, Section II of the United States
Constitution to
limit the jurisdiction of Federal Judges (And perhaps
abolishing some
Federal Courts altogether), and even though I think
there are still
problems with the amendment route, I did sign the
petition urging passage
of a Constitutional Marriage Amendment grin. So
perhaps I'm just covering
all the bases here.

Tell us how you feel about the amendment now that we know there's
a move afoot to change the language? grin What's Wilkins
reaction to same? This thing is beginning to feel like an
election year stunt gone haywire.

RBS

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

Re: [ZION] Marriage and the Constitution

[Steven Montgomery]

At 11:38 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
Steven Montgomery wrote:
If, as BYU Professor Richard Wilkins states, we need a Marriage Amendment 
because activist judges have misinterpreted the Constitution (See the URL 
immediately below), then why not simply limit their jurisdiction as 
outlined in Article III, Section 2?

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040323constitution.html

Richard Wilkins may be convinced that we need a constitutional amendment, 
but I disagree. All we need to do is limit their jurisdiction.
This is why the pro-family forces are doomed to failure.  They can't even 
agree among themselves about what needs to be done.  --JWR
But I did sign the petition urging passage of a marriage amendment. I'm 
willing to cover all bases. However, I haven't seen Wilkins mention 
*anything* at all about the article III, section 2 option.

--
Steven Montgomery
html
a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3;
img border=0 
src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalogosmall.jpg; 
width=406 height=100/a
/html
http://www.stoptheftaa.org

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
SNIP
--RON--
2) As I read the constitution, the tax codes (for example) must
ensure equal treatment under law for all people; special
treatments/exemptions should be applied in uniform and
consistent
ways. No doubt certain kinds of well-defined domestic
partnerships are of benefit to the state and therefore
should be
entitled to special taxation benefits/entitlements. Definitions
of same ought to crafted very carefully and applied uniformly.
--Steven--
Actually, I'm in favor of completely abolishing the
income tax, and all its
loopholes and exceptions, and replacing it with some
type of national sales
tax. This, in my opinion, is the only fair way to treat
everyone as equals
under the law.

As I didn't ask a question, I can accuse you providing a
non-responsive answer grin.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...


At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote:


I will continue to think...and will appreciate receiving
relevant, thoughtful comments from any of you.


RBS

I don't think that you will have any problem with a 
dearth of commentary 
and opinion here on ZION. ;-)


Dang, I forgot to underscore **relevant.**

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

At 02:05 PM 3/23/2004, you wrote:

Tell us how you feel about the amendment now that we know there's
a move afoot to change the language? grin What's Wilkins
reaction to same? This thing is beginning to feel like an
election year stunt gone haywire.
RBS
The marriage amendment is doomed to failure. That's my opinion and how I 
feel. That's exactly why I support the never mentioned alternative--urging 
Congress to use their powers under article III, section 2 to limit the 
jurisdiction of federal courts.



--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Far on the right, her dogs foul Scylla hides:Charybdis roaring on the
left presides,And in her greedy whirlpool sucks the tides;Then spouts
them from below: with fury driv'n,The waves mount up and wash the face
of heav'n.But Scylla from her den, with open jaws,The sinking vessel in
her eddy draws,Then dashes on the rocks--Virgil
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

Okay, how about 200+ years of laws being interpreted a certain way, only 
to have judges granting new rights to certain minority groups. There 
are a lot of black ministers meeting in Atlanta today to fight the gay 
marriage acts in Georgia. They are demanding that gays not equate their 
movement with Civil Rights, since gays are not being forced to drink 
from a separate water fountain, sit in the back of the bus, or prevented 
from voting. Nor have they been enslaved.

When judges ignore the rights of the majority, in favor of only the 
minority, then we have a serious problem.

Gary Smith


Ron Scott wrote:
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:39 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not make him a
 thoughtful one.
 
 I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist
 judge is a negative description. By definition any appellate
 judge worth his gavel is an activist judge because he is often
 asked to interpret constitutional law.  I daresay that one man's
 activist judge is another's strict constitutionalist.  I
 recommend the following: instead of tossing about meaningless
 catch phrases, spend more time explaining what you mean,
 demonstrating why a particular court's decision violates the
 spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution.
 
 
 RBS
 
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Judging

[Steven Montgomery]

At 07:22 PM 4/22/2004, you wrote:
I went with my 11 year old on a school choir trip today to Calgary for a
choral festival performance.
rest deleted

Hey Tom. Check the time and date on your computer. Your last email on ZION 
was dated 4/22/2004 at 7:22PM grin. It sure makes a mess out of my email 
sorts.



--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our leisure, even our play, is a matter of serious
concern. There is no neutral ground in the universe:
every square inch, every split second, is claimed by
God and counter-claimed by Satan. —C. S. Lewis
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[Gerald Smith]

So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is okay? If the state 
gets out of the marriage business and some strange religion chooses to 
marry off its virgins to animals, is that then something that should be 
lawful, simply because the government isn't into marriage issues?

I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide down if it 
doesn't have some controls.

While I don't necessarily want the federal government to make laws on 
marriage, I do want the states to be able to control their own destiny. 
If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to Mass. But it 
shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it.

Gary Smith

Ron Scott wrote:
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
 
 
 RB Scott wrote:
 I do not support extramarital sex of
 any kind.
 
 What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined
 to permit a man to
 marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend?  --JWR
 
 
 Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd answers.  I've
 clearly stated that I am opposed to the state defining marriage,
 which I regard as a religious covenant.  It seems to me that we
 have long acknowledged that what is permissible under the laws of
 the land may not be permissible in God's eyes.
 
 RBS
 
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[Gerald Smith]

So, in effect, you are not opposing anything. You are simply giving up 
on the fight against moral crimes against society. 

On the same note then, why do we not have the state get out of managing 
crimes altogether. Let it all be resolved in the civilian courts. 
Someone murdered? Why have prisons, when we can just have the family sue 
the person!  Or, perhaps the family will thank the murderer for doing in 
a crummy member of the family!

President Hinckley wrote a book a few years ago entitled, Standing for 
Something.  If taking a stance means we raise the white flag, then we 
may as well just condemn all the world to despair and sin.

Gary Smith


Ron Scott wrote:
 
 
 
 Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex
 marriage.  --JWR
 
 I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state
 should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should,
 therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft
 legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships
 it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may
 choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as marriages.  I
 also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such
 changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will
 be represented/taught  in primary and secondary public schools.
 
 RBS
 
 
 //
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 
 /
 --
 
 
 
 
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

Black ministers should speak their minds.  However, as the
discussion was about activist judges I will point out that
major civil rights decisions were written by activist judges.
The nation is the better for their activity.  I'll stick by my
assertion that activist goes with the assignment to the Supreme
Court and appellate courts.

On the other subject, please give me an example of the 200-year
history of laws/legal interpretations that define marriage.

Finally, I agree with the black ministers: gays are not entitled
to be classified as a minority group. Nevertheless, individuals
are also entitled to seek the full protection of the law, as
Steven will confirm.

RBS


-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


Okay, how about 200+ years of laws being interpreted a
certain way, only
to have judges granting new rights to certain
minority groups. There
are a lot of black ministers meeting in Atlanta today
to fight the gay
marriage acts in Georgia. They are demanding that gays
not equate their
movement with Civil Rights, since gays are not being
forced to drink
from a separate water fountain, sit in the back of the
bus, or prevented
from voting. Nor have they been enslaved.

When judges ignore the rights of the majority, in favor
of only the
minority, then we have a serious problem.

Gary Smith


Ron Scott wrote:



 -Original Message-
 From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:39 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 Just because a judge is an activist judge, does not
make him a
 thoughtful one.

 I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that activist
 judge is a negative description. By definition any appellate
 judge worth his gavel is an activist judge because
he is often
 asked to interpret constitutional law.  I daresay
that one man's
 activist judge is another's strict constitutionalist.  I
 recommend the following: instead of tossing about meaningless
 catch phrases, spend more time explaining what you mean,
 demonstrating why a particular court's decision violates the
 spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution.


 RBS





Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
---



//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

I think we should go for both of them. If one fails, we have an 
alternative method. As it is, there probably will not be a perfect 
solution, but in this case some solution may be better than allowing SSM 
from proliferating.

Gary Smith

Steven Montgomery wrote:
 
 At 02:05 PM 3/23/2004, you wrote:
 
 Tell us how you feel about the amendment now that we know there's
 a move afoot to change the language? grin What's Wilkins
 reaction to same? This thing is beginning to feel like an
 election year stunt gone haywire.
 
 RBS
 
 The marriage amendment is doomed to failure. That's my opinion and how I 
 
 feel. That's exactly why I support the never mentioned 
 alternative--urging 
 Congress to use their powers under article III, section 2 to limit the 
 jurisdiction of federal courts.
 
 
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Far on the right, her dogs foul Scylla hides:Charybdis roaring on the
 left presides,And in her greedy whirlpool sucks the tides;Then spouts
 them from below: with fury driv'n,The waves mount up and wash the face
 of heav'n.But Scylla from her den, with open jaws,The sinking vessel in
 her eddy draws,Then dashes on the rocks--Virgil
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[RB Scott]

Gary:

It's not easy to annoy me, but you're getting close.

I wish you'd take greater care in reading my posts, and assessing
the reality of the current situation before shooting off
half-baked accusations.

Think what you may. Have a pleasant night.

Ron



-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...


So, in effect, you are not opposing anything. You are
simply giving up
on the fight against moral crimes against society.

On the same note then, why do we not have the state get
out of managing
crimes altogether. Let it all be resolved in the
civilian courts.
Someone murdered? Why have prisons, when we can just
have the family sue
the person!  Or, perhaps the family will thank the
murderer for doing in
a crummy member of the family!

President Hinckley wrote a book a few years ago
entitled, Standing for
Something.  If taking a stance means we raise the
white flag, then we
may as well just condemn all the world to despair and sin.

Gary Smith


Ron Scott wrote:


 
 Tell us more about your methods for opposing same-sex
 marriage.  --JWR

 I have done this before. I support the proposition
that the state
 should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should,
 therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft
 legislation that carefully and consistently defines
partnerships
 it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships.
Churches may
 choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as marriages.  I
 also think considerable effort must be spent
determining how such
 changes affect free speech in public settings and how
they will
 be represented/taught  in primary and secondary
public schools.

 RBS

 
 //
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 
 /
 --








Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
--

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[RB Scott]

Are you related to Red Davis?

-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...


So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is
okay? If the state
gets out of the marriage business and some strange
religion chooses to
marry off its virgins to animals, is that then
something that should be
lawful, simply because the government isn't into
marriage issues?

I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide
down if it
doesn't have some controls.

While I don't necessarily want the federal government
to make laws on
marriage, I do want the states to be able to control
their own destiny.
If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to Mass. But it
shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it.

Gary Smith

Ron Scott wrote:



 -Original Message-
 From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
 
 
 RB Scott wrote:
 I do not support extramarital sex of
 any kind.
 
 What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined
 to permit a man to
 marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend?  --JWR


 Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd
answers.  I've
 clearly stated that I am opposed to the state
defining marriage,
 which I regard as a religious covenant.  It seems to
me that we
 have long acknowledged that what is permissible under
the laws of
 the land may not be permissible in God's eyes.

 RBS





Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
--

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


At 02:05 PM 3/23/2004, you wrote:

Tell us how you feel about the amendment now that we
know there's
a move afoot to change the language? grin What's Wilkins
reaction to same? This thing is beginning to feel like an
election year stunt gone haywire.

RBS

The marriage amendment is doomed to failure. That's my
opinion and how I
feel. That's exactly why I support the never mentioned
alternative--urging
Congress to use their powers under article III, section
2 to limit the
jurisdiction of federal courts.
Dang, the right and the left could meet in the middle on this
one.  How novel.

RBS

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[Gerald Smith]

No, but I know the guy. Don't agree with him on everything.

But all I can say is I cannot judge you, Ron. Only your words. And if 
you feel offended by my judging of your words, then either I am truly 
misunderstanding them (as are others, I might add), you are failing at 
putting your true feelings/intentions down in words, or you are saying 
what you mean and are offended because my words cut to the core?

I am not sorry for my words against gay marriage or gay activities of 
any kind. I pray for those who have this illness (I see it on the same 
level as drug addiction or alcoholism, but as a graver sin). But I don't 
cut them slack simply because they have several television programs on 
now that showcase them. Nor do I cut them slack because they have a 
victim mentality. They are in need of repentance, much more than they 
need a kind word from me. I don't want to make them feel good in their 
current circumstances, just so they can burn in hell later for not 
repenting.  Recognition of an addiction is the first step toward 
resolution. And with addicts of any kind, it is a difficult row to hoe; 
but one they must hoe regardless of any circumstances.

But to ignore their actions and lifestyles is to encourage them to 
greater demands, until they no longer are on the fringes, but in the 
center of the attention.  The BoM shows that slippery slope, and I don't 
think I need to be involved in it. As with Jacob, if I want to have my 
garments clean from others' sins, I must speak out boldly against 
serious sins, whether it is popular or not, whether it is enjoyable to 
do or not.

I don't know how you feel on things, Ron; because you say one thing, but 
then your words seem to contradict. Or at least your words portray a 
willingness to ignore others' sins because you fear to appear 
judgmental.  If I'm misreading this, please let me know, because I do 
want to understand your position. But if your words say something I 
disagree with, I'll be clear to question those words in order to get you 
to clarify (which I must admit, seems to be a hard thing for you to do, 
as you usually waive off opportunities to specify what you really mean). 
If I agree, I'll say I agree. If I totally disagree, I will attempt to 
be kind, but I may show harshness to words that contradict themselves, 
as I feel you have done in the discussion with gay marriage.

