Book_of_Mormon_Warrior
-
Posts
167 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Book_of_Mormon_Warrior
-
-
"Down deep inside I'm not sorry for what I did..."
Then you still have not completed the repentance process. Keep praying the Lord will soften your heart.
-
The link I provided under "Five Points" in my OP may be of use to you, Giant_Son. It's to an article by John Piper (who is also mentioned in the TIME Magazine article). Reformed theology certainly doesn't "erase personal responsibility." The fact of a Sovereign God doesn't relieve anyone of their duty, or their accountability for thought, word, and deed. It's useful to remember that while God wills the ends, He also wills the means to the ends.
What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
Did anyone actually read the TIME article and have thoughts on it?
--Erik
I had to endure a week of John MacAurthur speaking about it on Christian radio. I'm all 5-Point Calvinisted out.
-
I like the ideas of converting to service missionary work. Kind of the "Ammon Approach", redirect the money towards projects that get members involved in serving their local communities on a large-scale basis.
-
Now let me ask you a question: What do you think of the anti-woman message - or even misogynist message of the Bible?
You mean like the stories of Esther, Ruth, and Deborah? Or the stories of of Mary, Mary and Martha, and Mary Magdelene?
I'm not buying the idea of your anti-woman Bible.
-
There’s a recently published top 10 list of “Ideas Changing the World Now” from Time Magazine. Curious what LDS think of idea number 3, “The New Calvinism.” Read it here—
3. The New Calvinism - 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now - TIME
I don’t want this thread to turn into a debate about the “Five Points” and whether these doctrines have a strong Biblical foundation (although in my opinion—they do). Instead, I simply want to know what folks here think about this increasingly influential trend in Evangelical Christianity and in the world at large. Are you indifferent? Are you concerned? Do you think this is the kind of “change” the world needs now?
LDS Apologist and BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson is on record using some remarkably blunt language against Calvinism. Sparing his readers any diplomatic pretense, Peterson wrote, "Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." (If you like, you can dig up his views on Calvinism, among many other subjects, on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.)
Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top?
Lastly, if you as a Latter-Day Saint were intending to proselytize to a committed, Bible-believing Christian—how might you modify your approach if you knew that person was Reformed?
In the interest of full disclosure, Mark Driscoll (mentioned in the Time article) is the preaching pastor at my Church, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Also, I’m sending a link of this thread to my Mom, and a few others. So please be nice.
;0)
--Erik
PS. If you are a Christian who leans toward Reformed theology (like me)—are you planning to do anything to celebrate the 500 year anniversary of John Calvin’s birth this July? If so, what are your plans?
I do share Dr. Peterson view on Calvinism.
As a believer in the Book of Mormon, but not LDS, I wouldn't approach them with this view as a warm up session. :) I would, as any Book of Mormon Believer should do, invite them the read the Book of Mormon and pray to Heavenly Father about it, waiting for the fruit of the Spirit to confirm it's validity. I would then share the verses that speak of how Jesus invites ALL men to come unto Him and how we are not merely creatures to be acted upon, but we have a choice whether to follow God or not.
By the way I love Pastor Mark, he is just simply wrong on this issue.
-
The Iranian government has it's problems but then again the USA has a long and tarnished history in regards to Iran and perhaps they want to see some real change in attitude and laws before they will trust "Mr. Change" any more than they trusted Bush.
I think this is one time I must respectfully disagree with you, Fiannan.
Jimmy bent over backwards to kiss their hindquarters and look where it got us. Iran has no intention of ever becoming friendly with us, their entire philosophy is based on their version of Islam dominating the world and will use any means to accomplish that end.
-
Hello All You Wonderful Family History Enthusiasts,
The New Family Search is fantastic, isn't it! One small problem though, has anyone worked out a way to contact contributers to the site. I have a couple of other church members tracing my family tree and I would love to know who they are, as I am the only active church member in my family.
The only information that I have for the two people that I am looking for is:
A. Thatcher near the Provo or Logan Utah Temples and
Andrew Jon or Jon Andrew Snider near the Columbia River Washington Temple
Can anyone help?
ThanksWhite Pages on YELLOWPAGES.COM
Start calling the ones in the Kirkland/Pasco area and see if they know Andrew Jon/Jon Andrew.
-
What's funny (or sad) is the news media is just now realizing what Iran is really all about...
Iran's response to US shows mind-set of leadership - Yahoo! News
-
I hope this also includes the insight that members of the LDS Church are neither clones nor lemmings nor sheep. Each one thinks for him or herself, and votes according to his or her own conscience. Not every Mormon is a Republican or a conservative, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. How boring would it be if we were all the same?
