-
Posts
20,923 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Robert F. Smith
-
-
1 hour ago, marineland said:
........................
What few exceptions in the Book of Mormon show salvation is not exaltation?
The words "celestial" and "exaltation" do not occur in the Book of Mormon, so are there any synonyms for such?
In Hebrew, the name Jesus means "Salvation," and that is what Simeon says at the temple when he sees Jesus in Luke 2:30, "mine eyes have seen thy salvation."
Matthew 1:21, "thou shalt call his. name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."
Luke 1:69, "Blessed be [Benedictus] the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us"
If Jesus redeemed us from sin and consequent temporal death, what does it mean to have eternal life? John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." His atonement saved us all from temporal death. How does that give us exaltation? Living forever is not the same as exaltation. All of us will live forever, no matter what, even those who are consigned to Outer Darkness.
4 -
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:
They deliberately chose to restrict gun availability in the 20th century because they were having problems with shootings.
Saying “false” and going on about the civil war is a clear dodge since I wasn’t talking about that. Your understanding of the British Constitution and what it is and how it works is…..lacking. The only reason the US has a constitution is because the Founders were generally great lovers of the British Constitution.
Like many Americans, you seem to have little understanding of our Constitution, how we got it, and why we need to follow it -- aside from rejection by you of the rule of law, which requires an actual legal process to change our Constitution (something the Brits don't even bother with, as they take away many of their citizens rights to free speech, etc.).
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:What are you even talking about? Ukraine ranks pretty high amongst European nations and nations in general for gun ownership.
Why are you discussing nukes? Do you think that is a Second Amendment issue too? Yes, Ukraine had nukes when the Soviet Union fell but they had no way to maintain or use them. The missiles they had were long range and would have required extensive work to function as a deterrent against Russia. If they were somehow maintained sources I see shows they would have been useful against Vladivostock and other targets in Russia’s Far East. To credibly threaten Moscow they would have had to start their own weapons program which would have resulted in sanctions from both the US and Russia and possibly a Russian invasion. The idea that Ukraine could have noped out and stayed nuclear was a pipe dream. Condemning them for it is unfair.
The Ukrainians could have kept the nukes, but they naively believed all the promises of territorial sovereignty, never imagining that the Russians thirsted for a restored empire at their expense. Everyone reassured them.
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:Again you jump to general murders and away from mass shootings. Try to stay on target.
I am talking about mass shootings. It is an American problem. The only areas that come close to US numbers in mass shootings are active war zones. So why does the US have so many? Because we have the highest per capita gun ownership in the world and it is still rising as the mass shootings rise. Again, other nations have had this problem and heavily restricted gun ownership. The problem diminished quickly. The US solution is to arm more people and the numbers stay high. We are idiots. The deflection and desperate attempts to blame the problem on anything else but weapon availability are facile.
There are very few real mass shootings. Most deaths by gunshot in America are suicides and gangland shootings (gang members shooting each other). The lying press includes gangland shootings in so-called "mass shootings." As I said before, the stats clearly show that the murder rate was going way down all while the rate of gun-buying was increasing. How is that possible? The lying response is always to blame the guns, instead of blaming those who use the guns.
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:Comparing cars to firearms is insane. Cars are primarily for transportation. They serve a useful function. We have to put up with some level of loss or lose that level of transportation. Guns are used to kill things. That is it. They don’t increase access to employment opportunities or increase mobility like cars do. The only benefit they arguably have is letting hunters cull some species that need it but the vast majority of firearms aren’t used for that purpose. If you take away cars the American economy collapses because we have no public transportation.. If you take away guns……ummmmm…….there are too many geese and deer and we will have to design some kind of government agency to deal with it.
It is also worth noting that gun violence and accidents recently passed car accidents to become the leading cause of death amongst American children. We love our guns more than we love our kids.
The Switzerland thing is a common talking point but it is the libertarianism and anarchy that make the attempt to use the Swiss as justification ridiculous. The US has over four times as many firearms as the Swiss per capita. While their level of gun violence is low this is due to a massive cultural difference. A lot of gun ownership falls under militia rules, that bit of the 2nd Amendment that many ignore. The Swiss are also not bombastic idiots that carry their guns everywhere. We can’t replicate Swiss culture in the US and the people advocating for less gun control measures are not exactly models of Swiss restraint. It is a red herring suggesting it is possible to have responsible gun ownership thrown out by people who have no interest in creating a culture of responsible gun ownership. They are advocating for unofficial militias and more armed people everywhere. The answer to these groups for gun violence is always to have more guns in circulation everywhere. They combine this with “common sense” safety measures that are, on examination, insane or useless.
