![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 30. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 11:01:14
Adam and Eve were taught the laws of the Gospel in the Garden of Eden as they walked and talked with God. But, did their children receive the law? And, if so, how did it get all messed up for us today?
I submit that Abel was taught the laws of God, and knew the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How do we know? Because he offered sacrifice in similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
It didn't take long for some of the earth's family to reject the law, and to try to come up with their own. We know that Cain, who also had the pure law of God, willfully disobeyed and murdered his brother.
It is no wonder there are so many versions of law. Man, by his true nature, does not want to be subject to law. We all want to figure law out for ourselves and make up our own belief and rules.
There hasn't been a moment in time when the eternal laws of God have not existed somewhere on the earth.
I am very grateful that my parents taught me the laws of God when I was young. Some people call that brainwashing.
I am very thankful that I belong to an organized religion that embraces all of the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Some people call my religion a cult.
I am grateful for my knowledge of who God is, and who Jesus is. Some people call my Jesus Satan.
I choose to believe in and obey the laws of God. Some people call that force and slavery.
We have agency and can choose our own course. "But" (There's always a but, and as you know, one of the rules in English is everything that comes before the but is just horse _________ stuff)
(But) If we willfully choose to ignore the laws of God there will come a time when a generation will become so ripe in iniquity that the wicked will be destroyed.
Some people murdered prophets for saying that.This has happened twice on the American continent, 600 BC, and 400 AD. Hmmm, I wonder why these two accounts were preserved to come forth in our day? God has become a dirty word for most people. They freely use His name in foul language, but refuse to acknowledge who it is they blaspheme. By profaning, we show our rebellion to the laws of God. Profanity is as pornography to the spirit.
Some people say the Book of Mormon is a fabricated story, not really true, written by Joseph Smith, who was a false or fallen prophet. Some even say the Bible is a made up story written by false teachers, etc.
Some people say Jesus was not the Christ.My opinion is that some people do not know what they are talking about. How do we fix it? I plead with you to do your part and turn this around. Believe in God. Pray to Him. Talk directly to Him. He will not turn His back on you. Try it for just one day, and see what happens.
I believe in law. I also believe in justice. I believe one is directly related to the other.
Some people say good is evil and evil is good.
Thankfully, most people in America still believe in God, still call good good, and believe in justice. If most people could help some people, this world would be a better place for all to live.
Posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 11:26:50
In reply to Where did law begin?, posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 11:01:14
Some might mis-judge my motives for sharing this, "but" http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/1, perhaps there is one who wants to know more. Where did these people come from? Were they giants? Who were they? It's a great mystery.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 16:17:48
In reply to Where did law begin?, posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 11:01:14
rayww,
You wrote,[...Some people say that Jesus was not the Christ...].
Then you wrote, [...My opinion is that some people do not know what they are talking about...].
Are you saying any of the following? If you could clarify this, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A.The people that say that Jesus was not the Christ are those that do not know what they are talking about.
B. There are people that say that Jesus was the Christ and they know what they are talking about.
C. The only people that know what they are talking about are those that know that Jesus is the Christ
D. There are some people that say that Jesus is not the Christ but they could know what they are talking about.
E. When people are talking about what they do not know about, they do not know that Jesus is the Christ.
F. none of the above
G. a combination of the above.
H. All of the above.
K. Something different.
Lou
Posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 17:31:32
In reply to Lou's response to rayww's post- » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 16:17:48
I was just about to start feeling lonely at the bottom of Faith again.
My answer to your multiple choice is "F" because what I presented was a package. One can believe Jesus is the Christ and none of the other, but a person cannot believe all of the other and not believe Jesus is the Christ, or a person can believe none of any of it, but that doesn't alter the truth about it.
(rephrase) People who misunderstand:
1. Think that teaching their children the laws of God is brainwashing
2. Think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult
3. Think Joseph Smith was deceived
4. Think people who obey the laws of God have no freedom
5. Think it's OK to ban or get rid of those who tell them to repent of their behavior
6. Think the Book of Mormon is a lie that doesn't teach us Jesus is the Christ.
7. Think good is evil and evil is good.Thankfully, most people in America still believe in God, still call good good, and believe in justice. If most people could help some people, this world would be a better place for all.
Hopefully that explains what I believe is the package, and you will see how it should not be separated. Perhaps this reference will put your question to rest.
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22house+of+my+friends%22&search.x=31&search.y=10
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 6, 2004, at 17:51:16
In reply to Where did law begin?, posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 11:01:14
Rayww,
Do you think things are good because God says they are good? Or does God say they are good because they are?
Posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 19:00:27
In reply to Re: Where did law begin? » rayww, posted by Gabbix2 on December 6, 2004, at 17:51:16
There is good to be found in everything and everyone. Something good can come of every bad experience.
