Author: fourpointer

by

Smells Like TBN Spirit

A ripoff of the Nirvana song, inspired by the jackals featured every hour on TBN.

I saw this guy
On my TV
And he was staring
Straight at me
He said he’d heal
My disease
If I would send
Him money please

Don’t know don’t know
Don’t know don’t know
Don’t know don’t know don’t know

Well he’s yellin!
And he’s screamin!
Could it be that
He’s blasphemin?
Send him money
I don’t wanna!
But he told me
That I gotta!
If I do and
God is willing
I’ll find gold in
All my fillings!
Yeah!

As I wait for
My miracle
And migraines still
Pound in my skull
I must admit
The waiting’s tough
Oh is my faith
Not strong enough?

Don’t know don’t know
Don’t know don’t know
Don’t know don’t know don’t know

Dontcha dis the
Path I’ve chosen!
Even though the
Bank’s foreclosin!
And my mortgage
I can’t pay now!
“Money Comin!”
Any day now!
Though by sight you’d
Never guess it!
It’ll come if
I confess it!
Yeah!

I pawned my watch
And sold my car
And I maxed out
My credit cards
But I know I’ll
Get what I need
With one more
Thousand-dollar seed

Don’t know don’t know
Don’t know don’t know
Don’t know don’t know don’t know

Brother Benny
Wants to help me!
If my checkbook
I will empty!
Send it in now!
No delayin!
In the Spirit
He’s a-slayin!
Slingin’ jackets!
Quotin’ verses!
Calling down all
Kinds of curses!

Avanzini!
Pastor TD!
Creflo Taffy!
Stevie Munsey!
Kenny Benny!
Joyce and Jesse!
Drivin’ Bentleys!
Charley Grassley!
Penitentiary!

by

Destroying the “Jesus was Mithra” nonsense

I’m sure that at some time or another you have probably had some smarty-person try to roll up on you with “Did you know that the character of Jesus was based on Mithra?” nonsense. They may have laid all these “facts” on you about all the “parallels” between Jesus and Mithra. I prefer the Geico­ Caveman™ response:

“Yeah, I’d like to answer that. Uh…….what?”

In short: There were two separate and distinct “Mithra” worship systems–one Persian (Iranian) centuries before Christ; another Roman, beginning at least 100 years AFTER Christ. The first system (Persian) had none of the hallmarks that make up the “Jesus was Mithra” argument. Even the Roman system did not have any characteristics that are UNIQUE to Christianity.

If you have about a half-hour to spare, read this article over at Tektonics. Make sure you do it with a clear head and as few distractions as possible, because it is rather scholarly, technical, and highly annotated. Here is a sample of their research:

What has been the point of this diversion? The point is to give the reader a warning, to be on the lookout any time a critic makes some claim about Mithraism somehow being a parallel to Christianity. Check their sources carefully. If, like Acharya S, they cite source material from the Cumont or pre-Cumont era, then chances are excellent that they are using material that is either greatly outdated, or else does not rely on sound scholarship (i.e., prior to Cumont; works by the likes of King, Lajard, and Robertson). Furthermore, if they have asserted anything at all definitive about Mithraic belief, they are probably wrong about it, and certainly basing it on the conjectures of someone who is either not a Mithraic specialist (which is what Freke and Gandy do in The Jesus Mysteries) or else is badly outdated.

Mithraic scholars, you see, do not hold a candle for the thesis that Christianity borrowed anything philosophically from Mithraism, and they do not see any evidence of such borrowing, with one major exception: “The only domain in which we can ascertain in detail the extent to which Christianity imitated Mithraism is that of art.” [MS.508n] We are talking here not of apostolic Christianity, note well, but of Christianity in the third and fourth centuries, which, in an effort to prove that their faith was the superior one, embarked on an advertising campaign reminiscent of our soft drink wars. Mithra was depicted slaying the bull while riding its back; the church did a lookalike scene with Samson killing a lion. Mithra sent arrows into a rock to bring forth water; the church changed that into Moses getting water from the rock at Horeb. (Hmm, did the Jews copy that one?) Think of how popular Pokemon is these days, and then think of the church as the one doing the Digimon ripoff — although one can’t really bellow about borrowing in this case, for this happened in an age when art usually was imitative — it was a sort of one-upsmanship designed as a competition, and the church was not the only one doing it. Furthermore, it didn’t involve an exchange or theft of ideology.

If anybody tries to pull this fast one on you, point them to this article. It should keep them busy for a while, and dispel any notions they have about such nonsense.

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 5)

Tower To Truth question:

5. Since the Bible’s test of determine whether someone is a true prophet of God is 100% accuracy in all his prophecies (Deut. 18:20-22), has the LDS Church ever reconsidered its teaching that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were true prophets?

——————————-

FAIR Answer:

Believing Christians should be careful. Unless they want to be guilty of a double standard, they will end up condemning many Biblical prophets by this standard.

Learn more here: Joseph Smith and prophetic test in Deuteronomy 18

——————————-

My Response:

If you click on the link provided by FAIR, it will take you to a page where their understanding of the Bible (and their sheer hatred for it) becomes apparent. They focus on the words of men like Jonah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Nathan and the angel who spoke to Samson’s parents. Let’s examine each of these and understand what’s really going on (besides FAIR tryting to throw up a smokescreen to defelct criticism).

