The "harlot" Rides On Top Of The "beast"

[elinz]

The Revelation story is a "pattern".

The first "Empire" was Babylon.

It had a strong military and economy. ("The Beast")

And it developed a liberal society ("The Harlot")

The second "Empire" was Rome.

It had a strong military and economy. ("The Beast")

And it developed a liberal society ("The Harlot")

The third "Empire" is America.

It had a strong military and economy. ("The Beast")

And it developed a liberal society ("The Harlot")

"The Harlot" cannot exist without "The Beast".

(liberal society requires a level of success first)

Does anyone NOT see this pattern? B)

[Guest curvette]

All I see is that women rule the world.

[elinz]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 18 2004, 08:45 PM

All I see is that women rule the world.

You got it!

That is one of the "signs of the times".

What's funny is that the liberals actually imagine

that what they are doing is NEW!

We are on at least the third pass at this.

If you count some of the smaller cycles you

could say there were more.

It's like the Stock Market, no one can believe

it's going to crash when it's at the top.

In fact, the best times in the market are when

it "climbs a wall of worry". (but even that usually

signals a top)

[Snow]

elinz,

Day by day

These things I pray;

1. That you stop formatting your posts to look like poems.

2. You consider a paragraph of more than two sentences.

3. That I will have the strength of 10 men.

[elinz]

It's easier to read this way.

[Snow]

For who? The writer or the reader?

This reader says it makes your post look like something not worth reading, cut and paste from so website with goofy formatting. It doesn't make you look like you have a cohesive thought tying the whole post together. The narrative value, if any (don't know if there is one cause I mostly skip your posts) is lost.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Snow@Feb 18 2004, 09:14 PM

For who? The writer or the reader?

This reader says it makes your post look like something not worth reading, cut and paste from so website with goofy formatting. It doesn't make you look like you have a cohesive thought tying the whole post together. The narrative value, if any (don't know if there is one cause I mostly skip your posts) is lost.

I disagree. It is refreshingly easy to get the point and make replies less than a book long.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 19 2004, 12:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 19 2004, 12:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Feb 18 2004, 09:14 PM

For who? The writer or the reader?

This reader says it makes your post look like something not worth reading, cut and paste from so website with goofy formatting. It doesn't make you look like you have a cohesive thought tying the whole post together. The narrative value, if any (don't know if there is one cause I mostly skip your posts) is lost.

I disagree. It is refreshingly easy to get the point and make replies less than a book long.

I agree also. (with Peace, that is)

[elinz]

Just like the bible itself, some like tight parables and

others like a narrative. To each his own... :)

[elinz]

All we all clear on "The Harlot" riding on top of "The Beast"? B)

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 18 2004, 07:44 PM

The Revelation story is a "pattern".

The first "Empire" was Babylon.

It had a strong military and economy. ("The Beast")

And it developed a liberal society ("The Harlot")

The second "Empire" was Rome.

It had a strong military and economy. ("The Beast")

And it developed a liberal society ("The Harlot")

The third "Empire" is America.

It had a strong military and economy. ("The Beast")

And it developed a liberal society ("The Harlot")

"The Harlot" cannot exist without "The Beast".

(liberal society requires a level of success first)

Does anyone NOT see this pattern?  B)

So the military is a bad thing...and this is why that the abomination of desolation is when Israel is arayed for battle?

So the abaomination of desolation isn't war itself, but the harlotry/wickedness of society...cool.

[elinz]

So you see it?

It's complex though, the Beast comes into existence first as

a result of good fortune. (WWII for the US) Then the good

fortune creates the sense of entitlement. This arrogance

grows and creates the Harlot attitude.

Have you seen this website?

http://www.whyprophets.com/index.htm

And specifically:

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/beast2.htm

It's a great LDS website!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 19 2004, 10:43 AM

Have you seen this website?

http://www.whyprophets.com/index.htm

And specifically:

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/beast2.htm

It's a great LDS website!

Hahahahahahahaha! You have a thing or two to learn about the creator of that site. Maybe you should email Chris and have a conversation with him and what he really thinks!

