Gee, it's only been a week and I'm going thru withdrawl again. Didnt
help that it was "clear anna million" in NE OH from about 10 AM on
today. Temp -3C, dpt -7C. Clearest day I've seen in many months.

And I had to work at 2 PM....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My wife has never been up with me when it was much more than 6SM
vis...she kids me she doesnt believe it can get any better :)
She did get a new Flitecom Denali for Christmas...and she's quite
happy with it.

Thursday, my wife and I BOTH have the day off and the WX looks
promising...

Two of our friends were married last fall. Our present to them is an
offer of a flight and a nice dinner. Plan is to rent a 182, fly them
them from Cleveland (LPR or BKL) to Muncie IN or Venango PA.
Tried once, but canx due to wx. Neither of them have been in a small
plane before...but they are excited and they trust me (still not sure
why...) I'm thinking we'll try a short flight first just to make
sure they are OK with it. Port Clinton PCW is about 35NM from LPR
and has nice places to eat. Enroute to PCW, we fly past the Lake Erie
Islands and Cedar Point, one of the "biggest" Amusement parks...always
cool!

Keep flyin!

--Don
Don Byrer
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Amateur Radio KJ5KB
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."

> Gee, it's only been a week and I'm going thru withdrawal again.

Don't worry -- this is entirely normal for a true addict.

Just ask Mary what I'm like, if I don't get my aviation "fix" at least
weekly...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Don,

I've been in and out of Port Clinton, but I didn't know there was food
available there. Is there a restaurant on the field, or do you need to
get a car? I'm based in Toledo so I probably get to a lot of the same
airports as you do.

Sandusky, Mansfield, Akron, Bluffton, and Jackson MI are my local $100
burger stops. It would be great to add another one.

Eric
1959 Pilatus P-3
http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/index.html

Pilot Withdrawl? Must be from 'round these parts!
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

> offer of a flight and a nice dinner. Plan is to rent a 182, fly them
> them from Cleveland (LPR or BKL) to Muncie IN or Venango PA.

Been to Muncie, what is in Venango PA? (Also, what is the identifier?)

In article . com>,
"Eric Bartsch" > wrote:

> Don,
>
> I've been in and out of Port Clinton, but I didn't know there was food
> available there. Is there a restaurant on the field, or do you need to
> get a car? I'm based in Toledo so I probably get to a lot of the same
> airports as you do.
>
> Sandusky, Mansfield, Akron, Bluffton, and Jackson MI are my local $100
> burger stops. It would be great to add another one.

Akron has the white tablecloth Italian restaurant, can't remember the
name. Park the airplane right in front, walk through the gate, open the
door and you are there.

At PCW, there are several restaurants in town that will come pick you
up. I've been to Nate's twice.

FYI Muncie IN has a nice restaurant on field, too.

Now if I could just find a way to get to Loma Linda's from TOL...
We try to stop there when driving thru.

On last check, the one at Akron AKR was closed, now a medical
bldg...yeesh. Bluffton closed also...

MFD is a fun lunch stop...almost 'too close' to LPR, tho :)

--Don



On 16 Jan 2006 15:05:21 -0800, "Eric Bartsch" >
wrote:

>Don,
>
>I've been in and out of Port Clinton, but I didn't know there was food
>available there. Is there a restaurant on the field, or do you need to
>get a car? I'm based in Toledo so I probably get to a lot of the same
>airports as you do.
>
>Sandusky, Mansfield, Akron, Bluffton, and Jackson MI are my local $100
>burger stops. It would be great to add another one.
>
>Eric
>1959 Pilatus P-3
>http://www.hometown.aol.com/bartscher/index.html

Don Byrer
Commercial Pilot / CFI Student
Electronics Technician, RADAR/Data/Comm @ CLE
Amateur Radio KJ5KB

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"I know what it sounds like....when doves cry"

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:18:25 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>> offer of a flight and a nice dinner. Plan is to rent a 182, fly them
>> them from Cleveland (LPR or BKL) to Muncie IN or Venango PA.
>
>Been to Muncie, what is in Venango PA? (Also, what is the identifier?)
Venango/Franklin PA is FKL. Italian/Ameriacan rest.