Our life can be for our best good.
I'm positive God sees the good in you, and because God says it is good, it is.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 19:15:43
In reply to Re: Lou's response to rayww's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 17:31:32
rayww,
You wrote,[...a person can not believe all of {the other} and not believe Jesus is the Christ...].
Are you saying that {the other} are the two statements in question?
A. Some people say Jesus was not the Christ, (and)
B. My opinion is that some people do not know what they are talking about.
If so, then are you saying that all of the other means that if someone believes the above two statements, they then believe that Jesus is the Christ? if you could clarify that , then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 20:53:34
In reply to Re: Lou's response to rayww's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 17:31:32
> I was just about to start feeling lonely at the bottom of Faith again.
>
> My answer to your multiple choice is "F" because what I presented was a package. One can believe Jesus is the Christ and none of the other, but a person cannot believe all of the other and not believe Jesus is the Christ, or a person can believe none of any of it, but that doesn't alter the truth about it.
>
> (rephrase) People who misunderstand:
> 1. Think that teaching their children the laws of God is brainwashing
> 2. Think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult
> 3. Think Joseph Smith was deceived
> 4. Think people who obey the laws of God have no freedom
> 5. Think it's OK to ban or get rid of those who tell them to repent of their behavior
> 6. Think the Book of Mormon is a lie that doesn't teach us Jesus is the Christ.
> 7. Think good is evil and evil is good.
>
> Thankfully, most people in America still believe in God, still call good good, and believe in justice. If most people could help some people, this world would be a better place for all.
>
> Hopefully that explains what I believe is the package, and you will see how it should not be separated. Perhaps this reference will put your question to rest.
> http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22house+of+my+friends%22&search.x=31&search.y=10
rayww,
In the link that yopu have offered above, in [2 D&C 45:52] it writes;
[...I will say to them: These wounds are the wounds which I was wounded in the house of {my friends}. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God...].
Could you identify who are the people referred to as {my friends}? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 6, 2004, at 22:02:43
In reply to Re: Where did law begin?, posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 19:00:27
> There is good to be found in everything and everyone. Something good can come of every bad experience.
> Our life can be for our best good.
> I'm positive God sees the good in you, and because God says it is good, it isWell good! : )
I'm wondering though, if God said something was good, would you say "God says it is good, it is"
I mean suppose God said it was good to steal from the elderly?
Posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 23:35:01
In reply to Re: Where did law begin?, posted by Gabbix2 on December 6, 2004, at 22:02:43
Interesting question Gabbix2. So, what you are asking is if God said to do something that was ordinarily wrong, would I say it was good? I can't imagine what it might be, but there are examples of that happening in scripture. Even then, God didn't say it was good, He just said it was necessary. "It is better that one man perish than a whole nation dwindle in unbelief"
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=dwindle&search.x=18&search.y=9 (first reference)As far as stealing from the elderly----God cannot lie, nor can He deceive. He has commanded us not to steal. He wouldn't ask us to steal from the elderly.
Btw, do you know the real reason the 10 commandments aren't allowed to be displayed in the halls of law and order? You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou shalt not commit Adultery" and "Thou Shalt Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile work environment.
Posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 23:45:28
In reply to Lou's response to rayww's post- » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 19:15:43
No, I was not referring to your multiple choice. I was referring to the package.
Posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 23:49:08
In reply to Lou's response to rayww's post- » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 20:53:34
His friends were all the people he grew up with and loved, and taught, healed, served, helped, associated with. He lived a sinless life, therefore he loved everyone.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 8:35:30
In reply to Re: Lou's response to rayww's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 23:45:28
rayww,
You wrote ,[...I was referring to the package...].
Could you clarify then, if the {package} is the whole doctrins of the Church of the Latter Day Saints or something else or the things that you wrote starting with [...Adam and Eve were taught the laws of the Gospel...] and having near the end,[...Some people say that Jesus was not the Christ...My opinion is that some people do not know what they are talking about...Some people say good is evil and evil is good...]?
If you could clarify what the {package} is, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by rayww on December 7, 2004, at 16:12:10
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-pakeg » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 8:35:30
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 7, 2004, at 17:35:40
In reply to Re: Where did law begin?, posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 23:35:01
Btw, do you know the real reason the 10 commandments aren't allowed to be displayed in the halls of law and order? You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou shalt not commit Adultery" and "Thou Shalt Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile work environment.
hee, you made me chortle! Thanks Rayww.. : )
Posted by rayww on December 7, 2004, at 18:46:41
In reply to Re: Where did law begin? » rayww, posted by Gabbix2 on December 7, 2004, at 17:35:40
Chortle:
Would that mean almost a laugh?
or laughing while trying to swallow-
sort of a gurgle-choke?