Holding the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment (and other amendments) in contempt is quite common among a certain class of people -- who reject the rule of law and who refuse to seek common sense safety measures. Our Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee political parties make no effort to solve these problems, which might actually require some compromise. Your own and others intransigence does not bode well for the future. Our one time sense of community and mutual respect has largely disappeared.
2 -
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:
Amazing how European nations don’t have this problem. What is the difference? Almost as if there is another choice in restricting weapons that doesn’t require a descent into authoritarian totalitarianism.
Which is why Sweden and France are plagued with mass shootings. What is the difference? It is the easy availability of guns. Britain had a problem with mass shootings. They tightened gun control laws and the problem stopped. Same with Canada, Australia, Germany, and others.
False. In 1689, the British Parliament passed an extensive bill of rights, including the right to keep and bear arms (the people had just had to fight a real civil war). One hundred years later, our own Founding Fathers recognized the need for that and the other rights in that legislation in our own Constitution. The Brits have since thrown out many of those rights (they don't have a real Constitution). Ukraine also disarmed its populace and gave up all their nuclear weapons -- with a guarantee that their security would be held sacrosanct. Putin has always relished that weakness -- and has been taking full advantage of it.
As I have already shown in this thread, the rise in gun sales in the recent past shows no correlation with the murder rate -- which has been going down since 1990. Nearly all gun murders are committed by gang members -- criminal on criminal violence, primarily in the inner city -- with handguns, not rifles. The stats are very clear that the problem is not ready availability of guns to law-abiding citizens, who have them for self-protection.
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/world/europe/gun-laws-australia-britain.html
The USA just doesn’t care to go with that solution. Given the choice we choose guns and act like gun control is impossible. It is not. So this keeps happening and will continue to happen. We are very stupid.
Yes, Americans are very stupid. However, America is also very heterogeneous, a true melting pot of diverse cultures, with a powerful strain of libertarianism and anarchy. There are a number of heavily armed nations (like Switzerland) which don't have mass shootings. Banning guns is like banning automobiles in order to stop the carnage on the highways.
1 -
-
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:
Don’t get me started on TSA.
Children shouldn’t have to endure having their backpacks scanned to get into school. We need to start hitting the roots of these problems instead of focusing on mitigation. Everyone talks about how a school is a soft target so we need to harden it. The thing is we aren’t in a war zone. Why are we okay with a bunker mentality?
There was a time when we did not have search screens at airports. People simply boarded planes with a plane ticket. One could also enter a courthouse without a search. There was no bunker mentality. Then planes began to be commandeered by people for ransom or for terror. In the real world we had to make adjustments. It is annoying, but a reality.
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:We could try more restrictions on weapon sales and weapons that serve little purpose beyond killing a lot of people.
There are trade-offs which absolute security requires. We could take the Stalinist and Maoist approach, which is to disarm the populace and regiment them (re-education camps for those who refuse). We have seen recently what that means in Shanghai, which has now become a prison for the millions who live there. The CCP tackles crime and COVID the same way.
We can just ignore the Constitution and rule of law, as we have been doing lately, and which is really the source of our problem. Turns out, however, that when law-abiding citizens don't have guns, then only the criminals have them. Great, because nearly all shootings in America fall into two large groups: (1) suicides, and (2) gangland shootings. And nearly all of those are with pistols. Also turns out that law-abiding citizens who own guns rarely shoot someone who threatens them: Instead, they merely brandish the firearm, which dissuades the perpetrator, who then leaves. Actual stats show a very different America from that of fable and fantasy. There is no correlation between vastly increased gun sales and murder, unless it has caused a decrease in murder: https://infogram.com/overall-homicide-1979-2020-1h7z2l81pk37x6o
1 -
2 hours ago, Calm said:
I highly doubt it is a value issue instead of having additional needs that are seen important and more likely to occur if surrounded by guns on a daily basis as opposed to the very low statistic of being shot in a mass shooting at school. And that is the ones making the rules are more focused on letting children be able to be children without adult cares and not have guns as part of their reality. Part of protecting children is protecting them from harsh realities, from fear. You don’t tell your kids you are worried about having money to cover the mortgage, for example.
