Author: fourpointer

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 15)

Tower To Truth Question:

15. Why does the Book of Mormon state that Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10) when history and the Bible state that he was born outside of Jerusalem, in Bethlehem?

——————

FAIR Answer:

Bethlehem is in the direct area of Jerusalem, being only about seven miles apart. El Amarna letter #287 reports that “a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.” The Book of Mormon gets the ancient usage exactly right: the town of Bethlehem is in the “land of Jerusalem,” especially from the perpsective of someone writing in the Americas.

To learn more: Book of Mormon anachronisms:Jerusalem vs Bethlehem

———————-

My Response:

Again, the sheer lack of supporting evidence and citation (apart from a blurb in one book) is telling. If they had evidence, you think they wouldn’t put it out there. They don’t, because they can’t. So I will.

Over at the link “Book of Mormon anachronisms” they feature this quote from BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson:

To suggest that Joseph Smith knew the precise location of Jesus’ baptism by John (“in Bethabara, beyond Jordan” (1 Ne. 10:9) but hadn’t a clue about the famous town of Christ’s birth is so improbable as to be ludicrous. Do the skeptics seriously mean to suggest that the Book of Mormon’s Bible-drenched author (or authors) missed one of the most obvious facts about the most popular story in the Bible — something known to every child and Christmas caroler? Do they intend to say that a clever fraud who could write a book displaying so wide an array of subtly authentic Near Eastern and biblical cultural and literary traits as the Book of Mormon does was nonetheless so stupid as to claim, before a Bible-reading public, that Jesus was born in the city of Jerusalem?

Ummmmmm…….yes…..

The defense that most Mormons try to give when explaining away this mistake from the “Most correct book of any on earth” contains many holes, some of which are so big you could drive a bus (filled with all of Joseph Smith’s wives) through them. Allow me to demonstrate their approach:

I grew up near Syracuse, NY. Syracuse is in Onandoga County. Around Syracuse are many suburbs (Jamesville, Dewitt, Minoa, Mattydale) and several villages (Liverpool, Baldwinsville). Now, say someone from Baldwinsville moved to Texas (“Someone from Baldwinsville moved to Texas.” There, I said it for you. Haha.). If someone in Texas asked where they were from, they would answer “I am from Baldwinsville, NY.” Then the person would ask, “Well, what is it near?” I would say, “It is near Syracuse.” BUT, I would NOT say “It is IN Syracuse.” Because Baldwinsville is not IN Syracuse. It is IN Onandoga County.

In the same vein, Bethlehem was not IN Jerusalem, because Jerusalem was NOT a “land.” It was a city (albeit the largest city) in a particular land. That land was Judah. Thus, as the TRUE prophet Micah wrote (and Matthew echoed), “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting” (Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:6). If Jerusalem was the land that contained the town of Bethlehem, then it would read, “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Jerusalem…” But it doesn’t. Because Jerusalem only contains Jerusalem.

Must be another one of those darned old “plain and precious truths”…….

by

Where are we ever “safe”?

I’m sure, by now, you have heard the news about the shooting at the church here in Knoxville:

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Authorities on Monday were investigating why an apparent stranger entered a Unitarian church and opened fire during a children’s performance based on the musical “Annie,” killing two, including a burly usher hailed as a hero for shielding others from gunfire.

No children were hurt, but seven adults were wounded as frightened congregants dove under pews and ran from Sunday’s shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, authorities said. Witnesses said some of the men present tackled a man who pulled a shotgun from a guitar case before at least three loud blasts rang out.

Jim D. Adkisson, 58, has been charged with first-degree murder and was being held on $1 million bail, according to city spokesman Randy Kenner.

Church members praised Greg McKendry, 60, who died as he attempted to block the gunfire. Church member Barbara Kemper told The Associated Press that McKendry “stood in the front of the gunman and took the blast to protect the rest of us.”

Before I begin, let me just say I sympathize with those who lost friends and loved ones in this dispicable act. But such is the condition of the unregenerate human heart. It is always bent toward evil, and only the restraining grace of God prevents us all from becoming Jim Adkissons of our own making. That said, there are a couple of ironies I pulled from this development:

(1) There are people, even at our church, who will not help in the ministry we do in the projects. Why? Because they think it’s “dangerous.” They think they’re going to get shot, held up, robbed, carjacked, whatever, as soon as they get there. However, the church where this shooting took place is located in one of the two wealthiest neighbordhoods in Knoxville. Houses in this area of the city–an area known as Sequoyah Hills–START at $500,000. Some go for upwards of $1M. Knoxville Police Department patrol there regularly. If there is any area that ought to be safe, it is this area.

Yet a man travelled 10 miles, to a neighborhood completely disconnected from his own, planned out an attack whereby he snuck a shotgun into a church in a guitar case, and carried out the imaginations of his heart. A desperately wicked heart. The kind of heart you and I are born with. A heart unrestrained by the hand of God. A heart that, unless brought to life by the Holy Spirit, will continue to act in such a way with no hesitation.

(2) This happened at a Universalist gathering. Universalists believe we are all going to heaven. That when Jesus died on the cross, He saved every single person, and no one is going to Hell. There is more about Unitarianism here from CARM. And here about Universalism. What I am about to say I do not say with malicious intent, but oto make anyone reading this aware of this fact. If those people who died–as courageous as they were in their last act on earth–if they died not knowing who Jesus was, and never knew Him as their Lord and their Savior–then they are in the very Hell they spent their lives denying. Dying a courageous death does not guarantee a person a free pass into Heaven. It is only by faith in the true God and His Christ, repenting from sin, and knowing that we are sinful creatures who need to be saved by the blood of Christ. And yes, these people believe that if the shooter died today, he may be punished for his sins (somehow) but that even if he did not repent, he would indeed be in Heaven.

