World Wide Flood Of Noah

[keith_brian]

The same part as my husband lives in!!! I was merely being a good hostess! We live in Arizona. Where do you live?

Regards,

jo

Utah. And, I wasn't flirting, lol. I wasn't even sure if you were a guy or a girl. I will meet almost anyone to talk about anything related to science, religion, etc. I am very social that way.

Next time you come to Utah, bring your hubby and the three of us will have a grand old discussion .

[LeSellers]

Next time you come to Utah, bring your hubby and the three of us will have a grand old discussion .

I hope you won't be having this discusson in a milkshake.

Lehi

[shalamabobbi]

Utah. And, I wasn't flirting, lol. I wasn't even sure if you were a guy or a girl. I will meet almost anyone to talk about anything related to science, religion, etc. I am very social that way.

Next time you come to Utah, bring your hubby and the three of us will have a grand old discussion .

Are you sure you want to meet with them in person? The tag team of Franktalk and jo1952 is tough to beat..

[cinepro]

The Holy Ghost and I get along just fine. I will say that scripture is open and the last days are here. The restrainer is pulling away but the Holy Ghost is becoming strong in some people. I know not why. But these things don't concern me. Some things I have asked have been answered after years of waiting. We are tested in all things.

Franktalk, I meant to bring this up in another thread, but I think one of your "end times" interpretations needs reconsideration.

You frequently refer to 2 Thessalonians 2:7 to mean that Satan will have more power in the last days (i.e. the "restrainer" will be taken away and he will not be "restrained").

But the Joseph Smith Translation of these verses changes their meaning, to say that it is Satan who will be taken out of the way, not the thing that is restraining him.

Here's the original KJV:

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

2 Thessalonians KJV

Compare that with the Joseph Smith Translation:

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, and he it is who now worketh, and Christ suffereth him to work, until the time is fulfilled that he shall be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

9 Yea, the Lord, even Jesus, whose coming is not until after there cometh a falling away, by the working of Satan with all power, and signs and lying wonders,

2 Thessalonians JST

I know this is the exact opposite of what many traditional Christians believe, but that is one of the benefits of having the gift of the Joseph Smith Translation.

[thesometimesaint]

Jo1952:

Good morning.

"Evolution also teaches that through natural selection that the good things, stong things, healthy things, will survive. Yet the human genome is failing. What does evolution have to say about that? Are we a species that is doomed because we don't meet the standards wherein only the strong survive? Or is it possible this is all part of the plan which God initiated which is something that was missed while everyone was following god Darwin, rather than God the Father? The Bible clearly indicates a change in entropy - amazingly one of the biggest impacts was The Flood. Go figure. It's all in there if you look for it. I would offer that man in his pursuit of science should use what the Bible teaches as a guideline in order that they can be led in the right direction and toward the correct interpretations of their observations creating theories which would then be more dependable than those theories which are moving targets. Of course, I doubt seriously the could become peer review approved. I asky, why give man so much more power than where the Holy Ghost can lead us? I believe we need to re-evaluate and recognize who it is we giving power to.....is it man? Or is it God?".

That is not what evolution says. It simply says that organisms, such as man, change over time. IOW Those that reproduce win.

The human genome is not failing it is surprisingly robust, and has been for the last 200,000 years. What it is not is stagnent. We are changing. Among those changes are we're taller, have smaller jaws, and live longer than our ancestors.

Evolution is not about physical strength. We would have died out a long time ago if it we're. Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis was much physically stronger than us. Yet there are no more of them. While there are some 6-7 billion of us right now on this planet.

We're not "doomed". Of course that half asteroid could come in and then we're doomed, but that's not evolution

I have nothing against Gods' plan. I'm a LDS believer in his plan for me. I intend to take full advantage of the Resurrect of the Just, and joining with God after my sojourn here is over.

Darwin is not my God. He was simply a man, not much different than you and me. He didn't even know the word genome, or gene for that matter. But I believe my God knows all about gene's and genomes.

