[ZION] Email Caution
All--- I received a suspicious email earlier today purporting to be from my own domain at firstnephi.com. As FYI, you should never EVER receive anything from me or from my family's web site that would ask you to install software, give out passwords, etc. In this instance, it appears someone receiving this email may have been requested to install a virus or a trojan. (The attachment, which was a ZIP file, was deliberately omitted, and the password that's referenced would have unlocked the ZIP file.) Hopefully, no one else got this email. I send this warning out in the interest of caution. /Sandy/ On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:11:15 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello user of Firstnephi.com e-mail server, Your e-mail account has been temporary disabled because of unauthorized access. Pay attention on attached file. Attached file protected with the password for security reasons. Password is 72453. The Management, The Firstnephi.com team http://www.firstnephi.com (--- End of message ---) -- The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Harold Stuart wrote: [RB Scott] I'm inclined to believe that God must be a pretty forgiving God if he's willing to forgive the sins of repentant sinners like you and me. I believe that God wants to include as many people as He possibly can...and that it's my job to do my bit to ensure the roster is as large as possible. You take a different tack. Good luck to you. Our purposes are the same, more or less even if our methods are different. You see, the only way that one can be included in that roster is to repent and become clean through the blood of Christ. Verses 20 and 21 are pretty clear -- the gospel we must preach is the gospel of repentance. If you don't teach repentance, you don't teach the gospel. Too many of us are like Neville Chamberlain. We think that evil can be won by appeasement. The idea is that if we just compromise a bit here and give a little there all will be well. The problem is that compromise and negotiations only work between honorable men. Satan knows that every time we compromise with him we give up our power. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. The current battle is not over civil rights, as some would claim. That's just a smokescreen. The real battle is for the salvation of souls. Sexual sins are real, addictive, and terribly difficult to overcome. People who cannot overcome these sins receive God's righteous judgment. Can we not see the plan of the evil one? More and more of the things that condemn people to eternal damnation are being integrated into society. Abortion, which in but the rarest of cases is nothing more than cold-blooded murder, now enjoys a legally protected place in our society. The problem is that murderers are damned. Adulterers, fornicators, and those who practice other gross sexual sins have a legally protected place in society. The problem is that those who unrepentantly practice sexual sins are damned. Society embraces those things it legally protects. It tells those who live within it that it is OK to do those things. If a society teaches its people to do evil, it encourages them to be damned. God has repeatedly destroyed such societies. WE ARE NOT EXEMPT! The struggle, as I see it, is on two levels. The first, obviously, is that of good vs. evil in absolute terms. If we have a testimony of the Gospel, and particularly if we've gone through all of its saving ordinances, then we know what's good, what's evil, or at least we have a better idea as between the two. Consequently, we see trends within our society that are disturbing and even alarming, we can speak to those things from that frame of reference. This first struggle is a deeply personal one, in that we work out our own salvation (then concurrently work on our family's) before we work on the salvation of others. The second struggle is that because of apostasy, there are clearly different ideas as to what constitutes salvation, which in turn leads to different ideas as to right and wrong. This struggle is within society itself, and probably has been that way from the beginning. Now what the Lord says to us personally and through the scriptures is clear and unmistakable, but part of that is because of the witness of the Holy Ghost, and part of that is because some of our scriptures are unique to us. Where things become more problematic is within society itself, because 1) apart from the Restored Gospel, there's no witness of the Holy Ghost (only the light of Christ, if at all); 2) there are no common scriptures--no one even agrees on the translation of the Bible that should be used; and therefore, 3) There doesn't seem to be a common consensus as to what ought to be the basic principles this society should operate under. Or the core values, as I told Ron a while ago. And yet one of the basic principles America was founded on involves the freedom of society to worship how and where it may, which by necessity seems to place all religious beliefs, all scriptures, and all concepts of right and wrong on the same playing field... regardless of what sort of a testimony we may have regarding them. Or to be plain about it: How do we allow for people to believe and worship where and how they may without also accepting or tolerating evil...? I actually agree with you as to what you wrote. It's how we apply these things to society as a whole that's part of what I'm wrestling with. All the best, /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY
RE: [ZION] Vote Now!
Ron Scott wrote: I'm lousy at parables. Please explain. Here's my interpretation. I hope that I am not too far off the mark. 1) The filth represents sin, generally, through the individual choices of the children involved. The effects of the filth represents the effects of sin. 2) The children represent ourselves. 3) To be cleansed represents repentance by way of the Gospel. 4) The first father represents an unrighteous plan to bring people to repentance, namely: The use of force, coercion, and fear. 5) The second father represents a righteous plan to bring people to repentance. Applicable scriptures: DC 121:44-46, and Moses 4:1-2. Charity and long-suffering would appear to be key. 6) The second son genuinely repents because he realizes he needs to change, then takes action accordingly. The first son only takes action so as to APPEAR outwardly to repent. Inwardly, that person doesn't yet see the need to change. 7) Thus, the second son is on his way to salvation. The first son's spiritual status remains in question. * * * Still, having laws on the books doesn't mean that we seek to compel people to do right, but rather, there is an overriding interest to regulate certain things to allow society as a whole to operate in a free and righteous manner. If there were no laws, or if laws ratified or encouraged immoral acts, I submit that it becomes significantly more difficult for either father to teach his son about repentance. All the best, /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] J. Reuben Clark
--- W. Cleon Skousen --- But the Lord isn't going to allow this government to be destroyed. Although administrations may destroy themselves, systems may destroy themselves, this country's going to survive. J. Reuben Clark knew how it would survive: build track two. Don't get in front of that train on track one, it will just run over you. You quietly build track two. --- Steve, thanks also for posting this. It was a very interesting read. But just what did Bro. Skousen mean by track two? Was this a reference to the Church, to a parallel government of some sort, or to both? /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Who unsubscribed?