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 14)

Tower To Truth Question:

14. Why did God encourage Abraham & Sarah to lie in Abra. 2:24? Isn’t lying a sin according to the 10 commandments? Why did God tell Abraham and Sarah to lie when 2 Nephi condemns liars to hell?

—————————–

FAIR Answer:

In the Bible, there are accounts of God commanding or approving less than complete disclosure. These examples seem to involve the protection of the innocent from the wicked, which fits the case of Abraham and his wife nicely.

To learn more: Why would Abraham lie?

—————————-

My Response:

Another example of FAIR not living up to their acronym. I can only wonder how frustrating it must be for them to find ways to rationalize their beliefs and how exhausted they must get after all the mental gymnastics they have to go through to fit the Bible into their doctrine. Let’s look at what you’ll find at “Why would Abraham lie?”

First, they say

Critics fail to note that the Bible records Abraham’s lie to Pharaoh, and then God rewards the lie (see Gen. 12:17). This seems a strange action if God disapproved their action.

Furthermore, there are times in the Bible when God has commanded His prophets to protect the innocent by giving the wicked less than the whole story.

For one thing, God did NOT reward Abram’s lie–which wasn’t really a lie, since Sarai was indeed his half-sister. That said, there could not be a more twisted misuse of this Scripture. In Genesis 12:17, Pharaoh finds out he has been lied to when God brings plagues upon his house. This was not a reward for Abram! In fact, what this did was to expose Abram for being a liar, and made him lose credibility in Pharaoh’s eyes. Genesis 12:18-20—18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? I might have taken her as my wife. Now therefore, here is your wife; take her and go your way.” 20 So Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him; and they sent him away, with his wife and all that he had. Now, notice something here. Pharaoh, even after he finds out that Sarai was Abram’s wife, sends her back to him. He could have still kept her, but he didn’t. Why? I believe that God was not so much punishing Pharaoh as he was making Abram look smaller in Pharaoh’s eyes because of Abram’s deceit. Imagine how much better things would have worked out if Abram would have trusted God instead of trying to work things out on his own by lying (Also, consider what happened when he tried to “help God” by sleeping with Hagar.). I truly believe that God would have protected Sarai if Abram would have been honest.

Next up, they mention the Hebrew midwives hiding the male children from Pharaoh. That somehow this is supposed to justify their twisted “Book of Abraham” account of God “commanding” Abram to lie. They say,

The midwives are confronted with a command from the head of state which offends their personal/professional morality. They decline to participate, and actively deceive the Pharaoh–they even lie to him or his officers so that the deception may continue, as well as to (one assumes) spare themselves his punishment. The subsequent verses indicate God’s approval of their action. (See Ex. 1:20).

Honesty to the wicked is not the primary moral value: obedience to the
will of God is.

Another example of their lack of biblical scholarship. After all, did any of the apostles lie about Christ when they were brought before the Jewish authorities? Was Stephen less than truthful when rebuking the Jews, even when they were taking him out to stone him? It would not take a lot of resaerch to find the apostle’s answer to the officers of the temple when they tried to stop the apostles from preaching Christ. Acts 5:29—But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.” You see, the head of every government is God (See Romans 13:1-4). So when the government tells us to do something, we should examine whether that order contradicts the word of God. If it does, we should obey what God says rather than man, because God is over every government on earth. That said, the midwives’ act of hiding the children against the orders of Pharaoh was not deception, or lying–but rather obeying the command of God, who in fact raised up Pharaoh for such a time (Romans 9:17).

Next they try to say that God told Moses to be deceptive:

The second example comes from the prophetic call of Moses. The Lord speaks to Moses and says:

17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey. (Ex. 3:17)

The Lord announces His intention to liberate the Israelites from slavery. But, in the very next breath, He tells Moses what to tell Pharaoh—what the “public story” should be, if you will:

18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. (Ex. 3:18)

The “public stance” of Moses and the Israelite leaders is to be that they only want to go three days’ journey to sacrifice. So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception. This extends to even deceiving their Egyptian neighbors:

21 And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:
22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 3:21-22)

Because they are just going to make sacrifices, in the public version, the Israelites are to “borrow” valuable goods from the Egyptians. But, the true intent is clearly spelled out: they are to “spoil” (i.e. “loot”) the Egyptians.

Pharaoh is, of course, nobody’s fool. He seems to strongly suspect that there is more to the story than Moses is publicly admitting. He offers all sorts of compromise positions, seemingly designed to assure that the slaves will return after fulfilling their duties.

In a nutshell, they try to say that when Moses asked Pharaoh to let the people go three days’ journey to sacrifice, that he was lying to Pharaoh and was trying to lead the people out for good. But that’s not the case. If you notice, FAIR just happens to leave out Exodus 3:19-20—19 But I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not even by a mighty hand. 20 So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My wonders which I will do in its midst; and after that he will let you go. God is giving Moses a condensed account of what is going to happen. Moses will ask Pharaoh to let the people go and sacrifice, Pharaoh will say “No,” and because of this, God will stretch out His hand against Egypt. There is no deception, there is no trickery. God is simply telling Moses what will happen.

God is not one for commanding someone to lie. If He was, He would not be Holy. He would not be righteous. He would not be God. Besides, there is much Scriptural evidence to say that God CANNOT lie.

  • Titus 1:2—…in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began…
  • Hebrews 6:18—that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.
  • Proverbs 6:16-17—These six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood…
  • Psalm 40:4—Blessed is that man who makes the LORD his trust, and does not respect the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

Again, FAIR throws out the blanket statement that God “commands” people to lie. But what does the Holy Spirit say? Let God be true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4). FAIR is smearing the name of God by calling Him a liar, and heaping up wrath for themselves for the Day of Judgment.

