Jump to content
  • 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

974 Excellent

About RevTestament

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,436 profile views
  1. Building mortal into God

    What God considers great, the natural man despises. What the world abhors, God considers great.
  2. Updated church statement - White culture

    I didn't realize Dan Akroyd co-wrote that movie.
  3. Updated church statement - White culture

    White skin is not a culture. Scottish is a culture, and I love my Scottish heritage. However, I am also French, English, German, Irish, and who knows what else. I don't love my French side so much....Making white a "culture" is I think at least a bit racist. There really is no such thing. However, I am racist. I am partial to the human race, and favor it over insect races(especially skeeters), and many other animal races.
  4. God is judging, but you don't call Him shoftim. You are faced with plainly not believing the word of God. Why? Because if you believe it, you will see that Jesus told them plainly that they were elohim - the family of immovable force. They were God's chosen people not because He is a respecter of person's but because they had met the requirements for that title. Why did God speak only to them, and not other peoples? Is He a respecter of persons?
  5. "Signs and Wonders in the Heavens".

    Meteor showers and eclipses are routine stuff. However, if coupled with other events, an eclipse may portend prophecy. I believe a lot of such language deals with symbolic ideas which are largely misunderstood. For instance the great star called wormwood prophesied in Revelation. I have seen some go off on how this is going to be a great destructive meteor or comet. Instead, I believe it is going to be a "great" false prophet who will lead a third astray. Phrases such as the sun being darkened may allude to the light of Christ being hidden. Although we are in the last days, I will affirmatively state that those following Christ in righteousness right now have nothing to worry about. If they lose their lives for Christ, as some have recently in the Middle East, they will receive their glory.
  6. I have to say i have not seen any of the weird stuff in my area. Definitely nothing like whole stakes going apostate, so I can echo Scott Lloyd in that regard. However, I am in a conservative, bedrock area of the Church in happy valley. I have read and seen stuff somewhat like Rockpond is talking about in the Salt Lake Valley. Groups which have left for polygamy mostly, but recently the gay family issue has become big. Both times I have attended conference in the last year or so there has been an objector - my guess is this person/s are unhappy about the church's position/s on gay families or gay marriage, and some may apostatize over that. The gay community seems particularly strong in SL valley. I admit I am not patched into the Church authoritative structure, so my comments are limited to personal observations and news, so I don't know how much of a movement this is, but it seems to have grown over the last decade or so.Denver Snuffer may appeal to such groups. The women priesthood movement was another such small group. However, these groups don't seem to be geographically centered by stakes or anything like that. Nevertheless, they are newer social groups which are probably willing to explore apostate groups such as Snuffer's. They generally seem to be composed of individuals who were born into the Church, and are often multi-generational, rather than individuals from outlying areas who are converts who fought for their testimonies and conversion to the Church. I know there are some generalities here which will probably raise objections from some, but stuff like this normally deals with generalities.
  7. The foolish life of living with the Spirit

    It seems the Lord is telling us that He will accomplish His ends in the last days by His Spirit. However, there are many other Christians who come to this board or otherwise warn members that the Spirit is not trustworthy. I differ from Stemelbow's conclusion: "God can direct any one of us in any direction so we can head down the wrong road for a while until we learn it to be wrong. So we can be headed down the road that is the Church's path and learn at some point it is the wrong way. We could have gotten married having felt so influenced by the Spirit in our decision to do so, only to see years later it was the wrong road and our kids might have to deal with the effects of our bad choice." Stemelbow seems to discount the importance of the Spirit, although he will probably disagree with me. God will allow us to make mistakes. In rare instances the spirit may even guide us there. However, I do not believe the spirit will guide us down a wrong road which will cause us to negatively impact others. We can learn from mistakes, but a life path which is a mistake is a different story. God does not want us to choose wrong paths for our lives, and negatively impact others. Spirits which lead us down these paths are of the adversary. They have learned how to influence our natural man and desires. We must guard against these types of thoughts and desires rather than follow them.
  8. Not just word play but many Hebraic grammatical usages and sentence structures.
  9. The foolish life of living with the Spirit