Gary Smith

Ron Scott wrote:
 
 Are you related to Red Davis?
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:31 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
 
 
 So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is
 okay? If the state
 gets out of the marriage business and some strange
 religion chooses to
 marry off its virgins to animals, is that then
 something that should be
 lawful, simply because the government isn't into
 marriage issues?
 
 I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide
 down if it
 doesn't have some controls.
 
 While I don't necessarily want the federal government
 to make laws on
 marriage, I do want the states to be able to control
 their own destiny.
 If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to Mass. But it
 shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it.
 
 Gary Smith
 
 Ron Scott wrote:
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
  
  
  RB Scott wrote:
  I do not support extramarital sex of
  any kind.
  
  What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined
  to permit a man to
  marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend?  --JWR
 
 
  Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd
 answers.  I've
  clearly stated that I am opposed to the state
 defining marriage,
  which I regard as a religious covenant.  It seems to
 me that we
  have long acknowledged that what is permissible under
 the laws of
  the land may not be permissible in God's eyes.
 
  RBS
 
 
 
 
 
 Gerald (Gary) Smith
 geraldsmith@ juno.com
 http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom
 
 
 //
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 
 /
 --
 
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Jonathan Scott]

First, the father should be the same individual for both children. The
difference being one child is willing to live a higher law, with the
other needing to be prodded along.
Ok.  I agree.  Although my guess is that that will make the story a 
little more bewildering.

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

Gary Smith

Jonathan Scott wrote:
It's not about either of you.  You two were having a
 discussion about the difference between the law of Christ and the law
 of Moses.  Ron's take seemed to be that the focus with Christ's plan
 was in forgiveness and repentance.  Your take seemed to focus on the
 whole punishment aspect of the law of Moses.  The part of the puzzle
 that I felt wasn't being discussed was that the punishments may not
 be punishments that God will be giving out personally, but rather
 punishments that natural consequences will be dealing out.  Seeing
 the punishments in this way puts God as our defender and mentor
 rather than as some kind of a two-faced psycho out there telling us
 how much he loves us, but at the same time tossing out huge and
 cumbersome commandments for us to follow and happily tossing the
 disobedient into huge lakes of fire and brimstone.
In my story, both of the fathers cared deeply for their
 children.  But, because one of the sons was literally but unknowingly
 on his death bed, the urgency of it all demanded that his father
 resort to drastic measures to save him.  What the father did may have
 looked overly harsh, but compared with an early death, it wasn't.  At
 the very least, what the father did gave his son more time.
I don't condone physical abuse of children.  It was just for
 the sake of the allegory.  The law of Moses was very definitely
 unpleasant and I couldn't think of a different way to portray it in
 the story.
 I didn't quite get it either. Are Ron and I the grimy kids, or the
 fathers in this story? And if so, would Ron be the kind-hearted father?
 I don't recall ever striking my kids like the first father, so I know it
  doesn't apply to me, however I also wasn't so neglectful as he was to
 just say a few words and then walk off.  My kids cleaned their rooms
 because it was expected of them, and if they didn't do it, they were
 punished (groundings, etc).
 I see God doing the same thing. Yes, occasionally our actions create
 their own illness/punishment, but on many occasions, God brings his
 wrath down upon his children. If you don't believe it, just read the
 scriptures. As it is, the 2nd Coming is described as the Lord coming in
 red clothing to stomp the grapes of the vineyard with a fury.
 Yet, there is also a softer side to God, as he patiently works with each
 of us--as long as we are willing to be worked upon.
 
 So, portraying God as either a harsh taskmaster on the one hand or as a
 milquetoast on the other is to paint God as being two dimensional. He
 isn't either of these, yet is both of them.
 
 And as I raised my children, I used both methods. And as I work with
 those around me, 

RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...

[RB Scott]

Gary:

I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. I don't
appreciate be asked absurd questions that have no bearing
whatsoever on the issues we're discussing. And, I get annoyed
when you assume I believe one way when the post to which you're
responding clearly suggests just the opposite.

If my purpose in being here was only to tweak and debate I would
respond to your rather silly assumptions and questions (and
infuriate John in the process). As I am here to discuss,  I
refuse to respond to bait and other nonsense.  If you want to
*talk* seriously, have at it. You'll find me an active and
responsible participant. If you simply want to attack and twist
my comments, ridicule and posture, kindly put me in your kill
file.

To reiterate: not once have I written that I favor gay marriage,
yet you insist that I do.  Not once have I written that I condone
homosexual activities, yet you assert that I do. I am quite
willing to make personal judgments of other people.  When I do, I
attempt to be even-handed about it to wit: I think that
extramarital heterosexual and homosexual intercourse are
equivalent violations of the laws of God. Do you? I suspect not.
If I'm right, this probably explains most of the difficulty
you're having with my posts.


Ron



-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 5:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...


No, but I know the guy. Don't agree with him on everything.

But all I can say is I cannot judge you, Ron. Only your
words. And if
you feel offended by my judging of your words, then
either I am truly
misunderstanding them (as are others, I might add), you
are failing at
putting your true feelings/intentions down in words, or
you are saying
what you mean and are offended because my words cut to the core?

I am not sorry for my words against gay marriage or gay
activities of
any kind. I pray for those who have this illness (I see
it on the same
level as drug addiction or alcoholism, but as a graver
sin). But I don't
cut them slack simply because they have several
television programs on
now that showcase them. Nor do I cut them slack because
they have a
victim mentality. They are in need of repentance, much
more than they
need a kind word from me. I don't want to make them
feel good in their
current circumstances, just so they can burn in hell
later for not
repenting.  Recognition of an addiction is the first
step toward
resolution. And with addicts of any kind, it is a
difficult row to hoe;
but one they must hoe regardless of any circumstances.

But to ignore their actions and lifestyles is to
encourage them to
greater demands, until they no longer are on the
fringes, but in the
center of the attention.  The BoM shows that slippery
slope, and I don't
think I need to be involved in it. As with Jacob, if I
want to have my
garments clean from others' sins, I must speak out
boldly against
serious sins, whether it is popular or not, whether it
is enjoyable to
do or not.

I don't know how you feel on things, Ron; because you
say one thing, but
then your words seem to contradict. Or at least your
words portray a
willingness to ignore others' sins because you fear to appear
judgmental.  If I'm misreading this, please let me
know, because I do
want to understand your position. But if your words say
something I
disagree with, I'll be clear to question those words in
order to get you
to clarify (which I must admit, seems to be a hard
thing for you to do,
as you usually waive off opportunities to specify what
you really mean).
If I agree, I'll say I agree. If I totally disagree, I
will attempt to
be kind, but I may show harshness to words that
contradict themselves,
as I feel you have done in the discussion with gay marriage.

Gary Smith

Ron Scott wrote:

 Are you related to Red Davis?

 -Original Message-
 From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:31 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
 
 
 So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is
 okay? If the state
 gets out of the marriage business and some strange
 religion chooses to
 marry off its virgins to animals, is that then
 something that should be
 lawful, simply because the government isn't into
 marriage issues?
 
 I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide
 down if it
 doesn't have some controls.
 
 While I don't necessarily want the federal government
 to make laws on
 marriage, I do want the states to be able to control
 their own destiny.
 If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to
Mass. But it
 shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it.
 
 Gary Smith
 
 Ron Scott wrote:
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
  
  
  RB Scott wrote:
  I do not support extramarital sex of
  any

Re: [ZION] Testing legality

[Rusty Taylor]

Hello, Jim

thanks for your response. evidently age and education have not sharpened my
writing skills very much.
everything you stated was/is true-- historically, the Church has not fared
well in the hands of the U.S. legal system.

However, I was asking the opposite question:
would it be correct/valid to say that if the church supports a
matter regarding the
law of the land, then that particular item is also constitutional?

I hope this makes my question a bit more clear.

Bob Taylor

In my view, the restoration has a poor record of success when it comes
to testing the laws of the land in court.  For more than 150 years it
has been a dismal and discouraging effort for the saints of God to
importune the courts for redress.  In legal matters regarding everything
from trivial personal harassment lawsuits against Joseph Smith, on up to
the testing of the constitutionality of federal anti-polygamy laws, the
church has waged and consistently lost many important legal battles
through the courts at every level.

Having personally sustained my own significant trauma at the handling of
the courts, I shrink from the very suggestion that we might obtain any
kind of satisfying judgement in the several legal matters currently
concerning the general body of the church.  But, notwithstanding my own
reticence, and even in the face of confusion within the ranks regarding
these matters, we are clearly obligated to follow the consistent counsel
of the brethren in this matter.  The saints have always been instructed
to make every effort to work within the law.  We believe in honoring and
sustaining the law of the land.  In many instances throughout church
history, church members have been horribly abused at the hands of the
system which should have protected them.  Yet they always continued to
press for justice and sound judgement.

I can see no other alternative.  In the case of the assault on marriage
laws, I honestly believe it may be a futile effort.  But we ought to
follow the example set by our stalwart predecessors, in exhausting every
recourse to obtain legal settlement of the current issues.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

**
   There are no coincidences, only small miracles. Author Unknown

**

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

Re: [ZION] Scalia and Lawrence v. Texas

[John W. Redelfs]

John W. Redelfs wrote:
Does anyone know how I can find an online copy of Scalia's dissenting 
opinion in Lawrence v. Texas?  I've Googled, and all I can find are news 
stories, not the actual dissenting opinion.  --JWR
Nevermind.  I found it.  Sorry to bother you.  --JWR

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Scalia and Lawrence v. Texas

[RB Scott]

Here's the court's url
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01slipopinion.html

-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Scalia and Lawrence v. Texas


Does anyone know how I can find an online copy of
Scalia's dissenting
opinion in Lawrence v. Texas?  I've Googled, and all I
can find are news
stories, not the actual dissenting opinion.  --JWR


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
---




//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] another approach

[Jim Cobabe]

Bob, I do see your point about constitutionality.  It is an interesting 
idea.  If I understand correctly, you are imagining what would result if 
we begin from an axiomatic assumption that church doctrines reflect the 
true constitutional ideal, and we might use this standard for judging 
whether laws are constitutionally sound.

I think your suggestion basically meshes with my own thinking on such 
matters.  It is far more important to me to consider the counsel of 
prophets of God, in deliberating on of matters of justice. It truly 
seems like things would be a lot different if there were enough judges 
who applied this kind of vision and discernment.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey

[Heidi the fair]

I sing (soprano, mostly, but can sing alto when needed) and play piano. 
I'm not the greatest at piano but, with practice, I can play passably
enough to be the pianist in sacrament meeting when our regular
pianist/organist is out of of town.  I used to take clarinet lessons, but
only because my mother made me.  Back then, I quit as soon as I could
because of that.  I now wish I'd continued with the clarinet.

Heidi the fair


 [Original Message]
 From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Date: 3/19/2004 3:37:32 PM
 Subject: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey

 How many of you play a musical instrument?  How well do you play?  I'm 
 curious about the musical makeup of the Zion list.

 John W. Redelfs sings well, plays the piano fairly, and the violin poorly.



//
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///


/


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] another approach

[Rusty Taylor]

Jim-- thank you for articulating what I was trying to say. perhaps if I
hang out more with  the members of Zion,  some of that may rub off on me.

Bob Taylor


Bob, I do see your point about constitutionality.  It is an interesting
idea.  If I understand correctly, you are imagining what would result if
we begin from an axiomatic assumption that church doctrines reflect the
true constitutional ideal, and we might use this standard for judging
whether laws are constitutionally sound.

I think your suggestion basically meshes with my own thinking on such
matters.  It is far more important to me to consider the counsel of
prophets of God, in deliberating on of matters of justice. It truly
seems like things would be a lot different if there were enough judges
who applied this kind of vision and discernment.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

**
   There are no coincidences, only small miracles. Author Unknown

**

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

Re: [ZION] Declare war on us, we'll love you for it

[John W. Redelfs]

Hi, Jack Redelfs here, again.

Gerald Smith wrote:

Gary:  Any group, whether a nation, community, business, or family has
culture. And the way cultures interact, adapt, fight, etc, are all the
same, regardless of the unit/organization. The only difference is the
time span required for change to occur.  BTW, I have a BS in Management
and a MA in Teaching/History; so I am able to compare events from both
business (organizational behavior) with nations (national behavior).
Congratulations on your stellar education. I have no such qualifications, 
although
I have been obsessed with history (having, for example, read Will  Ariel 
Durant's
_History Of Civilization_ series twice) for what seems a long time.

Gary:  Actually, there are two reasons.  First, people have tried rising
up against Saddam in the past. He has had many assassination attempts
against him over the years.  He's just been extremely successful in
squashing the opposition.
The nation of Iraq has never been free. Since it's inception in 1932,
it has never had a democratic controlling principle. Instead, politicians, 
generals,
and tribal leaders vie for power. Saddam's was not the first regime, merely 
the latest
and the longest.

Who are these politicians and generals? They are individuals, powerless without
the complicity of subordinates. My grandfather in El Salvador, Juan Jose 
Merino,
was a military careerist, a teacher who taught and loved the principles of 
freedom.
In 1956, one of his pupils, Juan Maria Lemus, was fraudulently elected 
president.
His rule was repressive and cruel. When my grandfather was offered a
position of authority, he refused; rather than join a corrupt junta, Juan 
Jose gave up
all he had and fell into a life of poverty. Blackballed, all those years of 
education
and experience availed him naught, and his large family suffered.

Why was Juan Jose's choice significant? Because America's soldiers have
been making the same choice since our nation's advent. We have never had a
military coup. This is a vital element of the American tradition.
American warriors are Americans first, warriors second.
Not so in Iraq and around the world. They're custom is essentially
medieval: the strong dominate the weak. Every now and again the players
change, that's all. This explains the dismal success rate of so-called
freedom fighters.They do not fight for individual rights or democratic
process, (though it may be their claim), they fight for the freedom of
their faction to seize it's own share of power and riches.
snip your argument that Saddam himself conditioned his people into
sheepish submission
The people learn in the culture to not speak out, or they will be tortured
and killed.
Indeed, this is part of their culture, but it is not new.