First, they mention Jonah’s warning to Nineveh. “Forty days and Nineveh is overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4). These are the only words of the prophet we have, but we can see from the following verses that he said much more than that. Because in verse 5 it says the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast &c. Besides, this was not a prophecy that Nineveh would be overthrown, as FAIR claims by saying

An example is found in the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophecy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4)—no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. God changed things, however, when the people repented and He chose to spare them—much to the chagrin of that imperfect (yet still divinely called) prophet, Jonah.

But it never says Jonah was sent to prophesy against Nineveh–but to preach against it.

Next, they talk about the “failed prophecy” of Ezekiel, in ch. 26-28. However, this only gives further evidence of their hurried attempts to impugn the reputations of God’s prophets. It would take far more space than I have here to show why this will not work, if one studies the words properly. Ezekiel 26:3 tells us that God said “many nations” will come up against Tyre. Also, Nebuchadnezzar was not just the commander of Babylon’s army, but also the armies of those countries Babylon had conquered–those nations whose horses would be so abundant the people would be covered with the dust of their hooves (Eze. 26:10). While those who did the invading got the spoils, Nebuchadnezzar himself did not share in it, thus God gave him Egypt in chapter 29.

Next, they try to smear Jeremiah, by pointing out how he prophesied in ch. 34 that Zedekiah would die in peace, when ch. 52 says that he died in prison. According to many extra-biblical sources (Josephus, the Rabbins, Talmud) Zedekiah was indeed given a royal burial, thus fulfilling the prophecy God gave to Jeremiah.

Then comes Nathan. FAIR says:

Other examples include Nathan:

In 2_Sam. 7:5-17, we read that the prophet Nathan unequivocally prophesied to David that through his son Solomon the Davidic empire would be established “forever,” that the children of Israel would dwell in the promised land “and move no more,” and that the “children of wickedness” would no longer afflict them. These things are quite clearly stated. No conditions are attached to these promises, none whatsoever.[4]

Yet this prophecy clearly did not prove successful if it is interpreted literally.

And there they hit the nail on the head. This passage has Messianic implications. Of course, if you read Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, you find that Joseph was a direct descendant of Solomon, and the legal (though not by birth) father of Jesus. Thus, the davidic kingdom did indeed pass through Solomon. More sloppy work by a group that (ironically enough) calls itself “FAIR.”

Finally, the angel who spoke to Samson. Again, FAIR says:

[In] Judges 13:5, where it is recounted that an angel promised Samson’s mother that Samson would “begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.” No matter how liberal or expansive one wants to be with the facts of Israelite history (as recorded in the Bible or elsewhere), there is no way it can reasonably be concluded that Samson fulfilled this prophecy.

Not only did Samson fail to even “begin” to free Israel from the Philistines, but (1) there were times when he consorted with Philistine women, (2) he married a Philistine, (3) he himself never even led any Israelite troops against the Philistines, and (4) the Philistines eventually humiliated him.

You’re kidding me, right? They might want to read Judges 14:3-4—And Samson said to his father, “Get her [Delilah] for me, for she pleases me well.” But his father and mother did not know that it was of the LORD–that He was seeking an occasion to move against the Philistines. Yes, Samson did begin to deliver Israel when he brought down the Philistne temple with all their princes in it (see Judges 16:25-30). The angel never said he would be the one to finish the job.

So, you can now see how fast and loose FAIR likes to play with their interpretations of biblical prophecies, just so long as it makes the true prophets look bad long enough to fool someone into thinking Joseph Smith was a true prophet (which he wasn’t. That Civil War “prophecy” wasn’t so grand once you examie it a little closer).

by

JW’s on creation

The following is the jist of an exchange I had on another blog with a Jehovah’s Witness about the roles of the Father and the Son in the work of creation.

Suppose a fellow named William Taylor is telling me how a house got built.

William Taylor: Yep, I know the fellow that built that house. Did it all by himself. Every step of the way. And not a soul to help him.

Me: Wow! That’s amazing! You mean he did everything?

WT: Yep, everything. Drew up the plans, mixed the concrete, milled the lumber. Framed it, built the roof tresses, nailed every shingle on the roof. Wired it, plumbed it. Yep, he did everything!

Well, then the man’s son comes along, and says,

Son: So, how do you like the house I built?

Me: What do you mean YOU built it? William, I thought you said his father built it.

WT: His father DID build it!

Me: But the son here did all the work!

WT: Yep!

Me: Then how can you say the father did all the work?

WT: Because he did it through his son.

Me: Huh? You said the father did it all by himself, and that no one helped him.

WT: That’s right!

Me: But the son did the work. The father was NOT by Himslef.

WT: Yes he was. He told his son what to do.

Me: So the father didn’t do the work of building?

WT: Sure he did. He did every single thing by himself–through his son.

I think you get the picture. This is how the Jehovah’s Witnesses see the relationship of the Father and the Son in creation. They claim that when John said “not one thing was made that was not made by [Christ]” (John 1:3), that the apostle meant, “Other than Himself, nothing was made that was not made by Him,” even though the apostle John NEVER makes that distinction. However, when we view creation through the lens of the orthodox view of the Trinity, then it makes sense.

YHVH tells us in Isaiah 44:24–“Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself…” In fact, the New World (mis)Translation adds these words of YHVH–“Who was with Me?” Indicating that NO ONE did ANYTHING in creating ANYTHING besides YHVH. He did not “work through” an angel. In fact, this is ludicrous to even think it. This would mean that an angel created everything for himself! (Colossians 1:16).

