Focusing on the Wrong Victory for Satan

[Good & Global]

Once people die the name mormon will be probably be used again via ongoing restoration.

Calling it a victory for Satan was never fully established and only obeyed by the cultiest (ie virtue signalling) of members.

It makes no sense. We are supposed to stop using mormon and act like it is a sin unless the real name of the church is used. Granted it has had numerous other "real" names but that is a digression from what I wanted to talk about.

This always seems made up. There is no uniformity in any of it. One day no kids of gay parents can be baptized then next these same kids can be baptized. The most basic fundamental salvational ordinance known to mankind is at risk of being withdrawn to people due to the whim of one person. This is craziness when you think about it.

Also with the nickname mormon there is no uniformity. When you consider the whole argument was to use the real name of the church and not Mormon, it is quite comical that so much effort was spent even changing the name of the choir which costed many thousands of dollars at least for signage, directories, stationary, etc that goes into it. This was changed from Mormon Tabernacle Choir to Choir at Temple Square, again not the real name of the church unless we are the Church of Temple Square.

It should have been the Choir of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Surprised the Book of Mormon wasn't changed to the Books at Temple Square. None of this makes sense. Why aren't we focusing on the real victories of Satan of secret combinations within us or is this just another distraction from that? Okay now I yield the floor to Subcommandente.

[Ymarsakar]

Just quote mormon s narration of final battle

[Luke]

I use the word Mormon every week at Church and I have never heard any objections to it. After Nelson dies it will soon be forgotten, due to his status as a “dead prophet”.

[Niemand]

I use the word Mormon every week at Church and I have never heard any objections to it. After Nelson dies it will soon be forgotten, due to his status as a “dead prophet”.

So does everyone outside the church.

We were talking about this in Sunday School. People were saying we must not use "Mormon" and discourage other people from the nickname. I asked the class how many people there had heard of the Quakers. Many hands went up. Then I asked how many people knew that Quaker was a nickname, and what the real name of the group was. Very few of them did. Only one got the proper name. It's the Society of Friends, or Friends as in "Friends Meeting House". But the Quakers have embraced their nickname, like we used to and don't get passive aggressive about it.

I see Mormon as just the same.

I don't know anyone who refers to the (Hare) Krishnas or Hares by their proper name. It used to be ISKCON (? International Society for Krishna Consciousness?), now something else. No one knows. No one cares. No one is going to bother with a long name whether or not it contains the name of Jesus Christ in it. We love and honour him, but we have to be practical.

[Thinker]

It is insane - whims of 1 man. Empower has no clothes.

And there are MUCH more threatening & harmful evils at play - but evil involves diversions - making good look evil & evil look good.

[Luke]

“. . . I may safely say that the word Mormon stands independent of the learning and wisdom of this generation.” (Joseph Smith, 15 May 1843, Times and Seasons, Vol. 4, No. 13, pg. 194; TPJS 300)

[Silver Pie]

This always seems made up. There is no uniformity in any of it. One day no kids of gay parents can be baptized then next these same kids can be baptized. The most basic fundamental salvational ordinance known to mankind is at risk of being withdrawn to people due to the whim of one person. This is craziness when you think about it.

Be careful about believing that the God who is the same today, yesterday, and forever is now so whimsical that on one day one thing can be asked of you, and on another day something altogether different can be asked of you. And to the extent that you detect the varying shifting sand beneath your feet, ask yourself why that is so. And ask yourself, where might I go to find the rock upon which to establish my feet, so that the winds and the rains might not mow me down.

40 Years in Mormonism, page 50 (part of a 10-lecture circuit)
2013, Logan, Utah

[Niemand]

This always seems made up. There is no uniformity in any of it. One day no kids of gay parents can be baptized then next these same kids can be baptized. The most basic fundamental salvational ordinance known to mankind is at risk of being withdrawn to people due to the whim of one person. This is craziness when you think about it.

I have talked about this issue elsewhere, and they really fell between two stools on this one. For a start, children were excluded from ordinances due to the behaviour of someone else. But here is the key point, most of these children would have a single bisexual parent. Not two. The other parent may have been heterosexual, and the child may not even be living with the LGBT parent in question but no matter.... let's punish them anyway.

That's how to alienate both sides of the gay debate. They ended up looking like homophobes to one lot, and also upset all the heterosexual parents whose spouse ran off with a same sex partner. Not to mention alienating all those who believe in a child's own free agency.

[Robin Hood]

“. . . I may safely say that the word Mormon stands independent of the learning and wisdom of this generation.” (Joseph Smith, 15 May 1843, Times and Seasons, Vol. 4, No. 13, pg. 194; TPJS 300)

Good find.

[randyps]

This always seems made up. There is no uniformity in any of it. One day no kids of gay parents can be baptized then next these same kids can be baptized. The most basic fundamental salvational ordinance known to mankind is at risk of being withdrawn to people due to the whim of one person. This is craziness when you think about it.

