User Profile: P8riot

P8riot

Member Since: September 13, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [3] October 30, 2014 at 7:43pm

    notfooledbyu

    wow, didn’t know that! thanks!

  • [7] October 30, 2014 at 7:28pm

    I sure hope you’re not diminishing the sacrifice of our brave American men in WWI. This is coming from a veteran.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] October 30, 2014 at 7:17pm

    Truly the definition of a disgusting coward.

    Is this guy a ‘sovereign citizen’?

    I’m telling you guys, these crazy sovereign citizens need to be alienated like the plague – they are a disgrace to the conservative movement.

    Responses (2) +
  • October 30, 2014 at 3:51pm

    You can read the Official Declaration which give a bit more detail here:

    https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

    Hopefully, you can see that this also answers your questions on whether or not Christ’s Church was ‘wrong’ to restrict who received the priesthood prior to this revelation… the answer is obviously no. In fact, it would have been “morally wrong” to expand the Lord’s directions prior to such a revelation.

    This brings me to a bigger point. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the ONLY church on earth which has the authority to ordain worthy men to the priesthood. All other churches are well intentioned, but do not hold the authority. Thus, those priesthoods have been taken upon themselves… “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” Hebrews 5:4.

    Finally, yes, our Church is lead by a living Prophet of God, just as the Lord has always run His Church from the beginning of time. Just as Moses gave the church a new law which was later fulfilled and rescinded by Christ, new revelation can and will absolutely come in the future. To believe anything else is to be part of a dead church.

  • October 30, 2014 at 3:40pm

    Now, if you understand that the Lord has restricted in the past, which tribes/lineages could hold the priesthood – how about I flip the question to you – at what point did the Lord reveal to your religion to go beyond the bounds set in the Bible for the Aaronic Priesthood (since you seem to claim that all men were given the priesthood in your religion)? Of course, different restrictions were set for the Melchizedek Priesthood – but do you distinguish between the two – do you even know the difference?

    Once you get this, I hope you’ll see the folly in believing that everyone has always had every priesthood.

    Now, to answer your questions regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and how the Lord directed His Church to ordain worthy men of all lineages/tribes to the priesthood:

    In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.” The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination.

    ..

  • October 30, 2014 at 2:45pm

    First and foremost, I never said that blacks were from the “wrong tribe” – if you read my answers again, you’ll see that I said: “For most of human existence, the Lord has restricted which tribes and lineage could hold the priesthood.” In other words, for most of human existence, the Lord has only given the priesthood to certain people, but not all.

    But that aside, it seems you’re not grasping my answer to you since you seem to be asking questions that have already been answered. So you first need to answer this so I can understand how much you understand – do you or do you not know that the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood has in the past been restricted to only the sons of Levi?

    If this is news to you, please see Hebrews 7:5 as an example – “And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood…” Thus, you see that the Lord has often “discriminated” as to whom he will give His priesthoods – and yes, He discriminated based on lineage – which race does play a part in what lineage one comes from (hate to break it to you).

    Do you think the Lord racist because those from the tribe of Levi and Aaron were not black? Seriously, if you don’t believe me that the Lord only gave the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood to certain lineages/tribes, then ask your local pastor/priest to confirm.

    If you don’t understand this basic principle, then you’ll never be able to understand that the Lord has changed who can be ordained to the priesthood.

    cont.

  • October 30, 2014 at 1:53pm

    exactly right jerseygirljo.

  • October 28, 2014 at 1:22pm

    @snoop1e
    Didn’t answer the question and I had no “sound biblical proof to substantiate [my] claim”? With all due respect, if we are going to have a dialog, there must be some intellectual honesty.

    The Law of Moses isn’t biblical? The Aaronic (aka Levitical) Priesthood isn’t biblical? Biblical truths were the only proof I used.

    Truly, I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but your response can’t be serious. Feel free to disagree with me, or even my interpretation of the biblical principles I cited; but it is pure intellectual dishonestly to say I didn’t answer your question and failed to use biblical “proof” to substantiate my claims.

    If you’ve never heard of my biblical references, I’m more than happy to cite specific scripture that will show you what I’m talking about. I simply thought the basic idea of the Law of Moses being fulfilled and the restrictions on who could hold the Aaronic Priesthood were generally understood.

  • October 25, 2014 at 2:35am

    Snoop1e

    I think my first reply has already answered the heart of your question… which seems to imply that you think that God never changes the rules thus any changes would indicate such religion must be false.

    First, please see my original post pointing out that God started off by restricting the Aaronic Priesthood to only the tribe of Levi in the Bible and then later He ‘changes’ the rules to allow all worthy jews to hold the Priesthood in the Bible. To recently continue this pattern to allow all liniages to hold the priesthood is nothing new.

    Next, for a pretty simple example of a few more rule changes, please remember the law of moses. A few changes there? With your train of thought, you would have to reject most of the entire new testament… which I know you don’t. However the Jews might ageee that God couldn’t have made so many changes to the rules :)

    So as the bible has shown, a church should have continued revelation if it is indeed actively led by God rather than led by men simply trying to interpret the Bible.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is truly led by God through a living Prophet today. Thus, we accept that this is His priesthood and can grant it to whom ever he chooses whenever he chooses.

    Thanks!

  • [51] October 23, 2014 at 9:41pm

    Remind anyone else of the Woolwich Attacks in the UK by Muslims using similar weapons – just last year?