YHVH created all things. But when we remember that YHVH is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and we understand that each one had a role in creation (Genesis 1:1-2; Neh. 9:6; Psalm 33:6, 102:25-27; Isa. 44:24, 45:18; John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17) then this Tri-unity lends sense and credibiilty to our understanding of creation. We may not understand “how” but we will understand “who.”

 

by

Stressed about your wedding?

Do you know someone who’s getting married? Are they torn about the life-altering decision of whether to have lillies or daffodils in the bouquet? Is the bride losing sleep and waking up with night sweats about whether her dress should be white, off-white, cream, ivory, or eggshell? Will the groom go ballistic if the guests aren’t seated just right at the reception?

Then tell them to chill out. If their marriage lasts, no one is going to sit down with them in 20 years and say, “Your marriage has lasted so long. You must have had a perfect wedding!” In fact, 5 years from now–nah, 5 months from now–no one will even remember the wedding. It’s all just a bunch of fluff. I dare say, whatever happens at your wedding, it will not even compare to what happened to these friends of Richard Wurmbrand, that he writes about in Tortured For Christ:

One of our workers in the Underground Church was a young girl. The Communist police discovered that she secretly spread Gospels and taught children about Christ. They decided to arrest her. But to make the arrest as agonizing and painful as they could, they decided to delay her arrest a few weeks, until the day she was to be married. On her wedding day, the girl was dressed as a bride—the most wonderful, joyous day in a girl’s life! Suddenly, the door burst open and the secret police rushed in.

When the bride saw the secret police, she held out her arms toward them to be handcuffed. They roughly put the manacles on her wrists. She looked toward her beloved, then kissed the chains and said, “I thank my heavenly Bridegroom for this jewel He has presented to me on my marriage day. I thank Him that I am worthy to suffer for Him.” She was dragged off, with weeping Christians and a weeping bridegroom left be­hind. They knew what happens to young Chris­tian girls in the hands of Communist guards. Her bridegroom faithfully waited for her. After five years she was released—a destroyed, broken woman, looking thirty years older. She said it was the least she could do for her Christ.

So, still stressed over flowers and dresses?

by

No Armor For the Back

In the Valley of Humiliation, poor Christian was hard put to it; for he had gone a little way before he espied a foul fiend coming over the field to meet him: his name is Apollyon. Then Christian began to be afraid, and to wonder whether to go back or to stand his ground. But he remembered that he had no armor for his back, and therefore thought that to turn around might give Apollyon greater ease to pierce him with darts; therefore he resolved to venture and stand his ground.

–John Bunyan, from The Pilgrim’s Progress

by

What did it take?

What did it take for God to save us? To put it into human terms, I would say this:

Suppose I broke into your house, tied you up, and made you watch as I beat your son, killed your wife, and stole everything you owned. You call the police, they come and arrest me, and I am sentenced to die. In the meantime, I am free on bail. So, to stay your wrath, which is firmly upon me, I mow your grass, do your laundry, paint your house and take out the garbage. However, none of these “good deeds” make up for the fact that I have committed such vile offenses against you. There is nothing I can do to cover over my atrocities, and hide them from your sight. Your wrath abides upon me still.

As the day of my execution approaches, you remember your mercy. For no reason other than the fact that you have so desired in your heart, you make me an offer. In order to spare me from death, you will allow your only son to be strapped to that table, have the needles inserted in his arms, and take the penalty that I deserved. Not only that, but you will then adopt me into your family as your son. I plead with you, saying, “No! No! No! I don’t like that idea! I have a better idea! Let me do good things for you! Let me earn my pardon! Let me do enough good things that I don’t have to accept THAT offer!” You look at me and say, “Either my son dies for your crimes–or you pay for them yourself forever. Which is it?”

This is the dilemma facing every single human being who will ever walk the face of the earth. They have all committed horrific acts against the LORD of all the earth. They have walked through His creation, stolen from Him, blasphemed His name–and have rightly earned His wrath.

Everyone.

EVERY.

ONE.

The only way to avoid the eternal punishment we deserve is to accept His offer of His Son, the blood that He shed, to hide our sins from the sight of the Father. Oh, but how many? How many do not bow their knee and confess salvation is through Christ alone! They rather say, “No, God! I have a better idea! I’ll do good things for You! I’ll do such good things that You won’t have any choice but to pardon me!” And they think they are bringing Him gifts of gold, silver, and precious stones. When in fact they are bringing Him a big, stinking pile of used Kotex. Have these people not read the words of the prophet Isaiah? “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.”

Used tampons.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I feel the translators were much too kind. All of our righteousnesses are as filthy as the cloths a woman has used during her period of uncleanness. They are drenched with the stain and odor of our own uncleanness. And they are good for nothing but to be thrown into a pile and burned. And yet how many people will approach the throne of God, holding them in their hands as their most prized possession, thinking that the Lord will be pleased with such an offering. And He will say, “Get out of My sight! I can’t stand to look at you and all that waste you have brought Me! Who do you think I am that I can be bartered with such filth? Do you think I would be pleased with all your uncleanness? In fact, who are you? I don’t even know you! I never have! So be gone! Be gone! NEVER approach Me EVER AGAIN! You dirty, filthy, vile miscreant! Be burned with everlasting fire, that I never have to be reminded of you ever again!!”