You'll note that with a change of government, the people now
feel free to speak out and protest, because the new culture is setting
in, which tells them they aren't going to be tortured and killed for
protesting the USA.
Yes, they do speak out and protest. But were they in control,
would they allow their own foes to do the same?
I claimed that Japan was not truly free and Gary replied:

Gary:  I never said their [the Japanese] culture is exactly like 
ours.  The democratic
culture is still evolving. But it is evolving. The people vote.  A major
difference in cultures is that they tend to trust their government
officials, while we in the USA are suspicious of government power.  There
are some cultural things that just won't change.
Some cultural things are antithetical to freedom. So how can you cling to
the notion that freedom will slowly but surely creep into all societies? Or
swiftly, if we send in the troops?
Are you familiar with the wide scope of police authority in Japan? With the
charges of brutality, abuse of power, arrest and imprisonment without charge?
While many of them [the Japanese] remember the Emperor with fondness,
we remember King George putting the Stamp Act on us.
Is this fondness good or bad for democracy? Is it a fondness that will fade 
away,
or could it grow? Could an charismatic leader someday win the populace,
with reminders of past grandeur and visions of greatness to come?

Jack:
Are you willing to occupy Iraq for 40-50 years, no matter the cost in
lives and dollars? Because that's the only way I can see of
achieving our goals. Even then, it would be impossible unless
the Iraqis chose to change.

Gary:  What was the cost of rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII?  Back
then, our people were glad to bear the burden and cost of nation
building: Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. Where would the world be if we
hadn't?
WW2 was a long, cruel war.  Civilians were killed indiscriminately, on both 
sides.
By the end of it, Germany's male population had been virtually liquidated.
The nation's very spirit had been crushed and demoralized.
And even then, weren't we generous, ceding half of Germany to the
clutches of the Soviets.

But I'm not sure if I support the rebuilding of 

Re: [ZION] Declare war on us, we'll love you for it

[Grampa Bill in Savannah]

Jack Redelfs wrote:

I ... read Will  Ariel Durant's _History Of Civilization_ series 
twice) ...

Grampa Bill exclaims:
   Yikes!!!  The BLT's home schooling must'a been rough!

Love Y'all,
Grampa Bill in Savannah
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine!

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

Re: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Harold Stuart]

On Mar 21, 2004, at 3:44 PM, RB Scott wrote:

Gary:

Look, I don't think we're ever going to agree.  I'm probably as
aware as you are as to what God taught and what he didn't. I
think are differences are in approach. I'm inclined to teach the
gospel, you seem inclined to preach repentance.
This is the problem:  there is no difference between the gospel and 
repentance.

Consider the following from 3 Nephi 27:

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which 
I have given unto you--that I came into the world to do the will of my 
Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and 
after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all 
men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be 
lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their 
works, whether they be good or whether they be evil--

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to 
the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be 
judged according to their works.

16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in 
my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him 
will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand 
to judge the world.

17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also 
hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, 
because of the justice of the Father.
18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. 
And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he 
lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing 
entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments 
in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their 
sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and 
come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by 
the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me 
at the last day.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the 
things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen 
me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even 
that shall ye do;

22 Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be 
lifted up at the last day.

I'm inclined to
believe that God must be a pretty forgiving God if he's willing
to forgive the sins of repentant sinners like you and me.  I
believe that God wants to include as many people as He possibly
can...and that it's my job to do my bit to ensure the roster is
as large as possible.  You take a different tack.  Good luck to
you.  Our purposes are the same, more or less even if our methods
are different.
You see, the only way that one can be included in that roster is to 
repent and become clean through the blood of Christ.  Verses 20 and 21 
are pretty clear -- the gospel we must preach is the gospel of 
repentance.  If you don't teach repentance, you don't teach the gospel.

Too many of us are like Neville Chamberlain.  We think that evil can be 
won by appeasement.  The idea is that if we just compromise a bit here 
and give a little there all will be well.  The problem is that 
compromise and negotiations only work between honorable men.  Satan 
knows that every time we compromise with him we give up our power.  God 
cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

The current battle is not over civil rights, as some would claim.  
That's just a smokescreen.  The real battle is for the salvation of 
souls.  Sexual sins are real, addictive, and terribly difficult to 
overcome.  People who cannot overcome these sins receive God's 
righteous judgment.

Can we not see the plan of the evil one?  More and more of the things 
that condemn people to eternal damnation are being integrated into 
society.  Abortion, which in but the rarest of cases is nothing more 
than cold-blooded murder, now enjoys a legally protected place in our 
society.  The problem is that murderers are damned.  Adulterers, 
fornicators, and those who practice other gross sexual sins have a 
legally protected place in society.  The problem is that those who 
unrepentantly practice sexual sins are damned.  Society embraces those 
things it legally protects.  It tells those who live within it that it 
is OK to do those things.  If a society teaches its people to do evil, 
it encourages them to be damned.  God has repeatedly destroyed such 
societies.  WE ARE NOT EXEMPT!

There is another aspect of this battle that bears discussion.  If the 
legal records from which temple ordinances are drawn become perverted, 
we will be unable to use them to perform the saving and exalting 
ordinances.  Many people who have lived worthy lives and died without 
the 

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

That's a cop out. A touchy, feely, liberal cop out.  You either need to 
defend your position, or give ground.

The Bible is VERY clear that Christ preached repentance. In Matthew 
4:17, it tells us that From that time Jesus began to preach, and to 
say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

This is literally the first thing he did after baptism and his 40 day 
fast.

What was the last thing Jesus did? He stood with his disciples and told 
them: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have ccommanded you: 
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
(Matthew 28:19-20).  And what did he command them to teach? Repentance.

How about in our day?  Let's try DC 19 on for size: 
13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the acommandments• which 
you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., in my 
name;
14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;
15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I asmite• you by the 
rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your bsufferings• 
be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard 
to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have asuffered• these things for all, that they 
might not bsuffer if they would crepent;
17 But if they would not repent they must asuffer• even as I

So, while he will forgive IF we repent, we must suffer even as He did, 
if we do not. In fact the blessing of forgiveness and mercy is something 
I truly hope and wish for, but I don't gamble on it. I work for my 
salvation, repenting as fast and as hard as I can, to ensure I merit 
that forgiveness.

As to those who believe Christ is super-forgiving of sinners, let's see 
what Nephi says in 2Nephi28: 
8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat•, drink, and be 
bmerry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify• in committing a little 
sin•; yea, elie• a little, take the advantage of one because of his 
words, dig a fpit• for thy neighbor; there is gno• harm in this; and do 
all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are 
guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be 
saved in the kingdom of God.
9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, 
false and vain and foolish• cdoctrines•, and shall be puffed up in their 
hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and 
their works shall be in the dark.
10 And the blood• of the saints shall cry from the ground against them.
11 Yea, they have all gone out of the away•; they have become 
corrupted•.
12 Because of pride•, and because of false• teachers, and false 
doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are 
lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.

So, Nephi tells us that some in the last days are going to push the 
extreme forgiveness idea of Christ. I'm sure you aren't as extreme as 
some evangelicals who think that a mere belief in Christ merits 
exaltation. But such are called false teachers with false doctrine. And, 
in fact, the blood of the saints shall cry against them!

Now, I believe God is very forgiving. After all, he offers a kingdom of 
glory to almost all his children. However, that does not extend to 
exaltation. DC 76 describes the exalted as the valiant ones, not the 
wishy-washy. In Revelation, God says he will spew the lukewarm out, so 
as to give us no misgivings as to what is required for exaltation.

Now, just where are these scriptures that you seem to believe in? And 
no, it isn't a matter of semantics. We agree that Christ is merciful, 
but modern prophets have also told us that mercy cannot rob justice. 

Gary Smith





Ron Scott wrote:
 
 Gary:
 
 Look, I don't think we're ever going to agree.  I'm probably as
 aware as you are as to what God taught and what he didn't. I
 think are differences are in approach. I'm inclined to teach the
 gospel, you seem inclined to preach repentance.  I'm inclined to
 believe that God must be a pretty forgiving God if he's willing
 to forgive the sins of repentant sinners like you and me.  I
 believe that God wants to include as many people as He possibly
 can...and that it's my job to do my bit to ensure the roster is
 as large as possible.  You take a different tack.  Good luck to
 you.  Our purposes are the same, more or less even if our methods
 are different.
 
 Ron
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:42 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 How about his prophecy that Jerusalem would be
 destroyed by God for its
 sins?  Since Christ is God, he was doing more than just
 foreseeing an
 event - he was being Judge, Jury and Executioner.  He
 will do it again at
 the Second Coming.
 We must remember that the Mosaic Law was a lower law -
 

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

Only he can fully judge us, but the Lord calls upon mankind to judge. 
Why else have judges in Israel? And we can often tell if a person has 
repented or not, by whether they have abandoned their sins. Someone 
living in a gay relationship and pushing for gay rights has not 
abandoned his sins, therefore, has not fully repented.

Gary Smith



Ron Scott wrote:
 
 
 Ron Scott:
 
 Did I suggest otherwise?  I don't think so.  I'll suggest that
 repentance is between the sinner and the Lord. Period.  Only the
 Lord knows true repentance and only the Lord is capable of
 judging us according to all of our good works and of offering all
 of us His grace -- after all we can do for ourselves.   Did I
 misunderstand Him?
 
 RBS
 
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


That's a cop out. A touchy, feely, liberal cop out.
You either need to
defend your position, or give ground.

Oh phooey. You're itching for a fight and I'm not going to give
you one, no matter what names you call me or how you twist my
words.

As I noted earlier,  I emphasize the teaching instructions from
Christ; you emphasize the repentance message. Both lead to the
same end.  I just happen to think my way is more productive.
You're entitled to do as you will. Have a good time.  I'd argue
that teaching effectively always provokes repentance whereas
crying repentance from the rooftops does not always provoke
learning and true repentance. By the way, the last thing Christ
did on this earth was forgive.

Ron Scott



The Bible is VERY clear that Christ preached
repentance. In Matthew
4:17, it tells us that From that time Jesus began to
preach, and to
say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

This is literally the first thing he did after baptism
and his 40 day
fast.

What was the last thing Jesus did? He stood with his
disciples and told
them: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
ccommanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.
(Matthew 28:19-20).  And what did he command them to
teach? Repentance.

How about in our day?  Let's try DC 19 on for size:
13 Wherefore, I command you to repent, and keep the
acommandments• which
you have received by the hand of my servant Joseph
Smith, Jun., in my
name;
14 And it is by my almighty power that you have received them;
15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I
asmite• you by the
rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and
your bsufferings•
be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know
not, yea, how hard
to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have asuffered• these things for
all, that they
might not bsuffer if they would crepent;
17 But if they would not repent they must asuffer• even as I

So, while he will forgive IF we repent, we must suffer
even as He did,
if we do not. In fact the blessing of forgiveness and
mercy is something
I truly hope and wish for, but I don't gamble on it. I
work for my
salvation, repenting as fast and as hard as I can, to
ensure I merit
that forgiveness.

As to those who believe Christ is super-forgiving of
sinners, let's see
what Nephi says in 2Nephi28:
8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat•,
drink, and be
bmerry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify• in
committing a little
sin•; yea, elie• a little, take the advantage of one
because of his
words, dig a fpit• for thy neighbor; there is gno• harm
in this; and do
all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be
that we are
guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at
last we shall be
saved in the kingdom of God.
9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after
this manner,
false and vain and foolish• cdoctrines•, and shall be
puffed up in their
hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from
the Lord; and
their works shall be in the dark.
10 And the blood• of the saints shall cry from the
ground against them.
11 Yea, they have all gone out of the away•; they have become
corrupted•.
12 Because of pride•, and because of false• teachers, and false
doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and
their churches are
lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up.

So, Nephi tells us that some in the last days are going
to push the
extreme forgiveness idea of Christ. I'm sure you aren't
as extreme as
some evangelicals who think that a mere belief in Christ merits
exaltation. But such are called false teachers with
false doctrine. And,
in fact, the blood of the saints shall cry against them!

Now, I believe God is very forgiving. After all, he
offers a kingdom of
glory to almost all his children. However, that does
not extend to
exaltation. DC 76 describes the exalted as the valiant
ones, not the
wishy-washy. In Revelation, God says he will spew the
lukewarm out, so
as to give us no misgivings as to what is required for
exaltation.

Now, just where are these scriptures that you seem to
believe in? And
no, it isn't a matter of semantics. We agree that
Christ is merciful,
but modern prophets have also told us that mercy cannot
rob justice.

Gary Smith





Ron Scott wrote:

 Gary:

 Look, I don't think we're ever going to agree.  I'm
probably as
 aware as you are as to what God taught and what he didn't. I
 think are differences are in approach. I'm inclined
to teach the
 gospel, you seem inclined to preach repentance.  I'm
inclined to
 believe that God must be a pretty forgiving God if
he's willing
 to forgive the sins of repentant sinners like you and me.  I
 believe that God

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Sander J. Rabinowitz]

Harold Stuart wrote:

  [RB Scott] I'm inclined to
  believe that God must be a pretty forgiving God if he's willing
  to forgive the sins of repentant sinners like you and me.  I
  believe that God wants to include as many people as He possibly
  can...and that it's my job to do my bit to ensure the roster is
  as large as possible.  You take a different tack.  Good luck to
  you.  Our purposes are the same, more or less even if our methods
  are different.
 
 You see, the only way that one can be included in that roster is to 
 repent and become clean through the blood of Christ.  Verses 20 and 21 
 are pretty clear -- the gospel we must preach is the gospel of 
 repentance.  If you don't teach repentance, you don't teach the gospel.
 