They do have a few commuter planes there...watch for the marked
'secure' area on the ramp.

Don Byrer
Commercial Pilot / CFI Student
Electronics Technician, RADAR/Data/Comm @ CLE
Amateur Radio KJ5KB

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"I know what it sounds like....when doves cry"

I don't wanna hear about it. I haven't flown since last April and
probably will not get a chance to fly before 2007.

>I don't wanna hear about it. I haven't flown since last April and
> probably will not get a chance to fly before 2007.

Dang, CJ! It's a wonder you can put three civil words together.

Is there no place to rent?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
> >I don't wanna hear about it. I haven't flown since last April and
> > probably will not get a chance to fly before 2007.
>
> Dang, CJ! It's a wonder you can put three civil words together.
>

There are those who believe that I can't.

> Is there no place to rent?

Nope. Oh, there are a couple planes at Clark, and maybe one or two in
Manila, both a ten hour drive from here. I have seen only one small
plane since we got here. I think it was a 182.

> Nope. Oh, there are a couple planes at Clark, and maybe one or two in
> Manila, both a ten hour drive from here. I have seen only one small
> plane since we got here. I think it was a 182.

Man, I'd be kicking the dog and ****ing off everyone around me... (even more
than usual!)...

You're a good man, CJ, to be doing what your doing. Your sacrifice is
awesome.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

("cjcampbell" wrote)
>> Is there no place to rent?

> Nope. Oh, there are a couple planes at Clark, and maybe one or two in
> Manila, both a ten hour drive from here. I have seen only one small plane
> since we got here. I think it was a 182.


Hope you get up while you're over there, if for no other reason than to lay
claim to ...

Christopher Campbell
"World" Famous Flight Instructor


Montblack :-)

Jay..

Curious, - help me out, what is he doing?

Either of you can answer if you choose to.... :)

Not flying for that long is serious! :)

...and I will butt out if this is being too nosy..

Dave



On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:37:27 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Nope. Oh, there are a couple planes at Clark, and maybe one or two in
>> Manila, both a ten hour drive from here. I have seen only one small
>> plane since we got here. I think it was a 182.
>
>Man, I'd be kicking the dog and ****ing off everyone around me... (even more
>than usual!)...
>
>You're a good man, CJ, to be doing what your doing. Your sacrifice is
>awesome.

"Dave" > wrot

> Curious, - help me out, what is he doing?
>
> Either of you can answer if you choose to.... :)
>
> Not flying for that long is serious! :)
>
> ..and I will butt out if this is being too nosy..

He is doing missionary work, in the Philippines, as I recall it. Someone
will come along soon, and have the more confident answers, I believe.
--
Jim in NC

>> Curious, - help me out, what is he doing?
>
> He is doing missionary work, in the Philippines, as I recall it. Someone
> will come along soon, and have the more confident answers, I believe.

Yep, that's my understanding, too.

Personally, I think CJ is *really* working undercover for the huge, Right
Wing Conspiracy (RWC) -- but that's just a hunch...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Eric Bartsch wrote:

> I've been in and out of Port Clinton, but I didn't know there was food
> available there. Is there a restaurant on the field, or do you need to
> get a car?

I hope you have availed yourself of the Port Clinton experience. When
the weather warms, don't miss it. It's the main thing we miss as a
result of our recent move well out of $100-Hamburger range of the Lake
Erie Islands.


Jack

> > I've been in and out of Port Clinton, but I didn't know there was food
> > available there. Is there a restaurant on the field, or do you need to
> > get a car?

Courtesy car, off airport.

CJ wrote:
>Nope. Oh, there are a couple planes at Clark, and maybe one or two in
>Manila, both a ten hour drive from here. I have seen only one small
>plane since we got here. I think it was a 182.