Friend, if you are reading this, and you have been gathering up used menstrual cloths as an offering to God to bribe Him into letting you into His kingdom–I beg you to stop right this minute. Because what you are telling God is this–that the blood in those bloody cloths you are offering Him is better than the blood that was shed by His dear and precious Son. You cannot assuage the wrath of God with your own filthy garments. Do you think that God is under some kind of obligation to overlook your sins because you have earned enough “attaboys” and have done enough “good deeds?” How much is enough? Who decides? You? Are you the final arbiter of how much good is enough? Don’t even think for a moment that you have the keys of the kingdom of God–those are in the Hands of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the one who opens the door to the kingdom, for He is the Door. He opens it, and no one can shut it. But, friend, He also shuts it, and no one can open it.

You have sinned against Almighty God. The only offer there is for your pardon is to accept the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross, and to be adopted into His family as His son. No amount of mowing, laundry, painting, or any other little trinket of a deed you can offer Him will ever take away the fact that you are a sinner. Only the blood of Jesus. That’s what it took.

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (Answer 4)

Tower To Truth question:

4. If Brigham Young was a true prophet, how come one of your later prophets overturned his declaration which stated that the black man could never hold the priesthood in the LDS Church until after the resurrection of all other races (Journal of Discourses 2:142-143)?

——————–

FAIR Answer:

Peter and the other apostles likewise misunderstood the timing of gospel blessings to non-Israelites. Even following a revelation to Peter, many members of the early Christian Church continued to fight about this point and how to implement it—even Peter and Paul had disagreements. Yet, Bible-believing Christians, such as the Latter-day Saints, continue to consider both as prophets. Critics should be careful that they do not have a double standard, or they will condemn Bible prophets as well.

The Latter-day Saints are not scriptural or prophetic inerrantists. They are not troubled when prophets have personal opinions which turn out to be incorrect. In the case of the priesthood ban, members of the modern Church accepted the change with more joy and obedience than many first century members accepted the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles without the need for keeping the Mosaic Law.

————————————-

My Response:

This is another case of the LDS church saying that a doctrine that they held for over 140 years was simply “one man’s opinion.” Give it a rest, folks. Either the “prophet” is speaking as from God’s mouth, or you can’t trust anything they say. Here we come back to Ezra Taft Benson’s words in “14 Fundamentals”—

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to “give heed unto all his words”–as if from the Lord’s “own mouth.”

That’s right, give heed to the words of the LDS prophet–unless they don’t make sense, or their prophecy doesn’t come to pass, or it becomes an embarassment to their cause, or they really need for Utah to become a state–then you don’t really have to listen, because it’s “just his opinion.”

Interstingly, in this same message, Youngs says,

“Brother George Q. Cannon brought me a god from the Sandwich Islands, made out of a piece of wood. If all the people bow down to such a god as that, it is in accordance with their laws and ordinances, and their manner of dealing among themselves; the Lord permits them to do as they please with regard to that matter, and this illustration will apply to all the nations upon the face of the earth. People who fall down beneath the wheels of Juggernaut, and are crushed to death; who sacrifice their children in the worship of idols; if they act according to the best of their knowledge, there is a chance for their salvation, as much as there is for the salvation of any other person.”

Here is the quote in question:

We have this illustrated in the account of Cain and Abel. Cain conversed with his God every day, and knew all about the plan of creating this earth, for his father told him. But, for the want of humility, and through jealousy, and an anxiety to possess the kingdom, and to have the whole of it under his own control, and not allow any body else the right to say one word, what did he do? He killed his brother. The Lord put a mark on him; and there are some of his children in this room. When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God.

Did you notice that? Blacks will not receive the Melchizedek priesthood until all the sons of Adam have received it, and have been redeemed, and resurrected. And not until then! Obviously, not all of Adam’s sons have received the Melchizedek priesthood, or been redeemed or resurrected. Yet another false prophecy. Go figure!

Of course, this is in line with their beliefs that blacks and Indians were a “dark and loathsome people” (1st Nephi 12:23; 2nd Nephi 5:21; Jacob 3:5; Alma 3:6, etc. etc. etc.)

I would answer the issue of “the mark of Cain” or “disobedience in the pre-existence” or however the Mormon church wants to play this thing. But it’s a rabbit trail, one I won’t even go down. I could mention Galatians 3:28, or Ephesians 2:14-18, or Revelation 5:9, or why it took the Mormon church so long to understand what these verses meant, even though Joseph Smith was supposedly a “prophet of God.” But I won’t.

by

Yes, you should believe in the Trinity

From Tower To Truth Ministries, they show us a couple of ways to answer the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their booklet Should You Believe In The Trinity? In this dialogue, Chris is the Christian, John is the Jehovah’s Witness. Here is an excerpt from the full article:

Chris: In fact, I found [the booklet] to be full of so many interesting quotations that I decided to go down to the library to locate some of the source material. Maybe you can help me, John. I’d like to run a few things by you that I discovered concerning this magazine.

John: Go ahead.

Chris: On page 4 of the Trinity booklet, it says that “The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be ‘beyond the grasp of human reason”.

John: And it really is, Chris. I mean, who can comprehend a three- headed god?

Chris: I’d like you to take a look at this photocopy of the actual page from where the Watchtower quoted volume 27 of The Encyclopedia Americana. I’d like you to read this quote in the context of the original article. It’s right here on page 116.

John: Okay. It says, “It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind”. (underline ours)

Chris: Did you see that, John? It said that the doctrine of the Trinity is “….not contrary to reason and may be apprehended….by the human mind”. John, after reading the full statement from the encyclopedia, has the Watchtower quoted this article in context?

John: Well, sure. The Watchtower did use the exact words right from the article.