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 13)

Tower To Truth Question:

13. If God is an exalted man with a body of flesh and bones, why does Alma 18:26-28 and John 4:24 say that God is a spirit?

————————-

FAIR Answer:

In Alma, the reference is to Jesus Christ, who before His birth did not have a physical body.

John 4:24 does not say God is “a” spirit, but says “God is spirit.” There is no “a” in the Greek. The Bible also says “God is truth” or “God is light.” Those things are true, but we don’t presume God is JUST truth, or JUST light—or JUST spirit.

As one non-LDS commentary puts it:

That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God’s being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1John 1:5, “God is light,” or Deut. 4:24, “Your God is a devouring fire.” It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship.

– J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, edited and completed by B. A. Mastin, (New York, Harper & Row, 1968), 147–148.

To learn more: God is a Spirit

——————–

My Response:

FAIR needs to do some better work on their biblical scholarship. They have shown, in this response, that they have not studied the Greek of John 4:24. Let us look at the Greek of this verse:

πνευμα ό θεος

pneuma ho Theos

This sentence, πνευμα ό θεος (pneuma ho Theos), “God is spirit,” is constructed in a way similar to the last part of John 1:1, when John writes θεος ην ό λογος (Theos hn ho logos), “the Word was God.”

πνευμα ό θεος–“God is spirit”
θεος ην ό λογος–“the Word was God”

The word πνευμα (pneuma) is in the nominative case. However, this is actually the predicate of the sentence. And since there is no definite article it should be read “spirit.” Now, let’s look at ό θεος (ho Theos). The definite article ό is attached to θεος. This literally means “the God.” So what we get is “The God is spirit.” Or, in English, “God is spirit.”

So what is Jesus trying to tell us in this statement? Is He simply declaring the form and essence of the Father? Basically what He was saying was that all those who worshipped some kind of visible idol, or looked to some thing or some place or some person as their object of worship had missed it by an eternity. God (the Father) is everywhere. As the Psalmist said, Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, Even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me (Psalm 139:7-10). If God is not a spirit, why does the Psalmist say, “Where can I go from Your Spirit…If I ascend into heaven, You are there? Now, before anyone says, “Well, what about ‘Your hand shall lead me?‘” Many times the Hebrew of the Old Testament used different parts of the body to symbolize different things. The arm symbolized power, the head symbolized rule, the feet symbolized actions. Here, “Your hand” symbolizes power. And as far as “Your right hand“–if God had a body, could His “right hand” (if we think of “right hand” in strictly human terms) hold all those who call for Him at the same time? Are we to believe that at any given time only one person is ever needing God to uphold and strengthen them? Absolutely not! God is everywhere, at all times, since He is not limited by a body of flesh and bone.

Now, what about FAIR’s assertion that “The Bible also says “God is truth” or “God is light.” Those things are true, but we don’t presume God is JUST truth, or JUST light—or JUST spirit“? Frankly, I really don’t see what they’re getting at. God is all those things. He is also a strong tower, a refuge, a shield, a buckler, a rock, a defender…

Well, we can see in other places that God the Father does not have a physical body. Colossians 1:15—And He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God. If God has a tangible, touchable body of flesh and bone, how can Paul declare Him to be “invisible?” We also must consider Hebrews 1:3–[Jesus] being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power… The word “person” is not the best way to render ύποστάσεως (hupostaseos). “Essence” is closer to the actual meaning, a fact which dampens the LDS argument that Jesus being the “image of His person” refers to the Father having a corporeal body.

Of course, saying that God has a body presents other problems as well. In the Old Testament, it is written many times that God “dwells between the cherubim” (1st Samuel 4:4; 2nd Samuel 6:2; 2nd Kings 19:15; 1st Chronicles 13:6; Psalm 80:1; Isaiah 37:16). So, if the Father has a body, and dwells on his home planet near Kolob (No, He does not live ON Kolob. Kolob is the nearest start to where God the Father dwells. Or so they say), and He is confined to a body, how can He “dwell between the cherubim”–a reference to His dwelling between the angels atop the Ark of the Covenant?

If you click on FAIR’s link that says, “God is spirit,” you will find this gem:

Deut. 4:28 says that our God can see, eat and smell.

WRONG!! Deuteronomy 4:28 says And there you will serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. [Emphasis mine] All this says is that the “gods” which men make cannot hear or eat or smell. And a link at that link tries to use the fact that God told Moses He would hide him in the rock and cover it with His hand. So, did He have to leave wherever He was to do it? And if God’s body is like our body, it must be pretty big for Him to cover a cleft with His hand.

There is much overwhelming evidence that God the Father does NOT have a body, that He is spirit, and that Christ is the only member of the Trinity to have ever taken on human flesh.

by

John Paul II: Our victory is through Mary

From Beggars All, a band of Reformed bloggers. This is for all those who want to walk around with blinders on, and claim that JPII had nothing to do with the movement to proclaim Mary as our Co-Redemptrix:

“‘Be not afraid!’ Christ said to the apostles (cf. Lk 24:36) and to the women (cf. Mt 28:10) after the Resurrection. According to the Gospels, these words were not addressed to Mary. Strong in her faith, she had no fear. Mary’s participation in the victory of Christ became clear to me above all from the experience of my people. Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski told me that his predecessor, Cardinal August Hlond, had spoken these prophetic words as he was dying: ‘The victory, if it comes, will come through Mary.’ During my pastoral ministry in Poland, I saw for myself how those words were coming true.

After my election as Pope, as I became more involved in the problems of the universal Church, I came to have a similar conviction: On this universal level, if victory comes it will be brought by Mary. Christ will conquer through her, because He wants the Church’s victories now and in the future to be linked to her.