[elinz]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 19 2004, 11:46 AM

Hahahahahahahaha!  You have a thing or two to learn about the creator of that site.  Maybe you should email Chris and have a conversation with him and what he really thinks!

Really?

That would be interesting. I like his style, it's very flowing

and flexible and definitely not literal. If anything I would

be afraid that he was being more independent minded than

the mainstream church.

Are you suggesting he's even MORE independent minded

than I already sense, or the other way around?

He seems to think for himself.

More thinking is BETTER in my mind. Does he have any

outside websites that show his own private projects? B)

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 19 2004, 10:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 19 2004, 10:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--elinz@Feb 19 2004, 10:43 AM

Have you seen this website?

http://www.whyprophets.com/index.htm

And specifically:

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/beast2.htm

It's a great LDS website! 

Hahahahahahahaha! You have a thing or two to learn about the creator of that site. Maybe you should email Chris and have a conversation with him and what he really thinks!

He did what a lot of people do...they get to analytical and not equally spiritual. He admits he never had a testimony in the first place...he did all this research to try and convince himself through the proof factor...

He is the absolute perfect example why 'proof' doesn't make the saint...it is a spiritual journey that MUST be done through spiritual means....

But all of his work is valid...

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by elinz+Feb 19 2004, 10:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (elinz @ Feb 19 2004, 10:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Feb 19 2004, 11:46 AM

Hahahahahahahaha!  You have a thing or two to learn about the creator of that site.  Maybe you should email Chris and have a conversation with him and what he really thinks!

Really?

That would be interesting. I like his style, it's very flowing

and flexible and definitely not literal. If anything I would

be afraid that he was being more independent minded than

the mainstream church.

Are you suggesting he's even MORE independent minded

than I already sense, or the other way around?

He seems to think for himself.

More thinking is BETTER in my mind. Does he have any

outside websites that show his own private projects? B)

He is only doing apostate topics...now. He totally lost it when he and his kids were being abused in his branche in England. He is originally from Scotland..or visavversa...can't remember for sure.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 19 2004, 10:57 AM

Are you suggesting he's even MORE independent minded

than I already sense, or the other way around?

He seems to think for himself.

More thinking is BETTER in my mind. Does he have any

outside websites that show his own private projects? B)

Send him an email. I'm not going to speak for him.

[Guest curvette]

Better yet, visit his newer website:

http://home.comcast.net/~zarahemla/ctr/index.htm

[elinz]

Maybe I'm just showing my spiritual immaturity.

95% of my life has been secular, so there may be

many things that I might yet learn as well as things

that I will never learn.

Intellectually the website matches my instincts of

what's going on. If my intuition does not agree with

anything I won't "jump" into blind faith. So as of

yet I don't get a "literal" affirmation of either the

BoM or the Bible. They have "truth", but it seems

to be "high level" truth and not narrative "literal"

truth.

Jesus seems to say that if you connect with the

spirit you become connected to everything. So

in a sense we all can connect. It's personal and

intuitive to be connected. The intellect is the way

that we "literalize" our experiences. It seems

odd to me to obsess about the intellect because

that's never the spirit.

So why bother with such an effort to try to make

the BoM and Bible literally true?

It seems more about "brand loyalty" than anything

else. B)

But what about the "no official creed" rule?

[Guest Starsky]

What do you mean by no official creed rule?

[elinz]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 19 2004, 12:15 PM

Better yet, visit his newer website:

http://home.comcast.net/~zarahemla/ctr/index.htm

That's a real eye opener!

I read through many of the issues he has with the church.

He's part Cherokee and his wife is Samoan, that in itself

would put some fear in him given the churches history.

Plus he finds the idea of male dominance a problem. Much

of his thinking seems to be a reaction to his wifes experiences

and input.

From my perspective I see how far the secular world has

pushed women out of the motherly role. I think that it is

a mistake for us to be doing this. It smacks of ancient

rome.

He's also a fourth generation Mormon. That's an awful

long time to be in the church. I'm a third generation

Californian and sometimes it's nice just to break free of

your old identity.

If he had the "real life" experiences that I have had in

places like San Francicso he would likely see the world

differently.

