DiscussMormonism.com

KimberlyAnn wrote:

John Waite wrote:?

Your really strange. At least you have half of the harlot/prophetess thing down.

I admit to being strange. If you want to wrongly think me a harlot, then be my guest.

Your first few posts on this board seemed to come from a reasonably intelligent man. Follows an example:

John Waite wrote:I wasn't asked to reply, but I will. The following represents my opinion as to the meaning and proper interpretation of Isaiah 7:

I must respectfully disagree with the interpretatiaiteon that the prophecy had immediate fulfillment in the birth of Hezekiah. Ahaz responded to the request of Jehovah to seek a sign from the "Lord thy God" by first misinterpreting the request as a test, to which he expressed reluctance to "tempt" the Lord. This was a mistake on the part of Ahaz, for when God himself suggests that you ask for a sign, you'd better do so. Therefore Jehovah responded harshly to Ahaz (likening him to the entire house of Judah, and thereby condemning their faithlessness):

"Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?"

He then goes on and provides Ahaz with the sign of the birth of the Messiah, an ancient prophecy even then, dating to ante-diluvian times. Was the prophecy ever about an actual "virgin" conceiving? No. The conception of a human child can only occur in one way, although the sire in this instance imparted a very unique and superior collection of genetic material in comparison to any other child ever born on this planet before or since.

But why make reference to this prophecy in this context? Because the Assyrians were about to scatter Israel. There was no avoiding this calamity. The prediction of the Messiah, part of whose mission would be to eventually gather again scattered Israel, is given in relationship to the prophecy of the imminent scattering to occur. The intent is to emphasize that the only way Israel can hope for eventual fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant is to turn to the Messiah to come.

Furthermore, verses 17 - 20, although it can be argued that they were fulfilled with the ancient Assyrian conquest, will be fulfilled again in the last days. These verses are related to the same event foretold in Isaiah 10, whose ultimate fulfillment is yet to come. The "Assyrian" is Gog.

Now, your posts are increasingly puerile and sloppy. Stooping to posting embarrassingly uneducated nonsense is the price a cowardly sockpuppet must pay to conceal his identity, I suppose.

At any rate, you believe in God, so you must know that even though the rest of us may be unsure of your identity, He's not. If you think it's the Christian thing to do to go around calling women harlots, when you know not whereof you speak, then I feel sorry for you.

I've been reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Ethics this week. Dietrich was a Christian. You? I have my doubts.

KA

huckelberry wrote:Why did I post a comment about the Ananias affair? Probably a bit of morbid curiousity whether the inference that the local chuch tore them limb from limb was actually intended. I suppose different folks project different stuff but that is a pretty bizarre projection. don't ask me to prove it didn't happen. I am sure in your uiniverse it just must have.

Have you considered a theory that Ananias and Sapphira were Jesus actual parents? might be worth considering.

No I do not think God kills for petty reasons

John Waite wrote:I understand that posting thoughts on scripture in this forum is considered ‘uneducated nonsense’ and I admit I borrowed some of my thoughts above because they were written better than I could have done myself.But I never pretended to be the most educated person in the world and I might sometimes mis-spell words. Guess I lack some of the ‘book learnin’ some of you folks have. But I don’t care what you think about me or who you think I am or anything of the sort. I think your a phony too. I think your hiding something dark in your heart. I think most everyone here is sick and twisted. You all live to tear down something. What a pathetic existence that must be.

mentalgymnast wrote:

Shades:I'd love to play. Count me in:

MG: Can you name a particular person, by name, who lived in the early nineteenth century who would have been the "perfect" candidate for God/Christ to restore these lost truths/authority to?

Shades: Yes: Count Barnaba Niccolò Maria Luigi Chiaramonti.

MG: Please describe in detail why this individual would have been the better choice over the fourteen year old Joseph Smith. Overwhelming reasons. Such that there would be little room for doubt in your mind that this person was indeed called by God to be the "prophet of the restoration."