CJ, If The Phillipines is anything like Thailand, just make friends
with the local Airforce guys and you'll get to play with their toys. I
was in Thailand in '03 and was there for only two weeks. Managed to
make friends with the local Thai border patrol guys and got to play
with their toys.

http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=mr64n7
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=mr65ci
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=mr6809
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=mr68o1

The Monk

Flyingmonk wrote:
> CJ wrote:
> >Nope. Oh, there are a couple planes at Clark, and maybe one or two in
> >Manila, both a ten hour drive from here. I have seen only one small
> >plane since we got here. I think it was a 182.
>
> CJ, If The Phillipines is anything like Thailand, just make friends
> with the local Airforce guys and you'll get to play with their toys. I
> was in Thailand in '03 and was there for only two weeks. Managed to
> make friends with the local Thai border patrol guys and got to play
> with their toys.
>
> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=mr64n7
> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=mr65ci
> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=mr6809
> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=mr68o1
>
> The Monk

Now there is a thought. The Pinoy Air Force is small, but they get
around a bit.

CJ,

Those guys don't make squat for pay but they love to drink. Take them
out drinking a couple of times and you'll win them over. :^)

One more thing. You're doing Christian missionary work I presume? Did
you hear about the Christian Missionary that recently got gunned down
in Laos? Only a month or two ago I heard.

The Monk

Flyingmonk wrote:
> CJ,
>
> Those guys don't make squat for pay but they love to drink. Take them
> out drinking a couple of times and you'll win them over. :^)
>
> One more thing. You're doing Christian missionary work I presume? Did
> you hear about the Christian Missionary that recently got gunned down
> in Laos? Only a month or two ago I heard.
>
> The Monk

Christian, specifically LDS missionary. I did not hear about the one in
Laos, but I did hear about the two LDS missionaries that were shot in
Virginia a couple weeks ago. One of them died. And the two that died in
a head-on collision in Australia two days later. And about the Radio
Shack employee that was mistaken for an LDS missionary in Sande, Utah a
couple days ago who was jumped by a car full of thugs who beat him with
brass knuckles and hit him with the car.

I feel safer in Laoag than I do in the US! :-)

CJ wrote:
>Christian, specifically LDS missionary. I did not hear about the one in
>Laos, but I did hear about the two LDS missionaries that were shot in
>Virginia a couple weeks ago. One of them died. And the two that died >in a head-on collision in Australia two days later. And about the Radio
>Shack employee that was mistaken for an LDS missionary in Sande, >Utah a couple days ago who was jumped by a car full of thugs who >beat him with brass knuckles and hit him with the car.
>
>I feel safer in Laoag than I do in the US! :-)

Wow You're a LDS? I was one for over 11 years, started in '81.
Slacked off since around '92. Went to Born again thingy for a little
while, didn't like that. Was a Buddhist monk for three months in 2003
(to get in touch with my roots).
http://www.laohub.com/modules.php?name=Images&file=displayimage&album=781&pos=43
or http://makeashorterlink.com/?V3C516B8C

Haven't attended church since.

The Monk

Since you're LDS, scratch the buying them drink idea Hehehe...

The Monk

> Since you're LDS, scratch the buying them drink idea Hehehe...

Hey, maybe you guys can address this for me.

There are lots of LDS here in Iowa City (a major road here is called "Mormon
Trek Drive"), and I've been itching to ask one of them this question: Now
that alcohol in moderation has been scientifically proven, in study after
study, to be beneficial to one's health, do you think the LDS are going to
change their stance against drinking?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Can't speak for CJ, nor can I for the Church of JC and the LDS. I for
one couldn't adhere to all the rules. In '85 I started college and got
drunk and w/ all the girls there, well you know? Actually I got
started on all that sctivity while still in High School.

I don't think the church will change their position on the drinking,
but I have been known to be wrong on one or two occasions LOL. They
did publicly change their mind on the multiple wives thing.