Not exactly, but if that's how you want to take it, run with it.
-
I have learned very much over the last couple of days and have gained a new insight into the thinking of the members of the LDS church. I wonder what the future holds for the organization considering what I have read. Should be interesting to watch.
-
Here is a excellent sermon by Mark Driscoll on this subject...
-
Reading through this topic has been rather enlightening and saddening.
-
Indeed it is...which is why you missed me stating "I watched it off the internet. I doubt HBO will be able to count that as a rating."
edit - you are probably right, Maureen. Sorry :)
I'm interested... which website did you watch it on?
-
So who would you get to count the homeless and troubled neighborhoods?
As a side note, last time there was a count census workers came to my parent's house and asked about people who lived there ten years earlier. My dad said they didn't live there anymore, but he'd be happy to answer any questions about his family of 10. He was told to have a nice day and we didn't get counted, so our little town had 690 instead of the real 700 people in it when the new numbers were released. I wonder how many times that happens?
I was actually a census worker for a very short time, and we were very definately instructed to go to homeless hotspots. Under bridges, known "tent cities" etc... And surely there are more balanced organizations that could be involved other then ACORN and the NAALCP
-
It seems that Satan really attacked the rights of women during the middle ages. I think that Satan puts most of his efforts on breaking up the family, and the rights of women are right up there. This may be because women play such a huge part in the family. (I thank my wife for being a such a big help to our family.) So, maybe another question might be how is he attacking women's rights now?
He is taking away women's rights by making it some type of bad thing to have children and be homemakers.
-
It seems that Satan really attacked the rights of women during the middle ages. I think that Satan puts most of his efforts on breaking up the family, and the rights of women are right up there. This may be because women play such a huge part in the family. (I thank my wife for being a such a big help to our family.) So, maybe another question might be how is he attacking women's rights now?
What has been breaking up families? Lack of women's rights? How so?
Since the women's lib movement divorce and broken homes have only skyrocketed. Thank you, Gloria Steinam and NOW.
-
Dude, where were you 9 years ago?
My feelings on Acorn are mixed. Remember Jack in the Box? After the terrible salmonella outbreak they ended up becoming one of the most reliable fast food places in terms of food safety. Hopefully Acorn learned from their mistakes (especially the 'pay for registering voters' incentive, that was just asking for trouble).
Apples and Oranges.
Jack is out to sell hamburgers to as many people as possible w/o regard to color, faith, or political leanings.
ACORN, on the other hand, is a far-left political organization who's sole mission is to get Liberals elected. And this last election wasn't the first time they've pulled this crap. It's a pattern and apparently they have yet to learn their lesson.
-
No, a joke would be to add the Aryan Nations and the Klingon Empire.
The census is a valuable planning tool for the government. It is important that people in even hard to reach groups be counted in the census. If I were running things, I would make sure to especially include mental health outreach workers and soup kitchen administrators as well.
With ACORN's habit of "accidentally" bungling names and numbers, and the NAACP's race baiting, am not so sure either is much different then having the Arayan Nations (which in itself could reach "hard to reach" populations... holed up anti-government racists, which are counted as citizens also)
-
Yes and no. ACORN has been asked to put the census form on their website (ACORN is one of 300 partner organizations including NAACP and Target involved in the Census). However, the US Census Bureau hires the door to door workers, not ACORN.
Here is the real joke: You can get a lot of conservative mileage with just a little misinformation.
Your just adding to the joke, right? The NAACP and Target? You kidder you.
-
You are right, all one can do is ones best, according to the bible, According to The book of mormon, you must be perfect, which is impossible. The angel Moroni is the angel of light and satan disguises him as the angel of light.
I love you with all my heart, but mormons do not know the Jesus of the bible, they beilive in a false Jesus. Jesus created all the angels and everything in exsistance. He is eternal.
Brothers with the devil, no, creator.
You are ignoring the totality of the scripture. It plainly acknowledges you can't possibly achieve what it asks, for in the same verse it says...
"that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ;"
Cease to purposely misinterpret the scriptures and fight against the word of God.
-
The OP is a joke, right?
-
.You don't find it at all ironic that when given the liberty to discuss all of the options, including abortion, that these organizations actually perform fewer abortions? That seems to imply that these organizations do a good job talking people out of abortions. So yeah, let's not let them talk about itOr it could be that now freed from the fetters of public funding they more actively pushed abortion instead of other contraceptive methods?
