Support Of The Bible-accordined To Outshined

[roman]

This is a spin off of another thread, of which outshined and I exchanged a few pleasantrys on a couple of lds doctrines of the past. The first was the exclusion of blacks of certain church postions, soley on their skin color and the other was polygamy.

outshined said that the Bible upheld each of these, of which I beg to differ. so outshined kindly offered his services to explain it to me, and I now take him up on it.

Since we are under the New Covenant and the lds church was birthed under the NC and since the LDS church introduced these beliefs and practices under the NC, I would like to see outshined explain to me ------------------------using ONLY the NC ot New Testament the validity of these 2 items.

[Outshined]

Quite simple. Acts 20 tells us that Paul's vision allowed him to share the Gospel with non-Jews. Up until that point, it had been forbidden by God to teach anyone outside that race of people. Anyone can see the correlation; the Gospel itself was limited by God to a particular race, while the Priesthood was witheld for a while from men of African descent in the LDS Church.

A better question would be why this bothers roman, who considers our Church a 'cult' and does not believe in its validity. What possible concern could he have of anyone being denied a Priesthood in which he does not believe? Moreover, does he consider it racist that the Gospel was limited to Jews in the Bible?

As for polygamy, roman asked if God would "ever condone" such. The Bible tells us plainly that he has many times. Every Sunday-school child knows that. Does roman really care about 19th-century polygamy?

[roman]

Quite simple. Acts 20 tells us that Paul's vision allowed him to share the Gospel with non-Jews. Up until that point, it had been forbidden by God to teach anyone outside that race of people. Anyone can see the correlation; the Gospel itself was limited by God to a particular race, while the Priesthood was witheld for a while from men of African descent in the LDS Church.

A better question would be why this bothers roman, who calls our Church a 'cult', and does not believe in its validity. What possible concern could he have of anyone being denied a Priesthood in which he does not believe? Moreover, does he consider it racist that the Gospel was limited to Jews in the Bible?

As for polygamy, roman asked if God would "ever condone" such. The Bible tells us plainly that he has many times. Every Sunday-school child knows that. Does roman really care about 19th-century polygamy?

I expected this very answer------------a none answer. Well oushined politly offer and then failed to deliver. and because he could not deliever he turned to personal attack. You had your shot and now continue in your petty little excuse for replies

I would like to know when I called your church a cult--------maybe thats an easier question. simply dig up the post, and well you know, post it

[Outshined]

So you don't like the answer, and cannot address it, so you call it a "none answer", make some nasty comments, and avoid the subject. Ask a question, then abandon the subject altogether when you have no response, eh, roman?

Don't pretend you received no answers. The fact is that you don't know how to address them; I 'delivered', and you covered your eyes. This is really poor behavior, and you are better than that. It seems it would be easier to just address the subject than run. Don't start threads if you are unable follow through. We will progress when you've addressed the subject.

Acts 20 tells us that Paul's vision allowed him to share the Gospel with non-Jews. Up until that point, it had been forbidden by God to teach anyone outside that race of people. Anyone can see the correlation; the Gospel itself was limited by God to a particular race, while the Priesthood was witheld for a while from men of African descent in the LDS Church.

As for polygamy, roman asked if God would "ever condone" such. The Bible tells us plainly that he has many times.

Moreover, does he consider it racist that the Gospel was limited to Jews in the Bible?

And where was the "personal attack"? I challenge you to point it out.

It was on this very board that I asked you if you considered our Church a cult, and you politely said yes. You have also said on another board that the LDS Church is "a false gospel that is based on distortions, assumtions, lies and falsehoods". Do you now deny that, as you denied asking a question on the other thread? I don't expect reasonable treatment of LDS doctrines from you, but I do expect honesty.

So are you saying that our Church is NOT a cult? A yes or no answer will do. I'd like a firm answer on this.

Also, do you consider the LDS Priesthood valid?

EDIT: For people who honestly want information about the Priesthood ban , check out http://blacklds.org , a site for and by black members of the Church, who have much more invested in this issue than either roman or I do. See what they say about it.