I don't think too many people can adhere to all the rules of LDS or any
religion really. We are all human and we all give in to human
temptations. I managed to not smoke, drink nor have sex until late
Sorphomore year in High School, boy! was I hurting. Then I couldn't
hold my hormone any longer and the girls were wondering if I was gay.
<g>

BTW, cjcampbell is not one and the same Jim Campbell of the Zoom fame
correct?

The Monk

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:bhKCf.517566$084.162946@attbi_s22...
> [...] Now that alcohol in moderation has been scientifically proven, in
> study after study, to be beneficial to one's health, do you think the LDS
> are going to change their stance against drinking?

I can't answer the question about what the Church of LDS might do, I have no
idea about them.

But why would the question of benefit to health affect religious beliefs?
Regardless of the original foundation of religious beliefs (as debated over
the eons), current established religious thinking is based on theological
philosophy, not medical science and benefits to health. This is especially
true for the more "conservative" (which is really just a code-word for
"literal" or "oppressive") varieties of the various religions.

Drinking is not the only activity prohibited by various religious shown to
have medical benefits, at least in moderation. I see no reason to expect
it, or any other similarly medically beneficial activity to be embraced by
any given religion.

Heck, some religions are specifically *against* any medical intervention at
all, even if there is no specific prohibition against a particular
intervention.

I have to say, I'm puzzled as to why you would think there's any connection
at all between medical research and religious conviction.

Pete

Jay wrote,

> ... Now that alcohol in moderation has been scientifically proven, in
> study after study, to be beneficial to one's health, ...

"Scientifically proven?" Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ... ha.

Ever heard, "scientists used to believe, but we now know ..."

Jon

Jon Woellhaf wrote:

> Jay wrote,
>
>
>>... Now that alcohol in moderation has been scientifically proven, in
>>study after study, to be beneficial to one's health, ...
>
>
> "Scientifically proven?" Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ... ha.
>
> Ever heard, "scientists used to believe, but we now know ..."

Yes, "scientifically proven" should always get your BS antenna up.


Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Now
> that alcohol in moderation has been scientifically proven, in study after
> study, to be beneficial to one's health, do you think the LDS are going to
> change their stance against drinking?

Sure. Right after the Methodists do.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

> I have to say, I'm puzzled as to why you would think there's any
> connection at all between medical research and religious conviction.

Well, my old religion, Catholicism, has come a long ways, thanks to science.
(Not far enough, mind you, but that's another post.)

For example, Catholics couldn't eat meat on Fridays, when I was a boy.
They also used to make kids sit in mass every day for an hour, and if you
moved or talked, you were punished. They also used to believe in beating
children who misbehaved. (Go back farther, and they REALLY believed some
stupid things.)

I suppose you could say that "science" had little to do with those changes,
but I would argue that as the flock became more scientifically savvy, it
became impossible for the clergy to continue to pull the wool over their
eyes. Everyone now knows that eating a hot dog on Friday isn't going to
send you straight to Hell, everyone now knows that forcing little kids to
sit still and not talk for an hour each day is almost guaranteed to drive
them away from the church as adults, and everyone now knows that beating
children is a poor way to teach.

So, following that logical trajectory, perhaps in another generation every
LDS will "know" that not having a glass of wine with dinner is bad for their
health?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>>>... Now that alcohol in moderation has been scientifically proven, in
>>>study after study, to be beneficial to one's health, ...
>>
>> "Scientifically proven?" Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ... ha.
>>
>> Ever heard, "scientists used to believe, but we now know ..."
>
> Yes, "scientifically proven" should always get your BS antenna up.

True, I am always skeptical of any claims that start with "scientifically
proven".

However, these studies have been coming out for a long time, now, from many
different sources. It's hard to argue against ten or fifteen double-blind
studies, all from different sources, that all say the same thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> Now that alcohol in moderation has been scientifically proven, in study
>> after study, to be beneficial to one's health, do you think the LDS are
>> going to change their stance against drinking?
>
> Sure. Right after the Methodists do.