I held this conviction even though I did not yet know very much about Fátima. I could see, however, that there was a certain continuity among La Salette, Lourdes, and Fátima-and, in the distant past, our Polish Jasna Góra.

And thus we come to May 13, 1981, when I was wounded by gunshots fired in St. Peter’s Square. At first, I did not pay attention to the fact that the assassination attempt had occurred on the exact anniversary of the day Mary appeared to the three children at Fátima in Portugal and spoke to them the words that now, at the end of this century, seem to be close to their fulfillment.”

-Pope John Paul II in Crossing the Threshold of Hope

by

Bezel333 on Kim Clement, TBN’s “prophet for profit”

Bezel333 takes on TBN’s favorite false prophet, Kim Clement. Clement puts on one heck of a show, very entertaining, very ear-tickling. Not a lick of the presence of God, and nothing is done for the glory of Christ. But very entertaining, in a heretical, blaspheming kind of way.

by

“Slain in the Spirit”–almost literally!!

Two of our favorite subjects lately have been:

(1) Charismatic chicanery, and
(2) lawsuits

Well, like the old Reese’s® Peanut Butter Cup commercials used to say, “Two great tatstes that taste great together.” How ’bout we roll both subjects into one post? Here’s a lawsuit, brought on by Charismatic chicanery, right here in good, old K-Town (via Charisma Magazine):

A man is suing his former Knoxville, Tenn., church and its pastors for negligence, claiming he was severely and permanently injured when church “catchers” failed to assist him during a prayer service last year.

In a $2.5 million civil action filed last week, Matthew Lincoln, a 58-year-old recording engineer, accused Lakewind Church pastors Michael and Monique Sexton of not properly “supervising the catchers.” Both the church and the pastors are named in the lawsuit.

Lincoln, who had been a member of Lakewind since 1995, claims in the suit that in his many years attending the nondenominational church, he was always “caught” if he “fell out in the spirit” because altar workers were customarily in place during prayer ministry. According to the complaint, Lakewind Church typically positions altar workers behind parishioners who receive prayer to catch them in the event that they experience “dizzying, fainting or falling in the spirit.”

But during a service on June 6, 2007, Lincoln said visiting minister Robert Lavala slightly touched his forehead, and he “received the spirit,” fell backward and struck the carpet-covered cement floor with the back of his head and back. The lawsuit claims the fall aggravated a degenerative disc disease in Lincoln’s neck and back that he had “reasonably recovered” from before the incident.

“To me this is not a complicated matter,” said Lincoln’s attorney, J.D. Lee. “The [church] had a set duty that they recognized, that the [church] board recognized … and they didn’t catch him. The poor guy fell out, and they breached the duty that they had.”
But David Long, an attorney representing the church and the Sextons, disagrees with Lee’s premise and does not believe his clients should be held liable. “The church has not done anything wrong and was not negligent,” he told Charisma.

In addition to losing income due to his alleged injuries, Lincoln claims he can no longer care for his disabled 25-year-old daughter. His wife, Shirley, is suing Lakewind for $75,000 as a “derivative action” that resulted from the “loss of consortium, loss of services and companionship of her husband.”

Oh….

My….

Gosh………..

Is there anything to add? Or does this story just kinda speak for itself?

OK, so let me get this straight. The guy “receives the Spirit,” which causes him to fall backwards. And it’s the church’s fault? Shouldn’t this guy join that Nebraska congressman who sued God over natural disasters, and the gay guy that’s suing Thomas Nelson and Zondervan over what God wrote in His word and sue God? Think about it folks: if it was the Holy Spirit that caused Lincoln to fall backwards–I mean, wouldn’t the Holy Spirit be able to know that there wasn’t going to be somebody to catch him? Or was the Holy Spirit too busy giving out tongues and interpretation and making people bark like dogs? And shouldn’t the Holy Spirit have told the evangelist to hold up a minute until He could get somebody to catch him?

See, this is the kind of thing that makes me shake my head over how people can believe this kind of stuff is of God. If these people would actually pick up a Bible and read what it actually says, rather than basing their doctrine on a bunch of “feelings” and experiences, perhaps this wouldn’t have happened.

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 12)

Tower To Truth Question:

12. Why were the words “white and delightsome” in 2nd Nephi 30:6 changed to “pure and delightsome” right on the heels of the Civil Rights campaign for blacks?

——————

FAIR Response:

The critics have their history wrong. The change dates to 1837. The change was made by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, though it was not carried through in some other editions, which mistakenly followed the 1830 instead of Joseph’s change. It was restored in the 1981 edition, but that was nearly 150 years after the change was made by Joseph.

This issue has been discussed extensively in the Church’s magazines (e.g. the Ensign), and the scholarly publication BYU Studies.

To learn more: Douglas Campbell, “‘White’ or ‘Pure’: Five Vignettes,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29:4 (Winter 1996)

—————————-

My Response:

OK, so let me get this straight. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints–the organization that publishes the Book of Mormon–“mistakenly followed the 1830” edition of the BOM and kept the words “white and delightsome” in some editions–for ALMOST 150 YEARS!!!! Well, this is understandable. When there are almost 4000 changes made to a work of fiction like the BOM, it’s hard to keep track of all of them. And again, we get back to the age-old question–if the BOM was dictated, word-for-word, from God to Joseph Smith, wouldn’t the 1830 edition be closer to what God supposedly told Joseph to write? Shouldn’t those words be given precedent over the changes made to the BOM by men?

And do you notice something about FAIR’s answer: there are no links to take you to a more in-depth study of the issue. So far, every answer they have given has come with a link to some other page that at least makes an attempt to refute the idea offered. But here? Eh, not so much. They claim that “This issue has been discussed extensively in the Church’s magazines (e.g. the Ensign), and the scholarly publication BYU Studies. ” OK, how about a reference? Some kind of citation that can take us to one of these “magazines” and “BYU Studies?”