 Too many of us are like Neville Chamberlain.  We think that evil can be 
 won by appeasement.  The idea is that if we just compromise a bit here 
 and give a little there all will be well.  The problem is that 
 compromise and negotiations only work between honorable men.  Satan 
 knows that every time we compromise with him we give up our power.  God 
 cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.
 
 The current battle is not over civil rights, as some would claim.  
 That's just a smokescreen.  The real battle is for the salvation of 
 souls.  Sexual sins are real, addictive, and terribly difficult to 
 overcome.  People who cannot overcome these sins receive God's 
 righteous judgment.
 
 Can we not see the plan of the evil one?  More and more of the things 
 that condemn people to eternal damnation are being integrated into 
 society.  Abortion, which in but the rarest of cases is nothing more 
 than cold-blooded murder, now enjoys a legally protected place in our 
 society.  The problem is that murderers are damned.  Adulterers, 
 fornicators, and those who practice other gross sexual sins have a 
 legally protected place in society.  The problem is that those who 
 unrepentantly practice sexual sins are damned.  Society embraces those 
 things it legally protects.  It tells those who live within it that it 
 is OK to do those things.  If a society teaches its people to do evil, 
 it encourages them to be damned.  God has repeatedly destroyed such 
 societies.  WE ARE NOT EXEMPT!

The struggle, as I see it, is on two levels.  The first, 
obviously, is that of good vs. evil in absolute terms.
If we have a testimony of the Gospel, and particularly 
if we've gone through all of its saving ordinances, then 
we know what's good, what's evil, or at least we have a 
better idea as between the two.  Consequently, we see trends 
within our society that are disturbing and even alarming,
we can speak to those things from that frame of reference.
This first struggle is a deeply personal one, in that we
work out our own salvation (then concurrently work on our
family's) before we work on the salvation of others.  

The second struggle is that because of apostasy, there are
clearly different ideas as to what constitutes salvation,
which in turn leads to different ideas as to right and 
wrong.  This struggle is within society itself, and 
probably has been that way from the beginning.  

Now what the Lord says to us personally and through the 
scriptures is clear and unmistakable, but part of that is
because of the witness of the Holy Ghost, and part of that
is because some of our scriptures are unique to us.  Where 
things become more problematic is within society itself, 
because 1) apart from the Restored Gospel, there's no 
witness of the Holy Ghost (only the light of Christ, if
at all); 2) there are no common scriptures--no one
even agrees on the translation of the Bible that should be
used; and therefore, 3) There doesn't seem to be a common
consensus as to what ought to be the basic principles this
society should operate under.  Or the core values, as I 
told Ron a while ago.  And yet one of the basic principles 
America was founded on involves the freedom of society to 
worship how and where it may, which by necessity seems to 
place all religious beliefs, all scriptures, and all 
concepts of right and wrong on the same playing field...
regardless of what sort of a testimony we may have 
regarding them.

Or to be plain about it:  How do we allow for people to
believe and worship where and how they may without also
accepting or tolerating evil...?

I actually agree with you as to what you wrote.  It's how
we apply these things to society as a whole that's part of
what I'm wrestling with.

All the best,
/Sandy/ 

--
The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com
Spring Hill, Tennessee

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY 

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Sander J. Rabinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
SNIP
Now what the Lord says to us personally and through the
scriptures is clear and unmistakable, but part of that is
because of the witness of the Holy Ghost, and part of that
is because some of our scriptures are unique to us.  Where
things become more problematic is within society itself,
because 1) apart from the Restored Gospel, there's no
witness of the Holy Ghost (only the light of Christ, if
at all); 2) there are no common scriptures--no one
even agrees on the translation of the Bible that should be
used; and therefore, 3) There doesn't seem to be a common
consensus as to what ought to be the basic principles this
society should operate under.  Or the core values, as I
told Ron a while ago.  And yet one of the basic principles
America was founded on involves the freedom of society to
worship how and where it may, which by necessity seems to
place all religious beliefs, all scriptures, and all
concepts of right and wrong on the same playing field...
regardless of what sort of a testimony we may have
regarding them.

Or to be plain about it:  How do we allow for people to
believe and worship where and how they may without also
accepting or tolerating evil...?

Well put, Sandy.  To me -- others will surely differ -- the
divinely-inspired U.S. Constitution is the guide for how we
should deal with such matters.  In asserting that the
Constitution is divinely inspired, God suggests that that
equality, rule of law, and freedom to worship and choose right
from wrong are paramount.  The Constitution does not -- need
not -- endorse evil doing per se, but it should continue to give
us the right to choose for ourselves and, within reason, make
shades of gray assessments as society correctly or incorrectly
(ultimately) deems appropriate. If God intended that we should be
compelled to behave ourselves, a different cast of characters
would have emerged victorious in the pre-existence.


I actually agree with you as to what you wrote.  It's how
we apply these things to society as a whole that's part of
what I'm wrestling with.

I think God intends us to wrestle a lot. It seems define what
this life is all about.

RBS

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

At 11:10 AM 3/22/2004, you wrote:
Thus sayeth the self-appointed Judge in Israel. By the way, who's
pushing for gay rights here?  I've seen a few here calling for
equal treatment under the law for all, which is something
guaranteed by our divinely inspired constitution.
RBS
Yes, but equality before the law and equal treatment under the law for 
every liberal scheme coming down the pipe is two different things.



--
Steven Montgomery
html
a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3;
img border=0 
src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalogosmall.jpg; 
width=406 height=100/a
/html
http://www.stoptheftaa.org

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

At 02:24 PM 3/22/2004, you wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


At 11:10 AM 3/22/2004, you wrote:
Thus sayeth the self-appointed Judge in Israel. By the
way, who's
pushing for gay rights here?  I've seen a few here
calling for
equal treatment under the law for all, which is something
guaranteed by our divinely inspired constitution.

RBS

Yes, but equality before the law and equal treatment
under the law for
every liberal scheme coming down the pipe is two
different things.
 True enough. I wasn't talking about schemes, however. I wuz
talking about people.
RBS
Ok grin.



--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be 
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of 
refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience 
both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of 
religious principle--George Washington

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Jonathan Scott]

Grimy Teeth
©2004 by Jonathan Scott
	Once upon a time there were two boys and 
they were the best of friends.  Unfortunately for 
both though, they were both about as lazy as they 
could be.  They would wake each morning from 
under their two piles of never washed blankets to 
stand in the middles of their never cleaned rooms 
to look out the grimy panes of their never washed 
windows to see the clutter that filled their 
never tended yards.  And they were each happy. 
The disgust of their environment apparently did 
not disgust them.  And each of them lived their 
lives contentedly amidst the grime, the roaches 
and the disease.

	One day, one boy's father saw his son 
desperately coughing as he lay contentedly upon 
his gray and sickly bed and the father knew that 
his son would soon become even more sick and 
possibly die.  He knew that if the boy did not 
clean his world now that he might not live much 
longer.  And so, out of fear for his son's well 
being, the father began to yell and scream at him.
	HOW CAN YOU LIVE LIKE THIS? he yelled.
	ANIMALS ARE MORE KEMPT!  YOU SHAME ME 
WITH YOUR LAZINESS! he screamed.
	The father then picked up his hand and 
struck the boy across his face and the boy fell 
to the ground in tears.
	The father then stood over the boy and 
threatened to strike him again if he did not 
change his ways.
	I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry. 
spoke the boy in absolute fear through his gray 
and grimy teeth.
	CLEAN THIS ROOM AND THIS WORLD NOW OR 
WHEN I RETURN I SHALL BEAT YOU TO PIECES! yelled 
and screamed the father.
	The father then stood and left the 
room...leaving the boy to sit on the ground sick 
with fear.
	And so, the boy stood and began to clean.  He was afraid.

	On that same day, the other's boy's 
father came to his room to see the filth and 
grime and disease of his son.  He also was amazed 
at the extent of the grime.  But, because the son 
was yet healthy and not yet in danger, he knew 
that he could take his time to teach the boy.
	Son, this is not good.  You cannot live 
this way.  If you continue to live like this, you 
will catch some sort of disease and you might 
die.  Son, I love you.  Please stand up and 
clean.
	OK father. said the boy through grimy 
teeth.  He then rolled over in his gray and 
stained bed and went back to sleep.
	The father was sad, but chose to let the 
boy choose his own life.  He kicked aside the 
empty cans and cereal boxes and made his way to 
the door of the bedroom.
	The next day, the father returned to see 
the boy still in bed.  On the boy's face there 
was a rash.  And when the father entered, the boy 
seemed to not be able to lay comfortably amidst 
the garbage.  His body seemed to be in pain.
	Son, the pain that you are feeling and 
that rash that is on your face both come from the 
garbage that you live amongst.  If you clean, 
your body will heal.  Please clean.  I love you.
	The son, understanding somewhat the 
message of his father stood from his bed and 
began to clean.
	The father smiled and left.

	The first boy managed to clean his room 
before his father returned and therefore wasn't 
beaten to pieces by him.  As you can probably 
guess, that boy never loved his father.  He was 
too afraid of him to love him.  And so he lived 
the rest of his days in fear.  He was never very 
happy.  And he was never grateful for the health 
and long life that his father had given him.
	The second boy struggled with cleaning 
his entire days.  After years of filth, sickness, 
and inconvenience though, the boy began to 
understand and to change.  The boy eventually 
learned to clean of his own free will and loved 
his father for having cared enough about him to 
teach him.  He had health and a long life and 
loved his father till the end of his days.



 -Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
That's a cop out. A touchy, feely, liberal cop out.
You either need to
 defend your position, or give ground.

Oh phooey. You're itching for a fight and I'm not going to give
you one, no matter what names you call me or how you twist my
words.
As I noted earlier,  I emphasize the teaching instructions from
Christ; you emphasize the repentance message. Both lead to the
same end.  I just happen to think my way is more productive.
You're entitled to do as you will. Have a good time.  I'd argue
that teaching effectively always provokes repentance whereas
crying repentance from the rooftops does not always provoke
learning and true repentance. By the way, the last thing Christ
did on this earth was forgive.
Ron Scott



The Bible is VERY clear that Christ preached
repentance. In Matthew
4:17, it tells us that From that time Jesus began to
preach, and to
say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
This is literally the first thing he did after baptism
and his 40 day
fast.
What was the last thing Jesus did? He stood with his

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

I'm lousy at parables. Please explain.

-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 6:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


Grimy Teeth
©2004 by Jonathan Scott

   Once upon a time there were two boys and
they were the best of friends.  Unfortunately for
both though, they were both about as lazy as they
could be.  They would wake each morning from
under their two piles of never washed blankets to
stand in the middles of their never cleaned rooms
to look out the grimy panes of their never washed
windows to see the clutter that filled their
never tended yards.  And they were each happy.
The disgust of their environment apparently did
not disgust them.  And each of them lived their
lives contentedly amidst the grime, the roaches
and the disease.

   One day, one boy's father saw his son
desperately coughing as he lay contentedly upon
his gray and sickly bed and the father knew that
his son would soon become even more sick and
possibly die.  He knew that if the boy did not
clean his world now that he might not live much
longer.  And so, out of fear for his son's well
being, the father began to yell and scream at him.
   HOW CAN YOU LIVE LIKE THIS? he yelled.
   ANIMALS ARE MORE KEMPT!  YOU SHAME ME
WITH YOUR LAZINESS! he screamed.
   The father then picked up his hand and
struck the boy across his face and the boy fell
to the ground in tears.
   The father then stood over the boy and
threatened to strike him again if he did not
change his ways.
   I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.  I'm sorry.
spoke the boy in absolute fear through his gray
and grimy teeth.
   CLEAN THIS ROOM AND THIS WORLD NOW OR
WHEN I RETURN I SHALL BEAT YOU TO PIECES! yelled
and screamed the father.
   The father then stood and left the
room...leaving the boy to sit on the ground sick
with fear.
   And so, the boy stood and began to clean.  He was afraid.

   On that same day, the other's boy's
father came to his room to see the filth and
grime and disease of his son.  He also was amazed
at the extent of the grime.  But, because the son
was yet healthy and not yet in danger, he knew
that he could take his time to teach the boy.
   Son, this is not good.  You cannot live
this way.  If you continue to live like this, you
will catch some sort of disease and you might
die.  Son, I love you.  Please stand up and
clean.
   OK father. said the boy through grimy
teeth.  He then rolled over in his gray and
stained bed and went back to sleep.
   The father was sad, but chose to let the
boy choose his own life.  He kicked aside the
empty cans and cereal boxes and made his way to
the door of the bedroom.
   The next day, the father returned to see
the boy still in bed.  On the boy's face there
was a rash.  And when the father entered, the boy
seemed to not be able to lay comfortably amidst
the garbage.  His body seemed to be in pain.
   Son, the pain that you are feeling and
that rash that is on your face both come from the
garbage that you live amongst.  If you clean,
your body will heal.  Please clean.  I love you.
   The son, understanding somewhat the
message of his father stood from his bed and
began to clean.
   The father smiled and left.

   The first boy managed to clean his room
before his father returned and therefore wasn't
beaten to pieces by him.  As you can probably
guess, that boy never loved his father.  He was
too afraid of him to love him.  And so he lived
the rest of his days in fear.  He was never very
happy.  And he was never grateful for the health
and long life that his father had given him.
   The second boy struggled with cleaning
his entire days.  After years of filth, sickness,
and inconvenience though, the boy began to
understand and to change.  The boy eventually
learned to clean of his own free will and loved
his father for having cared enough about him to
teach him.  He had health and a long life and
loved his father till the end of his days.



  -Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


That's a cop out. A touchy, feely, liberal cop out.
You either need to
  defend your position, or give ground.

Oh phooey. You're itching for a fight and I'm not going to give
you one, no matter what names you call me or how you twist my
words.

As I noted earlier,  I emphasize the teaching
instructions from
Christ; you emphasize the repentance message. Both
lead to the
same end.  I just happen to think my way is more productive.
You're entitled to do as you will. Have a good time.  I'd argue
that teaching effectively always provokes repentance whereas
crying repentance from the rooftops does not always provoke
learning and true repentance. By the way, the last thing Christ
did on this earth was forgive.