Methodists can't drink?

Dang, I know a lot of sinners!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>>... Now that alcohol in moderation has been scientifically proven, in
>>>>study after study, to be beneficial to one's health, ...
>>>
>>>"Scientifically proven?" Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ... ha.
>>>
>>>Ever heard, "scientists used to believe, but we now know ..."
>>
>>Yes, "scientifically proven" should always get your BS antenna up.
>
>
> True, I am always skeptical of any claims that start with "scientifically
> proven".
>
> However, these studies have been coming out for a long time, now, from many
> different sources. It's hard to argue against ten or fifteen double-blind
> studies, all from different sources, that all say the same thing.

Sure it is. The human body is just too complex with too many
interacting systems to EVER do a controlled experiment on it. How many
years did the medical community tell people that eating too much calcium
was a leading cause of kidney stones? Now they are suggesting that just
the opposite is the case.

We learn more about the body every day, but I doubt we'll ever get it
all figured out.

And there are going to be lots of embarrassed scientists when global
warming is shown to not be a function of humans and cows farting and
just part of the natural cycle of the earth that will correct itself
over time. However, those scientists won't care as they've lined their
pockets with money to study global warming so they will have
accomplished their real goal.


Matt

> And there are going to be lots of embarrassed scientists when global
> warming is shown to not be a function of humans and cows farting and just
> part of the natural cycle of the earth that will correct itself over time.
> However, those scientists won't care as they've lined their pockets with
> money to study global warming so they will have accomplished their real
> goal.

Aw, geez, Matt, now you're in for it... You are IN for it.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > And there are going to be lots of embarrassed scientists when global
>
>>warming is shown to not be a function of humans and cows farting and just
>>part of the natural cycle of the earth that will correct itself over time.
>>However, those scientists won't care as they've lined their pockets with
>>money to study global warming so they will have accomplished their real
>>goal.
>
>
> Aw, geez, Matt, now you're in for it... You are IN for it.
>
> ;-)

Yep, right beside you! :-)

Matt

>> Aw, geez, Matt, now you're in for it... You are IN for it.
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Yep, right beside you! :-)

"Arm in arm, they smiled broadly as they strode unwittingly toward the
whirling propeller..."

:-0
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Aw, geez, Matt, now you're in for it... You are IN for it.
>>>
>>>;-)
>>
>>Yep, right beside you! :-)
>
>
> "Arm in arm, they smiled broadly as they strode unwittingly toward the
> whirling propeller..."
>
> :-0

And I do feel sorry for that poor propeller... :-)


Matt

Hey, aren't we supposed to be in church?

The Monk

Flyingmonk wrote:

> Hey, aren't we supposed to be in church?
>
> The Monk
>

I was until 12:00. What's your point?

Matt

Mat wrote:
>> Hey, aren't we supposed to be in church?
>
>> The Monk

>I was until 12:00. What's your point?

Oh, sorry, didn't know I was suppsed to have one... <g>

The Monk

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> Methodists can't drink?
>
> Dang, I know a lot of sinners!

Count me in! Methodists can't drink at church functions. After that, we
are all just hypocrites!
--
Jim in NC

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:6A3Df.732768$x96.459791@attbi_s72...
> [...]
> I suppose you could say that "science" had little to do with those
> changes,

I certainly would say that.

> but I would argue that as the flock became more scientifically savvy, it
> became impossible for the clergy to continue to pull the wool over their
> eyes.

More like, as people are exposed to a wider variety of cultures, and the
church has to compete with alternative lifestyles, the more restrictive the
lifestyle the church demands, the fewer followers they will have.

It has nothing to do with science.

> Everyone now knows that eating a hot dog on Friday isn't going to send you
> straight to Hell,

Who knows that? It hasn't been scientifically proven.

> everyone now knows that forcing little kids to sit still and not talk for
> an hour each day is almost guaranteed to drive them away from the church
> as adults,

True...a clear example of the church modifying its behavior so as to
preserve as much membership as possible. As with all of the other changes
that have occurred over the years.