    Zechariah 4:6 6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my aspirit, saith the Lord of hosts.
  10. Mosiah 15: 1-5

    Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
  11. Mosiah 15: 1-5

    The immutable God of the doctrine of the Trinity is an unscriptural myth. God changes not in his righteousness. However, he broke His covenant because the people broke it, and therefore He was not bound to it. This is the aspect of God which does not change - His justice and righteousness. However, when it comes to Yeshua we see all kinds of change. He inherits names, the government, etc. Hence, I conclude that before He was begotten as the Son, He was not the first begotten Son. For scripture to be true then, another must have been the Son. The Bible tells us Yeshua came to earth as a calling. Ephesians 1:18 18 The eyes of your aunderstanding being benlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the criches of the glory of his dinheritance in the saints, I conclude that His adoption as the Son was into a priesthood office. Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? ... Yeshua has many verbs attached to Him which indicate change. He inherits names and government. He is begotten. Yet we are told: 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. This is trying to communicate that Yeshua remains our Savior. He is immortal even though He clearly died. It doesn't mean He will not be called our Father. Or that He did not inherit the title of YHWH. Or that He won't inherit the government of the world. Scripture just doesn't comport with such ideas of an immutable Christ who it says was made or became perfect. Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; To make Yeshua immutable, you would have to change scripture so that He is no longer begotten, does not inherit, and doesn't become perfect. Of course this is what the Nicene Creed seeks to do by making Christ begotten before all aeon/ages/worlds. Out of these choices, I choose scripture.
  12. How an Ahistorical Book of Mormon Can Still Be Scripture

    I understand the need of people to try to draw conclusions about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and I am sure you were diligent in your study. If in fact you, like many others, were trying to study the book within the context of a Mesoamerican setting and archaeology, I would have to conclude, like you, that the book is ahistorical, even though there are many interesting tidbits here and there about Mesoamerican culture, I have concluded that most of them coincide with the Book of Mormon that are at dates far too late. However, in my own study, I have been forced to the opposite conclusion - that the book is historical. I just had to divorce myself from the preconceived notions of the Church or seeming majority of Church members on the matter, and be willing to address the subject from fresh angles and prayer. I believe I have found many historical points about the Book of Mormon perhaps even down to its reformed Egyptian writing. It has been quite the interesting journey, and I look forward to publishing my results. Despite my lackluster prior attention to the Book of Mormon, I am now forced to conclude that there is no probable way Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon on his own accord. I have verified so many of its points with actual modern findings that it is actually exciting. So contrary to my own prior lackluster attitude about the Book of Mormon, I am happy to say, I am no longer ambivalent about the book at all. I am happy to testify that the book not only contains true teachings, but is a true historical account of a people, and there are just too many archaeological findings which militate against the standard ice age model for the peopling of the Americas for me to continue to believe it. I now believe the Americas to be a greater melting pot of peoples than such a narrow model allows. I just believe they are not all "Lamanites." However, just by virtue of trade and migration after the Book of Mormon times, I believe most Natives are related somehow to one another - just like when I go online and find I am related to essentially every President of the US as some form of distant cousin. So although I feel the book beginnings are essentially like looking for a needle in a haystack, it is now immediately relevant to all peoples in the Americas as well as the rest of the world.
  13. I like several comments in this thread. With Paul context is important. It could be that speaking up in Church meant with regards to church governance which is a priesthood function. In Jewish tradition, I'm sure women were allowed to ask questions, but probably were not allowed to address the rabbis in terms of giving advice, or were not asked to speak or give advice by the rabbi, etc. I was raised Baptist, and as I recall women did speak up in Sunday school. I feel my own wife is very intuitive, and I certainly give her every opportunity to speak in the home. In fact I largely put her in charge of the home, and she accepted that role until she went to work. I virtually always supported her decisions with regards to the children, but sometimes I voiced my difference, and she tried to accept that when I spoke up. Women are often very in tune with the spirit, and have valuable testimony and experiences which are beneficial for all to hear, so in this regard I am with California Boy that allowing them and even asking women to speak bears good fruit. I consider one of the best Gospel Doctrine teachers I ever had was a woman. I would have been greatly less enriched had I not experienced her teaching. She was humorous, and was able to keep my attention. There are several male teachers now trying to fill her shoes, and none of them are as good. I have never accepted Paul's letters to the Churches as dictation straight from God, and on the issue of marriage, although he advises his listeners not to marry but to remain single like him, he also at one point says that this advice was not by way of commandment. So to treat everything Paul says as commandment I don't believe would be prudent. If every Christian since Paul's day had followed this advice, Christianity would probably have gone extinct like the Shakers. This is obviously not the Lord's intent. This means Paul's advice is subject to change, and was sometimes given within certain contexts. In Paul's case at the time advice not to marry may have been prudent if the couple were Jewish converts as the couple could be bearing children when the seven years war would place the family under great duress, or perhaps end up killing them. However, obviously this did not apply to new churches in Asia Minor Paul was usually addressing in his epistles. I feel westerners often read Paul too literally, and get the wrong impression from him. On this particular subject I am quite comfortable with the light on the subject from the JST, and am quite happy the Church allows and indeed even expects women to speak, bear their testimonies, and give us the benefit of their keen intuition and insights.
  14. second restoration

