Vort

Sorry, typo. The ref was 3 John, not 1 John. But I figured since I had given such valuable and insightful scripture regarding piercings, I would go the extra mile and provide some helpful scriptures about tattoos, too. Because that's just the kind of helpful guy I am.

I can't tell if you're responding to me or to the OP.

By definition, "good" means things that are Godly or that come from God. Therefore, the "wrath of God" must, by definition, be good. Justice is one of the eternal attributes of God. As Christ taught, we receive wages of him whom we list to follow. The wage of sin is death, which is to say, spiritual death. The wrath of God is the just judgment of God that the unrepentant sinner cannot abide his presence. This is spiritual death, which awaits all those who do not seek after God nor respond when they find him.

But we're not bitter.

As for tattoos, remember 3 John 1:13: "...not with ink..." Crystal clear. I'm Vort, and, yes, I'm here to help.

Fedor's secret

Not to worry. I'll help you out. D&C 1:3: "...THE REBELLIOUS SHALL BE PIERCED..." But it's not merely in the Doctrine and Covenants; rather, all books of scripture teach the wickedness of piercings. The Pearl of Great Price tells us that the Lord's anointed don't have piercings: Moses 6:32: "And the Lord said unto Enoch: Go forth and do as I have commanded thee, and NO MAN SHALL PIERCE THEE." Note the Book of Mormon's clear, unambiguous description of the wicked Lamanites: Alma 44:18: "...yea, behold THEY WERE PIERCED..." In the New Testament, Paul confirms the identity of those who follow this wicked practice: 1 Timothy 6:10: "...they have erred from the faith, AND PIERCED THEMSELVES THROUGH..." Can you doubt the unwavering testimonies of four strong witnesses? I'm Vort, and I'm here to help.

I substituted for the 13-14-y-o Sunday school class teacher. In talking about scriptures, I mentioned that Jesus didn't speak English. One young lady (a very sweet girl whom I like very much, and whose parents I greatly admire) looked at me wide-eyed and said, "Really?" She was serious; she had no idea that the mortal Jesus spoke Aramaic and not English. I always feel like I'm treading on sacred ground when I introduce such new concepts to young people, even (or especially) when they are not my own children. As for this topic: As I've mentioned elsewhere, one big problem I have with some new English "translations" (which are really more like vernacular renderings) is the casual speech patterns employed. God is a being of dignity, and the speech used toward (and by) him should reflect that fact. Another problem I have is that no modern translation uses "thou". What's up with that? How on earth are we supposed to tell who a person is talking to when using "you"? Drives me crazy. I just listened to a 12-hour lecture on "The Historical Jesus", and felt like pulling my hair out through most of it because the lecturer was constantly drawing unwarranted conclusions and building a house of cards. One of the things that I noticed is that he talked about Jesus speaking to Caiaphas and saying, "You will see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven." He then went on at length about how Jesus was saying to the priest that he, personally, would see this. Now, this didn't jibe with my own (admittedly non-photographic) memory of the account, so I checked in Matthew. Sure enough, the rendering is, "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The pronoun "ye" indicates that Jesus was speaking to the entire group, not to the high priest individually. Amazingly, the lecturer had apparently no understanding of this. This division between "thou" and "ye" is important throughout the Bible. Much is lost of this difference is not preserved, yet almost no thought to its importance goes into any modern English translation. Consider the Lord's words to Peter in Luke 22: "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you [that is, all of you, my disciples], that he may sift you [all of you] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee [Peter, individually], that thy [Peter's] faith fail not: and when thou [Peter] art converted, strengthen thy brethren." This is a profoundly intimate exchange, where the Lord tells Peter of the general risk to all of them, and then says that Peter himself has been the individual target of prayers of faith by the Son of God and that, when he receives this faith, he is to use it for the benefit of the others. Yet this intimacy is mostly lost in modern English translations.

When Sikahema knocked Canseco down, did he pounce on top of him and start raining down blows from the mounted position until he could secure a joint lock or choke him out? No? Aw, that ain't MMA. That's just wimp fighting with balloon gloves. I think they call that "American Gladiator".

Let me take a shot at this. One problem many LDS people have in answering such questions is that many non-LDS Christians have specific and unique definitions of terms, just as Latter-day Saints sometimes do. We prefer to answer such questions using our own vocabulary, but then you have to understand us on our terms. When the same word carries slightly different meanings, confusion often results. For example, many Christians claim to believe that God "created" the world. Latter-day Saints believe that God created the world, of course. But if you ask a non-LDS Christian what it means that God "created" the world, he will likely tell you that it means that God caused the world to come into existence from absolute nothingness. In an LDS context, this is pure nonsense. The elements themselves are eternal, we are taught, and God's creation of all things is much more accurately described as an "organization" of preexisting material than as "bringing into existence" from nothingness. So saying that God "created" the universe has a subtlely but, in ways, importantly different meaning to Latter-day Saints than to non-LDS Christians. Another example: most Christians profess to believe that men and women are saved by grace. Of course, Latter-day Saints believe precisely this. But the LDS understanding of salvation by grace includes the (to us) obvious truth that grace comes for the asking, and asking involves more than mere lip service. We must ask in faith. God expects, indeed requires, that we exercise faith and strive for him; in doing so, we receive his grace. Without the striving and effort, no grace is forthcoming, any more than a mine will yield gold by you sitting there wishing that gold nuggets will come flying out. Yet this is not the idea of grace held by many non-LDS Christians (though I would add that many non-LDS Christians do indeed hold this same concept of grace, or something close to it). For many non-LDS Christians, grace is something you receive merely by saying "Save me, Jesus my Redeemer!" or some such thing. It's the "Christian" equivalent of the Muslim shahada. So then, do Latter-day Saints believe in baptismal regeneration? The simple answer is: Yes, of course. Duh. (Though the well-mannered Mormon will not utter that last part out loud. :)) The more complicated answer is: Yes, we do, but our understanding of regeneration may not be the same as yours. If you wish to understand LDS doctrine, you must understand what we mean by regeneration and then find if that coincides with your own definition.

Mixed martial arts, like in the UFC. Aka "ultimate fighting", "human cockfighting" (thanks, Sen. McCain), "rolling around on the mat with another sweaty guy -- ewwwww!"

Not to be overly negative, but... These _JtC_ mp3s are a great service, but frankly, they are of very poor quality. The readers very often don't understand what they're reading, and you have to try to interpret Talmage's meaning by mentally writing out what they read and then "rereading" it. Listening to these mp3s is an extended exercise in frustration; I speak from experience. But if you absolutely want to read _JtC_ and simply can't find time to read the text yourself, these mp3s are (somewhat) better than nothing.

Hi, I'm new here. Anyone interested in MMA? Anyone think it's Satan-spawn? Any opinions at all about it? Anyone actually train in it, or related disciplines (muay thai, sub wrestling, etc.)? Anyone else think Fedor is going to dominate an admittedly underrated Tim Sylvia on Saturday? Anyone else buying the Afflication ppv just to annoy Dana White? (Speaking of which, does anyone really believe Anderson Silva's lhw debut fight goes past round 1?)