> [...]
> So, following that logical trajectory, perhaps in another generation every
> LDS will "know" that not having a glass of wine with dinner is bad for
> their health?

The LDS (and other religions') prohibition against alcohol was never a
health issue. So even if your logically incorrect transposition of the
actual medical studies was correct, I see no reason it would have any
bearing on the LDS stance on drinking.

I do find it ironic that a religion in which a *defining* event within the
religion involved the consumption of wine, and the admonition to repeat that
consumption in the future "in the remembrance of me" would later evolve to
eschew the consumption of said wine. If that's not the opposite of "getting
the point", I don't know what is. But regardless, since the prohibition of
consumption of alcohol wasn't based on science or health reasons in the
first place, it doesn't follow logically that new scientific or medical
knowledge would change that prohibition.

Pete

>> Everyone now knows that eating a hot dog on Friday isn't going to send
>> you straight to Hell,
>
> Who knows that? It hasn't been scientifically proven.

Oh, crap.

A tiny, long-suppressed "Catholic guilt neuron" fired when I read that line,
and I started to contemplate needing to go to confession.

That would take a while...

:-)

"Bless me Father, for I have sinned. My last confession was, um, during the
disco era...."

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay wrote:
>"Bless me Father, for I have sinned. My last confession was, um, during the
>disco era...."

>;-)

Stayin' alive, stayin' alive, ha ha ya ya Stayin' alive... <g>

The MOnk

Flyingmonk wrote:
> Mat wrote:
>
>>>Hey, aren't we supposed to be in church?
>>
>>>The Monk
>
>
>>I was until 12:00. What's your point?
>
>
> Oh, sorry, didn't know I was suppsed to have one... <g>

Yes, as long as it isn't on the top of your head... :-)

Matt

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:SxbDf.519886$084.164428@attbi_s22...
>>> Everyone now knows that eating a hot dog on Friday isn't going to send
>>> you straight to Hell,
>>
>> Who knows that? It hasn't been scientifically proven.
>
> Oh, crap.
>
> A tiny, long-suppressed "Catholic guilt neuron" fired when I read that
> line, and I started to contemplate needing to go to confession.

Ooops. Sorry...didn't mean to revive old religious feelings. :)

For the record, I don't believe that you're going to hell. Not for eating a
hot dog on Friday, anyway. :) I just don't think it's been scientifically
proven.

Anyway, I don't even mean to dissuade you from your pursuit of religious
truth. I just didn't (and don't) see the connection between scientific
progress and particular religious dogma (even for religions with "science"
in their name!).

Pete

eat Kosher hotdogs, they're better, real meat and no junk.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
message ...
| "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
| news:SxbDf.519886$084.164428@attbi_s22...
| >>> Everyone now knows that eating a hot dog on Friday
isn't going to send
| >>> you straight to Hell,
| >>
| >> Who knows that? It hasn't been scientifically proven.
| >
| > Oh, crap.
| >
| > A tiny, long-suppressed "Catholic guilt neuron" fired
when I read that
| > line, and I started to contemplate needing to go to
confession.
|
| Ooops. Sorry...didn't mean to revive old religious
feelings. :)
|
| For the record, I don't believe that you're going to hell.
Not for eating a
| hot dog on Friday, anyway. :) I just don't think it's
been scientifically
| proven.
|
| Anyway, I don't even mean to dissuade you from your
pursuit of religious
| truth. I just didn't (and don't) see the connection
between scientific
| progress and particular religious dogma (even for
religions with "science"
| in their name!).
|
| Pete
|
|

>> A tiny, long-suppressed "Catholic guilt neuron" fired when I read that
>> line, and I started to contemplate needing to go to confession.
>
> Ooops. Sorry...didn't mean to revive old religious feelings. :)

Don't worry -- it passed.

