Bruja

You say you haven't insulted me (and I really don't think I've insulted you or anyone else). You don't think you insult me by inferring the 'contention is of the devil' doctrine? You're essentially calling me evil. You are dismissing an intellectual argument by calling me petty. I'm not worth your time, as you make ridiculous insinuations that my claims just silly and mean. You say my argument against your church's doctrines isn't discussion. Argument IS discussion. I don't know what you expected from me based on my initial comments, but argument is what I live for. Honestly, what do you think I'm talking here for if not argument? You appear to have a lot of contempt for my honest questions (and I mean a lot). I really think religious training in evangelizing should make a person less afraid of such honest inquiry, and if it doesn't happen, I question the quality of what's being presented to potential converts. Since you bring up how very different all the Christian denominations are, what can you say about the over 100 mormon sects, all differing in doctrines and organization, and most claiming authority from Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, PoGP, and D&C? How is that any different?

1. there's no way you don't get that the time of the prophets is over from that verse. 2. the purpose of the OT prophets was to reveal God, as both you and I said. Jesus is the FULL and COMPLETE revelation of God, therefore the prophets were foretelling Jesus. There is no more need to reveal God, Jesus did it completely. You commit a logical fallacy when you presume when I say that it means we don't need God any more. It's obviously not what I'm saying; we always need God. I won't refute this since it is a completely false inference from my comment. I never said we don't need God. ... Since this is clearly of the utmost importance, where are these saving revelations that are absolutely necessary for the church? What did Hinckley or Monson reveal from God lately that's so important? Ear piercings?? Are you kidding me? And if their revelation is just the daily management of the church, how is that any different than what a Christian pastor does in the running of their congregation? 3. Perhaps Joseph's story matches up to the OT criteria, but NONE of the subsequent prophets were - they are simply the longest serving member of the quorum of the 12 apostles. Speaking of which, how can you POSSIBLY claim the exact same organization of the early church when there were quite clearly 12 apostles, led by one of their own, Peter, and you have 12 apostles separate and distinct from 3 extra apostles and the leader, who is NOT one of the 12?? 4. You claim that the setup of your church is the same as the early church. You cannot prove this, as all your offices and titles are related in name ONLY to ANY Biblical priesthood or office, from the Old or the New Testament, and that includes that of high priest. You use the title without any respect for the original meaning of the word, as if Christianity wasn't the natural evolution from Judaism! Of course there should be a relationship with any title or rite that carries over from the Mosaic traditions, just as Christ's paschal sacrifice on the cross has a direct relationship to the sacrifice of the lamb at Passover! Deacons in the NT were chosen to run the charitable distribution and temporal affairs of the church - only 7 men were chosen for the church in Jerusalem, having over 1000 people. The criteria listed for deacons makes it obvious it was a role intended for adult men. It was clearly never meant for every 12 year old boy to have! Ephesians 4 v.11 says that SOME are teachers, etc - NOT all. But the lds church makes every 14 year old boy a teacher. There is no such thing as a Melchizedek priesthood in the Bible. The Hebrew word, dibra, translated as order, actually means "style" or "manner," not a class or order of priests. Jesus is a priest after the manner of Melchizedek in two ways: 1. offering bread and wine, as I already said and 2. he's a priest of God who is NOT of the line of Aaron, the tribe of Levi - Jesus is of the tribe of Judah. The letter to the Hebrews makes reference of Melchizedek ONLY when addressing the fact that the Jews are asking how Jesus can be a priest when he's not of the tribe of Levi. They're not asking what their priesthood should be called. There is no relationship between the lds Melchizedek priesthood and the Bible's references to Melchizedek. The titles Bishop and Elder are also completely misused in the same context. Read the NT thoroughly, front to back, and you'll find no substantive relationship between the early church and the lds church in organization, practice, or belief.

