The Mark of the Beast Begins


Recommended Posts

It begins...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/halifax-bank-gender-pronoun-badges-staff-accounts-b2112643.html

It is insidious that banks are now so powerful that they can scoff at customers and dare them to close their accounts if they disagree with their "values".  No, "sorry to see you go."   Just "go ahead and see if we care."  This is just be beginning.  It may take a couple decades to get to the level that Revelation tells us about.  But it is beginning now.

This starts with one bank outside of the US.  But it will flow to other banks.  And if the central banks get on board, we will not have an alternative.  We will not be able to choose another bank. 

So, what?  Why care about what they put on their name tags?  As I said, it is just the beginning.  This will grow to become a draconian measure in some way.  I don't know yet how.  But it will turn into some level of forced acceptance of the perversion of man and woman.

Simply by storing our money in a woke bank, we are funding the efforts of the adversary.  How careful we must be to understand the extent of serving two masters.  Can we cleave to the Lord while still caring about our money and financial well being?  For now, we have a choice to both care for the earthly well-being of our families and serving the Lord.  At some point, we will not be able to so choose.

Does anyone see the purpose of the $100B now?  I hope it will grow to $1Trillion+ by the time this gets that bad.  No one else will have the financial resources, the connections, the following, and the trust of the people as the Church does (and hopefully will continue to in the future).

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, last year, I noticed a couple co-workers started adding their pronouns to their email sigs.  I decided to go full-out radical activist Christian love, found my work's "diversity allies" employee resource group, and joined it.  Basically took my white-Christian-conservative-cisgendered-heterosexually-and-monogamously-married-homeschooling-parent self, and did a cannonball into the deep end of the woke pool, yelling "Here I am, who wants to cancel me?"   My only tactic was to radiate the 2nd great commandment as well as I could.  They were actually glad to have me - they were genuinely befuddled about why there were so many people on the right upset about so many things. 

That was last August.  I'm still alive, undoctrinated, largely unchanged.  I've learned their language, and they've learned some of mine.   I've survived sticking up for the rule of law and the Rittenhouse verdict.  I've survived criticizing some parts of Kendi's "How to be an Antiracist" book, including it's founding principle.  I've heard "I wish my mormon in-laws were as rational as [NT], we might actually be able to have a discussion that didn't turn into an argument."  I've found some genuine friends  - which surprises me as much as it surprises them. 

Anyway, I think I understand the intent behind all the pronoun stuff.  The thing to keep in mind, is the woke crowd will move heaven and earth just for an opportunity to make a transgender person feel welcome. Whether they know any or not.  Whether they could actually recognize one or not.  Whether the trans person wants to feel welcome, or would prefer to be left alone.  So they stick their pronouns on things, and do their best to urge/press for/force cultural change to normalize it for everyone.  Because they don't want trans folks to feel picked-on, or discriminated-against, or sad, or suicidal.  *shrug*  Well, neither do I.  2nd great commandment and all that.  I don't think pronouns are gonna do much, but hey, they're doing them, and I'm doing me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a history of head trauma, and as part of it I have trouble remembering names. I've had to do a lot of apologizing to people because of it.

Pronouns on top of names? Not happening unless I start keeping flash cards or note books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m really not a fan ideas that put of the “mark of the beast” being a literal thing or being sensational.  Rather, the marks that matter (good and bad) are on our hearts. 
 

“Woke” stuff can be silly, harmful, and a small part of it is actually good. As to the specific examples of posting pronouns (name tags, emails, etc)…. It’s kind of a “whatever, you do you” in my mind.  I’m more concerned about underlying trends (like negating the idea foundational  of gender).  Name tags are just a symptom of a sick world.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time will tell if *this* becomes the Thing of Things that John foresaw.

In the meantime:  I hereby announce that my new pronouns are The Saint/The Saint/The Saint’s.  And please note that the proper capitalization is very important.  The individual reader can determine for themselves whether I’m just requesting ordinary kindness, demanding outright validation of my subjective self-image, or indulging in some kind of flex/power play.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

... I don't think pronouns are gonna do much, but hey, they're doing them, and I'm doing me.

I'll address your "confused" reaction.

I agree that pronouns aren't going to have a damning effect upon us. I did NOT say that pronoun usage is the mark of the beast.  Never said a word about pronouns in the OP.

Think about what I actually did warn against.  But I understand if most will not perceive my message.

I finally get it.  I'm almost amused by this realization.  But it's so obvious why my actual words are not understood.  And the focus is being drawn to something I did not point to.