[CrimsonKairos]

The fact is that there are similarities in principle between the gospel belonging solely to the Jews until after Christ's death, and the priesthood belonging solely to caucasians until 1978.

In the first case, it could be termed "racism" and it was okay because God said so.

In the second case, it could be termed "racism" and it was okay because God said so.

Polygamy is a well-attested Old Testament practice condoned by God in the case of Abraham and other great worthies. Again, it's okay if God says so.

The common denominator in both disputes is whether God said so or not.

Did God approve the priesthood ban as instituted by a prophet, and its subsequent lifting as instituted by a prophet in 1978? Did God approve of polygamy as instituted by a prophet and subsequently discontinued by a prophet?

These are the core questions. No one questions whether God would ever condone something evil. He is by definition good, hence He would not command His servants to do anything evil, no matter how it may appear to mortal eyes.

So the real question underpinning all the others is: "Are the claims of the LDS Church true?"

If they are, and prophets guided by God preside over His Church, then the priesthood ban was not evil since God is not evil, and polygamy is not evil since God is not evil.

Unfortunately, the veracity or falsity of the LDS Church's claims cannot be established through an appeal to the Bible. An appeal to God, answered through the Holy Spirit and that alone, can bring certainty. It is not a matter of what the Testaments say about the past, but what the Testator (Holy Ghost) says to us today.

To put it very simply, I know the LDS Church's claims and doctrines are true. I have tasted them, and they are sweet above all that is sweet, and pure above all that is pure. God leads and guides His children through prophets once more, and I am grateful for such attention and aid from my Creator. Christ is alive, and Christ is coming. To God alone the glory.

[Gwen]

thank you for the link outshined. i live in the southern usa where this is still very much an issue for many. i will enjoy getting to explore this site more. thank you again.

our branch pres, rs pres and the majority of our yw (i'm the yw's pres) are black. a position and struggle i should better educate myself on. the rs pres and i have had a few discussion trying to help me understand what it is like for a black southerner to join the church. something i try to get, but accept that i will probably never truely understand. but i can keep trying.

[CrimsonKairos]

It's interesting, to be sure.

One of my cousin's (caucasian) just married a young man who's from Ghana, where his father is an Area Authority Seventy. It's been interesting to watch her family and our grandparents' reaction to her choice.

The one sister I baptized on my mission in Kentucky was African American, and had one of the strongest testimonies I'd seen anywhere...even knowing about the priesthood ban. She prayed and was taught from on high that prophets speak for God, and she knew that following the prophet--while not easy--was worth it.

She was and still is an example to me, though we've lost contact due to problems with her marriage and children.

[Outshined]

The fact is that there are similarities in principle between the gospel belonging solely to the Jews until after Christ's death, and the priesthood belonging solely to caucasians until 1978.

In the first case, it could be termed "racism" and it was okay because God said so.

In the second case, it could be termed "racism" and it was okay because God said so.

Polygamy is a well-attested Old Testament practice condoned by God in the case of Abraham and other great worthies. Again, it's okay if God says so.

The common denominator in both disputes is whether God said so or not.

Did God approve the priesthood ban as instituted by a prophet, and its subsequent lifting as instituted by a prophet in 1978? Did God approve of polygamy as instituted by a prophet and subsequently discontinued by a prophet?

These are the core questions. No one questions whether God would ever condone something evil. He is by definition good, hence He would not command His servants to do anything evil, no matter how it may appear to mortal eyes.

So the real question underpinning all the others is: "Are the claims of the LDS Church true?"

If they are, and prophets guided by God preside over His Church, then the priesthood ban was not evil since God is not evil, and polygamy is not evil since God is not evil.

Unfortunately, the veracity or falsity of the LDS Church's claims cannot be established through an appeal to the Bible. An appeal to God, answered through the Holy Spirit and that alone, can bring certainty. It is not a matter of what the Testaments say about the past, but what the Testator (Holy Ghost) says to us today.