  • [5] October 22, 2014 at 7:45pm

    @snoop1e

    You are absolutely right. Even though we can cite over and over the scriptures that show that one must have more than just faith to be saved, people don’t want to listen… so here are a few that show one can fall from grace..

    endureth to the end shall be saved: Matt. 10:22 . ( Matt. 24:13 )
    lest … I myself should be a castaway: 1 Cor. 9:27 .
    let him … take heed lest he fall: 1 Cor. 10:12 .
    ye are fallen from grace: Gal. 5:4 .
    If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance: Heb. 6:6 .
    sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge … no more sacrifice for sins: Heb. 10:26 .
    lest any man fail of the grace of God: Heb. 12:15 .
    again entangled … latter end is worse: 2 Pet. 2:20 .

    If you think about it, “once saved, always saved” would be one of the devil’s greatest tricks because it’s much easier to make people believe you don’t exist than make believers fall from grace while thinking they’re saved all along.

    BTW Snoop1e – I just saw your question to me a couple days ago on another post and responded today. Thanks!

  • October 22, 2014 at 12:06pm

    @snoop1e

    I know you’re not bashing my religion, but rather simply asking a question. However, this is a perfect example of falsehoods being spread about my religion.

    Blacks were never denied membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ever. There is a well known event when the Prophet Joseph Smith gave his prized horse to a freed slave to sell to have the money to buy his family’s freedom as well. That black man was also a member of our church.

    Whoever told you that falsehood was probably twisting it from the fact that previous to the 1970′s black male members of the church were not ordained to the priesthood. This was nothing new however. For most of human existence, the Lord has restricted which tribes and lineage could hold the priesthood.

    For example, in biblical times, the Aaronic Priesthood was conferred only upon men of the tribe of Levi. Even further restrictions were found within the tribe – only Aaron and his sons could hold the office of priest. And, still further, from the firstborn of Aaron’s sons (after Aaron) was selected the high priest (or president of the priests). The lineal restrictions of that Aaronic Priesthood were lifted when the law of Moses was fulfilled, and thereafter the offices of the priesthood were conferred upon worthy men without limitation to the tribe of Levi.

    Thus, when the remaining restrictions were lifted by revelation, it was a glorious day for all. :)

    Thanks!

  • [15] October 22, 2014 at 11:50am

    I doubt they got away later. It’s not like the cop didn’t have a radio. If he was code 3 and no one was stopping, others were already on their way and/or waiting.

    Responses (4) +
  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 11:46am

    @Max

    I don’t think you fully understand what the term “politically correct” means.

    Regardless, having served in the Marine Corps for 8 years, I’ve heard my share of profanity. Most of my closest Marine buddies used profanity regularly, but were respectful enough to refrain when they were around me – which I never asked them to do. Now that is true character and class – the opposite of what you demonstrated with your comment.

    Again, I’m not trying to police the language of others, but rather simply pointing out that such vulgarity only harms their potential.

  • [16] October 22, 2014 at 11:34am

    I completely agree Gonzo. I’m so tired of headlines starting with “Embattled Pastor Mark Driscoll…”

    I’m sure tomorrow will be “Embattled Pastor Mark Driscoll ate breakfast today”

  • [9] October 21, 2014 at 5:22pm

    buahhhh haaaaaa haaaaaa! That was more like a junior high acting class!!!

    Seriously? “I’m an officer of the law”? haaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaa!

    The only thing “exposed” by this video is how gullible people are.

  • [42] October 21, 2014 at 12:12pm

    I guess my initial reaction to the video was annoyance with the language.

    Yes, people can choose to speak how they choose, but people like this need to understand how unintelligent such language makes them sound.

    Vulgarity is the weak mind expressing itself.

    I believe it was Hugh Hewitt that pointed out that we all see how pollution damages our surroundings. Now if one believes in a soul – then such vulgarity must pollute that soul.

    Responses (3) +
  • October 21, 2014 at 11:50am

    @josh

    Seriously, you call that statute “legalese”? It’s written in plain English!

    Texas and Crackkills are both completely right.

    Not only does this statute exempt law enforcement vehicles being used for “confidential investigative purposes” but it ALSO allows for individual “local governmental agencies” to exempt their law enforcement vehicles through their own ordinances (city statutes) or internal rules.

    (@wyoming – do you seriously contend that when a police officer is attempting to blend into the public so they can look for and catch people committing crimes that otherwise would cease such criminal activity if they saw a marked police car – is not “confidential investigative purposes”?)

    Anyhoo, this character simply embarrasses himself in this video… a person trying to make a legal conclusion without knowing how to read a statute.

  • [1] October 20, 2014 at 6:02pm

    @fromtexasbygod

    THANK YOU!!! Finally some intellectual honesty!

    To quote another classic cinematic moment – “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!” What is happening to our fellow conservatives? Why are we so easily duped by the cop-hating-libertarians here? Don’t they realize that just like the military, a large majority of cops are conservative?

  • [15] October 20, 2014 at 5:56pm

    Wow, just wow.

    I am truly concerned that so many people here are blindly believing this guy – read the cited statute and it clearly gives exceptions for “confidential investigative purposes” – what else would you call an unmarked law enforcement vehicle being used to catch people breaking the traffic laws?

    Further this same state statute clearly allows for each “local governmental agencies” to exempt their law enforcement vehicles through their own ordinances (city statutes) or internal rules.

    Seriously, this is scary how many of our fellow conservatives are so gullible to believe this crack-pot rather than consider the fact that the agency who spent tens of thousands of dollars on that unmarked vehicles probably made sure it was legal before doing so (as well as their legal department).

    This is how the left acts – robotic followers.

    Wow, just wow. Now go ahead and give me a negative vote because you don’t like reality.

123 To page: Go