Ron Scott



The Bible is VERY clear that Christ preached

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Jim Cobabe]

Ron Scott wrote:
--
Thus sayeth the self-appointed Judge in Israel.
---

Actually, in the church our judges are appointed by inspiration from 
God.  They are not self-appointed nor is their administration a form of 
political spoils for the party in power.  Just in case you did not 
realize this.


Ron:
---
By the way, who's pushing for gay rights here?  I've seen a few here 
calling for equal treatment under the law for all, which is something 
guaranteed by our divinely inspired constitution.
---

Our US constitution is designed to promote a common level of morality.  
It was not intended to protect evil behavior, nor to shelter those who 
advocate such behavior.  As far as it serves those evil purposes today, 
it has become an instrument as twisted and evil in intent as the wicked 
minds of those who so pervert the moral basis for our laws.

Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for legitimate and 
traditional marriage.  Nothing in the constitution envisions the 
degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any particular union 
of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal attraction.  There exists 
a very pragmatic and functional rationale for promoting traditional 
marriage in the body of law.  Attempting to expand the definition of 
marriage to include perverted sexual behavior threatens the benefit we 
incur from that rational basis.  And of course, it plainly proposes to 
lend legitimacy to immorality, which contradicts the very purpose of all 
laws.

No amount of sophistry can cancel the clear message our church leaders 
have delivered on this matter.  They are consistent and unanimous in 
raising the level of concern regarding the threat to our society.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Jonathan Scott]

Well put, Sandy.  To me -- others will surely differ -- the
divinely-inspired U.S. Constitution is the guide for how we
should deal with such matters.  In asserting that the
Constitution is divinely inspired, God suggests that that
equality, rule of law, and freedom to worship and choose right
from wrong are paramount.  The Constitution does not -- need
not -- endorse evil doing per se, but it should continue to give
us the right to choose for ourselves and, within reason, make
shades of gray assessments as society correctly or incorrectly
(ultimately) deems appropriate. If God intended that we should be
compelled to behave ourselves, a different cast of characters
would have emerged victorious in the pre-existence.
We don't have to make sure the constitution is doing anything. 
There's no should involved in it whatsoever.  That's the beauty of 
it.  It takes care of itself.  We can vote however we want to vote. 
If we want to be a bunch of bigoted fools we can.  And the laws we 
get from our bigotry will hurt us until we get them off of the books. 
The constitution gives us the mechanism by which we can do whatever 
we want to do with some order.  It insures that the people be the 
ones to choose...be it for good or evil.

The constitution though requires that the people that are doing the 
voting be mostly righteous...or at least righteous enough.  If the 
people aren't and the laws that get created are too bad, the entire 
government structure may fall apart.  It's kind of what we're seeing 
now with abortion and gay marriage.

 I actually agree with you as to what you wrote.  It's how
we apply these things to society as a whole that's part of
what I'm wrestling with.
I think God intends us to wrestle a lot. It seems define what
this life is all about.
RBS


3 Nephi 6:5
  5	And now there was nothing in all the land to hinder the 
people from prospering continually, except they should fall into 
transgression.

3 Nephi 6:15 - 17
  15	Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this--Satan 
had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner 
of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to 
seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the 
world.
  16	And thus Satan did lead away the hearts of the people to do 
all manner of iniquity; therefore they had enjoyed peace but a few 
years.
  17	And thus, in the commencement of the thirtieth year--the 
people having been delivered up for the space of a long time to be 
carried about by the temptations of the devil whithersoever he 
desired to carry them, and to do whatsoever iniquity he desired they 
should--and thus in the commencement of this, the thirtieth year, 
they were in a state of awful wickedness.
  18	Now they did not sin ignorantly, for they knew the will of 
God concerning them, for it had been taught unto them; therefore they 
did wilfully rebel against God.

3 Nephi 6:30
  30	And they did set at defiance the law and the rights of their 
country; and they did covenant one with another to destroy the 
governor, and to establish a king over the land, that the land should 
no more be at liberty but should be subject unto kings.

3 Nephi 7:6
  6	And the regulations of the government were destroyed, because 
of the secret combination of the friends and kindreds of those who 
murdered the prophets.

3 Nephi 7:8 - 10
  8	And thus six years had not passed away since the more part of 
the people had turned from their righteousness, like the dog to his 
vomit, or like the sow to her wallowing in the mire.
  9	Now this secret combination, which had brought so great 
iniquity upon the people, did gather themselves together, and did 
place at their head a man whom they did call Jacob;
  10	And they did call him their king; therefore he became a king 
over this wicked band; and he was one of the chiefest who had given 
his voice against the prophets who testified of Jesus.

	That's all it takes guys...36 verses.  Peace to war. 
Prosperity to ruin.  6 years...36 verses.
--
Jonathan Scott
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 7:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!



Ron Scott wrote:
--
Thus sayeth the self-appointed Judge in Israel.
---

Actually, in the church our judges are appointed by
inspiration from
God.  They are not self-appointed nor is their
administration a form of
political spoils for the party in power.  Just in case
you did not
realize this.

The first reference was to Gary Smith, who is not my bishop, nor
is he an appointed judge in Israel.

RBS

Ron:
---
By the way, who's pushing for gay rights here?  I've
seen a few here
calling for equal treatment under the law for all,
which is something
guaranteed by our divinely inspired constitution.

--Jim Cobabe--
Our US constitution is designed to promote a common
level of morality.
It was not intended to protect evil behavior, nor to
shelter those who
advocate such behavior.  As far as it serves those evil
purposes today,
it has become an instrument as twisted and evil in
intent as the wicked
minds of those who so pervert the moral basis for our laws.

Equal protection is already afforded in our laws, for
legitimate and
traditional marriage.  Nothing in the constitution
envisions the
degraded definition of marriage that encompasses any
particular union
of convenience, affection, devotion, or animal
attraction. 

It seems that some equally thoughtful judges in Massachusetts and
elsewhere disagree with you.  By proposing the constitutional
amendment, the proposers themselves and supporters indicate that
they too don't agree with you.

 There exists
a very pragmatic and functional rationale for promoting
traditional
marriage in the body of law.  Attempting to expand the
definition of
marriage to include perverted sexual behavior threatens
the benefit we
incur from that rational basis.  And of course, it
plainly proposes to
lend legitimacy to immorality, which contradicts the
very purpose of all
laws.

Immorality is not the issue here. Immorality was endorsed by the
legislature of Utah  and other state legislatures/courts years
ago.  The proposed amendment does not do anything to eliminate
immorality.

No amount of sophistry can cancel the clear message our
church leaders
have delivered on this matter.  They are consistent and
unanimous in
raising the level of concern regarding the threat to
our society.

Sophistry?  I beg your pardon. Has the Church indicated that
people who believe the courts should decide the matter, as
mandated by the divinely-inspired constitution, are out of step
with the church and its teachings? Please point me to the
statement.

RBS

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Sander J. Rabinowitz]

Ron Scott wrote:

 I'm lousy at parables. Please explain.

Here's my interpretation.  I hope that I am not too far off
the mark.

1) The filth represents sin, generally, through the individual
choices of the children involved.  The effects of the filth
represents the effects of sin.  

2) The children represent ourselves.

3) To be cleansed represents repentance by way of the Gospel.

4) The first father represents an unrighteous plan to bring
people to repentance, namely:  The use of force, coercion, and
fear.  

5) The second father represents a righteous plan to bring
people to repentance.  Applicable scriptures: DC 121:44-46,
and Moses 4:1-2.  Charity and long-suffering would appear to
be key.  

6) The second son genuinely repents because he realizes he 
needs to change, then takes action accordingly.  The first son
only takes action so as to APPEAR outwardly to repent.  
Inwardly, that person doesn't yet see the need to change.

7) Thus, the second son is on his way to salvation.  The first
son's spiritual status remains in question.

* * *

Still, having laws on the books doesn't mean that we seek to
compel people to do right, but rather, there is an overriding
interest to regulate certain things to allow society as a 
whole to operate in a free and righteous manner.  If there
were no laws, or if laws ratified or encouraged immoral 
acts, I submit that it becomes significantly more difficult 
for either father to teach his son about repentance.  

All the best,
/Sandy/  

--
The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com
Spring Hill, Tennessee

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Judging

[Tom Matkin]

I went with my 11 year old on a school choir trip today to Calgary for a
choral festival performance.  On the bus I listened to a CD tape of a
talk by Mike Wilcox called Noah Blindness  It has some interesting
insights into a number of things, including seers, and judging. He
points out that the guilty are always very quick to invoke the complaint
that they are being unfairly judged whenever their wickedness is
condemned.  The whole Abinadi vs. King Noah confrontation is based on
this reaction. Verse 13 in Chapter 12 of Mosiah is just a bit of it, as
the wicked priests protest against 
Abinadi's message:

And now, O king, what great evil hast thou done, or what great sins have
thy people committed, that we should be condemned of God or judged of
this man?

Tom

-Original Message-
From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 5:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Judging


This controversy about judgement is a straw man that is raised 
regularly.  It usually comes up because someone has suggested a context 
in which we clearly ought to pass some kind of judgement.  The 
always-ironic response from so many is so consistently and so stupidly 
predictable -- Oh, but you're being judgemental -- you dare not presume

to judge!  Judging is _bad_.

The incipient irony is alway so deliciously bitter-sweet.  :-


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Jonathan Scott]

Sorry had to teach a class.

Ron Scott wrote:

 I'm lousy at parables. Please explain.
Here's my interpretation.  I hope that I am not too far off
the mark.
1) The filth represents sin, generally, through the individual
choices of the children involved.  The effects of the filth
represents the effects of sin.
Yup.

2) The children represent ourselves.
Yup.

3) To be cleansed represents repentance by way of the Gospel.
Yes.

4) The first father represents an unrighteous plan to bring
people to repentance, namely:  The use of force, coercion, and
fear.
Almost.  I was using him to represent the law of Moses.  The people 
way back then were so close to death each and every day of their 
lives (lack of civilization...lack of good government) that it was 
imperative that they obey the gospel...right now.  If they had been 
as lax in obeying the gospel as people are today, civilization itself 
might never have gotten off the ground.  (My opinion.)  Perhaps they 
needed an iron hand.  (If you ever get the opportunity, read Little 
House on the Prairie.  Back then, the gospel was vital to your 
existence...literally.)

5) The second father represents a righteous plan to bring
people to repentance.  Applicable scriptures: DC 121:44-46,
and Moses 4:1-2.  Charity and long-suffering would appear to
be key.
The second father represents the higher law that Christ brought.  The 
civilization was formed.  The laws existed and society was to some 
dependable extent obeying them.

6) The second son genuinely repents because he realizes he
needs to change, then takes action accordingly.  The first son
only takes action so as to APPEAR outwardly to repent. 
Inwardly, that person doesn't yet see the need to change.
Because the second father shows love for his children, the boy is not 
afraid...and therefore can work on his salvation for no other reason 
than for his own sake.  He was truly working out his own salvation.

7) Thus, the second son is on his way to salvation.  The first
son's spiritual status remains in question.
Right.  Who know how the boy will change once the father is gone.

* * *

Still, having laws on the books doesn't mean that we seek to
compel people to do right, but rather, there is an overriding
interest to regulate certain things to allow society as a
whole to operate in a free and righteous manner.  If there
were no laws, or if laws ratified or encouraged immoral
acts, I submit that it becomes significantly more difficult
for either father to teach his son about repentance. 

All the best,
/Sandy/
Still keeping all of that mind.  The fathers were never the ones 
giving out the diseases.  Consequence did that.   Both fathers cared 
for the welfare of their children.  One just cared for it in a way 
that was preferable to the other.  The fathers used two very 
different methods to keep their children safe.

It's not a perfect analogy.  In the first analogy, the father, if he 
loved the child, would have cleaned the room for him.  Sorry, it was 
the best I could come up with.

--
The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com
Spring Hill, Tennessee
--
Jonathan Scott
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Jim Cobabe]

Ron Scott wrote:
---
Sophistry?  I beg your pardon. Has the Church indicated that
people who believe the courts should decide the matter, as
mandated by the divinely-inspired constitution, are out of step
with the church and its teachings? Please point me to the
statement.
---

Others with better sense than me have identified the way you like to 
argue as sophistry -- I did not coin the expression.

I can seldom discern from your rhetoric exactly where you stand with 
regard to anything divinely inspired.  Whether you are out of step is 
up to you, but when you seem to be advocating things that are clearly 
wrong, I feel prompted to either quit reading your comments, or respond 
when they seem to need correction.

As I have observed in previous threads, you often seem to favor a focus 
on side issues and exceptions, as if they were the most important 
things.  Perhaps these positions you seem to admire make for fine 
arguments, but they do not generally seem to represent the policy or 
position taught by the church.

I cannot believe you when ask for statements that are indicative of 
current church policy.  You seem less interested in reading them than in 
challenging ideas that do not fit your mindset.  Nonetheless, for the 
sake of discussion, I am copying a few interesting and authoritative 
comments.  Perhaps you'd care to substantiate your arguments with 
supporting material from church leaders and church publications.

--

The Church in Hawaii—with the support of the Roman Catholic Church in 
the state—has taken legal action to support traditional marriage and 
prevent state sanctioning of homosexual and lesbian marriages.

The Church's action, taken Feb. 23, is a request to the Circuit Court of 
Hawaii for permission to intervene in opposition to an attempt by three 
same-gender couples seeking the right to have a legal marriage.

A lawsuit, Baehr v. Lewin, was originally thrown out by the trial court. 
The couples appealed, and the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that state 
marriage law discriminates on the basis of sex unless there is a 
compelling state interest to deny marriage licenses to homosexual and 
lesbian couples. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Circuit 
Court to make that determination.