Well, I guess we need to look at what Mormon “prophets” have said about this passage. Does this mean that Brigham Young “mistakenly followed the 1830,” when he

stated in 1859, “You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation …When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people” (Journal of Discourses 7:336). [Via Mormonism Research Ministry]

Spencer W. Kimball “mistakenly followed the 1830,” when,

At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball utilized 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians “are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.” He said, “The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation”
(Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).[ibid]

Or are these just these mens’ “opinions?” Yep, that’s it! This is an embarrassing topic for the LDS church, so we need to brush it off as being simply their “opinion.” No, friend. This was official doctrine of the LDS church, as evidenced by other BOM passages:

2nd Nephi 5:21—“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”
3rd Nephi 2:15—“And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.”

The “curse of Cain” doctrine was ingrafted into Mormon teaching. I mean, for crying out loud, if it wasn’t then why did they need to issue an OFFICIAL DECLARATION in 1978, and add it to the Doctrine and Covenants?? If it wasn’t official doctrine, why did they need to add to one of the sacred scriptures?

Boy, I could go on here. You know, that whole “fish in a barrel” thing. I’ll let this video sum it up:

by

Who said this?

See if you can guess who said this:

This is the God of the gospel of grace. A God who, out of love for us, sent the only Son He ever had wrapped in our skin. He learned how to walk, stumbled and fell, cried for His milk, sweated blood in the night, was lashed with a whip and showered with spit, was fixed to a cross, and died whispering forgiveness on us all.

The God of the legalistic Christian, on the other hand is often unpredictable, erratic, and capable of all manner of prejudices. When we view God this way, we feel compelled to engage in some sort of magic to appease Him. Sunday worship becomes a superstitious insurance policy against His whims. This God expects people to be perfect and to be in perpetual control of their feelings and thoughts. When broken people with this concept of God fail, as inevitably as they must, they usually expect punishment. So they persevere in religious practices as they struggle to maintain a hollow image of a perfect self. The struggle itself is exhausting. The legalists can never live up to the expectations they project on God.

Did you guess Brennan Manning, in all of his Emergent, Postmodern, ooey-gooey theologically syrupy wishy-washiness? Yep, Brennan Manning, High Priest in The Church of You Can Claim Christ Without Repenting From Sin. I remember trying to read “Ragamuffin Gospel.” What a wretched piece of writing.

But see, the above quote is how the Purpose-Driven/Emergent/Postmoderns view those of us who hold to the truth of Scripture. They call us “legalists” for daring to say that in order to be saved a person must repent of their sins. Manning and Bell and McLaren would rather spend their time telling people that “God loves them just the way they are, sins and all” without ever once warning them to repent. So they wind up loving these people right into Hell. They would rather worship a God of their own making than the one whose perfect righteousness requires Him to send unrepentant sinners to their eternal justice.

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 11)

Since I will be busy tomorrow, my usual Friday post goes up today. May all have a happy and safe 4th of July weekend!

====================

Tower To Truth Question:

11. Why did Joseph Smith condone polygamy as an ordinance from God (D. & C. 132) when the Book of Mormon had already condemned the practice (Jacob 1:15, 2:24)

————————-

FAIR Answer:

The critics need to read the next verses. The Book of Mormon says that God may command polygamy, just a few verses later. (Jac. 2:30).

To learn more: Book of Mormon condemns polygamy

Many Biblical prophets had more than one wife, and there is no indication that God condemned them. And, the Law of Moses had laws about plural wives—why not just forbid them if it was evil, instead of telling people how they were to conduct it?

To learn more: Polygamy not Biblical

And, many early Christians didn’t think polygamy was inherently evil:
To learn more: Early Christians on plural marriage

————————

My Response:

This is a lightning rod for most Mormons. And it is one of the few things people know about Mormonism, especially with the Warren Jeffs episode and the events in Texas. Now, Ask 100 people what they know about Mormons, I dare say 95 of them will mention polygamy. However, if you ask 100 Mormons about polygamy, 95 will probably tell you, “Oh, no, the LDS church has NEVER taught that.” Well, yes they did, it is documented all over the place, you can find it for yourself. That said, the question becomes “Does the Bible allow for polygamy?” (Oops, I mean “plural marriage“)

Let’s look at the examples FAIR gives us. At the link titled, “Polygamy not Biblical,” they mention Abraham, and his marriage to Hagar. Of course, Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, and we all know how well that turned out. Then they make a little oopsie. They try to use Abraham’s marriage to Keturah to support their position. Problem is, when Abraham married Keturah, Sarah had been dead for almost two whole chapters! Sarah died in Genesis 23, Abraham married Keturah in Genesis 25. Then they talk about Jacob, and how he took to himself both Leah and Rachel. Another problem. Jacob was promised by Laban to have Rachel as his wife for seven years of labor. He then worked for seven more years to receive what he was promised.

Now, what FAIR fails to mention about Abraham and Jacob is this: These two men lived long before the Law. Why is this important? It’s the same reason Cain could take one of his sisters as his wife (to answer that age-old question).

Well, FAIR mentions Deuteronomy 21:15-17—

15 “If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, 16 then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.”

No doubt, many men still had more than one wife, a practice condemned back in Deuteronomy 17. So, in order to be equitable to the wives who had come to count on their husband for sustenance, God allowed the men to keep these women, but to treat them equally.

Now, let’s get to the main characters in this debate: David and Solomon. The LDS church uses these two men as models for a polygamous lifestyle. They point out 2nd Samuel 12:7-8—

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!”