School is thought, I am guessing, to be seen as a safer place if children don’t see and therefore won’t think about guns while in school.
Yes, a mass shooting at school is quite rare, like winning the lottery. So, don't worry, be happy. Many will just pretend, as they have been doing. The harsh reality of frequent youth suicide should have told us that the fantasy was gone.
2 hours ago, Calm said:However, my guess is with the mass of news surrounding kids these days, the above is an unrealistic dream and kids will feel safer with armed security people around. I am not sure about having teachers armed, but if our country has allowed the proliferation of guns so they are easy to get, we need to live with the consequences and pay for greater security measures in school. .....................
Exactly. There was a time in America in which this was not necessary. I can still remember it well. Then bad things began to happen, and terror became almost normal -- or at least seemed so.
1 -
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:
Because we don’t want our schools to turn into the equivalent of day prisons. More than they already are anyways.
So our populace would prefer these mass shootings to having the kind of adequate security we have in our courthouses? Really. So, you would prefer no TSA at airports? Even with TSA we still have plenty of unarmed donnybrooks in planes and airports. At least they are unarmed encounters.
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:This shooting suggests that this is not the problem. This should have been the ideal situation to prove it. From what I have read so far the culprit was fleeing police and fled into the school. So the “good guys with guns” were already on the scene. They didn’t stop it. From reports they withdrew to regroup. One would think active shooter in school would be the stuff hero moments are made of. People eviscerated the security guard at Sandy Hook for not charging in but we had three police officers on scene with more on the way and they didn’t do anything. I am hoping there will be reports on why they did nothing but I am not holding my breath. We will just be told they need more money again and maybe another APC.
This also makes me question why we are giving the police all this quasi-military gear if they are not willing to step up when the situation gets dangerous. If you can only use your tacticool gear to intimidate protestors and to take out unarmed civilians maybe you shouldn’t have it.
Third worst school shooting in US history occurs in out state and our governor points out it “could have been worse”. We are told not to politicize this tragedy or suggest any knee jerk changes as Texas government was hard at work in the last year slashing requirements for gun ownership and carrying.
So we are going to continue to pretend that things will get better by not doing anything? Govt by fantasy.
1 -
3 hours ago, bluebell said:
I agree that gun free zones are a joke. And I do think that we should probably have more security at our schools, at least until we can get a handle on this kind of stuff and lessen it happening.
But I don't think that arming teachers is the answer. As the meme says, if we don't even trust our teachers right now to pick library books, why would we trust them with a gun?
Correct. Mutual trust in America is at an all time low.
3 hours ago, bluebell said:And lastly, if this were an easy problem to solve and all it took was some intelligence, I think we would have solved it already. It's a problem because we don't really know what is causing it, so we don't really know how to stop it. It's probably a combination of a lot of different things and with so many options on the table, there are an equal number of options for resolution--and in our current broken political climate that means a lot of fighting and very little of doing anything.
Our courts do not have shootings inside for a simple reason: They have adequate security. Judges just don't like their courtrooms filled with armed citizens. Why is the concept so hard to deal with? Uvalde Elementary had an open door (easy access), and the police who responded did what they usually do (they waited around for an hour while children and teachers were bleeding to death), and that has all happened before. This problem is not new. Criminals and crazy people love gun-free zones.
1 -
4 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:
.................., not background checks, locks and storage of guns................
Those who have been in the military and in law enforcement know just the opposite: We need disciplined and trained gun-owners, not lackadaisical libertarians who have no sense of responsibility. Rights = responsibility.
1 -
22 minutes ago, bluebell said:
........................But, though easy gun access might not be the root cause of people wanting to kill and maim as many people as possible, easy gun access does make it easier for people to live out these sick fantasies.
We have also made schools with small children gun-free zones with little to no security. Same for our churches.
Govt bldgs, on the other hand, generally have strict search-screens to prevent entry of people who are armed. Why is it that we do not value the children enough to make their learning experience secure? Why is that crazy people choose to go to gun-free zones, such as schools and churches? Seems like a no-brainer. Why are our teachers and school administrators so uninterested in doing something intelligent for a change?
0 -
11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:
To make it even simpler, the sources he quoted were commentaries, not scripture
Yes, Mormons have been creating their own midrash.