BTW, my pronoun is "Emperor of the Known Universe" , but you can call me Usul.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Does anyone see the purpose of the $100B now?  I hope it will grow to $1Trillion+ by the time this gets that bad.  No one else will have the financial resources, the connections, the following, and the trust of the people as the Church does (and hopefully will continue to in the future).

This will be one of the reasons why the Church will grow. In an unstable world with consistently shifting Telestial values, it will be one place where the core values will remain constant and will not change. Yes, I'm hoping to see that grow also.

And that is one of my concerns and has been for a while now. What you describe in my mind is part of the great and abominable church and the whore of all the earth. The idea you are presenting with banks is no different than Facebook, what was once Twitter, and Google (YouTube). It covers the same type of moral relativism.

If you can't bank there how do you then create a business? The adversary works in small and simple ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I agree that pronouns aren't going to have a damning effect upon us.

Do you strive to be honest in all that you do? (Not aimed at you directly)

When one knowingly and intentionally says something that is untrue, at a minimum, they are being dishonest. Therefore, at the very least, knowingly using pronouns that identify someone as something they are not, is dishonest.  It does not matter one iota if the purpose appears to be noble. Justifying using false pronouns prepares the way to further justify dishonesty, deception, and sin.  This is another avenue of attack Satan is using in his quest to gradually bring down society.

Sadly, it will very likely have a damning effect on many, because of where it may ultimately lead them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

This will be one of the reasons why the Church will grow. In an unstable world with consistently shifting Telestial values, it will be one place where the core values will remain constant and will not change. Yes, I'm hoping to see that grow also.

Thank you. 

This may surprise some, but I believe that many will be surprised at just what our "core values" consist of.  There has already been what conservatives would call "significant accommodations" for trans people (e.g. the Handbook says that we can address people by their pronouns).  Is this "giving in" or "compromising values?"  Or is it that pronouns really aren't that important?

So, as we try to follow the prophet, we need to remember that some things we thought were important... really aren't.

That was why my OP was not about pronouns at all.

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

And that is one of my concerns and has been for a while now. What you describe in my mind is part of the great and abominable church and the whore of all the earth. The idea you are presenting with banks is no different than Facebook, what was once Twitter, and Google (YouTube). It covers the same type of moral relativism.

If you can't bank there how do you then create a business? The adversary works in small and simple ways.

Exactly.  You get it.  Thank you. 

My OP was not about pronouns.  That happened to be the triggering mechanism. But it could just as easily been anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

It covers the same type of moral relativism.

This. Right and wrong / truth and error exist in this world. The adversary would have people believe that right and wrong are actually "right" and "wrong" - subjective constructs that can vary from person to person based on what they feel, or what their current agenda may be. Eventually, the lines will be so blurred he will get the definitions of the two to take a complete 180. Unfortunately, this has in fact already taken place for much of our country, and the church will be one of the last places that truth will still be taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

My OP was not about pronouns.  That happened to be the triggering mechanism. But it could just as easily been anything else.

In addition to banking, I think about education and careers/employment. For example, many in the church are happy about BYU joining the BIG12 conference. This affiliation (nor any) will not last long. The school will soon be ostracized from the world of academics because it will not heartily embrace the ever "progressive" agenda of the devil. The day will soon come when many schools and professional organizations will choose to not recognize degrees from BYU. Zion will truly be in the midst of Babylon, and the saints will need to truly learn how to rely on their God rather than the arm of the flesh.

I also wonder if the church is churning out so many temples lately because in the near future, many large construction companies will refuse to work with them. All forms of business will be affected by the mark and allegiance to wickedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Anddenex said:

This will be one of the reasons why the Church will grow. In an unstable world with consistently shifting Telestial values, it will be one place where the core values will remain constant and will not change. Yes, I'm hoping to see that grow also.

And that is one of my concerns and has been for a while now. What you describe in my mind is part of the great and abominable church and the whore of all the earth. The idea you are presenting with banks is no different than Facebook, what was once Twitter, and Google (YouTube). It covers the same type of moral relativism.

If you can't bank there how do you then create a business? The adversary works in small and simple ways.

I mostly agree—I fully support the church’s efforts to become materially independent (though it’s worth noting that the more we possess, the more can be taken away—whether trust funds, investment properties, or meetinghouses/temples; and we should probably keep ourselves in a spiritual state where we wouldn’t be terribly despondent to see this actually happen).