Entropy hasn't changed since the Big Bang. It says that in any closed system matter/energy becomes less organized. This world is not a closed system. We have the sun. Nor is this galaxy a closed system. We get light, though not heat, from our galactic center, and we even get light from galaxies across the universe. That is how we know about them.

I don't believe there was a world wide flood. I am content with a very big albeit regional one. Hugh Nibley and I are on the same page here. No one in the Church that I know of calls into question his membership standing in the Church.

All the natural physical evidence so far is against a world wide flood even remotely in human times, let alone in the times of Noah.

Why should I, or any scientist, use any religiously inspired book, as a guide to how to persue science? Did Pi suddenly become equal to exactly 3 just because some ancient guy wrote it down? Did the sun suddenly start revolving around the earth? Can we fall of a literal edge of the earth? When was the last time you saw a literal snake talk? Did the Gods of Homer throw down lightning bolts at us just because someone wrote down a long time ago?

Scientific theories are just the best explanation we have so far for a natural event or cause. As such they are ALWAYS subject to change. They are what is called "Falsifiable". Meaning that under one or more conditions the theory is not correct, and further study, and research is needed. The Supernatural by defintion pertains to God. He is not falsifiable in any scientific sense of the word.

Why would a Hindu scientist look for natural evidence in a Christian Bible(There are many different ones). Why would a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, or any other religions' scientist for that matter? Would you accept his/her God based on the science they produced? What if they did know or didn't believe in any God. Would you therefore abandon your religious beliefs for theirs based on the science they did?

I have no problem with God or the Holy Ghost. I just can't put them into any science that I know of. Science is based on the natural world/universe. The Supernatural is not. It is based on a belief in God. While I do believe that someday religion and science will reconcil. That day is not today, and I don't expect that day to come anytime soon.

[cinepro]

Why would a Hindu scientist look for natural evidence in a Christian Bible(There are many different ones). Why would a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, or any other religions' scientist for that matter? Would you accept his/her God based on the science they produced? What if they did know or didn't believe in any God. Would you therefore abandon your religious beliefs for theirs based on the science they did?

That's a good point. Do people who believe that God and religion should be included in scientific theories believe that each religion should have it's own branch of science? So when my son goes to high school, he can choose from the Hindu Biology class, or the Christian (Bible-literal) Biology class, or the Christian (LDS-traditional) Biology class, or the Muslim Biology class?

Edited August 24, 2011 by cinepro

[LeSellers]

That's a good point. Do people who believe that God and religion should be included in scientific theories believe that each religion should have it's own branch of science? So when my son goes to high school, he can choose from the Hindu Biology class, or the Christian (Bible-literal) Biology class, or the Christian (LDS-traditional) biology class, or the Muslim Biology class?

If your son went to a school where you, as his father, were in charge (i.e., a private school of your choosing, including family-centered education), this would not be a problem.

Just another example of why government should never be in charge of "education". It's just another form of indoctrination, and you have no input over what is taught, nor when, nor by whom.

Lehi

[cinepro]

If your son went to a school where you, as his father, were in charge (i.e., a private school of your choosing, including family-centered education), this would not be a problem.

It might be a problem is my son wanted to be a biologist.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

The beauty of science is that it works regardless of one's own personal religious beliefs.

Lehi:

So everyone is on their own when it comes the schooling? That didn't seem to work too well in the "Dark Ages" of Europe.

[LeSellers]

It might be a problem is my son wanted to be a biologist.

Then you'd send him to a school that taught "orthodox" biology, right?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

So everyone is on their own when it comes the schooling? That didn't seem to work too well in the "Dark Ages" of Europe.

Yeah we all want our children to be uneducated.

Gosh! Is it possible that a parent just might want his child educated differently from the way the government does it without wanting that child to be dumasaroc? Parents have a vastly greater vested interest in well educated children than the state does. It's the state that wants citizens who cannot think or reason. That's why so many children "graduate" from high school unable to read their diplomas.