All of us reformed Catholics have that neuron. It's the very first one the
nuns stimulate in pre-school, and they don't stop playing with it until you
escape the church...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Flyingmonk wrote:
> Can't speak for CJ, nor can I for the Church of JC and the LDS. I for
> one couldn't adhere to all the rules. In '85 I started college and got
> drunk and w/ all the girls there, well you know? Actually I got
> started on all that sctivity while still in High School.
>
> I don't think the church will change their position on the drinking,
> but I have been known to be wrong on one or two occasions LOL. They
> did publicly change their mind on the multiple wives thing.
>
> I don't think too many people can adhere to all the rules of LDS or any
> religion really. We are all human and we all give in to human
> temptations. I managed to not smoke, drink nor have sex until late
> Sorphomore year in High School, boy! was I hurting. Then I couldn't
> hold my hormone any longer and the girls were wondering if I was gay.
> <g>
>
> BTW, cjcampbell is not one and the same Jim Campbell of the Zoom fame
> correct?

I do not even admit that he comes from the same clan of Campbells. Zoom
probably is descended from MacBeth, the notorious black sheep of the
family and also someone who was probably certifiably crazy.

I am Christopher Jay Campbell, World Famous Flight Instructor (not
World's Best, as some claim -- even I have *some* humility).

If you are interested in whether the Church will change its stance on
drinking, I will refer you to www.fairboards.org, a moderated message
board discussing the Church and its policies (it tends to keep the
rhetoric of the bigots tolerable).

All I will say here is that the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints is that when Jesus Christ comes again he will
drink wine with the saints in Zion. So the prohibition against
alcoholic beverages is at temporary in that sense, at least.

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> The LDS (and other religions') prohibition against alcohol was never a
> health issue. So even if your logically incorrect transposition of the
> actual medical studies was correct, I see no reason it would have any
> bearing on the LDS stance on drinking.

Actually, the wording of section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants,
known as the Word of Wisdom and which contains the prohibition against
"strong drink," (currently interpreted to mean alcoholic beverages and
illegal drugs, but held by the leaders of the church as open to
revision in the event of further light and knowledge), says very
specifically it is for health.

If your doctor prescribed a glass of wine every day the church's
position would be that you should follow your doctor's orders. The
church has long touted the health benefits of following the Word of
Wisdom, but it has always tempered that with the understanding that you
should follow competent medical advice. I doubt that members are going
to start drinking wine without a specific reason to do so, however. I
personally do not like even the smell of the stuff, and given the
history of alcoholism in my family (and the fact that alcoholism is
possibly hereditary) I am probably well advised to stay as far away
from alcoholic beverages as I can.

>
> I do find it ironic that a religion in which a *defining* event within the
> religion involved the consumption of wine, and the admonition to repeat that
> consumption in the future "in the remembrance of me" would later evolve to
> eschew the consumption of said wine. If that's not the opposite of "getting
> the point", I don't know what is.

In fact, the church teaches that the members will drink wine with the
Savior when He comes again.

One of the reasons for the prohibition against wine was that there
apparently was an attempt by some enemies of the church to insert
poison in the sacramental wine. Nevertheless, the church continued to
produce wine in Utah up until the early 20th century, when it abandoned
wine even for sacramental purposes.

There are some members who will tell you that the Savior only drank
grape juice with the Apostles at Passover, which goes to show that if
you get enough people into an organization that some of them will be,
um, silly. I guess they are entitled to think whatever they want, but
there is no scriptural or authoritative basis for such a belief.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>Everyone now knows that eating a hot dog on Friday isn't going to
> send you straight to Hell, everyone now knows that forcing little kids to
> sit still and not talk for an hour each day is almost guaranteed to drive
> them away from the church as adults, and everyone now knows that beating
> children is a poor way to teach.