1 -
2 hours ago, teddyaware said:
Not only entertaining but also very compelling to anyone applying reason and common sense consistent with LDS doctrine. A question: Doctrine and Covenants 132 testifies that exalted men and women in the celestial kingdom will continue to have children throughout all eternity, a process which referred to as the “continuations of the seeds forever and ever.” Knowing that this claim is verified in scripture, do you believe God also has a perfected, functioning sexual reproduction system that produces seed “forever and ever?”
I'm not sure that reason and logic are the only qualities needed in making those extrapolations. We earthbound humans are so limited in purview that our imagination is truly challenged. Brother Brigham took a similarly down-to-earth approach, but I'm not sure that the details are really within our grasp.
2 -
7 hours ago, Nofear said:
It's not too often that my interpretations of biblical stories get a radical reshaping. I think this article in one of the exceptions. The Golden Calf wasn't about worshiping a false god so much as putting a buffer between us and direct contact with God. This kind of idolatry is something that would affect many latter-day saints as well...............
Another radical take on this whole matter includes the bull or calf images installed in North Israelite temples visited by the 10 northern tribes. Some scholars believe that they were modeled on the bulls ridden by Canaanite El, except that Israelite El was invisible when he rode them.[1] In fact, Gen 49:24 refers to El as the Bull of Jacob -- in an astrological sequence which makes this Taurus the Bull. Moreover, the name Lehi "Jawbone" may represent the Jawbone of the Bull of Heaven, the Hyades: The god Marduk even uses the Hyades as a boomerang-like weapon, just as Samson uses a jawbone to slaughter Philistines.
[1] See G. N. Knoppers, "Aaron's Calf and Jeroboam's Calves," in A. Beck, A. Bartelt, P. Raabe, and C. Franke, eds., Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 92-104; Amihai Mazar, “The ‘Bull Site’ – An Iron Age I Open Cult Place,” BASOR, 247 (Summer 1982):27-42, online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/1356477?seq=1 .
1 -
8 minutes ago, theplains said:
If I were LDS and believed Heavenly Father was a man who became a God, I would speculate that the 23
other human chromosomes came from him. But exactly how this transfer from Heavenly Father occurred,
I do not know.Excellent point. Restraint is certainly called for.
1 -
2 minutes ago, theplains said:
Boyd Packer said in a speech (Follow the Rule, Brigham Young University) back in 1977: "It isn’t a question of who
said it or when; the question is whether it is true".Correct. However, a lot of things are assumed to be true which are not part of Latter-day Saint doctrine. I hear people making what I believe to be valid statements all the time, but that does not make them correct doctrine. Much of it is just opinion which agrees with my own preconceptions.
2 -
2 minutes ago, teddyaware said:
The 900 pound gorilla in the room is that it’s official Latter-Day Saint doctrine that God the Father is a perfected, fully human Man (presumably complete with a perfected male human reproductive system), yet somehow the Father didn’t use his own fully viable and available sacred seed (you know, like the Lord himself testified will occur throughout all eternity in the celestial kingdom [D&C 132]) to sire his Only Begotten son in the flesh. (Begotten, past participle of beget — To produce (offspring) by sexual reproduction. Used especially of a man)
Very entertaining extrapolation, Teddy, but whether all that is "official Latter-day Saint doctrine" is another matter.
0 -
16 minutes ago, theplains said:
......................LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man, .............
Joseph Fielding Smith published that book in 1936, when he was not LDS President.
0 -
3 hours ago, InCognitus said:
The LDS cannon does include these teachings, although I think you may have some added meaning in your thinking that you aren't articulating here. Both are in the Bible:
Jesus is the firstbegotten of the Father: Hebrews 1:6
Jesus was God in the premortal life: John 1:1-3
4 minutes ago, theplains said:...................
Does the Book of Mormon reveal to people how they should properly understand and
interpret Jesus as the "literal Son of God and Savior of the world" and how this alternate
understanding and interpretation has been deleted from the tenets of modern Christianity?The phrase you repeatedly ask about, Jim, "literal Son of God," is likely an extrapolation from both Bible and other holy books. As with many theological phrases used by Protestants and Catholics, extrapolation is a major source of encapsulating such concepts in order to make them understandable to ordinary people. Whether they are ultimately correct is up for discussion. Nearly all Latter-day Saint beliefs can be found in the Bible. InCognitus gives us just one small indication of that fact, above. Indeed, such concepts were already commonly available in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
0 -
1 hour ago, theplains said:
Does the Book of Mormon explain the phrase "literal Son of God" differently or more accurately than the Bible?