Chris: Yes, but has the Watchtower left out words that change the author’s viewpoint?

John: Chris, there are a hundred quotes in this magazine that prove the Trinity is false. Why are you making a fuss over this one? Didn’t you look at any others?

Chris: As a matter of fact, I did. On page 6 of the Trinity booklet it says, “Jesuit Fortman states: ‘The New Testament writers. . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons…”. Here is a photocopy of the introduction of The Triune God, 1972, where this quote was taken from. The Watchtower quotes four words from page 15; “The New Testament writers”. They then pick up the next sentence of the quote from page 16. But read some of the highlighted text that falls between the two quotes.

John: “They call Jesus the Son of God. Messiah. Lord. Savior, Word. Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. (underline ours)

See how tricky and selective the Watchtower Society is with their quotes? Do not be fooled by their tactics.

by

Quotes (249)

washerpic.jpg “If God must act against what is not just, He must act against you…

A preacher who wants you to walk out the door feeling good about yourself will never enable you to feel good about God…

Everyone thinks a good and loving God ought to do something about evil, but nobody wants to define evil…

Why is it that you think that I must be angry about wickedness but you say it’s wrong for God to be angry about wickedness?”

-Paul Washer

by

PETA: Up to their old tricks again.

Well, it’s official. PETA has come out and said that a jockey intentionally broke a horse’s legs during a race. If you don’t believe me, keep reading. Now, PETA has come up with some really whacky stuff in the past, but this one–I’m not quite sure how to describe it.

PETA’s latest shenanigans consist of accusing the jockey of Eight Belles–the filly that had to be put down on the track at Churchill Downs following the Kentucky Derby–of injuring the horse. Deliberately.

No. I’m. Not. Kidding.

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is seeking the suspension of Eight Belles’ jockey after the filly had to be euthanized following her second-place finish in the Kentucky Derby on Saturday.

Gabriel Saez was riding Eight Belles when she broke both front ankles while galloping out a quarter of a mile past the wire. She was euthanized on the track.

PETA faxed a letter Sunday to Kentucky’s racing authority claiming the filly was “doubtlessly injured before the finish” and asked that Saez be suspended while Eight Belles’ death is investigated.

“What we really want to know, did he feel anything along the way?” PETA spokeswoman Kathy Guillermo said. “If he didn’t then we can probably blame the fact that they’re allowed to whip the horses mercilessly.”

Eight Belles trainer Larry Jones said the filly was clearly happy when she crossed the finish line.

“I don’t know how in the heck they can even come close to saying that,” Jones told The Associated Press on Sunday. “She has her ears up, clearly galloping out.”

Guillermo said if Saez is found at fault, the group wants the second-place prize of $400,000 won by Eight Belles to be revoked.

Saez, a 20-year-old Panama native, was riding in his first Kentucky Derby. He frequently rides for Jones.

A call to the jockeys’ room at Delaware Park, where Saez raced on Sunday, went unanswered.

Eight Belles, the first filly since 1999 to run in the Derby, appeared fine until collapsing while galloping out after the finish.

The letter to the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority also sought a ban on whipping, limits on races and the age of racehorses, and a move to softer, artificial surfaces for all courses.

OK. Um, what did this guy say? “What we really want to know, did he feel anything along the way?” Um, yes he probably did feel something. He probably felt like the horse had a really good shot at winning. He probably felt like this was the greatest moment in his career.

Oh, they’re asking if Saez felt like the horse was in danger. Of course he did. That’s why he kept her thundering along at top speed, just to make sure that when Eight Belles broke her legs, it would be a thorough job. That must be why he continued “whipping her mercilessly.”

I wonder if anyone has informed these people that horses have been raced for, oh, I don’t know, hundreds of years. That the Romans–those wonderful people that they were–raced chariots that were pulled by…..um, horses. I don’t hear anybody from PETA saying we shouldn’t glamorize the Roman Empire because they used horses for their entertainment. Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. This is a group of people that don’t have anything better to do with their time than to go around trespassing and vandalizing.

Oh, have I mentioned that PETA kills animals?

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 3)

Tower To Truth question:

3. Why did Brigham Young teach that Adam is “our Father and our God” when both the Bible and the Book of Mormon (Morm. 9:12) say that Adam is a creation of God? (Journal of Discourses (1852) 1:50))

—————————————-

FAIR Answer:

The problem with “Adam-God” is that we don’t understand what Brigham meant. All of his statements cannot be reconciled with each other. In any case, Latter-day Saints are not inerrantists—they believe prophets can have their own opinions. Only the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve can establish official LDS doctrine. That never happened with any variety of “Adam-God” doctrine. Since Brigham seemed to also agree with statements like Mormon 9:12, and the Biblical record, it seems likely that we do not entirely understand how he fit all of these ideas together.
Learn more here: Adam-God

—————————————

My Response:

Well, at least they got one thing right: All of [Brigham Young’s] statements cannot be reconciled with each other. His doctrine seemed to change more than the weather.

So, what did Brigham Young say about Adam, the Ancient of Days? Here is the text that is at the core of the matter (Link to the JOD). No ellipses, here is the whole text so that you may see and understand that nothing I am about to comment on is taken out of context (capitalization in the original, all emphases mine):

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They [Adam and Eve] came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good forman; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by theHoly Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he [Jesus]

took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era;and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming” great is the mystery of godliness,” and tell nothing.
It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim [God the Father], Yahovah [Jesus], and Michael [Adam, God]

, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, “it is an immaterial substance!” What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.
I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever,that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.
 

