I feel the ship (Fintry Queen) should be saved and used. It is part of Kelowna’s heritage.
History is a teacher for all people.
In response to Mr. Buckna's letter, "Smith's failed prophecies" on June 17th.
As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe the original Church that Christ founded fell away into apostasy, thus, a Restoration was required. Joseph Smith, Jr. was the instrument God used to restore the Fullness of the Everlasting Gospel.
The scripture Mr. Buckna quoted, John 4:24 ("God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." was retranslated by Joseph Smith to read, "For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth."
It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?
We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Saviour’s great Intercessory Prayer, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four.
A related reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is excluded from the Christian category by some is because we believe, as did the ancient prophets and apostles, in an embodied—but certainly glorified—God. To those who criticize this scripturally based belief, I ask at least rhetorically: If the idea of an embodied God is repugnant, why are the central doctrines and singularly most distinguishing characteristics of all Christianity the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the physical Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? If having a body is not only not needed but not desirable by Deity, why did the Redeemer of mankind redeem His body, redeeming it from the grasp of death and the grave, guaranteeing it would never again be separated from His spirit in time or eternity? Any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God dismiss both the mortal and the resurrected Christ. No one claiming to be a true Christian will want to do that.
The invitation is the same. Come, and let us learn of each other's beliefs and build a true foundation of peace and unity.
Dustin Lee Burnham
In the dying with dignity debate, most people who are being vocal are advocating for Advanced Directive. Advanced Directive is exactly what it sounds like; you are able to say, in advance of any medical issues, that when I reach a certain point in my illness, and if I do not have the ability or mental capacity to make an informed decision, these are my wishes. That’s what many people want in the Physician Assistance in Dying legislation, but I would pose this question. What happens when someone makes an advanced directive about their end of life care to say that when they reach a certain point in their illness they consent to having medical assistance in dying but at the last minute say they don’t want to die?
Here’s a scenario. Bob is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and issues an advanced directive to his medical team saying that he would like a physician’s assistance in dying to allow him to die with some amount of dignity. The time comes when Bob cannot make an informed end-of-life request himself and reaches the threshold outlined in his advanced directive and the process is set in motion. Bob is past the point of being able to give informed consent but he still knows the difference between life and death. What do we do if he says he doesn’t want to die? He no longer has the capacity to make the initial request; does he have the capacity to rescind the directive? Do we put someone to death against their wishes? Who would make that decision?
This is the type of question that needs answers before we make it law. We need to proceed with caution. We need to let this legislation evolve. Let it be tested by the Supreme Court. The Government has said this is a first step, I agree.
The election of Steve Fuhr as our new MP allowed me to think we have finally a person, a veteran himself, who will finally get something done for veterans. Heaven knows we have had 10 years under Harper, and I don't blame Ron Cannan as his hands were tied just as Steve Fuhrs hands are when it comes to veterans issues.
The Prime Minister, in his pre election campaign, stated very clearly that Veterans should not be required to take governments to court over veterans issues. We had to, and in one monumental case, Government versus Dennis Manuge who was a Cpl when he served, and the issue was whether government owed monies to disabled veterans who paid for their insurance named SISSIP and Dennis won costing the federal conservatives over 800 million dollars of insurance monies to disabled veterans.
Now we have the court action called EQUITAS, where 6 veterans are taking the government to court over pension funds. Pension Act before 2005, when the liberals did away with this plan and brought in the buy out program to save monies. Trudeau said veterans should not have to take government to court over veterans issues.
Well guess what, we are back in court as of yesterday and the Minister released words to the effect government still has a sacred obligation to its veterans yet we are back in court again. This is perceived as a bold face lie. All Trudeau needs to do, and I am sure Steve Fuhr would have to agree to this he being a veteran, is to cease the law suit. But Trudeau has chosen to continue it.
Yes government has raised the ELB amount to 90% and increased PIA, but the numbers are small change when it comes to bringing back the Pension Act which he basically promised.
On June 4th, Interior Health Emergency Network & Trauma Services held their second annual Bike Safe clinic at City Park. We feel it’s important to provide injury prevention education and awareness to our community members as we have approximately 37,890 head injuries in BC each year. That equates to 480 people every day, or one person injured every 3 minutes. The highest risk for traumatic injuries are youth, however up to 90% of injuries are preventable. It is important to promote ‘safe’ choices vs. foolish risks, and ‘wearing the gear’ such as helmets, can make a significant difference.
This year the Bike Safe Clinic had approximately 275 children and youth participate in this event in addition to several adults. We would like to extend our thanks to the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) for their significant donation, in addition to SportChek, Kelowna Cycle, Data Nerds and SunRype for their contributions. Also, thank you to our partners The City of Kelowna, BrainTrust Canada, School District 23, BCAS, RCMP and the Kelowna Fire Department. Because of you our event was a great success. We look forward to working with everyone next year.
Director, Emergency Network and Trauma Services,
More Letters to the editor
- Progress on deadly wildfireCalifornia
- Woman missing in waterLake Country
- British turmoil deepensLondon
- Jumper a former marineSquamish
for these and other issues.
- Scooter laws Jun 16
- Coyotes are no threat to us Jun 16
- Smith's failed prophecies Jun 16
- Open up our shoreline Jun 15
- Aggressive coyotes sighted Jun 15