Under Hawaii law, an entity may intervene in a legal action by proving 
that it has substantial interests in the outcome of the case. The trial 
is expected to be held in September.

The action by the Church supports the state of Hawaii in seeking to 
preserve its law against homosexual and lesbian marriages. If state law 
is overturned on this matter, Hawaii would be the first state in the 
nation in which that happened.

Donald L. Hallstrom, regional representative in the Oahu Hawaii North 
Region, announced the Church's action at a news conference on the day 
the request was filed with the court. He was joined by the Rev. Marc R. 
Alexander, diocesan theologian for the Hawaii Catholic Conference; Napua 
Baker, spokeswoman for the Church in Hawaii; and James M. Sattler, the 
attorney who is representing the Church in the case.

Our purpose and our intention is to be of help and assistance to the 
attorney general in defending the existing Hawaii law respecting 
marriage, attorney Sattler said, and our papers are all designed to 
put forth the facts and the arguments as to why we should be allowed to 
become parties to the case on the same side as the state and to seek to 
uphold the existing law.

Elder Hallstrom said the news conference was not a forum to attack 
homosexuals or lesbians.

The position of the Church . . . on homosexuality is a matter of 
record. We are opposed to it on moral grounds. Nevertheless, the Church 
has not attempted to oppose basic civil rights for homosexuals or any 
other group. This is not our work nor our focus.

He said the Church believes in sexual abstinence before marriage and 
total fidelity after marriage, and we believe marriage should be 
between a man and a woman only.

Elder Hallstrom said legalizing same-sex marriage goes far beyond basic 
rights for any individual or group.

There are times when certain moral issues become so compelling that 
churches have a duty to make their feelings known, he added. In rare 
cases, they may need to pursue their own constitutional rights to resist 
something they feel poses a serious threat to the moral fabric of 
society. We have reached such a situation in Hawaii.

The Church is resisting this major change in the law, he said, because 
we feel it represents a threat to families, to our children, and to our 
way of life in Hawaii.

He affirmed that the action was taken in consultation with Church 
headquarters in Salt Lake City. While this initiative is our own, we 
assure you that we have the approval and support of the Church . . . in 
the action we are taking.

The Rev. Alexander said the Roman Catholic Church in Hawaii joins the 
LDS Church in opposing legalization of homosexual marriages.

The 

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

At 08:58 PM 3/20/2004, you wrote:


-Original Message-
From: Grampa Bill in Savannah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now!


RB Scott wrote:

  Seriously, I don't
recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder
perhaps (but I don't recall it).
Notwithstanding fairly twisted and bizarre interpretations, what
Christ taught was forgiveness, not death.
Actually he taught both. Unrepentant sinners could still expect the full 
penalty of the law upon them.



--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

At 09:00 PM 3/20/2004, you wrote:


-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


RB Scott wrote:
I think you've got it right.  The old laws are off the
books.  If
they become laws again, they ought to be enforced. What do I
think the penalty ought to be for Sabbath breaking?  Dunno. Let
me consult with my Jewish and SDA friends.  Seriously, I don't
recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder
perhaps (but I don't recall it).

According to official Mormon doctrine, Jesus Christ is
the premortal
Jehovah.  If that is the case, then we know that Jesus
Christ preached
death for quite a few offenses.  --JWR
I think too many get fixated and judging others, relishing
damning others to hell. What Christ taught was that it is our
responsibility to forgive all, to leave judgements to Him.  I
suspect when that great and dreadful day arrives, more than a few
of us will be very, very surpised.
RBS
So then, let's just open up all the prisons and jails, let everyone 
go--obviously its not our place to judge rapists, serial killers and the 
like. Wouldn't that make our society grand?



--
Steven Montgomery
In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure 
democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most 
tyrannical government on earth.--Noah Webster

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

Re: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Grampa Bill in Savannah]

John W. Redelfs wrote:

Hi Gary. My name's Jack, I'm the only son of the listowner.
===
Grampa Bill comments:
Love your style... love your writing... love your dad! Visit us more often.

Love Y'all,
Grampa Bill in Savannah
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine!

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 8:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


At 09:00 PM 3/20/2004, you wrote:


 -Original Message-
 From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:22 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 RB Scott wrote:
 I think you've got it right.  The old laws are off the
 books.  If
 they become laws again, they ought to be enforced. What do I
 think the penalty ought to be for Sabbath breaking?
 Dunno. Let
 me consult with my Jewish and SDA friends.
Seriously, I don't
 recall Christ preaching death for any
offense...well, murder
 perhaps (but I don't recall it).
 
 According to official Mormon doctrine, Jesus Christ is
 the premortal
 Jehovah.  If that is the case, then we know that Jesus
 Christ preached
 death for quite a few offenses.  --JWR

I think too many get fixated and judging others, relishing
damning others to hell. What Christ taught was that it is our
responsibility to forgive all, to leave judgements to Him.  I
suspect when that great and dreadful day arrives, more
than a few
of us will be very, very surpised.

RBS

So then, let's just open up all the prisons and jails,
let everyone
go--obviously its not our place to judge rapists,
serial killers and the
like. Wouldn't that make our society grand?

Exactly what I was suggesting. I'd better bite my tonuge. Someone
will accuse me of attacking.

RBS

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

Gary:

Look, I don't think we're ever going to agree.  I'm probably as
aware as you are as to what God taught and what he didn't. I
think are differences are in approach. I'm inclined to teach the
gospel, you seem inclined to preach repentance.  I'm inclined to
believe that God must be a pretty forgiving God if he's willing
to forgive the sins of repentant sinners like you and me.  I
believe that God wants to include as many people as He possibly
can...and that it's my job to do my bit to ensure the roster is
as large as possible.  You take a different tack.  Good luck to
you.  Our purposes are the same, more or less even if our methods
are different.

Ron

-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 1:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Vote Now!


How about his prophecy that Jerusalem would be
destroyed by God for its
sins?  Since Christ is God, he was doing more than just
foreseeing an
event - he was being Judge, Jury and Executioner.  He
will do it again at
the Second Coming.
We must remember that the Mosaic Law was a lower law -
but still a law of
God.  Regardless of the punishment, the sin of
homosexuality was still a
sin that was punishable under the law.  In earlier days
in the USA, it
was also considered a crime punishable under the law.
And Just because it is no longer punished, does not
make it heinous or
sinful.

And what Christ taught was not forgiveness, but
repentance.  Forgiveness
is what was given AFTER people repented.  Christ did not teach
forgiveness to the Pharisees, but called them to
repentance. He did not
preach forgiveness to the Jews or Samaritans, but
repentance.  He
forgave, because it was within him to forgive those He
chose to forgive.
Had his mission been nothing but forgiveness, he would
forgive all
mankind, including Cain.

Instead, he came to bring balance between Justice and
Mercy, but only on
condition of repentance, which is what he preached.

I think too many get fixated on what seems to be God's
leniency. In
reality, the commandments are clear, as are the rewards
and punishments.
We are not to judge where a person goes to in the next
life, but we are
to judge right from wrong. The JST of Matthew 7:1 tells
us to judge
righteous judgment.  I don't condemn people to hell,
that is God's job. I
DO condemn sin, telling the sinner that if change does
not occur in
his/her life, the person risks hellfire.  Calling
people to repentance is
a good thing to do, because only in repentance can God
bring forgiveness.

K'aya K'ama,

Gerald (Gary) Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html
LDS Evidences,
Family History, Food Storage, etc.


RB Scott wrote:

  Seriously, I don't
recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder
perhaps (but I don't recall it).

Notwithstanding fairly twisted and bizarre interpretations, what
Christ taught was forgiveness, not death.

I think too many get fixated and judging others, relishing
damning others to hell. What Christ taught was that it is our
responsibility to forgive all, to leave judgements to Him.  I
suspect when that great and dreadful day arrives, more
than a few
of us will be very, very surpised.




//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
---



//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

I have no idea.

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


What laws do you think?

At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
What laws?

 -Original Message-
 From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
 Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet.
 
 A. Strongly agree
 B. Agree
 C. Undecided
 D. Disagree
 E. Strongly Disagree
 
 If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the
 days of the people
 of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to
 avoid the penalty of
 the law.
 
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly 
strict--Jarom 1:5
 
 
 //
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 
 /
--

///
///
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
///
//


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
---



//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained within the law of Moses 
are many commandments, among them this one:

(Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death:

(Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have 
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood 
shall be upon them.

--
Steven Montgomery
At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
I have no idea.

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


What laws do you think?

At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
What laws?

 -Original Message-
 From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
 Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet.
 
 A. Strongly agree
 B. Agree
 C. Undecided
 D. Disagree
 E. Strongly Disagree
 
 If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the
 days of the people
 of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to
 avoid the penalty of
 the law.
 
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly
strict--Jarom 1:5
 
 
 //
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 
 /
--

///
///
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
///
//


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
---


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/


--
Steven Montgomery
html
a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3;
img border=0 
src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalogosmall.jpg; 
width=406 height=100/a
/html
http://www.stoptheftaa.org

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too.  Cast that first
stone, Steven.

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained
within the law of Moses
are many commandments, among them this one:

(Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination.

The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death:

(Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
death; their blood
shall be upon them.

--
Steven Montgomery


At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
I have no idea.

 -Original Message-
 From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 What laws do you think?
 
 At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
 What laws?
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now!
  
  
  At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
  Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet.
  
  A. Strongly agree
  B. Agree
  C. Undecided
  D. Disagree
  E. Strongly Disagree
  
  If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the
  days of the people
  of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to
  avoid the penalty of
  the law.
  
  
  --
  Steven Montgomery
  . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly
 strict--Jarom 1:5
  
  
  //
  ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
  ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  
  /
 --
 
 ///
 ///
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 ///
 //
 
 
 //
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 
 /
---
 
 

///
///
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
///
//


--
Steven Montgomery
html
a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3;
img border=0
src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalo
gosmall.jpg
width=406 height=100/a
/html
http://www.stoptheftaa.org


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
---



//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

Hey, all l did was point out the penalty of the law--in the days of Moses 
and of the people in the Book of Mormon. Since we don't live under a 
theocratic government, death penalties for sabbath breaking and adultery 
does seem to be going way too far. Still, in most of the states of the 
union there used to be laws on the books against both Sabbath breakers and 
adulterers--perhaps we ought to start enforcing them again. What do you 
think the penalty ought to be? Or should we just turn a blind eye and let 
people ruin themselves in their own iniquity?

--
Steven Montgomery
At 09:04 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:

Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too.  Cast that first
stone, Steven.
-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained
within the law of Moses
are many commandments, among them this one:

(Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination.

The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death:

(Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have
committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
death; their blood
shall be upon them.

--
Steven Montgomery


At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
I have no idea.

 -Original Message-
 From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 What laws do you think?
 
 At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
 What laws?
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now!
  
  
  At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
  Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet.
  
  A. Strongly agree
  B. Agree
  C. Undecided
  D. Disagree
  E. Strongly Disagree
  
  If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the
  days of the people
  of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to
  avoid the penalty of
  the law.
  
  
  --
  Steven Montgomery
  . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly
 strict--Jarom 1:5
  
  
  //
  ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
  ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  
  /
 --
 
 ///
 ///
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 ///
 //
 
 
 //
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 
 /
---
 
 

///
///
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
///
//


--
Steven Montgomery
html
a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3;
img border=0
src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalo
gosmall.jpg
width=406 height=100/a
/html
http://www.stoptheftaa.org


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
---


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

I think Christ provided the answer, don't you?

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


Hey, all l did was point out the penalty of the law--in
the days of Moses
and of the people in the Book of Mormon. Since we don't
live under a
theocratic government, death penalties for sabbath
breaking and adultery
does seem to be going way too far. Still, in most of
the states of the
union there used to be laws on the books against both
Sabbath breakers and
adulterers--perhaps we ought to start enforcing them
again. What do you
think the penalty ought to be? Or should we just turn a
blind eye and let
people ruin themselves in their own iniquity?

--
Steven Montgomery

At 09:04 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:

Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too.  Cast that first
stone, Steven.

 -Original Message-
 From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained
 within the law of Moses
 are many commandments, among them this one:
 
 (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22)
 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
 is abomination.
 
 The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death:
 
 (Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13)
 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
 woman, both of them have
 committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
 death; their blood
 shall be upon them.
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 
 
 At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
 I have no idea.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
  
  
  What laws do you think?
  
  At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
  What laws?
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Steven Montgomery
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now!
   
   
   At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
   Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet.
   
   A. Strongly agree
   B. Agree
   C. Undecided
   D. Disagree
   E. Strongly Disagree
   
   If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the
   days of the people
   of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to
   avoid the penalty of
   the law.
   
   
   --
   Steven Montgomery
   . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly
  strict--Jarom 1:5
   
  

   //
   ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
   ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  

   /
  --
  
  ///
  ///
  ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
  ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  ///
  //
  
  
  //
  ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
  ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  
  /
 ---
  
  
 
 ///
 ///
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 ///
 //
 
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 html
 a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3;
 img border=0
 src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalo
 gosmall.jpg
 width=406 height=100/a
 /html
 http://www.stoptheftaa.org
 
 
 //
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 
 /
---
 
 

///
///
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
///
//


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
--

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

That's somewhat of a fallacious generalization, John.  Yes, it is 
difficult and it takes time.  But you know what, in business management 
terms, we see change as requiring time. When a business changes its 
culture, it requires years for the complete change over. Behaviorists 
will tell you that normally 20-30% will quickly adapt to the change, The 
middle 30% adapt over several months to a year, with a large number of 
stragglers that take a long time. Then there are those who never adapt, 
who end up leaving the company for another with a culture similar to 
what they used to know.

