The Mark of the Beast Begins


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

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...

I agree.  I have always gone by a name that is different from my legal name.  One's preferred name does not necessarily or inherently convey gender, especially not in the same way that pronouns do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, person0 said:

I agree.  I have always gone by a name that is different from my legal name.  One's preferred name does not necessarily or inherently convey gender, especially not in the same way that pronouns do.

You mean, your legal name isn’t “person0”?

;)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 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.  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.

From at least the time I was 12 years old, literally from my childhood, I have wondered why so many used the growth of the Church as some sort of testimony of its truthfulness. As I've gotten older, I have decided that the simplest explanation is also the best: the Argumentum ad Populum. But the word of the Lord makes it clear that, until he comes and brings again Zion, his people will always form just a small minority of the earth's population. It's fun to watch the Church grow, but I have seen many online anti-LDS and those weak in the faith who have argued that the Church's diminishing growth is evidence of its lack of divine approval. If we're going to go by absolute numbers to determine what truth is, we should all be Roman Catholics*.

*(For whom I have gained a lot of respect over the years. If I were to leave the Restored Church of Christ but remain a nominal Christian, I would almost certainly become a Roman Catholic. For all the theological problems of their doctrines and practices, they produce some very decent people, and offer the only real alternative to continuity of Priesthood authority from the time of the Lord's mortal sojourn until now. I'm no Catholic basher.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I was reading a biography yesterday that reminded me that “Peggy” is a traditional nickname for “Margaret”, and I still have no idea how that one ever got started.

Or "Sally" from "Sarah".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I was reading a biography yesterday that reminded me that “Peggy” is a traditional nickname for “Margaret”, and I still have no idea how that one ever got started.

It has to do with the Irish (or the Scottish, if I'm remembering wrong).

The Irish had this tradition of

1. Shortening names.
2. Replacing a single letter just to make it different.
3. Make adjustments to make it sound cool
4. Add an "ee" sound at the end.

So, William --> Will --> Bill --> Billy

Likewise: Robert --> Rob  --> Bob --> Bobby

For Margaret, they figured a longer name deserves double duty

Margaret --> Mag --> Meg --> Peg --> Peggy.

Sarah --> Sar -->  Sal --> Sally

Remember the Irish think that "Siobhan" is supposed to be pronounced "Shuh-VAHN".

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 2:29 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

This is not the mark as the Mark is a symbolic thing and not literal. 

I think the mark will be literal-though I’m sympathetic to those who think it’s symbolic.

My issue is that this is the same as the boy who cried wolf. Christians (and I’m one of them) have said that many, many things are “the mark of the beast” so I take their thoughts on this with a massive grain of salt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

My issue is that this is the same as the boy who cried wolf. Christians (and I’m one of them) have said that many, many things are “the mark of the beast” so I take their thoughts on this with a massive grain of salt. 

I think it's less about definitively claiming to know something in one's own thinking that can't be known until it's known (which some are prone to do, for sure) as it is about being wary. Seeing the dangers, etc. The prophecies are there for a reason, and I think we should be wary of them.

The whole ESG rating thing, for example, seems like a good potential candidate.

That being said...in the case of the Mark of the Beast since it's bound to happen no matter how wary we are of it or not...who knows if being wary of it even does any good, right?

The Book of Mormon explicitly tells us to watch out for Secret Combinations though. And they're bound to happen anyway. And if we are watching out for them...what, exactly, are supposed to do about them anyhow? So I can't say I understand it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

in the case of the Mark of the Beast since it's bound to happen no matter how wary we are of it or not

Oh, agree fully. Like you (I assume, correct me if I’m wrong) I think it’ll happen as well. There will be a time when Christians without the mark have to go underground and will be persecuted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That being said...in the case of the Mark of the Beast since it's bound to happen no matter how wary we are of it or not...who knows if being wary of it even does any good, right?

Excellent question.  I have "an" answer.  But you'll have to judge for yourself if it is correct. 

The reason we're given this message is to warn us to stay away from the Mark(s).  If we are wary of it early on, the less likely we will be gradually led to a state where we may not awaken to our awful state. (Think about the parable of the wheels near the edge of the cliff).  Just stay away from it.  Even if you're wrong and there was nothing to worry about, we don't need to get close to it.