I think it was Bro. Beecroft... --SJR Cousin Bill wrote: This was supposed to go to my dad, but whoever knows can answer, if they so desire. - Original Message - From: Cousin Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:58 PM Subject: [ZION] Who unsubscribed? I have had my illness and otherwise been quite busy. I have been erasing tons of messages without reading them. I've read all of yours, though, and I noticed that in one of your messages you mentioned that an old hand unsubscribed from ZION? Who was it and why? Cousin Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When wrong, to be put right. -- Carl Schurz -- The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
[ZION]
Ron Scott wrote: I understand that opponents of gay marriage are turning the battle for a proposed Constitutional Amendment into a referendum on sexual practices. This is precisely why I think the initiative will fail and probably fail convincingly. The problem is that long ago statutes prohibiting various sexual acts were repealed. I don't know for myself that opponents are taking exclusively that approach, although I have no doubt that a sizeable number might. Similarly, I would imagine that many others have taken a purely religious approach, in the context of SSM being against the laws of God. But to me it all comes back to a point I made a while back, and if I sound like a broken record, I apologize. To me, we're not talking about merely a legal or a social privilege, or whether a given relationship is compatible with nature, although undoubtedly there will continue to be those discussions. Rather, we're talking about a core value that was supposed to transcend individual, religious, and ethnic views, and gets to the root of our identity as a nation and a society. So when a locale such as San Francisco goes out and says, We believe this basic definition of marriage ought to change, and everyone else ought to abide by the same, it wouldn't be much different if they went and said, Well, we don't believe that life or liberty are fundamental values compared to prosperity or wealth, so we'll officially put the former on the back burner, regardless of what the laws or the Constition might say. In both cases, the result is the same, because we are dealing with something that is basic, fundamental, and sacred--and I stress again, not from a narrow religious point of view, but in terms of it being a foundation of our society. Stated from as secular of a point of view as I can muster: When a society seeks to tinker with basic foundational values without seeking even a minimum of consensus within that society, let alone any soul searching to know if what it is doing is right, it is playing with fire. And as the saying goes, you can't play with fire and not get burned. In many states, same sex couples have been allowed to adopt children and, of course, by way of artificial insemination or with the aid of a willing male SSA women have been able to bear natural children. But again, to me, whether SSM marriages can have children, or whether traditional marriages do not is besides the point. In fact, the way I think of it is this: If children are born to an SSM or domestic partner relationship, and an increasing minority or plurality ratify the move as legitimate, we are chipping away at a basic value. When children are born outside of marriage, and it is similarly ratified as being legitimate, we are chipping away at a basic value. When children are born to a plural marriage that has been prohibited by the laws of the land, we are arguable chipping away at a different value, that being the rule of law. When the same relationships exist absent any children, we have a similar result. When we seek to terminate the lives of unborn children _without cause_ save it were the convenience of the biological participants (I dare not use the term mother and father in that instance), we chip away at yet another core value. And when we seek to relegate religion and its associated institutions to the fringes of society, holding the same to be irrelevant at best, and perhaps even a hinderance, I would submit we are chipping away at a value as fundamental as that of life...in other words, our liberty. Now off of my soap box, /Sandy/ Thank you for listening. :) --- From the ZION List intake mailbox at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rabinowitz Family -- Spring Hill, Tenn., U.S.A. http://www.firstnephi.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Feedback Please - Chapter 5
Jonathan Scott wrote: Each year there are 1.3 million abortions in the US. There have been over 40 million abortions since Roe vs Wade in the US alone. Currently, 1 in every five pregnancies in the US results in abortion. America has a population of 291 million. Were abortion illegal, its population would be approximately 331 million. This is a difference of 12%. I'll simply observe at this point that some persons advocate open access to abortion precisely because it reduces the population from what it might have been otherwise. Zero Population Growth advocates tend to be the most radical of all, tending to feel that any extra person upon the face of the planet can only be a net liability, basically just another consumer of resources and generator of wastes. The viewpoint is repugnant, but it exists nonetheless. I even remember a couple of years ago responding to a woman's letter to the editor in our local paper that came from that perspective. All the best, /Sandy/ -- The Rabinowitz Family -- http://www.firstnephi.com Spring Hill, Tennessee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
