Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Avatar4321

Julie Rowe rumor

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you insist that “come quickly” is to be interpreted as meaning a specific time frame or “just around the corner,” aren’t you erring as much as the preppers and kooks?

No, because the lack of a quick return, since the new testament predictions long ago, is evidence of it being invented. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Exiled said:

No, because the lack of a quick return, since the new testament predictions long ago, is evidence of it being invented. 

I think the "quickly" in at least many passages can be taken as implying that the period from the signs to the coming is very short. That's how I take say the parable of the 10 Virgins or related messages. Of course many did take it as something happening within decades. I'm sure the first destruction of Jerusalem by Roman forces strongly suggested that as well. I imagine that the second, final destruction and heavy diaspora of Jews also played into that. Much like the cold war and the threat of nuclear war did in the 1950's through 1980's.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can go along with that — with the additional insight that the latter-day dispensation is the one intended to prepare for and usher in the Second Coming of Christ. 

I do think it foolish, though, to put a specific time frame on when that is to occur — which is where the survivalist kooks and preppers err. 

I like to assert that it will be at least 10,000 years from now.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Exiled said:

No, because the lack of a quick return, since the new testament predictions long ago, is evidence of it being invented. 

So you are viewing it through an atheistic filter by which believers are not bound. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/3/2019 at 12:08 PM, Valentinus said:

I like to assert that it will be at least 10,000 years from now.

I hope it’s not that long, but “no man knoweth the day nor the hour.” 

Of course, Ocasio-Cortez predicts the destruction of the planet in 12 years unless her radical socialist agenda is embraced — but now she’s saying she was only using “dry and sarcastic humor” that only someone with a “sea sponge” mentality would take seriously. Kind of a stinging indictment of a good number of Democrats, including some presidential candidates. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hope it’s not that long, but “no man knoweth the day nor the hour.” 

Of course, Ocasio-Cortez predicts the destruction of the planet in 12 years — but now she’s saying she was only using “dry and sarcastic humor.” 

Oh. :huh:

Huh-huh. (?????????????) :blink:

I ... ummmmm ... love your sense of ... "humor," Senorita Ocasio-Cortez. :unknw:

Of course, the good news is that if her prediction does come to pass, she'll only serve two terms in office, max. :D

 

Edited by Kenngo1969

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh. :huh:

Huh-huh. (?????????????) :blink:

I ... ummmmm ... love your sense of humor, Senorita Ocasio-Cortez. :unknw:

It's almost as fun as the time that alarm button was accidentally hit in Hawaii and for 10 minutes everyone thought they were going to die. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh. :huh:

Huh-huh. (?????????????) :blink:

I ... ummmmm ... love your sense of ... "humor," Senorita Ocasio-Cortez. :unknw:

Of course, the good news is that if her prediction does come to pass, she'll only serve two terms in office, max. :D

 

Actually, she’s a member of the House of Representatives, not the Senate, so blessedly we could be rid of her in as little as a year and a half. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you are viewing it through an atheistic filter by which believers are not bound. 

No one is binding you on anything Scott. You are free to continue to follow the brethren.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Stopped?  Uh, no.

I've been a member of the church for over 50 years and I haven't noticed any slacking off in regard to talk about the Millennium being around the corner.  It's always been understood that we'd not know the day or the hour, but talk about the signs of the times has never ceased.  The current Gospel Principles manual, intended to teach new and returning members, contains two chapters on the subject.  Chapter 43, wherein it is said "Many of these signs are being fulfilled." If that isn't suggesting that the Millennium is right around the corner, then I don't know how to take it.  The question is, however, which corner is it around?  Chapter 44, where in the question is asked "Why should we be concerned about our preparedness rather than the exact timing of the Second Coming?"  (emphasis added)  We need to be prepared -- I take this as spiritual preparedness rather than whether or not I have adequate ammunition or survival food, but others may differ.

 

 

 

I would add elder christoffersons talk from two monthd ago

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, she’s a member of the House of Representatives, not the Senate, so blessedly we could be rid of her in as little as a year and a half. 