To put it very simply, I know the LDS Church's claims and doctrines are true. I have tasted them, and they are sweet above all that is sweet, and pure above all that is pure. God leads and guides His children through prophets once more, and I am grateful for such attention and aid from my Creator. Christ is alive, and Christ is coming. To God alone the glory.

Thanks for the input, CK; well-worded. You're right; if someone does not believe that the LDS Church is of God, then of course they will not consider any of the Church's actions to be of God.

I have heard some strong testimonies from members who could not hold the Priesthood, and the joy they felt when the ban was lifted. What strong spirits they have; it would have been easy to be bitter and deny the Gospel over such a thing. They offered no such excuses, and continued to be faithful to Christ.

[Dr T]

Hey Outshined,

You've said,

...it had been forbidden by God to teach anyone outside that race of people.

Can you post the actual passage that shows God outlawing it?

Thank you

[a-train]

Each of us have at our fingertips the scriptures, the teachings of the latter-day prophets, huge mountains of historical data, and much more provided by the unprecedented vast information base of the internet. We stand in an age that all our progenitors may have been unable to even fathom.

Still, it is a matter of our own agency what we will search for amongst all this. Will we seek to understand? Will we 'search knowledge'? (2 Nephi 2:37) Will we love darkness more than light? (John 3:19)

Who can doubt that every man is able to formulate his own understanding through the efforts of his own study and supplication to God?

It is with this in mind that we can safely have faith in the LORD that He will edify, instruct, and enable each man as fast as he can endure truth.

Therefore, isn't it good wisdom that if we intend to do the will of God and bless our fellow man that we will seek not to argue and contend with them? Let us not assume that anything but kindness and love will lay contention to annihilation. And understand that when we undertake to convince another man through the mechanisms of logic and semantics of what has been shown to us by revelation, we therein manifest our lack of faith that the LORD will do for them just as he has done for us in revealing the truth.

Let us all be uplifting and in the spirit of brotherhood and faith bear our own testimony and offer what we have been given of God in the reciprocal spirit of humility. And let us be sufficed with what answers our fellow men are able or obliged to give and let both they and us get the rest from God.

-a-train

[roman]

So you don't like the answer, and cannot address it, so you call it a "none answer", make some nasty comments, and avoid the subject. Ask a question, then abandon the subject altogether when you have no response, eh, roman?

Don't pretend you received no answers. The fact is that you don't know how to address them; I 'delivered', and you covered your eyes. This is really poor behavior, and you are better than that. It seems it would be easier to just address the subject than run. Don't start threads if you are unable follow through. We will progress when you've addressed the subject.

Acts 20 tells us that Paul's vision allowed him to share the Gospel with non-Jews. Up until that point, it had been forbidden by God to teach anyone outside that race of people. Anyone can see the correlation; the Gospel itself was limited by God to a particular race, while the Priesthood was witheld for a while from men of African descent in the LDS Church.

As for polygamy, roman asked if God would "ever condone" such. The Bible tells us plainly that he has many times.

Moreover, does he consider it racist that the Gospel was limited to Jews in the Bible?

And where was the "personal attack"? I challenge you to point it out.

It was on this very board that I asked you if you considered our Church a cult, and you politely said yes. You have also said on another board that the LDS Church is "a false gospel that is based on distortions, assumtions, lies and falsehoods". Do you now deny that, as you denied asking a question on the other thread? I don't expect reasonable treatment of LDS doctrines from you, but I do expect honesty.

So are you saying that our Church is NOT a cult? A yes or no answer will do. I'd like a firm answer on this.

Also, do you consider the LDS Priesthood valid?

EDIT: For people who honestly want information about the Priesthood ban , check out http://blacklds.org , a site for and by black members of the Church, who have much more invested in this issue than either roman or I do. See what they say about it.

You say I don't like the answer----------well if you gave one to polygamy I missed the scripture references from the New Testament---so could you please list them AGAIN. And since I am here You could hardly say that I left the thread and am running from you. By me opening another thread on these very topics says something quite different that what you want me and others to precieve is really going on here.