Posted by rayww on December 7, 2004, at 23:30:07
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-pakeg » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 8:35:30
The package I was referring to was exactly the words I wrote. If you would like me to write about the larger package I can do that too, but for here and now, my point is simple. Acknowledge that the laws of God should not be ignored. I like the idea of "blending" religions, coming over instead of fighting against. I was very touched by a comment made by a Christian leader last week who had the courage to take a step toward the idea of blending.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/156/story_15656_1.html
If only we could all admit our mistakes and try harder to lovingly do what we do, and say what we say. We should be looking forward together for the coming of the Messiah. He will come, and we both know He will. What are the prophesies that have to be fulfilled before He can come? We should be asking, "may I do that?"
> rayww,
> You wrote ,[...I was referring to the package...].
> Could you clarify then, if the {package} is the whole doctrins of the Church of the Latter Day Saints or something else or the things that you wrote starting with [...Adam and Eve were taught the laws of the Gospel...] and having near the end,[...Some people say that Jesus was not the Christ...My opinion is that some people do not know what they are talking about...Some people say good is evil and evil is good...]?
> If you could clarify what the {package} is, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2004, at 7:33:01
In reply to Re: Where did law begin?, posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 23:35:01
> Interesting question Gabbix2. So, what you are asking is if God said to do something that was ordinarily wrong, would I say it was good? I can't imagine what it might be, but there are examples of that happening in scripture. Even then, God didn't say it was good, He just said it was necessary. "It is better that one man perish than a whole nation dwindle in unbelief"
> http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=dwindle&search.x=18&search.y=9 (first reference)
>
> As far as stealing from the elderly----God cannot lie, nor can He deceive. He has commanded us not to steal. He wouldn't ask us to steal from the elderly.
>
> Btw, do you know the real reason the 10 commandments aren't allowed to be displayed in the halls of law and order? You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou shalt not commit Adultery" and "Thou Shalt Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile work environment.rayww,
In your post above, there is a link offered and clicking on the link brings up verses.
In #2, 1Ne. 10:11 it reads;
[...the dwindling of the jews in unbelief. And after they had slain the Messiah...].
Then in #4, 1Ne. 12:23 it reads:
[...after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome, and filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations...]
Then in #10, 2Ne.26:19 it reads,
[...those that have dwindled in unbelief shall be smitten by the hand of the gentiles...]
Then in #27, GS Unbelief it writes near the end of the paragraph, [...I could not show unto the jews so great miracles, because of their unbelief, 3 Ne. 19:35...].
Then it writes that these are the offitial scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I am reserving to respond at a latter date to your post. As of now, I am using the procedure here to state that it is my opinion that the post here is not in accordance with the guidlines of the faith forum and the guidlines are on the opening page of the forum andI am requesting that you review them, because it is my opinion that parts of it, in particular but not limited to, the part that writes [...dwindling of the jews in unbelief...]which IMO has the potential for one to think that that verse could be coupled with ,[...after {they} had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome and filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations...].
I feel that IMO there is the potential for these verses to arrouse antisemitic feelings and have the potential to put down jews and those of other faiths.
Lou Pilder
Posted by rayww on December 8, 2004, at 11:51:38
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww- » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2004, at 7:33:01
Lou, you ignored the part about love.
Dark and loathsome has never been used in reference to Judah in Jerusalem, rather Joseph in America. (between 400-1400+ AD). But, along with that is also a promise that Joseph will blossom as a rose. That day is now. So, lets learn from the past and prepare for the future, (but) enjoy the present.
http://scriptures.lds.org/tgr/rose
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22stick+of+Judah%22&scripturesearch_button=Search
The Stick of Judah referred to by Ezekiel is the Bible. The Stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon. As the Books come together, so do the people. Blend. Why are "some" people afraid to open the book?When you ask for clarification are you looking for a trap or for understanding? Understanding brings people together.
No matter what our mental state, it can improve. The one true and living God responds to the degree of our need. See, I can believe in the One True and Living God, just like you do. I am not anti-semitic, nor do I promote ideas that encourage anti-semitism. If you wish to disect everything I write that's fine, but don't call me anti-semitic. I love your people. Jesus loves them too. Is He anti-semitic?
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2004, at 13:38:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww- » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on December 8, 2004, at 11:51:38
rayww,
You wrote,[...If you wish to...thats fine, ...don't call me anti-semitic...].
I would not do so, nor have I done so. This faith board is governed by guidlines that posts are not to have the potential to put down those of other faiths. It could be considered that the statement that you had in your offered link,[...dwindling of the jews in unbelief. And after they had slain thier Messiah...] could be referring to jews as a race or a religion, for the referrence to the jews killing their Messiah has historically been to be about 2000 years ago in the area that was called Israel. To then see the other statement, [...after {they} had dwindled in unbelief they became dark, and loathsome, and filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations...], I believe that there is the potential for some to think that the {they} in the verses mentioned are the jews.The Sephardic jews were dark people that went to Spain. I have friends that are Sephardic jews. I have had an English language expert examine these statements and there was no question that one could think that the {they} in the statements are the jews.