Lehi

Edited August 24, 2011 by LeSellers

[cinepro]

Then you'd send him to a school that taught "orthodox" biology, right?

Lehi

But why would someone who actually wanted to become a biologist need a different kind of biology class than someone who was just learning about biology as part of a general education?

Is there really no objective way to judge the quality of a biology curriculum? You just choose what you want to be true for biology, and focus on learning those theories ideas?

Edited August 24, 2011 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Some parents don't care, and a good many just don't have the time or expertice necessary to teach beyond the basics. Most teachers are parents themselves, and have a great love for theirs and other parents children. A teacher in California goes to university for 5 years, and must take additional classes after they are permitted to teach. That for around $30,000 dollars a year, further teachers here top out at around $80-$90,000 with a Masters degree, and 30 years of experience. Boy that's sure living it "High on the Hog". Starting Civil Engineers with less education and no experience start out with far greater salary. Lets talk about talk about Banks and Hedge Fund managers. Whom we bailed out to the tune of Trillions of dollars after their failures in business. I don't see the charge to increase support for schools and the teachers that teach there. On the contrary what we see is the the teachers and other middle class workers being told to sacrifice more for the Banks and Hedge Fund Managers.

No system designed and run by man is perfect, education included. There were, are, and will be students that for one reason(s) or another don't learn how to read the dipolma on the paper it is printed on. We obviously need to do a better job. But gutting education is not the way to make it better. Anymore than throwing the baby out with the bathwater makes for a cleaner baby.

[LeSellers]

why would someone who actually wanted to become a biologist need a different kind of biology class than someone who was just learning about biology as part of a general education?

It's far less a matter of what kind of biology one chooses for his child (or himself), than it is of who controls the education.

Brigham Young did not dictate a "Mormon Mathematics" when he said the Saints should ensure that no child start a class on the multiplication table without prayer.

Is there really no objective way to judge the quality of a biology curriculum? You just choose what you want to be true for biology, and focus on learning those theories ideas?

I'd say, again, that the environment of the class, like starting with prayer, is as important, if not more so, than the material the class covers. The way it is presented is as important as what is presented.

In your government biology class, religion is held in derision (I can provide a host of substantiating observations), if not outright rejected. It need not be. That class, too, can start with prayer when the parents want it to, as long as they are in control. In a governemnt-controled, tax-funded, welfare school they are not in control—politicians and bureaucrats are.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

gutting education is not the way to make it better.

You fall into the trap of seeing "education" as "schooling". They are not the same.

I'm not talking about gutting "education". I'm talking about eliminating governemnt control over schools and putting parents back in control, as God has charged them to be.

There is no baby in the government-controlled, tax-funded welfare schools because they are not about "education", they are about indoctrination, and always have been.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

So are we going to teach Aristotles ideas about biology or modern biology based on Darwins evolution?

Do we go with Vapors and Humers, or Germ theory?

Is the earth 6-10,000 years old for the Christians or 4.55 billions of years old of the scientist?

What chemicals do I add to make Gold out of Lead?

It matters a GREAT DEAL whom, and what is being taught.

BY didn't reinvent math, but he sure did a new alphabet and language.

A good teacher works hard at finding new and interesting ways to help his/her students to understand the ideas being presented.

It's a free country start your own school, send your granchildren to a private Christian school if you want. Teach them all the morals you want in the privacy of your own home. Teach them the 9 most feared words in English language; "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help". Then stand back and watch as their homes burn to the ground, their income is reduced, and their cities drown.

[jo1952]

Wouldn't that be messy?

Lehi

hahahahaha!!! Yes, I suppose that would!!!

jo

[LeSellers]

Some parents don't care, ...

And their children are not succeeding (if that's what you choose to call it) in today's gctf welfare schools anyway.

and a good many just don't have the time or expertice necessary to teach beyond the basics.