They zero in on verse 8, when Nathan tells David that Saul’s wives had been given to him. However, this does not necessarily mean he used them all. As the Keil & Delitzch commentary states,

“These words refer to the fact that, according to the general custom in the East, when a king died, his successor upon the throne also succeeded to his harem, so that David was at liberty to take his predecessor’s wives; though we cannot infer from this that he actually did so: in fact this is by no means probable, since, according to 1st Samuel 14:50, Saul had but one wife, and according to 2nd Samuel 3:7 only one concubine, whom Abner appropriated to himself.”

So while they belonged to David, he did not necessarily use them in the way the LDS church believes. Yet what does D and C 132 say about David’s wives? Doctrine and Covenants 132:38-39—

“David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife…”


This must be one more of those “plain and precious truths” that was removed by the “careless transcribers,” because nowhere do we see all these wives given to David by Nathan. Moving on…

Next, we have Solomon. 700 wives. 300 concubines. FAIR says of 1st Kings 11:1-8,

“Solomon’s wives turned his heart away from, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord.”

I don’t think anything needed to be said. We have seen, time and again, what happened to men of God who took other wives to themselves.

While God may have permitted polygamy, and may have tolerated it, don’t forget this—that the sins these men committed were no worse than the sins you and I commit every day. But God does not destroy us for them. He gives us a little rope, and we hang ourselves with it. And just as “Those whom God loves, He chastens” (Hebrews 12:6), He also chastened Abraham and Jacob and David and Solomon when they took many wives to themselves.

These LDS claim to be “restoring” the “fullness of the gospel.” But what did Jesus say in the Gospel of Matthew? Matthew 19:5—“For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” Not “wives.” So any permission or leniency that God showed toward men who took more than one wife was obliterated by these words of Christ.

by

A reminder to pray for our troops

One of the first Christian concerts I ever went to was to see Avalon. Also appearing that night was a fellow I had heard of (and heard some of his songs, though I didn’t know they were his). His name was Mark Schultz. He has done such songs as “I Am the Way,” “You Are a Child of Mine,” and “I Have Been There.” This night, he did a song that he had just finished. It was the performance of the night.

As we approach Independence Day, let us remember that there are men and women who are sacrificing so much, going without, for the sake of us and others.

by

Bezel333 on “The Circle of Life”

The title of the video is “Reincarnation or Resurrection?” Ever see “The Lion King?” With so much Eastern Mysticism running rampant in American churches (“The Gospel According to the Beatles,” for example) the fact that all will be resurrected–the just will be resurrected to life, the wicked will be resurrected to death. We will not “come back” as a dog or a cat or anything else. Once we die, that’s it.

And why do we die? Sin. When sin conceives it brings forth death. It was because of Adam’s sin, that each and every one of us inherited, that these bodies break down and we die. It’s not a “circle”: we don’t get another chance. So, here’s Bezel:

by

First Wesley, now Knox

**UPDATE**: Now the Politically Correct, UnScriptural Apostates have announced they are standing with the PLO in their opposition to the very existence of Israel (via Christian Worldview Network):

As I write truthful but unpleasant comments about the Presbyterian Church, I know many Presbyterian readers of this do not agree with their church leadership. But at the recent Presbyterian Church USA annual meeting a number of Presbyterian leaders pled passionately for a declaration of solidarity with the Palestinian Arabs. The appeal included a recommendation to adopt a series of anti-Israel measures, including proposals for divestment and for backing a suspension of American military aid to the Jewish state. In essence they called for Presbyterians to side with the Palestinians and take serious shots at the Israelis.

“The situation in Palestine is dire. The call from our Palestinian brothers and sisters has fallen on deaf ears,” a Presbyterian minister, Reverend William McGarvey of San Francisco, said. “The American Christian church has largely watched this catastrophe continue as if we did not care.”

There is also an article at the New York Sun.

——————————–

If you have noticed the increase in earthquakes over the last few years, it may be due to the number of great saints rolling over in their graves. The Wesleys and Francis Asbury have been flipping for years over the direction of the United Methodist Church. Now comes this news (although not really news, as it has been coming for a while now) that has been making John Knox do somersaults in his grave (via Al Mohler):

Meeting in San Jose, California, the Presbyterian Church USA, the liberal branch of American Presbyterianism, moved to approve homosexual clergy on June 27, 2008 — a date that may well mark a final blow against biblical orthodoxy in that denomination.

The PCUSA has debated sexuality issues for decades now, with activists for homosexual ordination pressing their case until they finally got their way at the denomination’s General Assembly. In that historic meeting, the General Assembly actually approved several proposals.

Even before dealing directly with the question of ordination standards, the General Assembly approved a first step toward revising the denomination’s official translation of the historic Heidelberg Catechism. Once again, the crucial issue was homosexuality. The question was “complex and multi-layered,” as the proposing group admitted.

And the apostasy continues…

Flip a word here, leave out a sentence there, twist the Scripture (or even leave it out) here and there, and now the PCUSA has a Bible that suits their purpose.

OneNewsNow has a fuller article.

PCUSA–Politcally Correct. UnScriptural. Apostate!

by

The idolatry of Rome–the “Scala Sancta”

There is a staircase in Rome–the seat of religious harlotry–that, supposedly, people can ascend on their knees and gain some pitiful “indulgence” from the man who sits in a temple as God. Spurgeon wrote about it as he witnessed this atrocity:

WHILE traveling in Italy it was our good fortune to fall in with our esteemed friend, Dr. Jobson, a Wesleyan brother well known to fame as a preacher of the gospel, and known also to his numerous friends as an artist of no mean order. By his kindness we are able to present our readers with a view of the stairs on the north side of the Basilica of St. John Lateran, at Rome, which are superstitiously reputed to be the identical steps which our Savior descended when he left the judgment hall of Pilate. No mention is made of steps in the gospels, but that is of small consequence to the Church of Rome, which recognizes tradition as quite sufficient authority. There are twenty-eight marble steps of considerable breadth, and we are asked to believe that they were transported from Jerusalem to Rome by miraculous agency. We remember a cottage which was so dilapidated that, to our knowledge, the father gathered up the steps of the stairs, and sent his boy with them to the landlord, with the message, “Please, sir, father has sent you our stairs, and would be glad of a new set,” but these marble slabs are in excellent repair and of great weight, and must have required a considerable amount of angelic engineering to remove them to their present site. However, for many a long year doubters concerning the authenticity of the holy stairs have been judged to be rank infidels, and have been considered worthy of the direst pains of perdition.