Neither the Book of Mormon nor the Bible use the phrase "literal son of God." You may be thinking of statements by Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith, https://www.mrm.org/jesus-christ-literal . You need to learn to specify and cite your sources, Jim. That is the only honest way to approach such issues. Be up front and frank in expressing your views.
1 -
58 minutes ago, theplains said:
Some current teachings of the LDS Church (of Jesus being the first spirit child of heavenly parents and
that he became a God in the premortal life) is not found in the LDS canon.You might want to cite your sources for those claimed teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, providing exact quotes, rather than your personal version of what is actually taught. Various people, including yourself, may have opinions of various kinds. Justifying those opinions may not be so easy.
1 -
1 hour ago, manol said:
...............
Lehi's argument seems to imply that if we all cease to do evil, God will cease to be God. I'm not saying that is untrue because I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me.
.................
Nope. Lehi doesn't say that at all. What he says is that there can be no good without evil, no bitter without sweet, etc. That is the nature of the universe. Otherwise, he says, everything would simply be "a compound in one" -- an undifferentiated mass, without good or evil, without any meaning at all, and without even the possibility of God.
This is also a fundamental law of physics. The Law of Opposition is universal.
0 -
58 minutes ago, manol said:
I'm used to thinking of the War in Heaven in the past tense, and you had said "There is [present tense] also fighting and contention in Heaven...". Is the War in Heaven (or something similar) actually ongoing?
There was no beginning, there shall be no end. There will always be heavenly councils throughout the universe, and for all time, as new spirit children head off to their own life experiences during their mortal probation. All will be given their choice of following Satan or Jehovah, on keeping or not keeping their first estate. This must go on forever. It is never a one-time thing.
58 minutes ago, manol said:Also... if "fighting and contention" are "part of the principle of agency", and if agency is in play in the Celestial Kingdom, then is there "fighting and contention" - or something analogous - in the Celestial Kingdom?
Perhaps the ministering angels and celestial beings in the Celestial Kingdom are sequestered from the hoi polloi such that there is only love and never contention. However, all celestial beings will inevitably be present in a heavenly council in which there will be many non-celestial spirit children who must make a choice as a first step on their covenant path. So, yes, in those instances, there will be fighting and contention. It is inevitable.
58 minutes ago, manol said:And, how do you arrive at the conclusion that "Evil is eternal"? I'm not saying it isn't, just wanting to understand your line of reasoning. .............
Reading II Nephi 2 is key here. It makes it plain that evil must exist, along with all other opposites. If not, God could not be God. This a central feature and foundation of LDS theology. Lehi is very explicit.
1 -
50 minutes ago, manol said:
"Fighting and contention" doesn't sound very Heavenly to me, but you've probably thought this through further than I have. How do you arrive at this conclusion?
I was thinking of the War in Heaven. One-third of the Host of Heaven are headed for Outer Darkness as a result. Evil is eternal. Always has been.
0 -
52 minutes ago, Fether said:
Satan wants contention. Christ want peace. When contention starts, it is ALWAYS instigated by the spirit of the devil. Christ fights only out of defense and justice. But I imagine if he had it his way, there would be no fighting… but unfortunately, we live in a fallen world
There is also fighting and contention in Heaven, and always has been. It is part of the principle of agency.
0
Can we talk about the mass shootings in America?
in Social Hall
Posted · Edited by Robert F. Smith
Yes, and you just repeated your false assertion. Great. Machiavelli actually rules, and a very naive Ukrainian govt lost out for its people.
The lying press actually claims 214 mass shootings in 2022. School shootings are actually quite rare, and police generally respond to them too late and then stand around while everyone bleeds out.
You enjoy rewriting history. Both in 1689, and 1789, the right to keep and bear arms was considered an individual right, and the definition of militia at that time included all able bodied males 16 years and up. An entire town would march as a militia unit under command of the town captain. A sense of community actually existed in those times.
Burger and those attorneys general likewise rewrote history.
The corrupt and venal NRA is built on a foundation of yokels and lies having nothing to do with our Constitution. Their policy, like that of their opponents, is not built on jurisprudence but on money-grubbing Machiavellianism. The will to power -- so you are not far wrong in use of the term "secret combination." Too bad you can't get your facts straight.