I have talked about this issue elsewhere, and they really fell between two stools on this one. For a start, children were excluded from ordinances due to the behaviour of someone else. But here is the key point, most of these children would have a single bisexual parent. Not two. The other parent may have been heterosexual, and the child may not even be living with the LGBT parent in question but no matter.... let's punish them anyway.

That's how to alienate both sides of the gay debate. They ended up looking like homophobes to one lot, and also upset all the heterosexual parents whose spouse ran off with a same sex partner. Not to mention alienating all those who believe in a child's own free agency.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ calls homosexuality a sin. Its not very nice to have an 8yr old child to get baptized and join the side of the debate that their parent/parents are sinners. Its probably too much for the child to think about. Best the kid wait till he/she is 18 where they can compartmentalize the two issues and still love both the Gospel and their parents.

[Niemand]

This always seems made up. There is no uniformity in any of it. One day no kids of gay parents can be baptized then next these same kids can be baptized. The most basic fundamental salvational ordinance known to mankind is at risk of being withdrawn to people due to the whim of one person. This is craziness when you think about it.

I have talked about this issue elsewhere, and they really fell between two stools on this one. For a start, children were excluded from ordinances due to the behaviour of someone else. But here is the key point, most of these children would have a single bisexual parent. Not two. The other parent may have been heterosexual, and the child may not even be living with the LGBT parent in question but no matter.... let's punish them anyway.

That's how to alienate both sides of the gay debate. They ended up looking like homophobes to one lot, and also upset all the heterosexual parents whose spouse ran off with a same sex partner. Not to mention alienating all those who believe in a child's own free agency.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ calls homosexuality a sin. Its not very nice to have an 8yr old child to get baptized and join the side of the debate that their parent/parents are sinners. Its probably too much for the child to think about. Best the kid wait till he/she is 18 where they can compartmentalize the two issues and still love both the Gospel and their parents.

It's highly unlikely that both parents would be in gay relationships. Usually just one of them. The most common scenario is that a woman marries a man, runs off with another woman, and then takes their child and his money.

In the other scenario, it is likely that the straight mother would keep the child, since they almost always do.

[Ymarsakar]

The reason I wanted people to focus on the name Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is for 3 reasons

1. These were the latter days circa 2018
2. Jesus Christ is a popular DNA activator for a fallen people and civilization
3. To become a saint/holy one is a mysterious yet reachable goal

However, people can choose of their own free will to create doctrine and dogma.

The point was never to run away from the word MOrmon, since that person is in the Book of Mormon after all, but to focus the Utah dogmatic culture back to Jeshua and various other concepts from Joseph's days.

I use the word Mormon every week at Church and I have never heard any objections to it. After Nelson dies it will soon be forgotten, due to his status as a “dead prophet”.

So does everyone outside the church.

We were talking about this in Sunday School. People were saying we must not use "Mormon" and discourage other people from the nickname. I asked the class how many people there had heard of the Quakers. Many hands went up. Then I asked how many people knew that Quaker was a nickname, and what the real name of the group was. Very few of them did. Only one got the proper name. It's the Society of Friends, or Friends as in "Friends Meeting House". But the Quakers have embraced their nickname, like we used to and don't get passive aggressive about it.

I see Mormon as just the same.

I don't know anyone who refers to the (Hare) Krishnas or Hares by their proper name. It used to be ISKCON (? International Society for Krishna Consciousness?), now something else. No one knows. No one cares. No one is going to bother with a long name whether or not it contains the name of Jesus Christ in it. We love and honour him, but we have to be practical.

[The Red Pill]

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (forever). He is unchanging.

Therefore when you see 180 degree turnarounds in doctrine that contradics prior scriptural writings...it is a STRONG indicator you have FALSE doctrine being taught.

Examples:

1835,1844 (sections 101, 109) D&C under Joseph Smith = polygamy bad.

1852 announcement by Brigham and later 132 addition to D&C = polygamy good

The scriptures are crystal clear on homosexual relationships of any kind = bad.

Q15 recently and very publicly supporting the gay marriage act and all the changes they have made lately supporting it and changing longstanding doctrinal beliefs...would indicate it is now = good in their eyes.

Least we forget the false doctrine of Q15 not being able to lead you astray...which is laughable, considering the last three years...where they COMPLETELY led people astray on ALL things covid...but especially the deadly-jab urging.

I see the jettisoned "Mormon" brand as a total Pharisee move. As if banishing the name makes the people any more righteous or obedient to God. God and Christ are MUCH MORE troubled by Q15s UN partnership and SEC/ Ensign Peak Advisors tomfoolery...than the Mormon brand name.

[Atrasado]

Why do we call the higher priesthood the Melchizedek Priesthood instead of the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God? To avoid the too-frequent use of the name of God.

So, what is wrong with being called "Mormons" since that also avoids the too-frequent use of the name of God? Perhaps it is God's will that we don't use that nickname (although I don't believe anything Russ says) and I'm very grateful and humbled to take the Savior's name upon me, but I do not understand the difference between one case and the other.