1. Hebrews 1:1-2 says explicitly that the time of prophets is over, that now God has revealed himself finally in the person of Jesus Christ 2. The purpose of prophets in the OT was to foretell of Jesus. That was their whole point of speaking to the people, to reveal God to the people. Jesus is the fullness of God's self-revelation to his people. Prophets, the kind seen in the OT that you're talking about, are no longer necessary. 3. If it were true that this was an unchangeable pattern: Where were the prophets between Jesus and Joseph Smith? Where is "the prophet" in the early church? There is no primary leader of the early church who is called a prophet, in fact, in the Bible, the office of prophet is lower than that of apostle. Peter is never called a prophet, ever, in the NT. Not only that, but the way the lds 'prophet' is chosen is not how OT prophets are chosen. If your argument is that this is the way it's always been, there's not much evidence to support that at all. 4. There was only ever one high priest in Judaism. There can be only one, and that is Jesus. Read Hebrews. 5. Your reasoning is exactly how I know that mormonism is false. You can't argue against someone saying, "well I prayed about it and God said it was true." Do you know how many religions use that exact same method of "proof" to show their religion is "true"? The Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing. It's completely invalid. It's a cop-out.

You just can't resist the urge, can you? Next you'll be educating us on the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath.

I find it ridiculous to imply that a person with true faith in Jesus Christ will automatically desire to give up coffee, tea, pop, beer, tobacco, etc. True faith in Jesus has nothing to do with any of these things, and Jesus himself told us that dietary laws are no longer relevant to God's people, saying, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." (Mt 15:11) You took that quote completely out of context. The author was is using the old priesthood to demonstrate the humanity of Jesus, that he, like the high priests of old, were taken from among the people. All we know about Melchizedek is that he offered bread and wine, as Jesus did at the Last Supper, and blessed Abraham. That is the priesthood of Melchizedek, as the author of Hebrews saw Melchizedek as a kind of premonition of Christ.

Oh my love ... you are rude. Point being: 1. The question wasn't about faith and works, it was about the fact that faith in Jesus isn't enough. (Going off the temple recommend quesions) you have to believe JS was a true prophet, that Monson is a true prophet, and everyone in between (as well as ALL the general authorities). You have to believe the lds church is the only true and living church, that the standard works are the word of God, believe in the restoration of the gospel, you must renounce all groups that disagree with church teachings, etc. If you reject any of these requirements you are denied entrance to the temple, which brings me to point 2 ... 2. As far as faith and works goes, you need to do works to get into the temple (tithing, word of wisdom, law of chastity, wear your garments, etc), and you have to be endowed & sealed in the temple to live with God and progress to godhood yourself. Ergo, faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation.

i think it's a good indicator of skill on her part. she's not going to save somebody just because it's horrible. she's not off in lala land where only marginal characters die in a war. people die. usually they're the greatest people you ever met.

There were "I KNEW IT!" moments and "ARE YOU SERIOUS??" moments, but overall it felt a little anticlimactic. So far all the books have been ... well I thought each was pretty damn good piece of literature. But with this one she seemed to 'overdo' her trademarks a bit. people's names and spell incantations, and a little of the dialog just wasn't up to par with what I'm used to with Rowling. It didn't all flow well the way it usually does. That's not to say I didn't like the book, it was AMAZING, but I think she could have done better. So I'm going to say that 95% of the book was fantastic and 5% was awkward moments of unnaturalness. I completely lost it when DD said that Harry was a horcrux, because I was hardcore thinking that it was impossible. I was also hardcore believing that Snape was never in love with Lily Potter. Strike two. my favorite quotes: give it up for molly weasley! I burst into tears when i read this, no joke ~ Ron

tofu that link doesn't work ... what gives? i don't appreciate that. lol

i rather like it. i noticed the hint with fenrir greyback's name in the beginning of HBP and I was pretty proud of myself.

i grew up in a family of 10 children; i can hold my own. i spent a lot of spare time in high school trying to knock guys off their feet. it's a good way to pass the time.