The language of Revelation 13, 14, & 16 all denote that the Mark is something we have to feel religious zeal for.  They've bought into it hook, line, and sinker.  (note that the use of the word 'bought into' in present context is intended to have a double meaning).

Any time Satan has tried to use force to get people to turn away from God, it has backfired in the long term.  No, he has to gradually string folks along.  He has to use persuasion, carefully using our own weaknesses against us.  His more common tactic is:

Quote

Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

 -- 2 Ne 28

We have to be led to believe that there's nothing wrong with "a little" sin.  In fact, it's not really a sin at all if you think about it.  We should all be doing that.  Actually, we should be shaming and cancelling anyone who says it is actually wrong.  As we get further along the primrose path we may even awake to our awful state.  But by then, it may be too late.  It's the proverbial camel's nose in the tent.  Then we eventually find ourselves following after Baal and Ashtaroth. 

Slippery slope?  Yes.  Definitely.  A fallacy?  It's only a fallacy if it doesn't actually happen or if it is highly unlikely to happen.  Scriptures are replete with examples of this happening.  Just look at our study of the Old testament thus far this year.  Samuel's Ebenezer is a symbol of how we are indeed "prone to wander... prone to leave the God we love" and the tender mercies of the Lord when he grants us the gift of repentance so that we may seal our hearts to His courts above.

**************************************

Notice I said "Marks" (plural).  I don't think "all" of the previous so called Marks have been false alarms.  I think some were pretty far fetched.  But others were, as you put it, "pretty good candidates".   And I don't think they were "false".

1) I don't think Satan messes around with just one effort.  He's been trying to tear down the Kingdom of God and the Plan of Salvation ever since Adam and Eve.  He will continue trying.  And any such Mark may take many forms (so long as it has the characteristics).  And every failure captures just a few, and continues to make a dent in a righteous culture, until the culture has entirely turned away.

2) Mike Pence followed the Billy Graham model to never be alone with a female who was not a close relative.  He always asked his wife or daughter to be with him if he ever had to have such a meeting.  Does that mean EVERY female is a seductress or a "frequent flyer"?  No.  But there is that potential.  And the one time you relax and are caught unaware is the moment the Devil has you.  So, it becomes a good policy to always beware.  It is this wariness that the revelation is meant to promote.  It doesn't do anything to prevent the Marks from taking in some of the children of God.  But it will more likely save those who are aware.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Oh, agree fully. Like you (I assume, correct me if I’m wrong) I think it’ll happen as well. There will be a time when Christians without the mark have to go underground and will be persecuted. 

That time is already here, imo. Though it will get much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2022 at 10:41 PM, Carborendum said:

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).

A few years ago on this forum, I can’t remember exactly when, and I haven’t been able to find it, I posted a question that went something along the lines of whether a person who was paralysed and had to spend their whole life living in a iron lung had just as much an opportunity to prepare for salvation as any person who was not paralysed and not in an iron lung. I think the general consensus in response to that question was yes. If it is the case that one’s ability to strive for salvation is completely independent of the amount of personal freedom one has, then I’m not going to be too concerned about the loss of few or many liberties here or there. The loss of such liberties might make the pursuit of salvation more difficult, but they won’t prevent it. The primary purpose is still achievable regardless of what obstacles may be placed in the way and that's what matters most. I don't think this is an unreasonably optimistic view to take and I continue to have faith in Joseph Smith's teaching that no unhallowed hand can stop the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

A few years ago on this forum, I can’t remember exactly when, and I haven’t been able to find it, I posted a question that went something along the lines of whether a person who was paralysed and had to spend their whole life living in a iron lung had just as much an opportunity to prepare for salvation as any person who was not paralysed and not in an iron lung. I think the general consensus in response to that question was yes. If it is the case that one’s ability to strive for salvation is completely independent of the amount of personal freedom one has, then I’m not going to be too concerned about the loss of few or many liberties here or there. The loss of such liberties might make the pursuit of salvation more difficult, but they won’t prevent it. The primary purpose is still achievable regardless of what obstacles may be placed in the way and that's what matters most. I don't think this is an unreasonably optimistic view to take and I continue to have faith in Joseph Smith's teaching that no unhallowed hand can stop the work.