Expertise is acquired. The way one spends his time is a representation of what he values. Those parents who claim they're too busy to choose a school for their children show what they value. I know single mothers who educate their own children. It's not easy, but they value their children. They have had to learn a lot, too, because their experience in gctf welfare schools was so poor. Your statement that they don't have the expertise demonstrates the failure of gctf welfare schools to accomplish the job they claim to be expert at.

Most teachers are parents themselves, and have a great love for theirs and other parents children.

They do not love them as much as the child's real parents.

A teacher in California goes to university for 5 years, and must take additional classes after they are permitted to teach.

A total waste of time. It's just the state acting to protect the current teachers from too many people being "qualified" to teach. "Professional birth control", nothing more.

That for around $30,000 dollars a year, further teachers here top out at around $80-$90,000 with a Masters degree, and 30 years of experience. Boy that's sure living it "High on the Hog".

Their low pay is a result of the fact that there are far more people who could be teachers than who are allowed to become teachers. That they get so much is a result of the fact that there is the professional birth control I mentioned above. Teachers are paid too much, based on what they actually provide to society. They would receive far less if there were real competition for students (and their money).

Furthermore, I do feel sorry for the good teachers out there: they are trapped in a market where, because the only employer is the state, they must settle for what the state offers. Any monopsonist (one buyer) economy is going to pay less than one where there are many buyers and sellers. At least for desirable providers. Many teachers are not. When we view who goes to college to become teachers, we see it is those who score lowest on the SAT or ACT. Only social workers come out poorer. (No slight intended: truth has no agenda. I'm sure you are smart.)

Additionally, those who drop out of engineering courses tend more often to end up in education than any other school in a university. Those who drop out of education just drop out.

That does not mean that there are no smart teachers (or social workers), it just means that, on average, teachers are not as smart as engineers.

Nowhere else (outside of government) does a master's degree mean you are automatically paid more—because a master’s degree means absolutely nothing. It's only results that an employer cares about. He may see a degree as promising a better employee, but if the employee doesn't actually produce, he's fired. That doesn't happen with gctf welfare school teachers.

Starting Civil Engineers with less education and no experience start out with far greater salary. Lets talk about talk about Banks and Hedge Fund managers. Whom we bailed out to the tune of Trillions of dollars after their failures in business. I don't see the charge to increase support for schools and the teachers that teach there. On the contrary what we see is the the teachers and other middle class workers being told to sacrifice more for the Banks and Hedge Fund Managers.

True: get government involved and all sorts of bad things happen. Government is like fire: a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

No system designed and run by man is perfect, education included. There were, are, and will be students that for one reason(s) or another don't learn how to read the dipolma on the paper it is printed on.

So it is far better to have a wide variety of options, rather than just the government monopoly/monopsony so everyone can address his needs on a freedom of choice basis. If the state were in control of shoes, we'd all be wearing the same kind, in the same color, and the same size. I know a lot of women who'd find that objectionable. Why is education any different?

Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and all their successors warned us of the dangers of having government control (and fund) schools. They were absolutely right. I've provided the quotes many times in the past. I can do it again.

The Reverend Dabney warned Christians of the late XIX not to support gctf welfare schools because what they wanted to use to make good little Protestants out of Catholic children would one day be used to make good little something elses out of their Protestants children. William Beatty, in 1886, said explicitly that the reason he wanted to have government school in Utah was to undermine LDS families. That's what schools are best at: destroying families.

Lehi

Edited August 24, 2011 by LeSellers

[jo1952]

But nothing. Either it is knowledge or it isn't.

2 Nephi 9

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=8ebf742e35474110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

Doesn't look as though the false dichotomy is supported at the top..

That is the entire point of this thread:

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

I think there is a huge misunderstanding by some of the readers. Just think for a moment. How is it that some of us know about and agree with what others have researched and found which DO support a worldwide flood? It is because we HAVE sought after that knowledge. Then, we have ALSO sought and researched the knowledge of those who support a localized or even mythical flood. IOW, we have sought and researched the knowledge of both sides of the issue!!! It appears to me, that some blindly accept the conclusions of the knowledge of those who believe the flood was not worldwide or even non -existent, based solely on the fact that that particular knowledge has been peer review approved. Anything not approved appears to be dismissed because it doesn't "deserve" their time and/or energy to investigate it. This leaves me the choice to think that those who dismiss articles that are not peer review approved are actually not seeking as much knowledge as those who are willing to study both sides of the issue.

