• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

826 Excellent

About RevTestament

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,294 profile views
  1. In fact I believe the Savior is telling us that here: John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. This normally gets interpreted as referring to the "I am" in Exodus. But that was not before Abraham. However, El Shaddai appeared to Abram(before Abraham) and told him "I am El Shaddai; therefore walk before me and be thou perfect." Gen 17:1 In Hebrew shad means breast. Since the time of the Septuagint El Shaddai has been interpreted as the Almighty God, but there is essentially no linguistic support for this translation. Further, Jesus said no man had seen the Father. I interpret El Shaddai as the Power who weans from the breast. i believe it is Christ rather than the Father speaking here. Further there is textual support for this. Genesis 49:25 25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the aAlmighty /El Shaddai, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the bwomb: It makes sense in the NT that Yeshua is the Power/El who weans us from the breast so that we can return to the Father. This is a theme in Hebrews 5. So the scriptures are replete with the idea. The rib taken from Adam is used to form Eve/the Church or the mother of all. As Yeshua is the founder of the Church, which nurtures us in the gospel, and gives to each according to their capacity - again a motherly role. I think others have made appropriate comments about the story, but I just wanted to show that a main point of the story is definitely to show the honor of the motherly role being like Christ. My wife is one that could be used because she is like Christ, and always strives to be perfect. In fact I feel I am the one who sometimes pulls her back to say someone else needs to do this. Hopefully, the point of this article is not that husbands should take advantage of their wives, but even when they are dufuses(if it is read that way instead of a complement), wives can know that in their service to their children, they are being like Christ. The value of the story is that it makes that connection, which scripture uses with regards to Christ.
  2. I assume you are speaking in generalities and not absolutes? I've read about women in modern, western culture, which seem to prefer polygamy. They like having a friend around who they can share child rearing responsibilities with. If one gets sick, there is someone else to help. Many expenses can also be shared - helping family resources to go further. But if one sees another wife/ves as a competitor, I could see how family relationships could be strained through jealousy, etc. There are certainly examples of that in the Bible even in simple, nomadic culture where there may be few resources.
  3. He is def a romantic isn't he? Made me chuckle... He may know this, but I disagree with him somewhat. I don't believe language is useless to communicate spiritual matters. With the right context, it does communicate. He is right that words can be interpreted many different ways, so man often gets the wrong idea, but part of me tells me God wants it this way. He calls on those who understand it in the best spiritual context to be His leaders/teachers. The Lord tells us He speaks and then hides up things. So in a sense He wants the truest interpretation to be hid sometimes. Sometimes He does not allow His prophets to speak plainly. Some things are just designed to be brought forth at certain times. For instance in Daniel 11 we are told that some exalt themselves to establish the vision but shall fall. The vision is not established until the end when the ancient of days rises up and co-establishes the vision. Therefore you can bet your bottom dollar that the scholars got it wrong...
  4. We are all just a collection of molecules commonly found on the earth from which we are made. When we die the bacteria and other critters eat most of these molecules so they are quickly reconstituted in a new form. They could even end up in a new person - I doubt these molecules are going to get "recalled" in resurrection. The body will just be reconstituted from new molecules - that has always been my thinking. Thus the early LDS predisposition against cremation is moot. Cremated people will still get resurrected. I believe Jesus was the only resurrected person seen in his resurrection, so exactly where they are at when they are resurrected is an unknown factor, but my guess is normally they are not resurrected here on the earth. But perhaps they are, and then get translated. That's an interesting question. Wonder if the world will find out...
  5. I assume you are speaking of the letter to Abgar: Scholars generally regard this letter as a fake. I easily agree since it says it is written concerning me that those who have seen me will not believe in me, but those who have not seen me will themselves believe. Well, at the time of Jesus, I doubt this was written of Him yet, so He would not have written such to Abgar.
  6. I totally agree. Part of His teaching was to teach the order of heaven. He spoke, and others wrote through inspiration of the Holy Spirit what He had said. In a sense the Jews had made a mess of things, just as the Gentiles have done. Man tends to go everyone to his own way. Christ came to show the way to the holiest of all. Heb 9, thus setting forth order out of blindness and chaos.
  7. I think He would like us to be a covenant people, and not a law people - so that we aren't expecting to be told what to do, but seeking out what He would like us to do, and what others would like as well, but to get to that point it seems a little written guidance is necessary.
  8. How was He going to bring judgment to the Gentiles then as prophesied? I mean could He reasonably expect His words to go to the Gentiles if what you are proposing is true? Isaiah 42:1 1 Behold my aservant, whom I uphold; mine belect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have cput my dspirit upon him: he shall bring forth ejudgment to the Gentiles.
  9. An idea from someone who says this is why he no longer believes. He says Yeshua left a mess, so we end up with conflicting accounts, and it is just not divine. I believe the answer to this is going to be purely speculative, but are there any good reasons why Yeshua would not write anything as the Father's true representative? My belief is that everything Yeshua did here was to teach us. Part of the teaching process is to value the word of God, so He left it for men to write, to learn to value what was written. That in actuality the apostles were foreordained to this task, and in a sense share in the glory of God in performing it. Like Yeshua they are serving their fellow men in the very act of writing His words and copying them so other men can have them. I do not believe there are any conflicts which are important to the teaching. There may be some conflict in the order of events and so forth, but this is inconsequential to the teachings contained therein. What do you think?