To you Acts 20 answer to denying blacks the priesthood--well lets see I can't see it appyling for 2 reasons right off the top of my head.

#1 Acts 10 when Peter preached to the Gentiles at Cornelius house. The gospel was ALREADY going to the gentiles way before Acts 20. So how do you bring the 2 together.

#2 Historty is not on your side. God has used and called Black peoples to great leadership roles in the church---many miracles, callings, and other great works were done by the hands of Black people long before the lds church---gave them permission to

#3 Heres another just for good measure. God is No Respector of Persaons---he always called had used whoever he wanted. Please remember the gospel went out to--------"who so ever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved" and then once saved the Holy Spirit placed or baptized them into the body of Christ and gave them gifts and calling and authority to act in Jesus name.

As to the personal attacks------------------you can read can't you--okay nuff said

Now to the cult thing, I asked you to provide the post, to back up your claims and guess what---------no reference from you at all-----------hum what does that say about you. You can claim it all day long and it won't make it true---------------as to saying the other on another board. Yes I said it--so what? What has that to do with the topic---other than a diversionary tactic by you. I stand by that statement--I find the lds chruch is not what it advertises itself to be--I believe the whole lds movement stands and falls upon JS words and actions. After much investigation of lds material---many years of lds talks and visits from missionaries----much prayer-------much scripture application and understanding----I came to that conclusion. Just like millions have

I will not answer your cult question--------I have my views, but its just not a yes or no answer to the very loaded question

no I don't not believe the lds priesthood is valid-------Hebrews 10 would be part of an answer to that.

Now I am tryin g to be honest---can you? Please back up what you say with references-------PLEASE

[roman]

So the real question underpinning all the others is: "Are the claims of the LDS Church true?"

Unfortunately, the veracity or falsity of the LDS Church's claims cannot be established through an appeal to the Bible. An appeal to God, answered through the Holy Spirit and that alone, can bring certainty. It is not a matter of what the Testaments say about the past, but what the Testator (Holy Ghost) says to us today.

This is where I would disagree with you. I believe that the Bible was given to us to reveal God to us and his nature and how he backs his word once it is given. I also believe that the Holy Spirit is still saying the same thing as it was once revealed. God is always the same is word endures for generations and is non changing.

Now how he arrives at the final destination, may change but what he laid down for the bases o the church --has not and will not ever change. The foundation of the church is the apostles and prophets---build on something else00as in JS testimony and you will have something else;

all in all a good post---it high lites our differences

[JcDean78]

Wow Roman you seem to got some issues. However at one point many people did not believe the world was round but that did not change the fact that it is. There are many people who do not believe the Priesthood has been restored as Christ established it in the NT but that does not change the fact that it is.

Agency does not change what is right and wrong, it simply allows you to choose between the two. No amount of debate can change what is true reguardless of if you believe it or not.

[roman]

Wow Roman you seem to got some issues. However at one point many people did not believe the world was round but that did not change the fact that it is. There are many people who do not believe the Priesthood has been restored as Christ established it in the NT but that does not change the fact that it is.

Agency does not change what is right and wrong, it simply allows you to choose between the two. No amount of debate can change what is true reguardless of if you believe it or not.

I totally agree-----------as it works both ways Just because lds believe something doesn't make it true either

[Outshined]

well if you gave one to polygamy I missed the scripture references from the New Testament---so could you please list them AGAIN.

If I ever constrained it to the New Testament, I must have missed it. I said it was in the Bible that God condoned it, and you won't find that I said otherwise.

To you Acts 20 answer to denying blacks the priesthood--well lets see I can't see it appyling for 2 reasons right off the top of my head.

#1 Acts 10 when Peter preached to the Gentiles at Cornelius house. The gospel was ALREADY going to the gentiles way before Acts 20. So how do you bring the 2 together.

Nope; Paul's vision in Acts 20 was telling him that it was okay to share the Gospel with the Gentiles. That was the whole purpose of the vision. I learned that in Baptist seminary many years before I even knew what Latter-day Saints really were. The book of Acts is when the Gospel begins to spread outside the Jewish people. Before that it was taught to Jews only.