Doh!  :fool:

(I admire your faith in the U.S. electorate.  I wish I could say that I share it, but if that were the case, she never would have been elected in the first place! :rolleyes:  That much power combined with her special brand of ignorance is a dangerous, and yet a surprisingly enduring, combination.)

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Exiled said:

No one is binding you on anything Scott. You are free to continue to follow the brethren.

Thanks for the thought, but that’s axiomatic. 

It has always seemed remarkable to me when an unbeliever  presumes  to interpret for believers  holy scripture that the unbeliever doesn’t accept as true anyway. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Doh!  :fool:

(I admire your faith in the U.S. electorate.  I wish I could say that I share it, but if that were the case, she never would have been elected in the first place! :rolleyes:  That much power combined with her special brand of ignorance is a dangerous, and yet a surprisingly enduring, combination.)

I’m only saying she comes up for re-election in 2020 and every two years after that for as long as she remains in office. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/2/2019 at 11:24 PM, Exiled said:

I guess I stand corrected and mistook that talk by Pres. Packer years ago, where he said that today's generation will see their children and grandchildren grow up, as meaning what he said in terms of the millenium not being just around the corner. Anyway, shouldn't the end times be de-emphasized then? It's been since the dawn of the Christian era since the second coming was "just around the corner" and the d&c is filled full of promises of "coming quickly," yet it hasn't happened.

Pres. Packer was perfectly justified in saying what he said because obviously today's generation could very well see their grandchildren grow up -- even if the Second Coming happened next week.  We're not all going to die in the tribulation preceding it.  And perhaps because experienced and already-believing people with present priesthood authority will be extremely important in the initial stages of the post-tribulation period, a large fraction of Latter-day Saints may survive the tribulation, perhaps a larger fraction than that of the general population.  That's my speculation, but it seems that in order to leaven the bread, at least some yeast must survive.

As to your second point, I suppose that one could say it's been 2,000 years and nuthin's happened, so there's nuthin' to see here: move along.  These aren't the droids we're looking for.  I will grant you that. But 1,000, 500 and 100 years ago Israel had not yet returned to the Promised Land. Now they have.  That's one "sign of the time" that would have seemed to be among the most unlikely.  Yet it happened.  In this generation.  Are there more to come?  With Israel surrounded by implacable enemies whose very religion impels them to their destruction -- which they have already attempted twice -- how soon do we reach the point where the Lord will need to intervene directly upon the Mount of Olives?  You may believe that nothing like that will happen, but if you had been alive in 1941, just picking a year at random, would you have believed it if someone had said that in 1948 there would be a Jewish State in Palestine, and one that would defeat an invasion by 8 Arab states?

How many "signs of the time" must appear before you will grant that it looks like "sumthin'" might be happening?  Or would you never ever concede the possibility?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I would add elder christoffersons talk from two monthd ago

🙂 I ran out of time assembling talks and articles (wife was insisting it was time for bed), or I might have found that one, too! Thanks for mentioning it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Doh!  :fool:

(I admire your faith in the U.S. electorate.  I wish I could say that I share it, but if that were the case, she never would have been elected in the first place! :rolleyes:  That much power combined with her special brand of ignorance is a dangerous, and yet a surprisingly enduring, combination.)

You read too much into her election.

She got elected only because her district is one of the safest Democrat districts in the country, and party leadership was extremely complacent. It's easy enough for a complacent incumbent to be upset by a determined and unexpected newcomer. 

I remember the 1988 presidential election, where Pat Robertson got the majority of caucus delegates in Washington state. I observed part of this, because at the time I was the precinct committee officer of my precinct for the Republican party.  When we held the caucus I fully expected the majority to go for George Bush (can't remember whom I supported at the time, but it wasn't him).  But who should march in but possibly all the evangelical protestants in the precinct!  And they easily overwhelmed all other candidates in supporting Robertson.  Robertson's grass-roots organization in Washington state was extremely well-organized.

