inquirer_Jn1717

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

inquirer_Jn1717's Achievements

  1. That video was a crack-up! If you've ever read the Left Behind series, then you probably get a kick out of the similarities between the fictional anti-Christ "Nicolae Carpathia" and Mr. Obama. They both can "do no wrong." random side note: have you seen the video of Paris Hilton's energy plan?
  2. NRSV? vs. KJV? I go for NASB...or sometimes NLT with a BLT...my translation can beat up your translation!
  3. This passage is always tricky, because you can even ask the question: does this refer to Satan at all? It is definitely referring to Nebachadnezzer (sp?), the king of Babylon, but many feel it also refers to Satan at the same time. And there are some good reasons for this: -he is described as having been in Eden, -he is described as being a "cherubim," a type of fearsome angel with four heads (man, bull, lion, eagle), a flaming sword and riding a chariot. And yet this could all be pure hyperbolic language, commonly used by the poets of ancient kings, "deifying" them (though in this case the self-deification of the king is met with the striking contrast of his humiliation). In fact, the title "Morning Star, Son of the Dawn" (Lucifer) was often used to designate royalty, the title is even used of Jesus! I am not sold just yet on any particular interpretation of this text, except to say that it at least refers to the Babylonian king. So I do not know for sure if Satan ever uttered the "5 I wills," but I wouldn't put it past him. Now here is a question for you: in all the LDS literature I've read (scripture or otherwise) it was not that Satan wanted to be God which lead to his fall, but that he had a different plan of salvation which God chose against. Are both accounts true?
  4. Perhaps only speculation on exactly what the mark of the beast will actually look like is futile (for us at least). John says straight up: "This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666." So if you are that guy, you know who you are and are holding out on us! ;-) Like PC said, it sounds like a visible tattoo. Used to weed out dissenters? (possibly in the name of national security?) I doubt it is wise to write off the whole book of Revelation as pure "spiritual encouragement" or symbolism/propaganda. If that were true, then we may as well forget about the part where Jesus opens a can o' whoop-ass on Satan, conquers death forever and wipes away all our tears. That said, why bother to try and fit past historical events into the Book and say they are the fulfillment? Usually those attempts look like a square peg in a round hole! For example: yes the Roman empire mandated that everyone worship the emperor once a year, and each person was given a certificate good for one year saying, "Domitian Rocks!" And of course, those Christians who took issue with worshiping the emperor we fed to the lions. But nowhere did the Roman government put visible marks on the "loyal" ones! And if we say that we exhibit the mark of the beast whenever we think bad thoughts or sin with our right hand, then we're toast because those that receive the mark don't turn out so well. I think the fulfillment of most prophecy is only clear after the fact. I doubt that when the Anti-Christ finally institutes it that many Christians living then will be surprised to find out who he really is... but then again... Obama for Anti-Christ, '08!!! yeah baby! whoo-hoo!!
  5. Didn't Brigham Young say in a sermon once that there is a temper and a savior for every world that ever was or will be? If so, how would the atonement here on earth be of any value on another world that already has another savior? (side note: I don't actually believe that there are any other worlds with people on them, though it is a possibility. Neither do not believe that Christ's atonement was finite in the Calvinistic sense, he died for the sins of the whole world. So if we are not alone then he would have died for their sins too [and the NT would read a little differently])
  6. I think part of the reason why the creation/evolution debate sparks so much acid language among Christians towards each other and towards non-Christian scientists (and this is no excuse, not by a long shot) is that for Christians the issue is much more of a deep routed "heart matter." Whereas for a scientist, it is more of a "head matter" I would imagine. You have an idea about the world, it gets shot down and your pride is bruised, but then you come up with another idea. For a Christian, you are talking about turning your world-view upside-down. I remember going from "theistic evolutionist" to full blown "six-day creationist" in college. That was a head-trip. At the time felt tantamount to a religious conversion... LOL!