So it is in society. For the Western nations (English speaking 
primarily), they took centuries to adapt.  But Japan and South Korea are 
awesome democracies (non-English speaking) that have learned the values 
of freedom over a period of less than 50 years.  A long time when one 
thinks of how impatient Americans are, but rather quick in geological 
terms.  Why did Moses keep Israel in the wilderness for 40 years? It 
would take that long for those with centuries-long slave mentality to be 
replaced by a generation of people with a new non-slave culture and 
mentality.  So it is with nations.  

It might take Iraq 40-50 years to switch over to a strong democracy. So 
what? It means our grandchildren's children will live in a world with 
one more free nation that isn't run by radical kooks.

Cultures can change. It takes time. But I have a long term view of these 
things. I'm glad our forefathers also had such a long term vision, 
otherwise they might have given up at Valley Forge or when the Articles 
of Confederation failed.

Gary Smith

John W. Redelfs wrote:
 
 Tom Matkin wrote:
   The USA and her allies will successfully establish democratic rule in
   Iraq.
  
   A. Certainly
   B. Probably
   C. Maybe
   D. Unlikely
   E. Certainly not
 
 E. Certainly not.  Democratic rule is a privilege that must be earned.
 The people of Iraq cannot have it given to them or established for them
 any more than I can give someone else my own character or discipline.
 All the USA can do is try to improve the circumstances for the growth of
 democracy.  In most cases those interventions seem to about as
 successful as premature efforts interventions to help a chick hatch.
 
 I strongly agree with you, Tom.  Freedom, and the western democratic 
 traditions that establish and maintain freedom are a cultural 
 phenomenon, 
 not something that can be imposed from above.  The roots of freedom in 
 the 
 west go back in the English speaking cultures to medieval Britain.  That 
 is 
 why we have democracy in the USA, Canada, Australia, and a few other 
 places.  That is also why democracy is so tentative on the European 
 continent, and almost nonexistent in non western nations.  Democracy is 
 a 
 mind set that is engendered in families that understand and value 
 fundamental, God-given human rights.  Those families are almost all 
 English 
 speaking.
 
 
 John W. Redelfs   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ===
 I know of nothing in the history of the Church or in the
 history of the world to compare with our present
 circumstances. Nothing happened in Sodom and
 Gomorrah which exceeds the wickedness and depravity
 which surrounds us now.  --President Boyd K. Packer,
 February 28, 2004
 ===
 All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR 
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey

[Gerald Smith]

So, Tom, are you saying there is a link between playing the harmonica 
and being on death row?  Maybe we should continue teaching kids to play 
the recorder so we don't raise a generation of harmonica playing thugs!  
;-)

As for me, I sing tenor. I've sung in two temple dedication choirs, in 
fact.  I've tinkered with piano and guitar just a little bit, but not 
very good on either. I think anyone can play harmonica, since I've been 
known to play one in the past. Oh, and I love playing the recorder, 
which is probably the main thing that's kept me out of prison all these 
years.

Gary Smith


Tom Matkin wrote:
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: March 19, 2004 2:37 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey
  
  How many of you play a musical instrument?  How well do you play?  I'm
  curious about the musical makeup of the Zion list.
  
  John W. Redelfs sings well, plays the piano fairly, and the violin
 poorly.
  
 
 I sing a bit. Bass in my quartet, and I sometimes have to handle the
 tenor when that guy doesn't show up but it's scary when I do.  I used to
 play the flute and even blew the saxophone a time or two in a dance band
 that I played with. I love to beat on my guitar, but I have peripheral
 neuropathy in my hands and arm and I can't do it for long or without
 suffering the consequences. I was never any good at it. I love the
 harmonica, straight and blues. I'm not good but that doesn't stop me and
 with the blues harp who really knows the difference? I think they should
 throw away all those recorders in schools and teach the harmonica.
 Doesn't the USA have about a million people in jail at any one time?
 They could all be enjoying themselves playing the harmonica if they had
 been taught in grade school. Do you ever hear anyone on death row
 playing the recorder?
 
 Tom
 
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

Ron, why is it that you attack the commandments of God like this? 
Christ, to this day, condemns sexual impurity, even though he doesn't 
demand us to stone people to death. Some judgments MUST be made, 
otherwise you end up with no law, no order, only anarchy. Lehi taught 
there is right and wrong, up and down, light and darkness; that without 
the opposites there would be no God. As it is, God has given a law: 
marriage and sex between man and woman who are legally and lawfully 
married. Never has God given even a little inference that he would 
change his mind on either adultery or homosexuality.

Christ said what he said because the men involved were evil men. Each 
was guilty of adultery, probably with the accused woman (why else would 
they just happen to catch her but no man to take before Jesus?). They 
were being hypocrites, and he was pointing out their sin to them. Now, 
he told the woman to go and sin no more. He recognized her sin, and as 
Savior, gave her one more chance. That was his right as Judge.

Since we aren't Christ, the Lawgiver, we must judge as best we can with 
the guidance God gives us. This means we must have laws on the books 
that ensure society's safety (no murder, no robbery, no cheating, and 
others that happen to be in the 10 Commandments - which happen to be 
more of the Mosaic Law you happened to condemn on homosexuality).  
Either Christ is for homosexuality, or he is against it. From what I've 
read in the scriptures (including Paul's words in the New Testament), 
and writings of modern prophets (note Pres Kimball in Miracle of 
Forgiveness, or the current missionary requirements of never having had 
a homosexual event) I'd say you are speaking with a forked tongue in 
attacking Steven.  Either you believe the consistent teachings of the 
prophets, or you don't. Twisting Christ's words in one event in the 
scriptures, which He was using to condemn the wicked, only shows your 
troubling use of the scriptures to fit a different schema than the 
prophets have proclaimed.

Steven mentioned the severity of the penalty for homosexuality to 
emphasize God's displeasure with it. He didn't say he agreed with the 
death penalty.  As it is, most states have at one time or another had 
(or have) laws on the books against adultery and homosexuality. Yes, at 
one time some of these laws even included the death penalty for 
homosexuality.

The reality is, homosexuality, whether in the closet or out in the open 
is a sin. In either situation, it denigrates and harms society. It will 
destroy society if it gets hold and full acceptance, just as we learn of 
Sodom and Gomorrah and others who have lived lives of debauchery. We 
cannot accept it, even in a tolerant PC way; as that is opening the door 
for accepting all sin.

Gary Smith



Ron Scott wrote:
 
 
 Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too.  Cast that first
 stone, Steven.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained
 within the law of Moses
 are many commandments, among them this one:
 
 (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22)
 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
 is abomination.
 
 The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death:
 
 (Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13)
 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
 woman, both of them have
 committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
 death; their blood
 shall be upon them.
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 
 
 At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
 I have no idea.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
  
  
  What laws do you think?
  
  At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
  What laws?
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now!
   
   
   At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
   Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet.
   
   A. Strongly agree
   B. Agree
   C. Undecided
   D. Disagree
   E. Strongly Disagree
   
   If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the
   days of the people
   of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to
   avoid the penalty of
   the law.
   
   
   --
   Steven Montgomery
   . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly
  strict--Jarom 1:5
   
   
   //
   ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
   ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
   
   /
  --
  
  ///
  ///
  ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read

RE: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey

[Sara Peterson]

I play the Piano
Carinet
and Sing.  None as well as I should, but I'm taking Clarinet lessons again.



From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ZION] Musical Instruments Survey
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:36:38 -0900
How many of you play a musical instrument?  How well do you play?  I'm 
curious about the musical makeup of the Zion list.

John W. Redelfs sings well, plays the piano fairly, and the violin poorly.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/

_
Check out MSN PC Safety  Security to help ensure your PC is protected and 
safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

Actually, think the three of you -- Gary, Tom and John-- are
saying the same thing.  And, I agree.  I think it's important
that we take the long view on Iraq, regard it as a beachhead in
the Middle East for giving root to Democracy, however
limited/modified it may be at first.

RBS

-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 1:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


That's somewhat of a fallacious generalization, John.
Yes, it is
difficult and it takes time.  But you know what, in
business management
terms, we see change as requiring time. When a business
changes its
culture, it requires years for the complete change
over. Behaviorists
will tell you that normally 20-30% will quickly adapt
to the change, The
middle 30% adapt over several months to a year, with a
large number of
stragglers that take a long time. Then there are those
who never adapt,
who end up leaving the company for another with a
culture similar to
what they used to know.

So it is in society. For the Western nations (English speaking
primarily), they took centuries to adapt.  But Japan
and South Korea are
awesome democracies (non-English speaking) that have
learned the values
of freedom over a period of less than 50 years.  A long
time when one
thinks of how impatient Americans are, but rather quick
in geological
terms.  Why did Moses keep Israel in the wilderness for
40 years? It
would take that long for those with centuries-long
slave mentality to be
replaced by a generation of people with a new non-slave
culture and
mentality.  So it is with nations.

It might take Iraq 40-50 years to switch over to a
strong democracy. So
what? It means our grandchildren's children will live
in a world with
one more free nation that isn't run by radical kooks.

Cultures can change. It takes time. But I have a long
term view of these
things. I'm glad our forefathers also had such a long
term vision,
otherwise they might have given up at Valley Forge or
when the Articles
of Confederation failed.

Gary Smith

John W. Redelfs wrote:

 Tom Matkin wrote:
   The USA and her allies will successfully
establish democratic rule in
   Iraq.
  
   A. Certainly
   B. Probably
   C. Maybe
   D. Unlikely
   E. Certainly not
 
 E. Certainly not.  Democratic rule is a privilege
that must be earned.
 The people of Iraq cannot have it given to them or
established for them
 any more than I can give someone else my own
character or discipline.
 All the USA can do is try to improve the
circumstances for the growth of
 democracy.  In most cases those interventions seem
to about as
 successful as premature efforts interventions to
help a chick hatch.

 I strongly agree with you, Tom.  Freedom, and the
western democratic
 traditions that establish and maintain freedom are a cultural
 phenomenon,
 not something that can be imposed from above.  The
roots of freedom in
 the
 west go back in the English speaking cultures to
medieval Britain.  That
 is
 why we have democracy in the USA, Canada, Australia,
and a few other
 places.  That is also why democracy is so tentative
on the European
 continent, and almost nonexistent in non western
nations.  Democracy is
 a
 mind set that is engendered in families that
understand and value
 fundamental, God-given human rights.  Those families
are almost all
 English
 speaking.


 John W. Redelfs   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ===
 I know of nothing in the history of the Church or in the
 history of the world to compare with our present
 circumstances. Nothing happened in Sodom and
 Gomorrah which exceeds the wickedness and depravity
 which surrounds us now.  --President Boyd K. Packer,
 February 28, 2004
 ===
 All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR




Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
--

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

How did I attack the commandments of God? I merely commented on
Steven's rather harsh and outdated penalties.  He didn't ask
whether to comment on what was forbidden by the Lord did he? I
did not *attack* Steven and I certainly did not attack Christ's
teachings.

At the moment, the USA is not a theocracy. All of us have pledged
before God to sustain, honor and obey the law of the land and to
be subjects to kings, magistrates, rulers etc. I am so bound, so
are you.  Neverthless, I know what God teaches and what he
doesn't.  I do not need the government to teach me what's right
in the eyes of God and what is not.  It's better if the laws
correspond.  But if the don't, it's not likely twist my trousers
into a knot

You are absolutely correct: Christ is our judge.  You are not
mine nor am I yours.  I do not not know your mind nor your
particular circumstances and history.  Neither do you know mine.

Ron





-Original Message-
From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 2:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


Ron, why is it that you attack the commandments of God
like this?
Christ, to this day, condemns sexual impurity, even
though he doesn't
demand us to stone people to death. Some judgments MUST
be made,
otherwise you end up with no law, no order, only
anarchy. Lehi taught
there is right and wrong, up and down, light and
darkness; that without
the opposites there would be no God. As it is, God has
given a law:
marriage and sex between man and woman who are legally
and lawfully
married. Never has God given even a little inference
that he would
change his mind on either adultery or homosexuality.

Christ said what he said because the men involved were
evil men. Each
was guilty of adultery, probably with the accused woman
(why else would
they just happen to catch her but no man to take before
Jesus?). They
were being hypocrites, and he was pointing out their
sin to them. Now,
he told the woman to go and sin no more. He
recognized her sin, and as
Savior, gave her one more chance. That was his right as Judge.

Since we aren't Christ, the Lawgiver, we must judge as
best we can with
the guidance God gives us. This means we must have laws
on the books
that ensure society's safety (no murder, no robbery, no
cheating, and
others that happen to be in the 10 Commandments - which
happen to be
more of the Mosaic Law you happened to condemn on
homosexuality).
Either Christ is for homosexuality, or he is against
it. From what I've
read in the scriptures (including Paul's words in the
New Testament),
and writings of modern prophets (note Pres Kimball in
Miracle of
Forgiveness, or the current missionary requirements of
never having had
a homosexual event) I'd say you are speaking with a
forked tongue in
attacking Steven.  Either you believe the consistent
teachings of the
prophets, or you don't. Twisting Christ's words in one
event in the
scriptures, which He was using to condemn the wicked,
only shows your
troubling use of the scriptures to fit a different
schema than the
prophets have proclaimed.

Steven mentioned the severity of the penalty for
homosexuality to
emphasize God's displeasure with it. He didn't say he
agreed with the
death penalty.  As it is, most states have at one time
or another had
(or have) laws on the books against adultery and
homosexuality. Yes, at
one time some of these laws even included the death penalty for
homosexuality.

The reality is, homosexuality, whether in the closet or
out in the open
is a sin. In either situation, it denigrates and harms
society. It will
destroy society if it gets hold and full acceptance,
just as we learn of
Sodom and Gomorrah and others who have lived lives of
debauchery. We
cannot accept it, even in a tolerant PC way; as that is
opening the door
for accepting all sin.

Gary Smith



Ron Scott wrote:


 Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too.  Cast that first
 stone, Steven.

 -Original Message-
 From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained
 within the law of Moses
 are many commandments, among them this one:
 
 (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22)
 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
 is abomination.
 