I feel sorry for the guy. He seems kind of lost now...

[elinz]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 19 2004, 12:36 PM

What do you mean by no official creed rule?

We all build our own testimony, so no one set of

doctrines must be shared by all. That is the rule

is it not?

Some doctrines are simply left as "surplus" and

ignored by most.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I'm going to take a shot at Elinz's original premise -- that the "harlot" of a liberal society can only come into being after the establishment of the "beast" of a powerful society.

Liberal societies don't need great empires to ride on. Plenty of subsistence societies with virtually no power at all are very liberal. Hawaii, pre-European-contact, was completely libertine, with sexual license virtually absolute. So was the rest of Polynesia.

True, Hawaii had a very strict "kapu" system (women got strangled if they ate bananas, because they, being such obvious phallic symbols, were reserved for men; a commoner would be killed if he stepped on the king's shadow.) But the United States, which you characterize as a liberal society, also has some very strict rules in certain areas, as Martha Stewart is finding out. I understand you to be characterizing a "liberal society" as one with loose personal morality, which primitive societies may be as well as powerful empires.

Let's look at this idea from the other direction. In your list of empires, you neglected the British one. The British empire, at its height, controlled a greater portion of the earth's surface than any other empire in history. During the Victorian age, its economic dominance was unchallenged. Yet the Victorians are known -- almost caricatured -- for their strict morality. How does this square with your "beast creates harlot" model?

Another thought, from another post:

From my perspective I see how far the secular world has

pushed women out of the motherly role. I think that it is

a mistake for us to be doing this. It smacks of ancient

rome.

I always understood that Rome was a very patriarchal society, with strictly-defined roles for women based on the idea that they were to be virtuous mothers.

Yet another thought:

We all build our own testimony, so no one set of

doctrines must be shared by all. That is the rule

is it not?

Some doctrines are simply left as "surplus" and

ignored by most.

I agree, to a point, although the Church's leadership might not. I do think they'd insist that some doctrines must indeed be shared by all who call themselves Mormons. In fact, I think their list of essential doctrines is rather longer than mine.

[elinz]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 19 2004, 01:32 PM

Liberal societies don't need great empires to ride on.  Plenty of subsistence societies with virtually no power at all are very liberal.  Hawaii, pre-European-contact, was completely libertine, with sexual license virtually absolute.  So was the rest of Polynesia.

The British empire, at its height, controlled a greater portion of the earth's surface than any other empire in history. 

I always understood that Rome was a very patriarchal society, with strictly-defined roles for women based on the idea that they were to be virtuous mothers. 

The Harlot implies a moral system that becomes obsesses

with material culture and usually money. I'm not sure if

that really qualifies on an island. Their sexual mores might

have been less strict, but on an island that might make

sense. Did people on the island put material possessions

above all other things? Don't think so. Did they prostitute

themselves to make money? No, it was more "free love".

Is a "perfect storm" just a storm... well, yes and no.

As for England, they were just starting to get really into

humanism before WWII hit. The empire lost just about

everything, so the "Beast" got killed before the "Harlot"

got much of a ride.

With Rome the early years were very conservative, but

by the time of Nero and Caligula the culture had gone

"San Francisco".

There was a great british tv series long ago called "I, Claudius"

about the Roman Rule from Augustus through Nero. They

decry the end of the conservatives then too. Within one

generation the society had produced Nero. Something we

too can relate too...

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 19 2004, 12:12 PM

I read through many of the issues he has with the church.

He's part Cherokee and his wife is Samoan, that in itself

would put some fear in him given the churches history.

Plus he finds the idea of male dominance a problem. Much

of his thinking seems to be a reaction to his wifes experiences

and input.

From my perspective I see how far the secular world has

pushed women out of the motherly role. I think that it is

a mistake for us to be doing this. It smacks of ancient

rome.

I'm not sure what his ethnic background has to do with anything. Chris is Scottish. Are you sure about the Cherokee Indian/ Samoan thing? I must have missed that. I also don't understand your comments about Roman women. They could own property, but were never equal to Roman men. Do you have a problem with societies who give their women rights equal to mens?