You write that the jews in the statement are {...Joseph in America...]. But the statement also writes ,[...after they had slain the Messiah...]. So IMO , it could be considered that these jews are the jews that [...slain the Messiah...]. The statement goes on to write,[...after he had been slain he should rise from the dead...]. That , according to the history of the world took place around 2000 years ago, in what was called Israel according to what I understand about Christiandom teaching to be 3 days and 3 nights after he was buried.
Since this is the teaching of this, I feel that there is the potential for many people to think that the event was around 2000 years ago in what was called Israel at that time, occupied by the Romans, the jews being under Roman authority. I am not a member of christiandom but the use of any statement that connects the jews slaying their messiah has been asociated as being in the time period of around 2000 years ago, and jews for 2000 years or so have objected to the use of statements that have the potential to be interpreted as the jews killing their Messiah. I believe that this forum has goals for support and rules that say that it is unacceptable for statements to be posted here that have the potential to be unsupportive or to put down those of other faiths or statements that have the potential to arrouse anti-anything feelings.
I feel that the statement by you in question have the potential that if they are not addressed to be unacceptable,to have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. That does not mean that you are antisemitic. Dr Hsiung had posted a statement by Jean Jacques Rouesseau that I felt could have the potential to arrouse anti-Christian feelings. That does not mean that Dr. Hsiung is anti-Christian, and he agreed to remove the statement from being linked to the text and wrote that I had a right objection to the statement. A poster here posted a statement that I thought had the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings by referring to the God of the old testament, which is the God of the Jews, as cantankerous and vengefull. That does not mean that the poster is antisemitic and Dr. Hsiung agreed with me that the statement had the potential to put down those that had that God, which includes the jews.
I do not consider you to be anti-semitic because I feel that something that you posted in an offered link has the potential to arrouse anti-semitic feelings. There is a procedure that a poster here can use to write to another poster that they feel that what is written has the potential to be unacceptable here in relation to the guidlines of the forum which is to post, like I have,a request to the poster to examine that guidlines for posting here and I did so after I had made a request to the moderator to examine the statements.
It is not my intention to [...looking for a trap..?], as you asked. I am looking for clarification in my requests for such so that I can have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2004, at 14:39:53
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww- » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2004, at 13:38:57
rayww,
You wrote,[...understanding brings people together...].
Let me try to put it this way. Being a jew, I have been subjected to antisemitic harassment. I have felt the lash of discrimination. And I have tried to find the reasons for the treatment that I have experianced as being a jew.
Regardless of those reasons, I object to anyone saying anything that has the potential to have one think that the jews killed their Messiah, which has also been said as [...the jews killed Christ...]. For about 2000 years, the statement that [...the jews killed christ...] has been used by some to arrouse antisemitic feelings. I can trace the statement all the way through history for about 2000 years to Hitler and to now.
Could we not have understanding that that statement has the potential to be offensive to jews and others? Could we not leave those type of statements off of a mental health board? If understanding as you say brings people together, could you not post this type of statement again understanding that they have the potential to cause me to feel unwelcome here?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2004, at 15:06:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww- » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on December 8, 2004, at 11:51:38
rayww,
In refference to your posting theoffered link that wrote,[...the jews in unbelief...after they had slain the Messiah...].
The Anti Defamation League has issued a press release about the use of any statement blaming the jews for killing christ. I am offering this press release for those that would like to see the postion of this orginization relative to the historical use of what has been termed that the jews are guilty of killing christ.
Lou
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/3817_12.asp
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2004, at 21:58:41
In reply to Re: Where did law begin?, posted by rayww on December 6, 2004, at 23:35:01
> http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=dwindle&search.x=18&search.y=9 (first reference)
If you're only interested in citing the first reference, is there a way to link just to it?
Bob
Posted by rayww on December 8, 2004, at 23:25:42
In reply to Re: please revise that » rayww, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2004, at 21:58:41
One verse? Yes, though sometimes it takes a bit to narrow down the search to the right one or two words. Thankyou for your patience.
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22Lord+slayeth%22&search.x=25&search.y=7
Posted by rayww on December 8, 2004, at 23:44:17
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-adl » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2004, at 15:06:15
I understand.
Do you think it is possible for religions to blend, while at the same time maintain their own identity and belief?
Frankly, I like the idea of "blend", (as long as we keep the blender out of it)I view blend as becoming one in our commonalities, while being aware and accepting of our differences.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.