 

 

Hmm. I wonder what he meant by all that. Yeah, it’s, um, real difficult to figure out what he was saying. (‘Scuse me while I wipe off the sarcasm dripping from my lips.)

What strikes me as odd is that it took the LDS church some 130 years to finally admit that, um, yes, this is something Brigham Young taught. They never refuted the teaching, but they never admitted to it either. Kinda like how the Catholic Church will neither embrace (offcially) nor deny a doctrine until enough of the faithful embrace it, after which it becomes “Tradition” and thus doctrine.

But, alas, in 1981, every Mormon’s favorite apostle, Bruce McConkie, did his best to put the issue to bed in a letter to LDS in Britain:


So, let me understand this. When the prophet speaks, he’s speaking from God only if what he says lines up with the Standard Works. Of course what they fail to mention is that one of the “Standard Works” is the teaching of the “living prophet.” And we are to value the words of the “living prophet” even over the Standard Works and any dead prophets. Don’t take my word for it, here are the words of Ezra Taft Benson, former LDS president, in his “Fourteeen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet“:

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

In section 132, verse 7, of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the Prophet–the President–and says: “There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom his power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.” Then in section 21, verses 4-6, the Lord states:
Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to “give heed unto all his words”–as if from the Lord’s “own mouth.”

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Wilford Woodruff stated: “I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.)

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident, which happened to him:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home….Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, “But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.” [In Conference Report, October 1), p. 78]

[…][…]

 

 

So, in other words, only listen to the living prophet, except when he contradicts the Standard Works, which are not as important as the words of the living prophet, who doesn’t always speak for god.

Er, something.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

by

“Rivers of water run from my eyes…”

Psalm 119:136—Rivers of water run down from my eyes, because men do not keep Your law.

I’ve been reading through the Psalms lately, and just started on Psalm 119 a couple days ago. I am about halfway through it, and it did not take long to realize something: The writer of this Psalm does not see God’s laws as an undue burden for a man to carry. He sees God’s law for what it is: perfect. See, the Law of God was not given to show us how good and upright and righteous we could be. Paul lets us know that in no uncertain terms in Galatians 3:19. The Law was given, rather, to show the perfection of God, and to point us to the man who would be Christ. The man who knew the Law–the spirit of the Law, that is, not the letter–would know the Christ when He came.

However, there were many who knew the Law of God, and treated it with flippancy. They knew God, they had seen or heard or heard tell of the glory of God, and the salvation He brought to Israel. Yet they turned their back on that Law, and went and served other Gods. And the Psalmist shows us that this is an insult to God, and a thing that should be mourned over.

Let’s bring that verse into today’s conversation (The real one, not the “Emerging” one). Do we pour out rivers of water from our eyes because men kill and steal and blaspheme? I confess I have not done so much. But perhaps we should. After all, did not the Master implore us to do so? “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5:4). Daniel, a man who served God from his youth, even in the pagan empire of the Babylonians, cried out to God thus: “O Lord, to us belongs shame of face, to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, because we have sinned against You. To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, though we have rebelled against Him. We have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in His laws, which He set before us by His servants the prophets.” (Daniel 9:8-10).

Yet there are those who call themselves “the church” who–not only do they not mourn and weep over the sins of men against God–they rather celebrate the desecration of God’s laws by those who would serve their flesh and its lusts. They give a wink and a nod to homosexuality and cursing and the worship of other gods, and the blasphemy against the written word of God, and the worship of that grand humanistic idea of “inclusiveness.” They welcome into their midst those who would cast doubt on God’s word, and would claim that we can get to Heaven by following whatever path we want to, and bring in music and ideas from heathens and pagans like Oprah Winfrey and the Beatles.

If only there would pour forth rivers from the eyes of the church of our Lord Jesus Christ for those who spit upon and ignore the Law that God gave us–a Law that does not keep one under bondage, but one that was given so that we may know Him–that we would see that we are not greater than the Law, that we are not worthy of God’s mercy because we have transgressed that Law. We are no longer under the curse of the Law, praise God (Galatians 3:13)! But may we always look to that perfect Law of God, to see it as a constant reminder of the grace of God given to us sinners, and love the LORD our God by keeping His commandments!

As Spurgeon once wrote,

He wept in sympathy with God to see the holy law despised and broken. He wept in pity for men who were thus drawing down upon themselves the fiery wrath of God. His grief was such that he could scarcely give it vent; his tears were not mere drops of sorrow, but torrents of woe. In this he became like the Lord Jesus, who beheld the city, and wept over it; and like unto Jehovah himself, who hath no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, but that be turn unto him and live. The experience of this verse indicates a great advance upon anything we have had before: the psalm and the Psalmist are both growing. That man is a ripe believer who sorrows because of the sins of others. In Psalms 119:120 his flesh trembled at the presence of God, and here it seems to melt and flow away in floods of tears. None are so affected by heavenly things as those who are much in the study of the word, and are thereby taught the truth and essence of things. Carnal men are afraid of brute force, and weep over losses and crosses; but spiritual men feel a holy fear of the Lord himself, and most of all lament when they see dishonour cast upon his holy name.

–Charles Spurgeon, from The Treasury of David, Psalm 119:136
 

by

Is the world crucified to you?