Shades: Certainly. This man, who during the Spring of 1820 was better known as Pope Pius VII, was the undisputed leader of the largest religious body on earth. As such, he had the ear of literally tens of millions of devout followers. Were he chosen to be the Lord's vessel to restore ancient Christianity, he already had more built-in credibility than any other single human being on the face of the globe. He was recognized as the pre-eminent "face" of Christianity by more people than any other person then living,* and thus the one person who, more than any other, had the right to alter Christian doctrine, practice, etc.

MG: Please don't answer my question with a question.

Shades: Your wish is my command.

*Even non-Christians recognized him over any other person as the "face" of Christianity.

Would there be little room for doubt in your mind that the pope was indeed called by God to be the "prophet of the restoration" without any more evidence than his word? It seems kind of unlikely that God would call the leader of a centuries old apostate Christianity to restore lost truths and authority in their fullness and purity. Wouldn't there also be some issues dealing with historical "skeletons in the closet" and such?

The Catholics have a few of those.

How many Catholics are going to willingly throw away their rosaries and give up their bi-yearly mass, for those that are happy with attending church only infrequently? How many are going to suddenly convert over to the word of wisdom? How many are going to willingly replace their rites of worship with attending the temple frequently? Etc., etc. I'm thinking that there would be a whole bunch of grass roots rebellion by the masses of the Catholic Church unless God himself appeared on the six o' clock news (unlikely, in my opinion) and confirmed most assuredly that the the apostate pope of an apostate church was now the chosen leader of the restored fullness of the the true and living church/gospel.

If the Catholics would have a rough time with it, think of how the rest of the world would respond.

To me it seems like God would want to start all over again...say with a young boy of around fourteen years of age.

You may want to consider coming up with someone else other than the pope. But that's just me.Thanks for playing!

Regards,
MG

Trevor wrote:That does it. I'm going back to church. ;-)

Yong Xi wrote:Joseph Smith is a perfect choice. God needed somebody with the following qualifications:


He had to live in upstate NY near Cumorah where the Golden Plates lay hidden deep in a mountainside

He had to have experience with peepstones so he would know how to operate the urim and thummim which he didn't use

He had to be willing to take on dozens of additional wives and keep it a secret

He had to be in Illinois when Michael Chandler brought his mummies to Chicago

He had to be in Missouri to discover the altar of Adam

He had to be uneducated, for had he been educated, he would not have participated

He and his father had to have the name of Joseph to fulfill prophecy in the Book of Mormon and JST Bible. That right there eliminates
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world's population unless God could accept Jose as an acceptable form of Joseph.



The way I see it, Joseph Smith was the only logical choice. MG is correct.

The pope vs. a fourteen year old farmboy. Which is more likely? Shades? Schmo, are you going to play?

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:Would there be little room for doubt in your mind that the pope was indeed called by God to be the "prophet of the restoration" without any more evidence than his word?

It seems kind of unlikely that God would call the leader of a centuries old apostate Christianity to restore lost truths and authority in their fullness and purity.

Wouldn't there also be some issues dealing with historical "skeletons in the closet" and such?

The Catholics have a few of those.

How many Catholics are going to willingly throw away their rosaries and give up their bi-yearly mass, for those that are happy with attending church only infrequently?

How many are going to suddenly convert over to the word of wisdom?

How many are going to willingly replace their rites of worship with attending the temple frequently? Etc., etc.

I'm thinking that there would be a whole bunch of grass roots rebellion by the masses of the Catholic Church unless God himself appeared on the six o' clock news (unlikely, in my opinion) and confirmed most assuredly that the the apostate pope of an apostate church was now the chosen leader of the restored fullness of the the true and living church/gospel.

If the Catholics would have a rough time with it, think of how the rest of the world would respond.

To me it seems like God would want to start all over again...say with a young boy of around fourteen years of age.

You may want to consider coming up with someone else other than the pope.

But that's just me.

Dr. Shades wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:Would there be little room for doubt in your mind that the pope was indeed called by God to be the "prophet of the restoration" without any more evidence than his word?

Not necessarily. But there would be far, far less doubt than if it had come from a fourteen year-old treasure scryer.