inquirer_Jn1717

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?

NRSV? vs. KJV? I go for NASB...or sometimes NLT with a BLT...my translation can beat up your translation!

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?

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!!

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])

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

Thx!!!

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?

oy-vey

You are absolutely correct, we are dealing with what God says, and you seem to agree that God would not tell us at the same time both to stop at red lights and to run them at our leisure. (Of course there are situations where even police have to run red lights, and if God told me to run one for who knows what reason then I hope I would obey too, but this is not about situational ethics.) So you can see then why non-LDS would read IL State Law from 1800 (remembering Rom 13:1-5), then look at the D/C revelation from Joseph Smith and conclude that God must not have actually given the latter at all. This is my favorite way to learn actually, constantly asking questions and playing devil's advocate. It's just more fun that way. I would much rather learn YOUR answers to certain questions than re-hash my own.

does the state of CA say, "Stop on all red lights." and then does God say, "Red means 'really fast!'"...?

Are yo saying Illinois was unjust to make such a law against polygamy in the first place?

That is equivocation. Worse, that sort of logic has lead to worse things in history. The point is this: would God give us a law that contradicts that of our earthly rulers? ... Romans 13:1-5 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Then why practice it at all to begin with!? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Joseph Smith receive the revelation sanctioning polygamy while the LDS Church was still in Illinios, even though the practice had already been officially against the law for 10 years prior in that state? Both the LDS Articles of Faith and Paul's letter to the Romans will tell you to obey State Law, because the ruling authority is put there by God with His authority. So why would God then tell the Church to do something contrary to the law of the land? Didn't God arrange the first marriage as Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve, Susie, Jane, Ellen and Lafonda? When the Patriarchs, or the kings of Israel, or anyone in the Bible practiced polygamy, did it lead to happy families or dysfunctional ones? For non-LDS, the question of polygamy cuts straight to the credibility of the LDS Leadership, past and present, as far as being a mouth-piece for God. Sorry if all that comes off as a shot-gun blast attack, I don't really mean it to, but what do LDS say to that sort of argument?

I own both Misquoting Jesus AND the rebuttal to Ehrman's book: Misquoting Truth by Timothy Paul Jones. I highly recommend them both together! I can't say I read all of Ehrman's book, but I read enough (well, just the introduction) to understand where he is coming from and his core argument which is essentially: Since the Bible is corrupted beyond recognition, and it does us no good to say that the original words were inspired, then the original words were not inspired at all. If they were inspired, God would have preserved them. Then life got busy and I spent time dwelling on that thought till I came across Jones' book which I devoured, partly because he is a very good writer and also because he thoroughly showed the fallacies and assumptions of Ehrman's arguments, while making a good case for the trustworthiness of the NT. Thank you for bringing this up btw, the next chance I get I want to sit down and re-read both books.

When I hear "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," I remember those commercials the church used to put out on TV when I was a kid. There would be Jesus walking down a crowded street reaching out to people and them fawning over him, accompanied by a soothing male voice saying something about how Jesus never wrote a book but still changed the world. Then we would see an idealic family with 2.5 smiling children cuddled with their parents around a couch for a Bible study. Lastly, there is an offer to receive a free KJV Bible along with (...the camera pans right and then appears...) the Book of Mormon, both of which can be delivered to you by two nice young men if you call this toll free number. So to me, the formal name represents the public face of the LDS Church: no mention of Joseph Smith, just the Bible, Family Values, and the Book of Mormon. (I apologize if all that sounds a little satirical, but as a kid I did think the commercials were kinda cheesy. On the other hand, they must have worked if indeed the LDS Church is the fastest growing religion in America!) Now ironically, if I say to the average Joe, "Joe, have you ever heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?" Joe says, "Who?" I say, "You know, the Mormons?" Joe says, "Oh yeah, them." Even though Joseph Smith (I believe) coined the term "Mormon," I think historically it has always been associated with every negative image of the LDS Church and used in derogatory fashion, similar to the term "Christian (little Christ)," was first used in Antioch. The difference I see is that the early believers embraced the insult and proudly declared themselves such, while the modern LDS Church seems to shy away from the term "Mormon," (at least this my perception from the commercial and my conversations with LDS).

Here is the purpose of the post: what are the differences and similarities between Joseph Smith's story and the other two stories?

Are you sure about those two statements? If by "[un]necessary" you mean that many fellowships do not practice baptism as a step in the process of of Salvation, but the obedient response to it and an initiation into a new family, then yes, I believe you would be correct. Otherwise, you might as well tell a fish he doesn't need gills, or that faith is not shown by works. Yes, there are many Jews who have lost faith (you can sometimes meet them at the mall, selling Dead Sea Ointments from a kiosk), but there is a determined movement to restore temple worship. They have remade all the Temple Instruments according to Biblical instructions (most of which are solid gold), and last I heard there are still trying to breed to proper kind of animals for the sacrifices. God bless History Channel and the "Naked Archeologist!"

The following are two excerpts from JESUS FREAKS, published by DC Talk and Voice of the Martyrs: "Die With Us!" Haim and his family Cambodia circa 1970s All during the night, the members of Haim's family comforted each other. They knew they only had a few more hours to live on this earth. The Cambodian Communist soldiers had tied them all together and forced them to lie down on the grass. Earlier that day Haim's family had been rounded up for execution. Because they were all Christians, the Communists considered them "bad blood" and enemies of the glorious revolution." In the morning, they were made to dig their own graves. The Killers were generous. They allowed their victims a moment of prayer to prepare themselves for death. Parents and children held hands and knelt together near the open grave. After his family finished their prayers, Haim exhorted the Communists and all those looking on to repent and to receive Jesus as Savior. Suddenly, one of Haim's young sons leapt to his feet, bolted to the nearby forest, and disappeared. Haim was amazingly cool as he persuaded the soldiers not to chase the boy but to allow him to to call the boy back. While the family knelt, the father pleaded with his son to return and die with them. "Think my son," he shouted. "Can stealing a few more days of life, as a fugitive in that forest, compare to joining your family here around a grave, but soon free forever in paradise?" Weeping the boy walked back. Haim said to the executioners, "Now we are ready to go." But none of the soldiers would kill them. Finally, an officer who had not witnessed the scene came and shot the Christians. "We Die With Gratitude" Chiu-Chin-Hsiu and Ho-Hsiu-Tzu Jiangxi, Mainland China During the Red Guard Era, 1966-69 The two Christian girls waited in the Chinese prison yard for the announced execution. A fellow prisoner who watched the scene from his prison cell described their faces as pale but beautiful beyond belief; infinitely sad but sweet. Humanly speaking they were fearful. But Chiu-Chin-Hsiu and Ho-Hsiu-Tzu had decided to submit to death without renouncing their faith. Flanked by renegade guards, the executioner came with a revolver in his hand. It was their own pastor! He had been sentenced to die with the two girls. But, as on many other occasions in Church history, the persecutors worked on him, tempting him. They promised to release him if he would shoot the girls. He accepted. The girls whispered to each other, the bowed respectfully before their pastor. One of them said, "Before you shoot us, we wish to thank you heartily for what you have meant to us. You baptized us, you taught us the ways of eternal life, you gave us holy communion with the same hand in which you now hold the gun. "You also taught us that Christians are sometimes weak and commit terrible sins, but they can be forgiven again. When you regret what you are about to do to us, do not despair like Judas, but repent like Peter. God bless you, and remember that our last thought was not of indignation against your failure. Everyone passes through hours of darkness. "May God reward you for all the good you have done to us. We die with gratitude." They bowed again. The pastor's heart was hardened. He shot the girls. Afterwards he was shot by the Communists.