  10. I have a much different viewpoint on this issue than I think existed in the early Church. I believe the way polygamy is supposed to be practiced is not inherently unequal. The woman has equal say in the relationship as the man. If she says, no then it could be considered sin for the man to marry another wife. That is usually the way polygamy is practiced in the world, and it is unequal. In the ideal relationship the woman consents to another relationship - to love that person. Otherwise she should say no. Where the thorny issues come up is for instance when the Church began to believe that to be exalted one must have more than one wife. This is based upon an alleged belief of Joseph Smith, but there is nothing in our scriptures to even suggest this is true. Indeed, D&C 132 seems to clearly indicate that a marriage to one wife meets the everlasting covenant. Church history, however, goes something like this: the Gods (Heavenly Father and Yeshua) allowed this in the past, and ordained marriage, so must have ordained polygamy, and since the temporal is patterned after the celestial, they themselves must live it, and want to teach us to be like them, so gave us this "law." In early LDS speech this becomes a commandment. Witness what Glenn101 says about Vilate Kimball: This type of thinking still pervades LDS culture. Even though temporal polygamy has been banned, many LDS believe it will be practiced in heaven. This became an issue for my mother after she joined the Church, because she had members tell her - don't you want to share your husband in heaven? Which she did not. She found this repulsive, and has always told me it was an impetus for her departure from the church. I have told her 'just say no.' I however, do not subscribe to this view. I do not believe one has to enter temporal polygamy to be exalted, nor do I believe it is a "commandment" which we will have to live in heaven, so I guess I'm heretical. While I believe God commanded the principal be taught, that is not the same thing us commanding us to live it temporally. In fact the incorrect belief that it was necessary for exaltation I believe has led to a lot of bad stuff - a number of sects have split off from the Church on this issue in order to keep living polygamy so they could be exalted. But, for instance the FLDS somehow seemed to have forgotten the true commandment, that the first wife/ves need to consent for the principal to be valid, and their leaders choose young women(teenagers) to marry with seeming disregard for the rest of their "wives" in arranged marriages often against the wishes of these young women. This has also created a predicament for the young men, who then have no one in their community to marry so they can live happy family lives - much less be exalted. So many have ended up getting booted out of their community. Since there aren't enough women to go around in the church for each man to have multiple wives, this belief is really unfair. However, if polygamy is a temporal practice patterned after celestial things, what then are those celestial things? What could God be trying to teach the Church? Did Yeshua have a heavenly mother? Revelation 12 teaches that the woman with 12 stars brings forth a man child who shall rule the earth. This man child gave a parable of the 10 virgins who are invited to the wedding of the bridegroom. Are these churches? How come there are only seven churches enumerated in Rev 2-3? What happened to the other three virgins of the parable? Would it be exalting to win other churches to Christ? Isn't that what missionaries try to do? Perhaps priesthood marriage is not quite the same as temporal marriage... I realize this type of thinking is foreign to what LDS have been thinking for 150 years, but it certainly is not without scriptural precedent.
  11. Rome was the desolator of Daniel 9 which came and destroyed the city (Jerusalem). By that time ancient Babylon was long gone. It's great stone buildings got carted off by the Seleucids to build their new capitol. So what great city took over the role of opposer? What great city is Revelation talking about? 1 Peter 5:13 13 The church that is at aBabylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. Where did Peter die? What great city persecuted the early Church? What church sent crusades against other Christians? K. I'm gonna stop now. I didn't really want to do this. Everyone will just get all upset. Let me say that I have absolutely nothing at all against Catholics. However, I believe their teachings departed from scripture, and have led the world astray. Led them individually astray. At the heart are the doctrines of the trinity. However, individually I find many Catholics to be wonderful people. As long as they are doing their best to follow Christ, I don't believe they are damned to hell for all eternity. In many ways I prefer Catholics to those of other Christian sects such as Calvinists, who I often find to be intolerant.
  12. The problem with that interpretation is that it says the devil is not in any church seeking to do some good. I can agree that most churches seek to do some good. That doesn't mean they haven't also caused evil. Yes, you are right that evil can be found in the LDS church - I think the Mountain Meadows Massacre is an example. Hunting down some Indians who killed cattle and killing them without warning is an example. That would be called murder today. But apparently not under BY. But you see, Revelation says there is an entity which once listened to the Lord, but at some point will hear the voice of the Bridegroom no more. There is a city which will be burned by the horns on its heads which it once deceived. Rev 18. That sounds pretty darn concrete to me. In fact it is led by a false prophet.
  13. So the devil can exist in a church and lead them astray into apostasy? Introduce false teachings and such?
  14. In scripture, Babylon became symbolic of the opposition to God's truth. So yeah, it has existed on other worlds, and will exist on the next. Doctrine and Covenants 88:85 85 That their souls may escape the wrath of God, the adesolation of abomination which awaits the wicked, both in this world and in the world to come. Verily, I say unto you, let those who are not the bfirst elders continue in the vineyard until the mouth of the Lord shall ccall them, for their time is not yet come; their garments are not dclean from the blood of this generation.
  15. So in your gospel all the other Churches are the LDS Church? And the amorphous bad guys church is the rest of the world? I'm not sure if the living prophets will agree even with that. Have you considered that the mother church of Revelation and her daughters are one in the same as far as the Lord is concerned?