  7. Then don't you remain quite unsure about your standing with God? From moment to moment how can you be sure that your are in his love? Would you wait until your earthly father died to read his will and find out whether you were forgiven after all for that time you did X? You see in my understanding of repentance, I didn't get to repent of one sin at a time, but all sin forever. And of course, the reality is that like a dog to his vomit, I will go right back to sin on a routine basis, even those specific sins that I said I never would. Now sure, there are certain sins which as far as I know are behind me, but those are a few drops in the bucket! Read Romans 7. Didn't Paul genuinely repent, but still find himself sinning? 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. 1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. Romans 7:24-25 (NASB) Romans 8:1-2 (NASB) Paul did not have a "wait and see" attitude about being forgiven by God for his sins. He considered himself redeemed, now and forever. You see, you can never get away from a situation where you cannot sin. If that is true, then your definition of repentance is flawed. Though you are right, repentance cannot be a one-time act in the past. But it must be a once and for all commitment, that is true repentance which leads to fruit, though it cannot in this life stop us from from ever sinning.
  8. Yes, if someone "goes a whoring" you could accurately call them a whore. But with the same logic couldn't you use the term "Prostitute?" Yeah, big diff, whoopi. But one term is said with a sense of vindictiveness or disgust, not at all like the kindness of God that is conducive to leading a person to repentance! The other term, while fare from "nice" simply states the fact without any judgment. Quick question: does ancient Hebrew have only one term? I think so. Was the KJV translated by a church who hates evil more than it loves good? Probably. My NASB translation uses "prostitute" or "harlotry." The term "whore" is absent. Seriously dude, no point trying to justify yourself here.
  9. Thank-you Vahnin! That last post actually helps me out a lot. I have heard the response before: "not everything an LDS leader says is doctrine," which is also true in regular christianity: Calvin taught that some are actually pre-destined to hell, Luther said the James is a book of straw, and even I myself, a youth pastor have said and will continue to say stupid things that the Bible will not support. But the difference is that those men never claimed to be Prophets or Apostles, while the LDS Leaders in question do claim it. So then what standard do you (personally and the the Church as a whole) use to choose what is doctrine and what is not? I would appreciate it if you would clarify. Also, the quotes from the Sermon you noted are good to see there as accepted LDS doctrine (I have also found them in GOSPEL PRINCIPLES and other places confirmed), because as I'm sure you know, it is that central difference that separates us. In fact it is that very teaching, that God was once a mortal man, I have heard many LDS vehemently deny out of ignorance. But I don't mean to rag on you guys. There are plenty of Evangelicals who haven't made the connection between "Jesus is my Savior" and "Jesus is my Lord," myself included, most days.
  10. Probably refrain from using the degrading term "whore." But is the forgiveness from Christ given on certain conditions besides repentance itself? "to repent" in Greek is "metanoeō" which means to "to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider" (Strong) or "to change one's purpose." (Vine) Now if you have changed your purpose in life then there will definitely be fruit of that for all to see (like opening up a flower shop instead, or maybe she starts a ministry to bring others out of the porn industry, or simply gets married and raises God-fearing kids, or even sends all the royalties to starving children in Africa, you name it). But is forgiveness from Christ given only after the fruit of it is displayed or depend on the execution of the fruit? Or does Christ forgive at the moment of repentance, regardless of the fruit to prove it? Look at John 8:1-11. Jesus forgave the adulteress immediately, without any visible proof of genuine repentance, but he knew what was in her heart. If once forgiven, can the forgiveness be revoked? Jesus told her to sin no more, but if forgiveness can be taken away, then we have all lost and gained it several times today! If so, how can we ever rest secure in our Father's love?
  11. The King Follett Sermon? What about it persuaded you? In fact, I'm surprised you've ever read it! Too often I meet an LDS missionary, tell them what it says and they think I'm making things up, because apparently, I'm an "anti"! LOL.
  12. Vanhin- thx for the tip! I was forgetting that last "t" on the end of "Follett" and so it kept giving me a sermon by President Hinckley! But now we're good. Thanks again you guys!
  13. I've been sifting through the internet, trying to find a legitimate PRO-LDS site with a search engine that can show me any sermon, article, etc. For example, I go to The LDS home page, type in "King Follet Discourse" and all I get is a series of very recent articles about the sermon but not the sermon itself...grr. Of course I can pull it up on Google (after a while), and ironically, I've had better luck finding LDS sermons on ANTI-LDS websites than any other place, but that's not where I want to get all my info from. I've found a site for the Journal of Discourses which is legit, but it seems the JoD doesn't cover Joseph Smith's sermons. And I also know of the Scripture search engine on lds.org. But do any of you know where a non-member could peruse LDS literature hassle free?