#2 and 3 are your opinion, and have no bearing on the passage.

You did not answer this: do you consider it racist that the Gospel was limited for a while to Jews in the Bible?

I will not answer your cult question

Of course you won't; we both know the answer, though, so it's no big deal. Your comments at FAIR were much more offensive and inflammatory anyway. However, it is still a puzzle why you act offended about anyone being denied a Priesthood that you do not believe to be valid.

Thank you for at least finally making an attempt to deal with the answers instead of just claiming you "had not been answered."

Each of us have at our fingertips the scriptures, the teachings of the latter-day prophets, huge mountains of historical data, and much more provided by the unprecedented vast information base of the internet. We stand in an age that all our progenitors may have been unable to even fathom.

Still, it is a matter of our own agency what we will search for amongst all this. Will we seek to understand? Will we 'search knowledge'? (2 Nephi 2:37) Will we love darkness more than light? (John 3:19)

Who can doubt that every man is able to formulate his own understanding through the efforts of his own study and supplication to God?

It is with this in mind that we can safely have faith in the LORD that He will edify, instruct, and enable each man as fast as he can endure truth.

Therefore, isn't it good wisdom that if we intend to do the will of God and bless our fellow man that we will seek not to argue and contend with them? Let us not assume that anything but kindness and love will lay contention to annihilation. And understand that when we undertake to convince another man through the mechanisms of logic and semantics of what has been shown to us by revelation, we therein manifest our lack of faith that the LORD will do for them just as he has done for us in revealing the truth.

Let us all be uplifting and in the spirit of brotherhood and faith bear our own testimony and offer what we have been given of God in the reciprocal spirit of humility. And let us be sufficed with what answers our fellow man are able or obliged to give and let both they and us get the rest from God.

-a-train

Again, you post wise words; I'm glad you post here, a-train. You want to go to Iraq? I have a squad of nine men I'll be in charge of, and with such pressure I could use someone to help me keep perspective... B)

[roman]

well if you gave one to polygamy I missed the scripture references from the New Testament---so could you please list them AGAIN.

If I ever constrained it to the New Testament, I must have missed it. I said it was in the Bible that God condoned it, and you won't find that I said otherwise.

To you Acts 20 answer to denying blacks the priesthood--well lets see I can't see it appyling for 2 reasons right off the top of my head.

#1 Acts 10 when Peter preached to the Gentiles at Cornelius house. The gospel was ALREADY going to the gentiles way before Acts 20. So how do you bring the 2 together.

Nope; Paul's vision in Acts 20 was telling him that it was okay to share the Gospel with the Gentiles. That was the whole purpose of the vision. I learned that in Baptist seminary many years before I even knew what Latter-day Saints really were. The book of Acts is when the Gospel begins to spread outside the Jewish people. Before that it was taught to Jews only.

#2 and 3 are your opinion, and have no bearing on the passage.

You did not answer this: do you consider it racist that the Gospel was limited for a while to Jews in the Bible?

I will not answer your cult question

Of course you won't; we both know the answer, though, so it's no big deal. Your comments at FAIR were much more offensive and inflammatory anyway. However, it is still a puzzle why you act offended about anyone being denied a Priesthood that you do not believe to be valid.

Thank you for at least finally making an attempt to deal with the answers instead of just claiming you "had not been answered."

[

If you will look at the topic of this thread and the OP you will see,quite clearly that i mention and wanted NT support for your claims on polygamy. I don't think you missed it--you ignored it and still have not offered not ONE single scripture on the subject of poygamy--------why is that? well in your words --"I think we both know"l

I disagree with your assuration because Acts 10 came first, before What you are saying about Paul. Could you share the exacte verses you are using to support your claim. Next you can disreguard history all you want---but my points of #2&3 still stand

Again on your question of The Jews and the gospel is loaded to beat the band. God is never like that . He chose his people and exalted them. He did it for his reasons-----but he never discriminated against anyone, only on skin color as the lds church did

Now if you can not or will not post the thread or post that I called the lds church A CULT---------then you my friend are being far less than truthful and are boardering on being a flat out LIAR---------I knoticed you didn't address this in you last post-----------so do it please --prove yourself right

And last but not least, i'm not offened by an invalid priesthood being denied anyone. I just find it a strange practice that drove alot of people away from what you would consider the only real and right way to God

[Outshined]

If you will look at the topic of this thread and the OP you will see,quite clearly that i mention and wanted NT support for your claims on polygamy.