I spend a lot of time educating myself on both sides of most issues - especially when a theory emerges which discounts what the Bible teaches. Do not think that just because I disagree with a scientific peer review approved conclusion that I have NOT gone the route of increasing my worldly knowledge. So far, gladly, I have not had to abandon, discount, or modify anything in scripture. There are plenty of non-approved scientific studies out there which DO support the Bible. When I see that they have been ignored or dismissed by the rest of the world of science, my spiritual warning lights start flashing. Our pursuit of education and knowledge in this world is to help prepare and give us an edge for the continuing progression throughout eternity which expands beyond this physical world. If that education causes us to conclude that we need to question or doubt scripture, then I think we have given man's knowledge power over the knowledge which God has revealed to us.

Inasmuch as how we perceive the flood also affects many other passages in the Bible, I believe it is crucial that we not assume man has gotten in right if his conclusions cause a need to change our pov that the flood was not worldwide. The peer review process is a process constructed by man which immediately places it in the category that it IS fallible; and we need to take this into consideration especially when conclusions reached by the peer review process contradict rather than support scripture. At that point, I think even more due diligence is necessary.

Regards,

jo

[katherine the great]

Evolution also teaches that through natural selection that the good things, stong things, healthy things, will survive. Yet the human genome is failing. What does evolution have to say about that?

Huh? I'm currently doing post graduate work in Anthropology (including some Biology) and I've never heard that the human genome is failing. Failing in what way? We are an enormously successful species. We have adapted to life on every continent except for Antarctica, and I think our genome is doing extremely well. Evolution (as others have pointed out) does not mean that all good and healthy things will survive. Populations often go through "bottlenecks" when certain segments of a population survive a catastrophe (disease, weather, natural disaster, etc.) because of a seemingly small or insignificant advantage. The Lord very well may drive these advantages or He may also have set the mechanism in motion with a full understanding of the outcome. Science is neutral on God because it only seeks to explain the natural world (true science.) For worldwide flood believers, Noah and his sons (and their wives) were the only survivors of a worldwide flood because they were the only people who listened to the Lord. In science, this would result in a bottleneck in the worldwide population because the entire world population thereafter would have descended from these four couples several thousand years ago. Unfortunately, Biology does not support that hypothesis. It would show up very clearly in our DNA. I can be counted in the regional flood camp.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Neither I nor you can make parents care. Some kids succeed regardless of their parents nonconcern, most do not. Exactly just HOW is any teacher public or private to make a parent care? Further having the money to send the kids to a private school is not a proof text for caring about the kids.

Private schools have the option of kicking low performing or unmotivated kids out. Public schools in my state don't have that luxury. The supposed Texas Miracle in education was that they kicked out those that were low performing AND/OR unmotivated. That scewed the tests. Any fool can rig the participants to get any result they want. IE; When Bill Gates walks into a bar. The average income goes through the roof.

The knowledge base MAY be acquired. Assuming that the parent has the ability and desire to learn it. I've forgotten more Chemistry than most parents ever learn, but I would no more try to teach Chemistry than I can flap my arms and fly to the moon, and yes some High School students here do take Chemisrtry. OTOH I'd be pretty good at US History.

Proper education takes time, and there is only 24 hrs. in a day. If both parents are struggling with 2 jobs just to keep a roof over their heads, and food on the plates. Teaching the kids much beyond the basics just isn't going to happen. Yes they do love their kids. That teachers spend more time with the students than their parents do is a sure sign they care less about the students. That they spend innumerable hours after the school day grading papers, preparing for the next day, and yes even calling parents to see why their little Johnny was absent that day. Proof positive of a care less attitude.