I will note, though, that I am no longer confident that the Church will see much more growth in terms of absolute numbers of active members.  We never really had a prophetic guarantee of just how much it would happen, and the social costs of affiliating with us are increasing too much.

Moreover we should note that our stability, prosperity, and apparent influence attracts a number of hangers-on who are less interested in fulfilling the Church’s mission than in appropriating its resources to suit their own agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I mostly agree—I fully support the church’s efforts to become materially independent (though it’s worth noting that the more we possess, the more can be taken away—whether trust funds, investment properties, or meetinghouses/temples; and we should probably keep ourselves in a spiritual state where we wouldn’t be terribly despondent to see this actually happen).

I agree. We shouldn't develop "illusions" of what we think the outcome may or may not look like. We already know the Great and Abominable Church will fight against Zion, even through legal suits, or what would look like a "legal" suit. Let's be frank, I think we already have people trying to sue the Church for tithing they paid who are no longer members? No matter how ridiculous that sounds, it doesn't change what the natural man is capable of.

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I will note, though, that I am no longer confident that the Church will see much more growth in terms of absolute numbers of active members.  We never really had a prophetic guarantee of just how much it would happen, and the social costs of affiliating with us are increasing too much.

I agree percentage wise. The percentage of active members I think will remain constant sadly. I am more inclined to believe though the growth will more come outside of the US rather than within. We are already entering into a realm where calling repentance to known sin is bigotry -- for example.

I'm also looking to prophecies before Christ comes about the nature of Zion. It will be enough people to thwart an army, but does that mean it's a lot of people or simply the faith of Elisha (they really should have had really different names -- always have to look them up :D ) who could call on the angels, or Moses who could command elements. Much like the prophets in Jerusalem.

33 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Moreover we should note that our stability, prosperity, and apparent influence attracts a number of hangers-on who are less interested in fulfilling the Church’s mission than in appropriating its resources to suit their own agendas.

This is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

(e.g. the Handbook says that we can address people by their pronouns). 

The handbook does not say that.  I believe you are thinking of Section 38.6.23 paragraph 9.  It explicitly states that the preferred name may be used, the permissible usage of preferred pronouns is omitted.  The handbook acknowledges that a member may request both pronoun and name usage, but only grants permission to use the name.

If there is some other passage to which you are referring, please share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, person0 said:

The handbook does not say that.  I believe you are thinking of Section 38.6.23 paragraph 9.  It explicitly states that the preferred name may be used, the permissible usage of preferred pronouns is omitted.  The handbook acknowledges that a member may request both pronoun and name usage, but only grants permission to use the name.

If there is some other passage to which you are referring, please share.

It should also be noted that a changed name/pronoun constitutes a “social transition” (unnumbered paragraph 5), which leads to membership restrictions including loss of temple recommend and priesthood privileges (unnumbered paragraph 6).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, person0 said:

The handbook does not say that.  I believe you are thinking of Section 38.6.23 paragraph 9.  It explicitly states that the preferred name may be used, the permissible usage of preferred pronouns is omitted.  The handbook acknowledges that a member may request both pronoun and name usage, but only grants permission to use the name.

You're right.  That was a nuance I missed.  Interesting how it is worded, though.  It leads one to believe it.  But it doesn't actually say it.

Very interesting.

For the record, I've never really had a problem with name changes.  They really are a social construct.  I've heard so many names which are masculine in one language/culture, but are feminine in another, and vice versa.

But the pronoun thing... Yes...

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

...though it’s worth noting that the more we possess, the more can be taken away

Good point.

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

... we should probably keep ourselves in a spiritual state where we wouldn’t be terribly despondent to see this actually happen

Always.

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I will note, though, that I am no longer confident that the Church will see much more growth in terms of absolute numbers of active members.  

I believe I've "heard of" prophecies to to contrary. (i.e. I've heard that the Church will stop growing at some point).

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We never really had a prophetic guarantee of just how much it would happen, and the social costs of affiliating with us are increasing too much.

It may seem that way.  But it may be a case of Elisha's army.  At least, we can hope so.

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Moreover we should note that our stability, prosperity, and apparent influence attracts a number of hangers-on who are less interested in fulfilling the Church’s mission than in appropriating its resources to suit their own agendas.

On this one, I KNOW I've read prophecies that this will happen.  Non-members who openly want nothing to do with our faith will want the security that the Church can provide.  And we will welcome them under our protection (separate and equal as far as political/social power).

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share