[…]

Our abhorrence of Popery and everything verging upon it rose to a white heat as we saw how it can lower an intelligent nation to the level of fetish worship, and associate the name of the ever-blessed Jesus with a groveling idolatry. If our mild milk-and-water Protestants could see Popery with their own eyes, they might have less to say against [Protestant] bigotry; and if those who play at ornate worship could see whither their symbolism tends, they would start back aghast, and adhere henceforth to the severest simplicity. Perhaps Luther would never have become a Reformer had it not been for his visit to Rome and his ascent of these very stairs. In the city where he expected to find the church of God in all its holiness, he found sin rampant beyond all precedent. “It is almost incredible,” says he, “what infamous actions are committed at Rome; one would require to see it and hear it in order to believe it. It is an ordinary saying that if there is a hell, Rome is built upon it. It is an abyss from whence all sins proceed.” Nor did he speak as an exaggerating enthusiast, for Machiavelli’s witness was that the nearer you came to the capital of Christendom the less you found of the Christian spirit. “We Italians,” said the great historian, “are chiefly indebted to the church and the priests for our having become a set of profane scoundrels.”

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (Answer 10)

Tower To Truth Question:

10. If the words “familiar spirit” in Is. 29:4 refer to the Book of Mormon, why does “familiar spirit” always refer to occult practices such as channeling and necromancy everywhere else in the Old Testament?

—————————-

FAIR Answer:

The term “familiar spirit,” quoted in the often-poetic Isaiah (and used by Nephi to prophesy about the modern publication of the Book of Mormon) is a metaphor, not a description of any text or its origin.

To learn more: Book of Mormon as a “familiar spirit”

—————————–

My Response:

I believe the question from Tower To Truth, while understandable, is not quite accurate. And I say this with all due respect to the ministry of Tower To Truth, to the work they do, and in all humility. I do not say this to defend the existence of FAIR. But I do want to be honest with every answer I give, since an incorrect answer can lead to an indefensible position. I think the question stems from a slight misreading of the BOM text. I would have to agree with FAIR on this one, that the Isaiah passage (reiterated in 2nd Nephi) does say “as one with a familiar spirit” and is not saying the BOM “is a familiar spirit.” In fact, in Genesis, God tells Cain that his brother’s blood “cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10).

That said, however, FAIR stands to be corrected. For one thing, at the link that says “Book of Mormon as a ‘familiar spirit'” they have this to say:

The Book of Mormon verse also emphasizes that the power to translate the Book of Mormon comes from God, not from channeling or necromancy: “the Lord God will give unto him [the translator] power.” But, the critics do not mention this inconvenient fact.

Actually, the “power to translate” the BOM was no gift at all–it was simply Joseph Smith sticking a rock in a hat and telling his scribe what to write. And if this “gift of translation” came from God, then somebody got their wires crossed, because in less than 7 years, editors had to clean up almost 4000 errors Joseph made in “translating” the BOM (poor grammar, misspellings, and make changes according to doctrine).

Second, FAIR states:

Critics also ignore that the Book of Mormon also speaks negatively about appealing to actual “familiar spirits”

Now, this is where FAIR kinda runs into a pickle. They say that, in essence, the BOM condemns speaking with the dead.

Hmmmmmmm.

That’s interesting.

I mean, what with all that “baptizing for the dead” stuff. Then there’s the matter of how Joesph obtained the “Keys to the Priesthood.” Wilford Woodruff said:

John the Baptist conferred upon him the Aaronic Priesthood; Peter, James and John, the Apostleship and Melchisedek Priesthood; and all the Prophets who held any keys and powers belonging to the Gospel, these also visited Joseph Smith and conferred upon him those keys and powers and authority to administer them on the earth.

Ok, either these men were, like, really, really old, or they were really, really dead. Well, we know they were dead. So, this means that Joseph was communicating with the dead. Some people call that praying to the saints or veneration. God calls it necromancy.

by

Planned Parenthood to spread its poisoned roots into shopping malls

From Albert Mohler’s blog comes this frightening article about how the wormwood tree known as Planned Parenthood (motto: “We’ve never met a baby we didn’t want to kill, or a profit we didn’t want to make!“) is spreading out its roots into shopping malls:

“It is indeed a new look…a new branding, if you will.” That’s the explanation offered by Leslie Durgin, a senior vice president at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. She was speaking of Planned Parenthood’s new “upscale” approach to marketing abortions and other “services” to wealthier suburban women.

This new strategy and marketing plan was described in chilling detail by reporter Stephanie Simon of The Wall Street Journal [article available by subscription only]. “Flush with cash, Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide are aggressively expanding their reach,” she explains, “seeking to woo more affluent patients with a network of suburban clinics and huge new health centers that project a decidedly upscale image.”

Not content to lead poor women astray with the notion that their best option is to kill their child, they are now targeting the wombs of wealthy, upscale women with their product–death.