[FrankOne]

“. . . I may safely say that the word Mormon stands independent of the learning and wisdom of this generation.” (Joseph Smith, 15 May 1843, Times and Seasons, Vol. 4, No. 13, pg. 194; TPJS 300)

To be of Mormon.

To be someone that is forthright to the highest degree. Never conceding to the corruption of men. Always using the reason of God in all of his actions. He represented unique strength in times when those around him had become weak.

here are the comments from an author that penned a short article on the life of Mormon which I find inspiring.
======================

I am in awe of the character of Mormon. His determination to follow Christ and do his work sends a formidable example across the years to us. The principles that define his character are principles that will assist all of us as we make our way “across that everlasting gulf of misery which is prepared to engulf the wicked—And land [our] souls, yea, [our] immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven, to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to go no more out”

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/lessons-f ... et-mormon/

[Good & Global]

Why do we call the higher priesthood the Melchizedek Priesthood instead of the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God? To avoid the too-frequent use of the name of God.

So, what is wrong with being called "Mormons" since that also avoids the too-frequent use of the name of God? Perhaps it is God's will that we don't use that nickname (although I don't believe anything Russ says) and I'm very grateful and humbled to take the Savior's name upon me, but I do not understand the difference between one case and the other.

Astrasado please stop ensuring minor victories for Satan and just keep using Christ's name over and over again like we are supposed to. I don't care if you think it is in vain. We wouldn't be putting up huge signage with the name so prominently featured if it wasn't right.

I don't even understand how the one who supposedly leads this church sanctions this level of billboard bafoonery. Can one honestly see Christ asking for his name to be plastered front and center everywhere?

[Ymarsakar]

Keep in mind that Jeshua, and variants, is his name. Christ is a title. Satan is also a title. Not their personal name or ID.

[Niemand]

Keep in mind that Jeshua, and variants, is his name. Christ is a title. Satan is also a title. Not their personal name or ID.

It was a common name. He had to be known by that title to distinguish him from the other Jesuses who were not so holy.

[Ymarsakar]

That was easy to do via the greek of nazareth. Or bin joseph. People vounted their last names as their father s line or via their hometowns.

Alternatively christ being a title implies there can be more than one christ. Since anti christ is also many. But if there js only 1 satan, 1 christ, then there is only 1 anti christ. The evidence slants heavily towards secret societies. Many anti christs.

There is more than 1 yhvh. There are many prophets servants and messengers.

Heiser pinpointed an amazing clue. The two yhvh thesis. Where moses was in the presence of yhvh and the angel of yhvh. This is recorded in the scriptures torah.

Keep in mind that Jeshua, and variants, is his name. Christ is a title. Satan is also a title. Not their personal name or ID.

It was a common name. He had to be known by that title to distinguish him from the other Jesuses who were not so holy.

[Niemand]

That was easy to do via the greek of nazareth. Or bin joseph. People vounted their last names as their father s line or via their hometowns.

There were probably a number in Nazareth and with fathers called Joseph.

[Ymarsakar]

Speculation for many jeshuas in nazareth. Small town.

The genealogy of a person cannot be exact even with statistical random chances. Because the chances of your father and grandfather having the same names as another in the same hometown is not a realistic issue.

That was easy to do via the greek of nazareth. Or bin joseph. People vounted their last names as their father s line or via their hometowns.

There were probably a number in Nazareth and with fathers called Joseph.

[Niemand]

Speculation for many jeshuas in nazareth. Small town.

Not an issue. I know hamlets up in the islands where practically everyone's called Donald John (Dòmhnall Iain). It's where your last president gets his name from.

[Ymarsakar]

Anecdotal speculation

And people tend to be related and take on the same names. Hence jeshua s genealogy is more than 3 lines.

How many of these donalds have the father with the same name and the same grandfather name?

At that point i would begin to wonder if these souls are npcs or not if the rate is say 1 or 2.

A plus for dynastic last names or what they called cadet branches.

Speculation for many jeshuas in nazareth. Small town.

Not an issue. I know hamlets up in the islands where practically everyone's called Donald John (Dòmhnall Iain). It's where your last president gets his name from.

[Niemand]

Anecdotal speculation

Ach wheesht! People were not as adventurous with names back then. It's not even speculation. Traditional communities are much the same. Look at the gospels themselves and how many of the main disciples share names. There are at three or four women in there called Mary as well. It's also proven by the archaeological record.

How many of these donalds have the father with the same name and the same grandfather name?

Tonnes of them. The son would be Donald John (Diòmhnall Iain), and the dad John/Iain Donald (Iain Dòmhnall.)

[Ymarsakar]

Anecdotal speculation

Ach wheesht! People were not as adventurous with names back then. It's not even speculation. Traditional communities are much the same. Look at the gospels themselves and how many of the main disciples share names. There are at three or four women in there called Mary as well. It's also proven by the archaeological record.

How many of these donalds have the father with the same name and the same grandfather name?

Tonnes of them. The son would be Donald John (Diòmhnall Iain), and the dad John/Iain Donald (Iain Dòmhnall.)

Now i know npc towns r real