That was YOUR condition; one to which I never agreed or made any such claim. You are thus the only one bound to such a "rule".

I disagree with your assuration because Acts 10 came first, before What you are saying about Paul.

Acts 20 is Paul's vision allowing him to preach to the Gentiles. Read up on it in any good Bible concordance.

Again on your question of The Jews and the gospel is loaded to beat the band. God is never like that . He chose his people and exalted them. He did it for his reasons-----but he never discriminated against anyone, only on skin color as the lds church did

In other words you have no answer.

Now if you can not or will not post the thread or post that I called the lds church A CULT---------then you my friend are being far less than truthful and are boardering on being a flat out LIAR

The board search only goes back two years, and this was a rather pleasant coversation we had some time ago. I asked if you consider the LDS Church a cult, and you answered that given the beliefs and practices of the LDS, you did. I remember it well, as I remember the name of the church you attend, and yet you claim not to remember. Oh well. Your refusal to answer above was all the answer anyone needed.

I'll warn you once: imply that I am a 'liar' again, and I will put you on ignore, and never address you again. Got it? It would be the best recourse, given a-train's advice to avoid contention. That seems to be what you live for these days.

And last but not least, i'm not offened by an invalid priesthood being denied anyone. I just find it a strange practice that drove alot of people away from what you would consider the only real and right way to God.

Right; it's simply a tool you use for rhetoric; we both know you never cared about the subject. It's just more noise to make against the Church.

[Blessed]

Granted it was my choice to read this thread, however, I find myself dismayed at the overall tone from it. I think yall need to step back and take a deep breath before contiuning your discussions. I like you both, but "liar" and "grow up" doesn't really need to be added to yalls thread.

Just think about it, kay?

[Outshined]

Granted it was my choice to read this thread, however, I find myself dismayed at the overall tone from it. I think yall need to step back and take a deep breath before contiuning your discussions. I like you both, but "liar" and "grow up" doesn't really need to be added to yalls thread.

Just think about it, kay?

You are correct; that's why "grow up" has been edited out. The admonishment to avoid contention is applicable here.

[roman]

<div class='quotemain'> If you will look at the topic of this thread and the OP you will see,quite clearly that i mention and wanted NT support for your claims on polygamy.

That was YOUR condition; one to which I never agreed or made any such claim. Youare thus the only one bound to such "rules".

I disagree with your assuration because Acts 10 came first, before What you are saying about Paul.

Acts 20 is Paul's vision allowing him to preach to the Gentiles.

Again on your question of The Jews and the gospel is loaded to beat the band. God is never like that . He chose his people and exalted them. He did it for his reasons-----but he never discriminated against anyone, only on skin color as the lds church did

In other words you have no answer.

Now if you can not or will not post the thread or post that I called the lds church A CULT---------then you my friend are being far less than truthful and are boardering on being a flat out LIAR

The board search only goes back two years, and this was a coversation we had some time ago. I asked if you consider the LDS Church a cult, and you answered that given the beliefs and practices of the LDS, you did. I remember it well, as I remember the name of the church you attend, and yet you claim not to remember. Oh well. Your refusal to answer above was all the answer anyone needed.

Imply that Iam a 'liar' again, and I will put you on ignore, and never address you again. Got it? And don't call me 'friend'; you are not. Grow up.

And last but not least, i'm not offened by an invalid priesthood being denied anyone. I just find it a strange practice that drove alot of people away from what you would consider the only real and right way to God.

Right; it's simply a tool you use for rhetoric; we both know you never cared about the subject. It's just more noise to make against the Church.