Just finished making a video to go along with one of the greatest quotes from Leonard Ravenhill–“Is the world crucified to you tonight? Or does it fascinate you?” To look at many churches across America–you know, the ones that serve that ooey-gooey sugary goodness that screams “seeker sensitive”–you would think that the apostle Paul was a laid-back, hippie-type slacker dude who didn’t care much about doctrine, but went around with “so what does this verse mean to you?” on his lips.

Anyhoo, many of the images in this video can be found over at A Little Leaven. And since someone will ask–the music is “Carmina Burana (O Fortuna)” by Carl Orff. It’s one of those pieces of music you hear on just about everything, but never knew what it was called. Well now you know 🙂

by

The Reformed Pastor–Consider Your Calling

Off and on I’ve been reading Richard Baxter’s “The Reformed Pastor.” I believe if more seminary-bound young men read this book, and understood the gravity of the office of the pulpit, they would not be so heady in their determination. I have posted some short excerpts (about a paragraph or so each) from this work over at my own blog, and would love to share them here as well. Here is the first:

——————————–

How it must grieve the heart of God when He sees men (and women) claim the pulpit who are not only untrained and unlearned (and in the case of women, unqualified), but more often are unaware of the responsibility that comes with the office. For every John MacArthur and Charles Spurgeon who approach the pulpit with the solemn reverence it deserves, there are just as many Kenneth Copelands and Creflo Dollars who are more than willing to make sport of the pulpit, and use it as a means to attain worldly wealth.

The office of pastor is not one that is to be attained to lightly. If a man desire the office of bishop, he desireth a good work (1st Timothy 3:1). But what is required of such a one? In order to be called a bishop, one must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach… (1st Timothy 3:2). And what is required of him once he takes to the office?

The nature of our office requireth us to ‘take heed to the flock.’ What else are we overseers for “Bishop” is a title which intimates more of’ labor than of honor,’ says Polydore Virgil.’ To be a bishop, or pastor, is not to be set up as an idol for the people to bow to, or as idle ‘slow bellies,’ to live to our fleshly delight and ease; but it is to be the guide of sinners to heaven. It is a sad case that men should be of a calling of which they know not the nature, and undertake they know not what.

Do these men consider what they have undertaken, that live in ease and pleasure, and have time to take their superfluous recreations and to spend an hour and more at once, in loitering, or in vain discourse, when so much work doth lie upon their hands? Brethren, do you consider what you have taken upon you? Why, you have undertaken the conduct, under Christ, of a band of his soldiers ‘against principalities and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places.’ You must lead them on to the sharpest conflicts; you must acquaint them with the enemies’ stratagems and assaults; you must watch yourselves, and keep them watching.

If you miscarry, they and you may perish. You have a subtle enemy, and therefore you must be wise. You have a vigilant enemy, and therefore you must be vigilant. You have a malicious and violent and unwearied enemy, and therefore you must be resolute, courageous and indefatigable. You are in a crowd of enemies, encompassed by them on every side, and if you heed one and not all, you will quickly fall. And oh, what a world of work have you to do! Had you but one ignorant old man or woman to teach, what a hard task would it be, even though they should be willing to learn! But if they be as unwilling as they are ignorant, how much more difficult will it prove! But to have such a multitude of ignorant persons, as most of us have, what work will it find us! What a pitiful life is it to have to reason with men that have almost lost the use of reason, and to argue with them that neither understand themselves nor you!

O brethren, what a world of wickedness have we to contend against in one soul; and what a number of these worlds! And when you think you have done something, you leave the seed among the fowls of the air; wicked men are at their elbows to rise up and contradict all you have said. You speak but once to a sinner, for ten or twenty times that the emissaries of Satan speak to them.

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions (answer 2)

Question from Tower To Truth:

2. Since the time when Brigham Young taught that both the moon and the sun were inhabited by people, has the Mormon church ever found scientific evidence of that to be true? (Journal of Discourses, 13:271)

——————————–

Answer from FAIR:

In Brigham (and Joseph’s) day, there had been newspaper articles reporting that a famous astronomer had reported that there were men on the moon and elsewhere. This was published in LDS areas; the retraction of this famous hoax never was publicized, and so they may not have even heard about it.

Brigham and others were most likely repeating what had been told them by the science of the day. (Lots of Biblical prophets talked about the earth being flat, the sky being a dome, etc.—it is inconsistent for conservative Protestants to complain that a false belief about the physical world shared by others in their culture condemns Brigham and Joseph, but does not condemn Bible prophets.)

In any case, Brigham made it clear that he was expressing his opinion: “Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is.” Prophets are entitled to their opinions; in fact, the point of Brigham’s discourse is that the only fanatic is one who insists upon clinging to a false idea.

Learn more here: Brigham Young and moonmen
Learn more here: Joseph Smith and moonmen

———————————————————-

My Response:

Well, considering the fact that Brigham was supposed to be a “prophet” of God, don’t ya think God would have given him just a little more insight than your garden-variety, back yard astronomer? Does this mean that the Mormon “prophets” don’t ask God, “I’m about to say this. Is this true? Because if it is, we’re both going to look foolish!” They can say all they want to about this only being Brigham’s “opinion.” This was not stated as opinion, but rather as fact. Here is the whole quote:

Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed “the man in the moon,” and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialized. (Journal of Discourses, 13:271)

In this statement, he purports to know more about the moon and sun than “the most learned” whom he calls “as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows.” And, as he said, he believed there was “no question” that the sun was inhabited. Young took his information from a hoax perpetrated by a reporter for the New York Sun. What a sad commentary about God if His “prophet” can be conned by a work of satire by a two-bit newspaper writer.