The explanation is simple. There are many of us who do not feel a moral objection to embryonic stem-cell research. Without that moral objection, it is pretty simple to desire to discover what may be possible with this avenue of research. I have no problem with the fact that you do find it morally wrong, but you'll need to produce stronger arguments than, "I feel it is wrong" to persuade me. So far, I've seen no persuasive arguments from the evangelical camp.You don't feel a moral objection to creating human life for the express purpose of killing it? That tells me more about you then anything.
.You're welcome to read the post to which I linked. But as a brief example, Bush's version of the conscience rule uses language vague enough that a scheduler could use the rule to refuse to schedule an IVF consultation because the institution destroys unused blastocysts, which the scheduler views as the immoral destruction of human life. Again, I'm not opposed to having a conscience rule--I am only opposed to having a poorly written conscience ruleJanitors should not have to clean up abortion scenes, the doctors can do it if they are so fired up to kill babies. And I am sure there are plenty of people on staff that think killing babies is fine that they could find someone to pencil in their appointment.
I'm just as well studied on liberal hyperbole as I am on conservative hyperbole. Neither of which are grounded in reality. And that's the problem I have with both of them. Quite contrary to what you're accusing me of, I took the time to investigate the issues at hand from more than one angle before reaching my conclusions. We would all be better off if more people took the time to do the same.Could have fooled me since the only people I ever hear you argue against are conservatives. I am sorry I haven't taken the time to examine the finer points of moral relativism, so I can be socially acceptable to the liberal elitists and the politically correct crowd. But I think I'll continue to take a pass, in spite of my, apparently, socially unacceptable position.
-
I want to tell you that I agree with you, BoMW. You're right: Some things like the protection of the youngest among us is vital and is not black and white. If you believe that the Stem Cells represent human life, I applaud you standing up for what you believe.
However, I should point out that many times while still assembled of stem cells, many pregnancies are spontaneously aborted - Oftentimes without someone being aware their pregnant. See Signs and Symptoms of Miscarriage (Spontaneous Abortion) for the statistic that anywhere from 20-50 percent of pregnancies result in this.
If something is purely stem cells, does it have a soul? What if those cells, not conceived in the normal way but grown specifically for their development in that way, could save many lives?
I'm not saying you're wrong - You're right. We need to protect children, but MOE is right in that it is a complex issue. Stroke victims, cancer victims and brain damaged people have shown remarkable recovery with the use of stem cells.
We both know that a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is a far cry from purposely creating a human life for the express purpose of destroying it. I don't see how you can even compare the two.
Yes, stem-cell are helping certain people... adult-stem cells, not embryonic stem-cells.
-
If only it were so simple. I'll refer you to this post that I wrote about the Mexico City Policy several months ago.Just two highlights...USAID cannot be used to pay for abortions, even with the Mexico City Policy rescinded. MCP forbade money to organizations who merely discussed abortion as an option. Again, the money could not be used to pay for the abortion anyway.
Second, under the Mexico City Policy, more abortions were being performed than when the Policy was rescinded. So you can either talk about abortion and have fewer of them, or you can keep quiet and have more abortions.
According to your own post the reasons for more abortions is because fewer contraceptives were given out. Here's a solution... Instead of being so gung-ho to have abortion as part of the "advice", the groups denied funding could agree to only speak of the other things and thus get back funding so they can hand out contraceptives.
You're likely to meet mixed results in your appeal to an lds group about the supposed immorality of stem-cell research. The Church has no position on the issue, and does not currently take the position that stem-cells can be equated with human life.Then I am saddened, if the LDS church can't recognize that creating a human life for the express purpose of destroying it is immoral, then inspiration must be lacking. God will not stand idly by as we play creator and then destroyer of human life. Wait for judgments to fall upon us.
One thing I forgot to mention is this policy redirects funding from adult stem-cell research, which has actually yielded results without killing human life, to ESSR. Can you explain how this is acceptable?
Yet another one-sided representation...Obama rescinded Bush's version of the rule, which was poorly written and exceptionally vague. I would agree that the consience rule should be rewritten, but Bush's version of the rule is probably worse than no rule at all. Check out what I had to say on this issue here.Please explain what you feel is vague and needs to be changed. Do you feel it is ever acceptable to force someone to participate in abortion against their moral objections?
So thank you for demonstrating the problem with reactionary politics. It fails to comprehend the complexities of reality and usually makes matters worse than they were to begin.I see you are well studied on liberal hyperbole. This has nothing to do with politics, but the sacredness of human life. Some things just don't succumb well to moral relativism. Some things are black and white... Protecting the most innocent amoung us is one of those things.
View 1st edition B of M with Joseph Smith's Preface
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
116