Ocasio-Cortez got the nomination in her district because not only was the party leadership asleep on their feet, since their incumbent was a shoo-in, but who votes in primaries?  Only the most excited.  So a large fraction of the rank-and-file Democrats stayed home -- they "knew" that the incumbent was going to reconfirmed as the candidate, so why go to the trouble of voting?  AOC got the nomination, and since electing a Republican in her district is simply unthinkable she got elected.

Next time it won't be so easy for her.

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry I took the thread political!  :( 

Back to the topic at hand! :D 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

🙂 I ran out of time assembling talks and articles (wife was insisting it was time for bed), or I might have found that one, too! Thanks for mentioning it!

But, Honey, someone's wrong on da Interwebz! :D :rofl: :D 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for the thought, but that’s axiomatic. 

It has always seemed remarkable to me when an unbeliever  presumes  to interpret for believers  holy scripture that the unbeliever doesn’t accept as true anyway. 

I know. I know. Interpreting scripture and spreading these interpretations to the world is the believer's job, under the guidance of the brethren.  The unbeliever should just give way to the believer's "religious freedom."

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I know. I know. Interpreting scripture and spreading these interpretations to the world is the believer's job, under the guidance of the brethren.  The unbeliever should just give way to the believer's "religious freedom."

I believe what Scott may be saying is he has the right and privilege of choice of whom gets to interpret scripture for himself.

And I am guessing that it’s not you at this point.

No one requires you to accept his choice of interpretation for yourself as you have the same right and privilege.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe what Scott may be saying is he has the right and privilege of choice of whom gets to interpret scripture for himself.

And I am guessing that it’s not you at this point.

No one requires you to accept his choice of interpretation for yourself as you have the same right and privilege.

Well he seemed taken aback by my interpretation and seemingly cannot understand why unbelievers would try and interpret scripture for believers. Yet, believers attempt to do this all the time through their missionary efforts and efforts to reclaim the "lost."

I think the better position is to just acknowledge that in the battle of ideas, the religious might be called out from time to time and the unbelievers as well. One shouldn't be surprised when an unbeliever weighs in when the believer's goal is to convert the world.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Exiled said:

Well he seemed taken aback by my interpretation and seemingly cannot understand why unbelievers would try and interpret scripture for believers. Yet, believers attempt to do this all the time through their missionary efforts and efforts to reclaim the "lost."

I think the better position is to just acknowledge that in the battle of ideas, the religious might be called out from time to time and the unbelievers as well. One shouldn't be surprised when an unbeliever weighs in when the believer's goal is to convert the world.

Unbelievers have scriptures to interpret?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Exiled said:

...and seemingly cannot understand why unbelievers would try and interpret scripture for believers. Yet, believers attempt to do this all the time through their missionary efforts and efforts to reclaim the "lost."

The difference is that believers actually believe what they are interpreting.  Anything less seems...disingenuous. 

An unbeliever practicing scriptural hermeneutics for a believer would be equivalent to a chemist interpreting the book of alchemy (if there was one) for an alchemist in his quest to turn led into gold.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Although much maligned , BRMs  'Mormon Doctrine ' outlined some 50 odd " signs of the times " . A group could be said to definitely having come to pass and some in the not too distant past. Another group could definitely be said to have NOT happened yet . Another group were up for debate as to whether or not they had fully been fulfilled. Some I personally could not see happening without massive political disruption. Then again, as a young man I could never have imagined the fall of the Berlin wall or the breakup of the USSR so what do I know. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I know, right?  I remember, albeit as a much younger man, when people were skeptical of the idea of a the idea of a Temple being built in East Germany.  Now, there is not just one, but there are three Temples, built or planned in the former Soviet Bloc.

I thought this was interesting.  I'm sure, had they been inclined to be skeptical (and I'm sure some of them were) that there would have been good reason for that skepticism among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Ukraine.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/the-kyiv-ukraine-temple-prophecy-fulfilled?lang=eng

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...