A Jew, a Catholic, and an Episcopalian appeared at the gates of Hell,
ready to begin their sentence of eternal torment. The Devil asked the
Jew what he was here for. "Well, once, when I was a teenager, I ate a
ham sandwich." The Devil said, "That is right. So now you are to burn
in Hell forever. You, Catholic, what are you here for?" "Well, before
Vatican II, I ate a hot dog on Friday." "That is right," roared the
Devil. "You are damned to burn eternally in Hell. You, Episcopalian,
what could have possibly done to earn eternal torment?" "I used the
wrong fork."

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Since you're LDS, scratch the buying them drink idea Hehehe...
>
> Hey, maybe you guys can address this for me.
>
> There are lots of LDS here in Iowa City (a major road here is called "Mormon
> Trek Drive")

My great-great grandfather, Eli Campbell, walked from Iowa City to Salt
Lake when he was three years old.

>> There are lots of LDS here in Iowa City (a major road here is called
>> "Mormon
>> Trek Drive")
>
> My great-great grandfather, Eli Campbell, walked from Iowa City to Salt
> Lake when he was three years old.

It's quite a story. Those people were tough.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> My great-great grandfather, Eli Campbell, walked from Iowa City to Salt
>> Lake when he was three years old.

>It's quite a story. Those people were tough.

The way I hear it is that "wagon train to Utah" is the reason the
Mormons got multiple wives in the first place. Husbands died on the
trail to Utah, killed by Indians, died of diseases, accidents and
sometimes just plain murder by their fellow wagoneers. The remaining
families would "take in" the families that lost their husband/father.
The mothers would become the additional wives to the remaining men. It
was out of necessity and human spirit to help the fellow man/woman, and
some of them dead guys just plain left behind cute wives. <sic g>

The Monk

("cjcampbell" wrote)
> My great-great grandfather, Eli Campbell, walked from Iowa City to Salt
> Lake when he was three years old.


How much of that "walk" was beating feet out of town?


Montblack

Flyingmonk wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> My great-great grandfather, Eli Campbell, walked from Iowa City to Salt
> >> Lake when he was three years old.
>
> >It's quite a story. Those people were tough.
>
> The way I hear it is that "wagon train to Utah" is the reason the
> Mormons got multiple wives in the first place.

No. Plural marriage was being practiced before that time.

Montblack wrote:
> ("cjcampbell" wrote)
> > My great-great grandfather, Eli Campbell, walked from Iowa City to Salt
> > Lake when he was three years old.
>
>
> How much of that "walk" was beating feet out of town?
>

In his case, none of it. He was only three years old. :-)

Actually, Iowa City was an important re-supply point for both Mormon
and non-Mormon pioneers headed west. Some members of the church who
were leaving Nauvoo and Winter Quarters were assigned to remain in Iowa
City to establish a camp there for future wagon trains. Eli's family
was one of these and stayed in Iowa City as missionaries assigned to
assist wagon trains headed to the Salt Lake valley. Eli was born in
Iowa City during this time. When his parents' mission was completed
they continued west. Eventually the family settled in Idaho. You can
read about them in an old book, "Notable Men of Idaho" that was
published around the turn of the 20th century. It was a sort of
forerunner of "Who's Who."

It was a rough life. Eli became a teamster carrying freight between
Ogden and Boise. His father, Daniel, carried mail and worked for Orrin
Porter Rockwell, Brigham Young's bodyguard who was responsible for all
kinds of church security in those days. Daniel Campbell's
responsibility included acting as an Indian agent for the church,
overseeing trade and settling disputes with pioneers. There is a story
about how one time he was being pursued by hostile Indians and he rode
his horse across a river near Idaho Falls to safety. It was difficult
as this happened during the spring melt, with chunks of ice coming down
the river. He apparently never fully recovered from the ordeal. The
Indians were evidently after his horse and the mail.

Generally, the church had good relations with the Indians and counted
on alliances with various tribes in times of crisis. It could not have
done this without men like Daniel Campbell.

>> The way I hear it is that "wagon train to Utah" is the reason the
>> Mormons got multiple wives in the first place.

>No. Plural marriage was being practiced before that time.

This was explained to me by the elders in our church in the mid 80's.