Make no mistake about it, Planned Parenthood has an agenda, even as it did when founded by Margaret Sanger and other radicals in the early 20th century. The organization receives hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from killing unborn babies. It wants to extend its reach into the population.
As Simon reports:

[Wall Street Journal artcle begins]: Last spring, the nonprofit — which has 882 clinics nationwide — dropped its crusading mission statement setting out the rights of all individuals, no matter their income, to “reproductive self-determination.” In its place, Planned Parenthood adopted a crisp pledge to “leverage strength through our affiliated structure to be the nation’s most trusted provider of sexual and reproductive health care.” Ms. Richards says the new statement implies expanded services for all — she’s especially eager to draw more male patients — but some outsiders wonder why it no longer mentions affordability or access.

“This is not the Planned Parenthood we all grew up with… they now have more of a business approach, much more aggressive,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, who runs abortion clinics in Texas and Maryland.[End of WSJ article]

The article does mention, however, that PP will

offer services just short of abortions

at these storefronts. They may not perform abortions there, but you know they will be talking them up. Kinda like how drug dealers get people hooked by giving them some junk for free, just to get them hooked, so when they’re ready they’ll know where to get their fix.

Now, PP may be claiming that they are moving into malls to attract adult women. But who do they really think they are trying to fool? Who is it that makes up a large percentage of mall population? That’s right! teenagers! Just like beer and cigarette companies market to younger and younger demographics to get kids buying their products early, this is exactly what Planned Parenthood is doing.

[WSJ article begins]: The group has always operated some suburban clinics, but some of its local affiliates, which have a great deal of autonomy, have made a determined effort in the past few years to “be the provider of first choice…for people who do have other options,” said David Greenberg, Oregon’s top Planned Parenthood executive. Officials note that health insurance doesn’t always cover contraception and even women with access to private doctors may prefer the confidentiality of buying birth control or getting a herpes test at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

“It is high time we follow the population,” said Sarah Stoesz, who heads Planned Parenthood operations in three Midwest states. She recently opened three express centers in wealthy Minnesota suburbs, “in shopping centers and malls, places where women are already doing their grocery shopping, picking up their Starbucks, living their daily lives,” Ms. Stoesz said. [WSJ article ends]

One Planned Parenthood executive went so far as to say, “I like to think of it as the LensCrafters of family planning.”

That’s right! Pick up some jeans at the Gap, grab a half-caff latte at Starbucks, and learn how to kill your child, all under one roof! How sick can a person possibly be? To equate the murder of a child to getting contact lenses? Thank you, Warren Court! Oh, and for all of those who think this is all about “women’s health,” and that Planned Parenthood is just in it to help women, and they have no ulterior motives, look at that line in the above blockquote: some of its local affiliates, which have a great deal of autonomy, have made a determined effort in the past few years to “be the provider of first choice…for people who do have other options,”

It’s a business, folks! To lift the name of an old Megadeth album (yeah, I used to listen to them. Don’t remind me!), “Killing is our business, and business is good!”

Planned Parenthood may try to brush up the organization’s image, but the business remains abortion. In a chilling reminder of the grotesque intersection of baby killing and business, local independent abortion centers are complaining that Planned Parenthood threatens their own volume in abortions. Amy Hagstrom Miller runs abortion clinics in two states, and she is not pleased:

[WSJ article begins]: “Ms. Hagstrom Miller competes with Planned Parenthood for abortion patients — and finds it deeply frustrating. She does not receive the government grants or tax-deductible donations that bolster Planned Parenthood, and says she can’t match the nonprofit’s budget for advertising or clinic upgrades. She has carved her own niche by touting her care as more holistic — and by charging $425 for a first-trimester surgery at her Austin clinic, compared with $475 at the local Planned Parenthood. (Both Ms. Hagstrom Miller and Planned Parenthood say they work out discounts and payment plans for the needy.) [WSJ article ends]

This is about revenue and profit, market growth and competition. It is a horrifying glimpse into the cold hard reality of what stands behind the abortion movement in general and Planned Parenthood in particular — the ideology of death and the love of money. Can we imagine a more lethal combination?

Planned Parenthood may soon be coming to a mall near you, but no matter how much they want to burnish their image and go “upscale,” their business remains death on demand. The Culture of Death creeps on — mile by mile, mall by mall.

King Ahaz burned his children in the fires of Molech. Today we suck them out of the womb.

by

Biblical Preaching–“Preach First and Last Sermons”

From a blog entitled Biblical Preaching comes this post–advice for preachers of all levels of experience, from the novice to the old-timers:

I don’t know if you count. My temperament tends to count. I keep track of what I’ve preached, when, to whom, etc. I keep records partially out of necessity and partially out of interest. Whether or not you count sermons, take a guess, which one is today’s? Is it number 15, or 100, or 1250, or 3500?

Let me encourage you today to preach as if it is your first. Preach with all the naivety of a new preacher. Remember? Back when you expected lives to be changed immediately by the sermon you preached. Back when the spring in your step conveyed an excitement about what God is doing in your life and what He wants to do in their lives. Forget the nerves, the mistakes, the unrefined skill, and so on. But remember the enthusiastic expectation of that first sermon. Preach like that today.

And preach as if it is your last. Imagine that today’s sermon had to count because there would be no more. Imagine that all the weight of God’s work in your life had to be transferred with urgency today to those sitting before you. Forget the slowness of mind that may come, or the feeble frame that you may have to carry up those steps. But imagine how powerful the weight of matured passion and perspective will be in your last ever sermon. Preach like that today.

Basically, what he is saying is this: preach as if this will be the only sermon a person in your audience will ever hear. Preach as if the rapture is coming as soon as you give the final “Amen.” Because one of these days, you’ll be right.

by

Happy birthday, Johnny Mac!!

Happy birthday (a day late) to John MacArthur, born June 19, 1939. What amazes me so about Pastor MacArthur (besides his God-given gift of opening up the Scripture) is the fact that even at 69 years old, his voice is just as clear as if he were still 39.

Keep fighting the good fight!