    Again, history doesn't really reveal who was responsible for the Nicene formula. The theology of the creed was definitely an invention of someone, since there is no scripture telling us that Yeshua was begotten before all aeon/ages/worlds. The scripture indicates instead that Yeshua was begotten when the Father told Him "this day I have begotten thee." The difference seems pretty plain on the face of it. One indicates no new covenant was entered into, while Hebrews also indicates was a covenant was in fact entereed into by the Father with His Son: Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? I am not Arian, however, I feel he was probably closer to the truth than Athanasius. Unfortunately, all we basically have is the orthodox claim of what Arius taught, since his writings were destroyed eventually. I am not really taking sides in that particular battle. I am just pointing out how the creeds came into being, and how they differ from scripture, but were made mandatory in the empire. I will obviously let the reader decide if they are the truth or not. There was nothing like them even 40 years earlier as you seem to imply. I believe it was a council of Ephesus iirc just 50 years earlier that excommunicated a bishop for using the word homoousios in describing the nature of God, and just 50 years later we find the opposite in the Nicene council. So now the Catholic Church strains to split this hair. Basically, the earliest Church taught us to be like Christ, and the Roman state church began to teach just to worship Him. The Church stopped being called The Way, and insisted on being Catholic instead. Christ was no longer envisioned as one of us who showed us the way to the holiest of all, but part of an immutable God in which He would be called the Son forevermore - also contrary to scripture which says He is our "fellow" and shall be called the Father instead. Anyway, that's enough. Suffice it to say I do not agree with the creeds. They depart from scripture, and have errors. If Christ had taught these things of Himself, there would have been no debate on the subject and no "need" for the Nicene Creed.
  15. second restoration

    Who attended the Nicene Council still has elements of mystery. Supposedly most of the bishops in the Roman Empire did not attend. Are you saying the Church of the East has some kind of record that they had bishops who attended? If so, can you provide some citations for this please? I did not say no bishops from outside the Roman Empire attended. I was merely stating how the creeds gained prominence within the Roman Empire. They became the law of the Church in effect. I do believe they are not fully accurate, and in fact are misleading, and therefore apostate. So to the extent Eastern Bishops adopted them, they went apostate as well. I know the Syrian Church later departed from Roman doctrine regarding the nature of Christ, but I believe history reveals a great many of the Eastern bishops were not really excited by the Nicene Creed, as evidenced by later councils which excommunicated Athanasius. So the question arises which part of the Church was in the right? Only a minority voted on the Nicene Creed. Yet, it is still widely accepted not only by Catholics but by Protestants today.