If human beings were widgets stamped out in a robotically controlled assembly line then yes any failure could be assigned to the producer. But human beings are not nor ever were widgets. I can't count the times that some kid has given some disease to me through my wife. Widgets and the machines that make them DON'T get sick.

I seem to remember something about the US Constitution that I learned in my publicly funded H.S.. Something about promote the general welfare. I also remeber something about my State Constitution that I learned in that same publicly funded H.S.. Something about public education K-12 being a requirement of the State.

Your dictum that individual parents are solely responsible for their childrens education didn't workout so well for the bulk of mankind for thousands of years. It wasn't until the widespread use of publicly funded education that the bulk of human advancement has occured, or maybe you'd prefer the 6th Century to the 21st.

It is your capitalist model of education that is a stinking failure, and rests on the premise that capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all.

So go to a MD who stopped their college course work a couple of years early, or better yet didn't do any residency. I'm sure you'd be thrilled with the results.

The teachers I know aren't stuck because of financial concerns. Many leave the profession for better paying jobs elsewhere. The ones that stay truly do love the kids more than the money.

There is no absolute correspondence between money earned and IQ above that of normal intelligence. The Hedge Fund manager is not smarter than the MD nor has the higher SAT/ACT scores. But he is sure paid a lot better. I seriously doubt that anyone enters Social Work for the money. There are easier ways to make a living. I'm not rich, but the profession has treated me and my family well over the years.

I'm pretty smart, my wife tells me I'm a smartalec sometimes.

Having been in private business, the Masters degree will get your foot in the employers door, where a H.S. diploma won't, nor will a simple B.S. or B.A. After that it is up to the potential/actual employee to do the rest.

Then next time you have a major house fire put it out yourself. Next time you or one of your children/grandchildren is dangerously ill go to your kitchen and whip up a concoction and try it out. Who knows it just might be safe and effective. Afterall you can't use that dreaded government to help protect you(and yours) from your own or others folly can we? Like to fly in air planes? Go right ahead and have the builders and mechanics of those planes disregard safety rules put out by the dreaded government. Like electricity? The dreaded government established rules and laws on the characteristics of that electricity you are using right now. Life was so much simpler in the 6th Century, not without its serious problems, but government wasn't one of them.

You have plenty of options.

1. You can avail yourself of a publicly financed education system.

2. You can send your kids to a charter school.

3. You can send your kids to a private school.

4. You can start your own school, and collect any amount of tuition that you and the student/or their parents agrees to pay.

5. You can home teach your own kids, as long as you meet minimal state standards the state will not try to stop you.

6. You can start you own school, and still send your own kids to a publicly funded school. Though I don't see why anyone would do that.

7. You can do any combination of 1 and 3. I personally know some parents that did it.

That's all I can think of off hand. You should be able to think of more. After all I'm just one of those low IQ Social Workers.

Yet The State of Utah was one of the first in the western US to institute compulsory education. Go figure.

A little knowledge is always a dangerous thing. From before the times of Socrates(We know what happened to him) some parents have riled against anything they neither know nor have the wit to understand.

[Calm]

Are you sure you want to meet with them in person? The tag team of Franktalk and jo1952 is tough to beat..

Okay, that was rather disturbing.

[Franktalk]

Franktalk, I meant to bring this up in another thread, but I think one of your "end times" interpretations needs reconsideration.

You frequently refer to 2 Thessalonians 2:7 to mean that Satan will have more power in the last days (i.e. the "restrainer" will be taken away and he will not be "restrained").

But the Joseph Smith Translation of these verses changes their meaning, to say that it is Satan who will be taken out of the way, not the thing that is restraining him.

Here's the original KJV:

Compare that with the Joseph Smith Translation:

I know this is the exact opposite of what many traditional Christians believe, but that is one of the benefits of having the gift of the Joseph Smith Translation.