 The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death:
 
 (Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13)
 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
 woman, both of them have
 committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
 death; their blood
 shall be upon them.
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 
 
 At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
 I have no idea.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
  
  
  What laws do you think?
  
  At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
  What laws?
  
   -Original Message

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Steven Montgomery]

If he did then perhaps I'm just too blind to see. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

--
Steven Montgomery
At 11:10 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
I think Christ provided the answer, don't you?

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


Hey, all l did was point out the penalty of the law--in
the days of Moses
and of the people in the Book of Mormon. Since we don't
live under a
theocratic government, death penalties for sabbath
breaking and adultery
does seem to be going way too far. Still, in most of
the states of the
union there used to be laws on the books against both
Sabbath breakers and
adulterers--perhaps we ought to start enforcing them
again. What do you
think the penalty ought to be? Or should we just turn a
blind eye and let
people ruin themselves in their own iniquity?

--
Steven Montgomery

At 09:04 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:

Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too.  Cast that first
stone, Steven.

 -Original Message-
 From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained
 within the law of Moses
 are many commandments, among them this one:
 
 (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22)
 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
 is abomination.
 
 The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death:
 
 (Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13)
 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
 woman, both of them have
 committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
 death; their blood
 shall be upon them.
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 
 
 At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
 I have no idea.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
  
  
  What laws do you think?
  
  At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
  What laws?
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Steven Montgomery
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now!
   
   
   At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
   Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet.
   
   A. Strongly agree
   B. Agree
   C. Undecided
   D. Disagree
   E. Strongly Disagree
   
   If the laws were strictly enforced, as they were in the
   days of the people
   of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to
   avoid the penalty of
   the law.
   
   
   --
   Steven Montgomery
   . . . the laws of the land were exceedingly
  strict--Jarom 1:5
   
  

   //
   ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
   ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  

   /
  --
  
  ///
  ///
  ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
  ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  ///
  //
  
  
  //
  ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
  ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  
  /
 ---
  
  
 
 ///
 ///
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 ///
 //
 
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 html
 a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3;
 img border=0
 src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalo
 gosmall.jpg
 width=406 height=100/a
 /html
 http://www.stoptheftaa.org
 
 
 //
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 
 /
---
 
 

///
///
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
///
//


//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///

/
--
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

I think you've got it right.  The old laws are off the books.  If
they become laws again, they ought to be enforced. What do I
think the penalty ought to be for Sabbath breaking?  Dunno. Let
me consult with my Jewish and SDA friends.  Seriously, I don't
recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder
perhaps (but I don't recall it).

RBS

-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 6:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


If he did then perhaps I'm just too blind to see.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.

--
Steven Montgomery

At 11:10 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
I think Christ provided the answer, don't you?

 -Original Message-
 From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:48 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 
 Hey, all l did was point out the penalty of the law--in
 the days of Moses
 and of the people in the Book of Mormon. Since we don't
 live under a
 theocratic government, death penalties for sabbath
 breaking and adultery
 does seem to be going way too far. Still, in most of
 the states of the
 union there used to be laws on the books against both
 Sabbath breakers and
 adulterers--perhaps we ought to start enforcing them
 again. What do you
 think the penalty ought to be? Or should we just turn a
 blind eye and let
 people ruin themselves in their own iniquity?
 
 --
 Steven Montgomery
 
 At 09:04 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
 
 Ah yes, and stone to death adulterers too.  Cast that first
 stone, Steven.
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 9:19 AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
  
  
  How about the Law of Moses (Jarom 1:5)? Contained
  within the law of Moses
  are many commandments, among them this one:
  
  (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22)
  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
  is abomination.
  
  The penalty, for unrepentant sinners was death:
  
  (Old Testament | Leviticus 20:13)
  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
  woman, both of them have
  committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
  death; their blood
  shall be upon them.
  
  --
  Steven Montgomery
  
  
  At 03:18 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote:
  I have no idea.
  
   -Original Message-
   From: Steven Montgomery
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:29 PM
   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
   
   
   What laws do you think?
   
   At 06:04 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
   What laws?
   
-Original Message-
From: Steven Montgomery
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now!


At 02:02 PM 3/19/2004, you wrote:
Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet.

A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Undecided
D. Disagree
E. Strongly Disagree

If the laws were strictly enforced, as they
were in the
days of the people
of Nephi, they would have to stay in the closet--to
avoid the penalty of
the law.


--
Steven Montgomery
. . . the laws of the land were exceedingly
   strict--Jarom 1:5

   
 
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
   
 
/
   --
   
  
///
   ///
   ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
   ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  
///
   //
   
  

   //
   ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
   ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  

   /
  ---
   
   
  
  ///
  ///
  ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
  ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
  ///
  //
  
  
  --
  Steven Montgomery
  html
  a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3;
  img border=0
  src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalo
  gosmall.jpg
  width=406 height=100/a
  /html
  http://www.stoptheftaa.org
  
  
  //
  ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
  ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[John W. Redelfs]

RB Scott wrote:
I think you've got it right.  The old laws are off the books.  If
they become laws again, they ought to be enforced. What do I
think the penalty ought to be for Sabbath breaking?  Dunno. Let
me consult with my Jewish and SDA friends.  Seriously, I don't
recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder
perhaps (but I don't recall it).
According to official Mormon doctrine, Jesus Christ is the premortal 
Jehovah.  If that is the case, then we know that Jesus Christ preached 
death for quite a few offenses.  --JWR

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[John W. Redelfs]

Hi Gary. My name's Jack, I'm the only son of the listowner. Since I advised
him in writing the post you are responding to (I'm his history advisor), I was
interested in your reply and decided to respond.
Gerald Smith wrote:
That's somewhat of a fallacious generalization, John.  Yes, it is
difficult and it takes time.  But you know what, in business management
terms, we see change as requiring time.
snip business analogy

This is interesting info, Gary, but I doubt that it applies to this discussion.
Although business traditions are mercurial, cultural traditions tend to 
strengthen
exponentially from generation to generation. The hand that rocks the 
cradle, etc.
I find it highly doubtful that these traditions can be changed in a few years.

Why didn't the Iraqis rise and destroy Saddam of their own accord?
Because as a people, they were willing to resign themselves to his rule.
They have been resigning themselves to autocrats for a long, long time.
snip... Japan and South Korea are
awesome democracies (non-English speaking) that have learned the
 values of freedom over a period of less than 50 years.
We forced a democratic constitution upon Japan, literally at gunpoint,
which they are already contemplating abandoning. Even now, the Japanese are
happy to live with a degree of regimentation and control far beyond what we 
would
find acceptable. Politics in Japan are not a populist exercise. Although 
they do vote,
the Japanese people allow most of their politics to be decided behind closed
doors. And I should add I'm basing this from mainstream sources, like
Newsweek and U.S News  World Report - not fringe publications like the
New American.

It might take Iraq 40-50 years to switch over to a strong democracy. So
what? It means our grandchildren's children will live in a world with
one more free nation that isn't run by radical kooks.
Are you willing to occupy Iraq for 40-50 years, no matter the cost in
lives and dollars? Because that's the only way I can see of
achieving our goals. Even then, it would be impossible unless
the Iraqis chose to change.
Besides, are there _any_ Islamic nations that are not run by radical
kooks? Was Saddam alone in persecuting the Kurds?
Didn't the president of Maylasia recently release a diatribe against
the vast Jewish conspiracy controlling the west? Did not Syria,
Jordan and Egypt attempt to exterminate Israel only 31 years ago
(supported by Saudi Arabia, I might add)?
How does Saudi Arabia stand on human rights? How wide is
suffrage in the Islamic world?
Although it is true that Iraq may eventually switch over to a strong
democracy, this will only result after a genuine, grassroots cultural shift.
Such a shift has to come from within; our meddling can only
hurt, not help such a process.  A brief invasion will solve nothing.
Cultures can change. It takes time. But I have a long term view of these
things. I'm glad our forefathers also had such a long term vision,
otherwise they might have given up at Valley Forge or when the Articles
of Confederation failed.
The heroes of the American Revolution were scions of a rich
democratic tradition. The people of Iraq are inheritors of a factional,
authoritarian tradition that we cannot hope to change by force.
===
It's not easy to juggle a pregnant wife and a troubled child, but somehow I
managed to fit in eight hours of TV a day.  - Homer Simpson
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[John W. Redelfs]

Gerald Smith wrote:
It might take Iraq 40-50 years to switch over to a strong democracy. So
what? It means our grandchildren's children will live in a world with
one more free nation that isn't run by radical kooks.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast,
Man never is but always to be blest.
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

Re: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Grampa Bill in Savannah]

RB Scott wrote:

 Seriously, I don't
recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder
perhaps (but I don't recall it).
=
Grampa Bill comments:
   But the Christ of the New Testament IS the Jehovah of the Old 
Testament and in those days with those people He most certainly 
enumerated a number of offenses for which the sentence was death.

Love Y'all,
Grampa Bill in Savannah
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine!

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: Grampa Bill in Savannah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 8:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ZION] Vote Now!


RB Scott wrote:

  Seriously, I don't
recall Christ preaching death for any offense...well, murder
perhaps (but I don't recall it).

Notwithstanding fairly twisted and bizarre interpretations, what
Christ taught was forgiveness, not death.

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

Re: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Jon Spencer]

 Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet.

Their choice.  They should NOT be afraid to come out of the closet, nor
should they expect to be accepted.

In my own personal experience, those of my friends who came out of the
closet remained my friends, and were counseled by me in love to change any
dangerous personal behaviors they were engaging in.  The one who took my
advice, took it too late, and died of AIDS.

Jon

//
///  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] Why the Iraqis Didn't Destroy Saddam (was: Vote Now!)

[Jonathan Scott]

	Watch The Patriot some time.  The battles they had in that 
war were fought by two sides who had access to very similar weaponry. 
Things have changed a lot since then.  Governments have access to 
stuff that is much more advanced than what the people have.
	The Iraqis didn't stand a chance of challenging Hussein. 
They had to be helped.
	Of course, this opens up the whole topic of the US and what 
we would have to go through if the US were to ever become a blood 
thirsty dictatorship.  How could we defend ourselves against the US 
army if it ever came to it.  I don't think we could.  I think we 
would just simply lose.
	Maybe the second amendment is more important than we realize.

No, the current crop of Iraqis didn't rise and destroy Saddam because the
brave ones who tried that more than a decade ago (when they thought we were
going to continue all the way into Baghdad) were slaughtered.
*jeep!
 ---Chet
If ya thinks ya is right, ya deserfs credit - even if ya is wrong.  --Gus
Segar via Popeye
- Original Message -
From: Son of John W. Redelfs
 Why didn't the Iraqis rise and destroy Saddam of their own accord?
 Because as a people, they were willing to resign themselves to his rule.
 They have been resigning themselves to autocrats for a long, long time.
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/


--
Jonathan Scott
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[RB Scott]

-Original Message-
From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 12:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Vote Now!


RB Scott wrote:
   Seriously, I don't
 recall Christ preaching death for any 
offense...well, murder
 perhaps (but I don't recall it).

Notwithstanding fairly twisted and bizarre 
interpretations, what
Christ taught was forgiveness, not death.

Forgiveness for the repentant only.  That is what he 
taught then, and that 
is what he teaches now.  We have to forgive all men, 
but he only forgives 
the repentant.  --JWR

Yep.
 

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Tom Matkin]

 -Original Message-
 From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: March 19, 2004 1:52 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [ZION] Vote Now!
 
 The USA and her allies will successfully establish democratic rule in
 Iraq.
 
 A. Certainly
 B. Probably
 C. Maybe
 D. Unlikely
 E. Certainly not

E. Certainly not.  Democratic rule is a privilege that must be earned.
The people of Iraq cannot have it given to them or established for them
any more than I can give someone else my own character or discipline.
All the USA can do is try to improve the circumstances for the growth of
democracy.  In most cases those interventions seem to about as
successful as premature efforts interventions to help a chick hatch.

Tom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

A. Certainly.

However, the question will be how long it lasts. Once we start 
concentrating on other areas, will the Iraqis keep it?  I mean, look at 
what the French and Germans have done with their freedom since we ended 
the Cold War and didn't concentrate on them as much.

Gary Smith

John W. Redelfs wrote:
 
 The USA and her allies will successfully establish democratic rule in 
 Iraq.
 
 A. Certainly
 B. Probably
 C. Maybe
 D. Unlikely
 E. Certainly not
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

E. Strongly Disagree.  How else are we going to know which ones are the 
tares, if they hide amongst the wheat???  There's gonna be a big 
bonfire, and I'm hoping to watch it, not get burned mistakenly because 
we can't tell the firewood from the cabinetry in the house of God.

Gary Smith


John W. Redelfs wrote:
 
 Gays and lesbians should stay in the closet.
 
 A. Strongly agree
 B. Agree
 C. Undecided
 D. Disagree
 E. Strongly Disagree
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^

RE: [ZION] Vote Now!

[Gerald Smith]

Presidente Tomas,
So, are you saying that instead of trying to help them democratize, we 
should have just turned Afghanistan and Iraq into seas of glass, to get 
the radical terrorists out of our hair?

Gary Smith




Tom Matkin wrote:
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: March 19, 2004 1:52 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: [ZION] Vote Now!
  
  The USA and her allies will successfully establish democratic rule in
  Iraq.
  
  A. Certainly
  B. Probably
  C. Maybe
  D. Unlikely
  E. Certainly not
 
 E. Certainly not.  Democratic rule is a privilege that must be earned.
 The people of Iraq cannot have it given to them or established for them
 any more than I can give someone else my own character or discipline.
 All the USA can do is try to improve the circumstances for the growth of
 democracy.  In most cases those interventions seem to about as
 successful as premature efforts interventions to help a chick hatch.
 
 Tom
 
 



Gerald (Gary) Smith
geraldsmith@ juno.com
http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom

//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
/
--^
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^