Besides, if Brigham Young is to be believed, this sermon is, indeed, Mormon Scripture.

“I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” (Young, Journal of Discourses 13:95)

Also,

“The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every right-minded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.” (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Vol.8.)

Taking these quotes together—along with other, similar quotes from Mormon authorities—and one can come to no other conclusion than the words contained in the Journal of Discourses are Scripture to the Latter-Day Saint.

This whole “man in the moon” situation seems to be just one more hoax that has been played on the early LDS church that their leaders fell for hook, line, and sinker (The Kinderhook Plates being another).

So, what about biblical prophets believing in a “flat earth?” FAIR quotes the Anchor Bible Dictionary and its references to different ways various parts of the universe, Hell, Heaven, etc. were portrayed through symbolism (pillars of the earth, foundation of the earth, belly of Sheol, etc.) Time and space (and moonmen) do not permit me to go into detail about the symbolism used in the Bible to illustrate things which the writers could not put into words.

by

Mary–Virgin, Virtuous, not to be Vaulted above her position

I have posted over at my other blog (Four* Pointer) a message I gave a while back about the Virgin Mary. While she was a virtuous young woman, and one whose devotion to the Lord was admirable and one that should be imitated by all, she does not want–nor do I believe would she accept–the devotion that is given to her by Romanists. It’s kinda long, and I didn’t want to take up bandwidth here (what with five other posters).

Here is part of that post:

——————————————

Here are, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, their official positions on Mary. The Catechism is like their rules—or dogmas—and they’re laid out in paragraphs. Paragraph 969—

This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she…gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation…Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.

In other words, Jesus isn’t doing a good enough job as our one Mediator between man and God. He needs His mother to help Him. Kinda makes ya wonder why Jesus said, in Matthew 6:9, “In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.” And not once does He mention invoking the name of Mary. Or any other saint, or even angels. I guess He just forgot. No, He didn’t forget. He didn’t mention it because we aren’t supposed to do it.

We are not to pray to the dead. We have one Mediator between man and God. If we think that praying to dead saints is going to help, then that means there is more than one Mediator, and God is a liar, because His word says there is only one. Well, what about bowing before statues of Jesus, or Mary? No. No. No.

  • Exodus 20:4—“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.”
  • Isaiah 44:9-11—Those who make an image, all of them are useless, and their precious things shall not profit; they are their own witnesses; they neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed. Who would form a god or mold an image that profits him nothing? Surely all his companions would be ashamed; and the workmen, they are mere men. Let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, they shall be ashamed together.

The Catholic will tell you, “Well, we don’t worship those statues. We use them to remind us of…” whatever. What part of “Thou shalt not bow down to them” don’t they understand?

by

There really are only two religions

The religion of God, and the religion of Satan. There may be 80,000 religions other than Christianity. But really, they are ONE religion–the religion of man’s ability to save himself (or, really, his lack of ability).

Found the following video over at Symphony of Scripture. John MacArthur explains it much better than I ever could (so what else is new?)

by

50 Answers to 50 Mormon answers to 50 Anti-Mormon questions (answer #1)

FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, not affiliated with the LDS church), has issued their “Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions,” their answers to 50 questions about Mormonism, questions posted by Tower to Truth Ministries. Here is the first installment of how to answer these 50 Mormon answers to 50 “Anti-Mormon” questions.

—————————————–

Question from Tower To Truth:

1. Why does the Mormon church still teach that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God after he made a false prophecy about a temple built in Missouri in his generation (D&C 84:1-5)

——————————————–

Answer from FAIR:

This was not a prophecy, but a command from God to build the temple. There’s a difference. Jesus said people should repent; just because many didn’t doesn’t make Him a false messenger, simply a messenger that fallible people didn’t heed.

Learn more here: Independence temple to be built “in this generation”

———————————–

My Response:

Actually, yes, this WAS a prophecy. Doctrine and Covenants 84:1-5—1 A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high. 2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. 3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. 5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

Notice all the times that “Jesus Christ” says “shall.” The city “shall be built beginning at the temple lot…” In verse 4, “New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of saints…” And this temple “shall be reared in this generation…” Verse 5, “…this generation shall not pass away until an house shall be built, and a cloud shall rest upon it…the glory of the Lord shall fill the house.” These are not commands, these are things Jesus Christ Himself is (supposedly) saying shall happen. The one giving the revelation does not say, “build my city…build New Jerusalem…build My temple…” as if he is commanding that it be done. The voice is saying, “It shall come to pass…”

In their response, FAIR says, “This was not a prophecy, but a command from God to build the temple.” Yet if you follow the link Independence temple to be built “in this generation”, you find this little tidbit:

Meaning of “shall”

It is unclear from the wording of the 1832 revelation whether Joseph Smith meant it to be a prophecy or a commandment. When he declared the “temple shall be reared in this generation,” it’s possible that he meant this as a directive. If this is the case, D&C 84 is not actually a prophecy.

Well, which is it? Was this a command, or can we not be sure? Then there’s this:

Meaning of “generation”

If the revelation is meant as a prophecy, the timeline for its fulfillment depends on what Joseph meant by “generation.” Typically we consider this to mean the lifespan of those living at the time of the revelation.

Also notice in D&C 84:1, it is termed a “revelation,” not a “command.” In Doctrine and Covenants 1:37, it says, Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled. This (the building of the temple) was a prophecy, one which went unfulfilled, thus one of many reasons to conclude that Joseph Smith was indeed a false prophet.