I'm not familiar with the thread you mentioned.  Thus I don't know all the subtleties of the discussion.  So, I have a different take: While "The Work" will move forward, some individuals may be left behind.  

It is a difficult question to consider whether our conditions may dictate our salvation.  On the one hand, if our circumstances will affect our decisions, then it almost takes out the issue of free agency.  On the other hand, we're told that we "won't be tried above that which we are able to bear."  I'm not really sure if that's an official teaching of the Church.  I'd like to see where that started.  Or it could be true on a certain level once we include the equalizing judgment of God.

Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?  Because the children would be raised in such an environment that they would not have a chance to be raised up to the Lord.  The odds were stacked too much against them.

The powers of the devil are not miraculous as are the powers of the Lord.  But they certainly are sneaky.  His power is about convincing people that sin is righteousness.  And unsuspecting people will be very tempted to give up their values for keeping food on their children's plates.  Only by being aware can we have additional resistance to such temptations.  Hopefully, it will be enough.

But if we go about without a care in the world, then we will much more easily fall prey to the powers of the devil.

What do you think the armor of God is?  While most of the armor is passive, there are two things that are active:  Faith & the Holy Ghost.  These require that we are aware of the activities of the enemy.  We can't go around relying on armor alone.  The shield and the sword are still very important in winning the war.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 6:15 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I was reading a biography yesterday that reminded me that “Peggy” is a traditional nickname for “Margaret”, and I still have no idea how that one ever got started.

Nicknames are amazing. My youngest's proper name is actually considered a very roundabout nickname of Margaret (jumping it through several countries' version of the name). I was even asked once if her name was her nickname and her real name was Margaret. Nope, we just happened to be a name that was in years past used as a nickname of Margaret despite sounding nothing like it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The powers of the devil are not miraculous as are the powers of the Lord.  But they certainly are sneaky.  His power is about convincing people that sin is righteousness.  And unsuspecting people will be very tempted to give up their values for keeping food on their children's plates.  Only by being aware can we have additional resistance to such temptations.  Hopefully, it will be enough.

But if we go about without a care in the world, then we will much more easily fall prey to the powers of the devil.

I believe it was @Vort and some others I was conversing with a few weeks ago on the matter of homeschooling. I swear, I'll bring it 'round to the point here. 

I'm a teacher by trade, and a public charter one at that. And I'll be real with you: I believe, or did believe, in public schools. I want a righteous community to be able to educate their children as a righteous community. I want a place for those unable to afford (in money and/or time) private school or homeschool to be able to learn. I love the romance of my children walking to school with the neighborhood children horde and learning from their lovely teachers (seriously, I love the teachers at my our local school). But we've seriously been thinking homeschool.

But even in this haven of homeschooling I am seeing creeping issues of where evil is declared good. I have a neighbor who is a temple-attending member of the church who homeschools her children who is a complete psycho who is spreading evil and falsehoods (it's gotten so much worse). I have families attending my virtual school who say horrifying things in the name of the church. And sometimes, I have to wonder if they're actually right and I'm wrong. 

Am I the one warped by the ways of the world? Does Satan warp the words of the gospel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I have families attending my virtual school who say horrifying things in the name of the church. And sometimes, I have to wonder if they're actually right and I'm wrong. 

What are they saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LDSGator said:

We agree on that 100%. These times are a walk in the park compared to what will come. 

I don’t remember you being this much of a pessimist, Gator. Have I misread all along, or did something recently change your mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What are they saying?

One became very upset in our virtual room when there were kids of different races and later told me the a church leader once talked about keeping to your own kind and how it was like avoiding the Gentiles. One was upset over kids who couldn't sit still on camera (I tend to turn off their cameras after so long if they can't get it together, but Mom said it the kid was a bad example and influence and this is what she wanted to avoid). Another was uncomfortable with all "city kids" as corrupt influences. Multiple admitted they were hoping virtual school would keep them immune from child abuse charges. All of these claimed church teachings somewhere along the line.

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