User Profile: Alex

Alex

Member Since: May 11, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [3] March 2, 2015 at 11:19am

    Had she gone with her first gut feeling, and she would have been right. Too often, we will get the right answer from God early on, but then comes the temptation to complicate and finesse it. If we continue this path, we end up rationalizing our desires to the point that we do an about fact and go so far as to claim that God told us to do it. Sure, God spoke, but you weren’t listening. Your first impression was from God, not your last.

  • March 2, 2015 at 10:51am

    LOL!

  • March 2, 2015 at 10:45am

    God changed your mind? I’m incredulous.

  • [1] February 25, 2015 at 10:21am

    Sometimes the best way to encourage people to repent is to be generous when they do right. There is nothing that makes me want to do better than a sincere compliment. C’mon, let it work in her. Let her figure it out.

  • [1] February 25, 2015 at 10:16am

    There is nothing at all wrong with what he is doing. We encourage good behavior by rewarding it when it occurs.

  • [1] February 18, 2015 at 12:15pm

    Rolling out the red carpet for gay marriage at church, thinking that doing so makes you more compassionate is like being generous with someone else’s money. It is not yours to give.

    The prototype for marriage is implicit in the charge given to Adam and Eve by God in the Book of Genesis (Genesis 2:24) and reiterated anew by Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:4-5):

    4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

    5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

    6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

  • February 18, 2015 at 11:44am

    MinistryOfTruth,

    “In Greece??”

    Sure, why not? We could cruise the Mediterranean and they could bury us in Greece, after we suffer simultaneous heart attacks. :)

  • [1] February 17, 2015 at 5:48pm

    To whom do you want to be relevant? To God or to man? You are fooling yourself if you think that you can condone homosexual relations, and not lose the rest of your doctrine like a house of cards.

  • [14] February 16, 2015 at 1:14pm

    That is how I hope they find the bones of me and my wife someday!

    Responses (2) +
  • [17] February 13, 2015 at 1:01pm

    Nobody, by his article or influence, is being prevented from carrying out any sexual act that does not involve a minor or rape, and you know that. He is merely appealing to the moral compass of the undecided, urging them not to give this movie the time of day.

    Responses (2) +
  • [7] February 13, 2015 at 11:19am

    Excellent article. I agree with the argument that we should be for something, rather than against. Chad Ovind is only addressing this movie in passing, because its fame and notoriety are already out there. He is not adding to it, which is good. It is important for us, when dealing with the immoral and unseemly, that we not generate publicity with shrill outrage that only gives it more power. Let us be the first to recognize, quietly and promptly reject evil, and the last to publicize and fret over it to the press. If enough people do that, movies like this will die on the vine. Quiet rejection and indifference are better than anger. Above all, we should focus on living the pattern of marriage given by the Lord.

  • [12] February 13, 2015 at 10:59am

    Matt Walsh is only addressing this movie, because its fame and notoriety are already out there. He is not adding to it, which is good. It is important for us, when dealing with the immoral and unseemly, that we not generate publicity with shrill outrage that only gives it more power. Matt is late to the subject, and that is exactly as it should be with us. He is not addressing those already determined to see it, but rather the undecided who, with a reminder to heed their moral compass, may be dissuaded from seeing it. Let us be the first to recognize and quietly reject evil, and the last to publicize and fret over it to the press. If enough people do that, movies like this will die on the vine. Quiet rejection and indifference are better than anger.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] February 9, 2015 at 8:15pm

    Ah come on, george-harrison. Let’s stay on topic. :)

  • [1] February 9, 2015 at 4:46pm

    Question: If there is no life after death, how would you ever know it?

    Responses (6) +
  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 6:29pm

    george-harrison,

    I’m aware of those quotes from Spencer W. Kimball and Bruce R. McConkie. Many in the church overestimated the reach of the ancestry of the ancient peoples of the Book of Mormon. The crux of the matter is that the text of the Book of Mormon makes NO claim that their descendants are the ONLY ancestors of the American Indians, only that their descendants will live on to our time.

  • [3] February 5, 2015 at 5:39pm

    george-harrison,

    I have a replica first edition copy of the Book of Mormon and a current copy as it exists today. I have gone through the edits and have seen nothing in them that does violence to the doctrine and message. The church has done nothing to hide them. No scandal there. For the most part, they are grammatical, printer errors, as well as the addition of versification and cross-referencing. In fact, if you go through the corrections, you might find yourself falling asleep. There are a few changes that clarify meaning, but then again, you can compare them with the first addition and decide for yourself. Truth be told, I could go to church and quote from a first edition copy, and nobody would bat an eye.

    Responses (11) +
  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 4:57pm

    libertea90, (Part 2 of 2)

    I know that Protestants want to hang the Catholics for keeping the Bible from the common people during the Middle Ages, but the facts don’t make it that simple. It was a logistical problem that became apparent only when the printing press brought down the cost. All of a sudden, more and more people could have access to the Bible, and more and more people in turn wanted to be able to read it in their own language. With more and more people reading the Bible, and with more and more translations, what happened? People began to discover that we weren’t doing Christianity like we used to.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 4:56pm

    libertea90, (Part 1 of 2)

    What you said about not speaking Latin was exactly the problem that many throughout Christendom were grappling with when the new translations came about. For centuries in the Western Church, Latin really was the common language, of Christendom, much like English is today. However, over the course of centuries, the Roman Empire disintegrated, and that political influence that had maintained Latin as the language of Christianity began to weaken and deteriorate. This meant that eventually only those few who were educated in Latin and Greek could read and understand the Bible. Add to that the fact that the printing press with moveable type didn’t exist in the West until Guttenberg’s printing press in 1450. Before this time, the making of a copy of the Bible was an extremely costly venture. (Think of how long it would take you to write out the Bible in long hand, and then handed it to someone else to be checked.) This means that only those who could read and write Latin (the learned) and the rich (because of the cost of producing a Bible) could actually read a Bible. It was a supply problem.

  • [2] February 5, 2015 at 3:32pm

    That is true, but we’ve already done the one version thing. The closest thing we ever got to one version was the Latin Vulgate that was commissioned by Pope Damascus I and carried out St. Jerome in the fourth century. It was the official Bible of Christianity for more than a thousand years. It wasn’t until around the reformation that new translations came about. (It wasn’t the Catholic Church that proliferated versions of the Bible.) Sure, agreeing on one Bible sounds nice, but which version do you choose, and how do you get everyone to agree?

    Responses (7) +
  • [5] February 5, 2015 at 2:01pm

    I occasionally hear it said, “I believe the whole Bible. I don’t pick and choose which parts to believe.” While the sentiment of wanting to accept all of the word of God is a noble and worthy pursuit, it is easier said than done. I’m sorry, but we ALL pick and choose which parts to follow and believe. It’s unavoidable. Our understanding of the Bible will never be perfect, nor will we truly be able to say we follow the whole Bible, but it is ok. What we need to be able to do is to be able to recognize the voice of God to us personally through this imperfect, but incalculably important text. The Bible truly is a pearl of great price.

    Responses (4) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love