yea if you just wanted a basic idea of the plot. but there's so many correlations and allusions to look at that help you understand the plot. i mean you could spend hours just looking at people's names and seeing how that plays into the plot. some of it is just funny (ernie prang is a bus driver; a prang is a car accident and ernie was JKR's grandfather) but some of it tells you something about the plot or the character's personality (minerva is the roman goddess of wisdom, hermione is a character in one of Shakespeare's plays who is temporarily turned to stone). its a lot to take in, and its a big reason i love the books so much; there's so much to do between books.

well what else are they supposed to do, if they can't even grow potatoes? pulling a trigger's pretty simple.

that was kind of the point referencing the honors system wasnt it? well anyway, rushing through them all now is really an unfortunate way to experience the series, there's so much to notice, you have to process the book before you read the next one

oh probably only because she knew from the beginning that they would be harry and ron's dates for th yule ball. and comic relief, lavender and parvati are excellent comic relief (won-won, heh)

parvati and padma patil are identical twins in different houses

um, how about you tell them??

we know why Harry "can speak parseltongue becaause Lord Voldemort can speak parseltongue" (DD - CoS) When Voldy cursed Harry he gave him some of his powers. Harry is not a descendant of Slytherin. Voldy AND DD said that Voldy was the LAST descendant of Slytherin (not ancestor as in early printings ) The sorting hat took its time because Harry has major qualities valued by both of the founders (bravery by Gryffindor, cunning and resourcefulness by Slytherin). He is unique because he has so many talents, not because of his blood. The hat was made to sort people according to their talents, not their blood. Just because Harry thought (at age 12 mind you) that the hat was thinking of his biological similarities when it tried to sort him into Slytherin, doesnt mean he was correct in his guess.

granted, and it turns out the secret service is being paid off by kim jong il and now you die, Bush wasn't a threat and you are i wish it was the weekend already

i wasnt referring to the culture as a whole there, just the idea the dad gave about "American" culture dealing with physical contact; that specifically is what should be protected. And I also was not referring to laws, which are not the same as culture. For example, it's against the law here to use certain drugs and there are places where it is not. You had better conform to that law though, or suffer the consequences. However it is common in our culture to eat beef, but there are places where cows are sacred and eating them would be as disgusting to them as eating a pet dog to us. And yet these people, should they move to the US, would not be forced to conform to that aspect of our culture. I disagree; I live in an area where there are a lot of people of German heritage, but I still live very differently from even the people who live right next to me. There are differences of religion and national background all over the country and you just cannot pin down a uniform "American" lifestyle. As I always say, there's no such thing as normal.

WHY?? i mean granted, but you lose a King and can hardly use them anyway I wish i'd known i didnt have to work until 8:30 today

i'm not saying that society needs to change, i'm saying that the dad was being ignorant saying that people from other cultures need to conform to American culture. the rule should be, as long as it's appropriate, then its up to the people involved. IOW, draw the line at inappropriate touching, but unwanted is still unwanted and even a pat on the back, if it's unwanted should be reprimanded - but not really punished - by an authority figure.

she's said that harry isnt a descendent of Gryffindor ... i'll try and find the quote. its totally possible there's a horcrux in godric's hollow ... or maybe its something else that harry will find that will help him find the horcruxes or kill voldy. i just have a feeling he's gonna find something there that's a huge revelation about his parents, like how they got all that money in gringotts.

yea i'm not saying that there are people going around hugging random people but there are some cultures with strict rules about physical contact, and that's what the school should be protecting, not just making up for not being able to make more space for the overcrowded students. i was just saying the dad was being a little ignorant and it annoyed me.

yea, but i just got a vibe from the end of HBP that he was good, that he was pissed at the world and all that, but he's on the right side. even when harry was trying to kill him he blocked it and was still trying to teach him. "Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" and "No Unforgivable Curses from you, Potter!" he wouldnt let him break the law either.