The JS translation:

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, and he it is who now worketh, and Christ suffereth him to work, until the time is fulfilled that he shall be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

9 Yea, the Lord, even Jesus, whose coming is not until after there cometh a falling away, by the working of Satan with all power, and signs and lying wonders,

2 Thessalonians JST

What I have stated is a short cut version of what is going on. Let us look at what is said. In verse 7 there is someone who is taken out of the way. Who is the "he"? Let us look earlier:

2 Thessalonians 2

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

5Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

People thought the end was coming at any moment so this letter was written to give some details about the end so people would know by some signs that Christ was due. So there was going to be a falling away first and then the man of sin would be revealed. But what falling away is this referring to? And what about this withholdeth in verse 6. But verse 5 reveals that he is referring to yet another conversation. To understand what is going on we need to go all over scripture.

In Job we see a picture of Satan and how he has boundaries that he can't cross. He must receive permission to do some things to Job. So Satan has great power but can't use it unless he is allowed. The end times on earth as written about by John has a focus on the Jews. So we should look to see just who looks over the Jews and is their protector. In Daniel we see that Michael is Daniel's Prince. But not just Daniel, Michael is the protector of the Jews, him and the angels of heaven. In Matthew we read this:

Matthew 24:24

24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

So Satan and his followers can use their spiritual powers in the end times.

Now let us go back to each verse.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, and he it is who now worketh, and Christ suffereth him to work, until the time is fulfilled that he shall be taken out of the way.

Here we read that someone is working for Christ and will work for Him until the time is fulfilled then he (the protector) is taken away. I think this is Michael. Satan does not work for Christ.

8 And then shall that wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

The key here is "then", this means that we are now talking about a new "he". The new he is the wicked one who will be revealed. The old "he" has been taken out of the way. We know who it is because he is defined by what Christ does to him. But that is "shall" so this is future.

9 Yea, the Lord, even Jesus, whose coming is not until after there cometh a falling away, by the working of Satan with all power, and signs and lying wonders,

So Christ will come and destroy that wicked one but only after the falling away and after the working of Satan using all of his powers. If indeed he is using all of his powers then he was not before this point.

I don't see how JS changed the meaning of the verses. If you don't see it this way you are going to have to explain what you see in the verses.

[LeSellers]

After all I'm just one of those low IQ Social Workers.

Well, your words, definitely not mine.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

The State of Utah was one of the first in the western US to institute compulsory education. Go figure.

This is false.

First, "the state of Utah" wasn't a state until long after most of the others.

Second, even if you meant that the territory of Utah was among the first, it was definitely not because the Saints wanted them. Time and again, President Young counseled the Saints to avoid using them, even after the federal government forced them down the throats of the Saints. So did John Taylor (who was the territorial superintendent of schools), working against his own appointed position.

It was an unconstitutional requirement that a territory submit a proposed constitution with a "Blaine amendment" integrated into it. Utah was allowed to become a state only after it wrote a constitution with that evil wording.

As I said, the reason the federal government, especially senator Blaine, insisted on welfare schools in Utah, was to weaken and destroy LDS families. We have William Beatty's word for it, and he was far from alone. Beatty's words were "compulsory attendance will reduce to a minimum the influence of the Mormon [sic] priesthood" which we know is every father, in every family.

Blaine was adamant that no tax money be used for sectarian schools. But he was equally adamant that every child be forced into gctf welfare schools so they would become good little Protestants. Okeh, he said "good

Americans" which was a euphemism. But the meaning is more than clear.

Don't try to make it sound as if the Saints begged to lose their children to the tender ministrations of the government. They did not. It was only under duress and poverty (they were being taxed to support these evil schools), with most of the property in the state being held in "trust" under escheatment and confiscation. Further, a huge number of men, especially men with families were in prison. Families were ripped apart, and the Saints value education, so sending their children to gctf welfare schools was their only viable option. But it was not by choice. As I said, they were driven to it. The punishment for Plural Marriage was less devastating than that of daring to defy the government in the matter of the control of schools.

Utah didn't ask for gctf welfare schools, first, early, or any other time.

Lehi