Well I don't know how else to deal with the likes of you---------you lied and made up stuff and said stuff about me------------you CANOT backup--------so off to the ignore list I gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

If you didn't want to deal with the subject---------you should have said so.

How can a church born 1800 years into the NEW COVENANT justify believes and practices ONLY out of the OT. Practices which God tolerated, but never COMMAMDED ----------------and it seems someone else asked almost the same question of you. And why are you so unwilling to tell me the verses of Acts 20 you are using---------why of why D

The 6 emails i have recieved on this subject from people on this board------------5 lds and 1 not-------say not to let your voice be the voice of defining the lds church. They are horrified by your ---1. said"dancing"' another attacking, another not truthfull, another not grounded in lds doctrine, another looking for attention.

You pals are even set off by your actions-----------------------------nuff said to you

[Outshined]

Well I don't know how else to deal with the likes of you---------you lied and made up stuff and said stuff about me

Enough said. I warned you.

If you didn't want to deal with the subject---------you should have said so.

Oh, I dealt with it; you just couldn't discuss the issue without accusations and insults. Sad.

The 6 emails i have recieved on this subject from people on this board------------5 lds and 1 not-------say not to let your voice be the voice of defining the lds church. They are horrified by your ---1. said"dancing"' another attacking, another not truthfull, another not grounded in lds doctrine, another looking for attention.

Speaking of lying, you shouldn't make up stories...

Goodbye, roman.

Granted it was my choice to read this thread, however, I find myself dismayed at the overall tone from it.

As am I; I have put roman on the ignore list, as his only interest these days is contention. I don't know what happened to him; he didn't used to be so bitter and angry all the time.

Oh well, it is for the best. Better to turn away from pointless contention and carry on.

[CrimsonKairos]

I have no problem with Outshined's posts. He is a good man, with a solid testimony, and I'm happy he's part of this forum.

I understand why he'd get so frustrated with someone who wants to Bible-bash when there's no possible way to prove a testimony true through scriptures. Scriptures may be a large part of our testimony's foundation, but what God tells us is a personal experience and cannot be measured in a test-tube or with a ruler.

This clash between Outshined and roman is not a fresh one, and this thread and their other recent comments towards each other shouldn't be viewed as a hot-headed, spontaneous temper tantrum. It has been in the oven for a while, so to speak, so I don't think it's fair to characterize Outshined by posts which are the result of much, much goading and prodding by others.

[a-train]

Doesn't this illustrate the enormous need for modern revelation with great and vivid poignance? Vast multitudes have through the aeons of history debated the authority, meaning, implication, and implementation of virtually every jot and tittle of holy writ. God grant us the willing heart, the faith, the courage, the stability of mind, and the wisdom to receive His truth and know His will in spite of the whirlwind of opinion.

-a-train

[Outshined]

Doesn't this illustrate the enormous need for modern revelation with great and vivid poignance? Vast multitudes have through the aeons of history debated the authority, meaning, implication, and implementation of virtually every jot and tittle of holy writ. God grant us the willing heart, the faith, the courage, the stability of mind, and the wisdom to receive His truth and know His will in spite of the whirlwind of opinion.

-a-train

You're absolutely right. May we all be able to take a step back now and then and bear that in mind.

(The Iraq offer still stands) B)

[a-train]

OUTSHINED

Most of my family is military. My Dad, my sister and her husband, and my wife's father and brother were/are all Navy. My grandfather went to enlist for WWII, but somehow (I don't know the full story) he ended up going to some company to build planes for the war. His brother, was a pilot who bombed the Japanese and was shot down on some tiny island over there. He escaped and is still alive (but very old) today. I would love to be involved with the military, but I have a very different calling at this time in my life.

I fully honor and respect your efforts. I applaud you and I am compelled to say THANK YOU to both you and your family for both your offer and your courageous service and determination to promote democracy and peace throughout the world. I have no doubt, that in a situation such as that of traveling through modern Iraq with a dozen or less men in U.S. military fatigues, a man must possess a clearity and awareness of the highest rank of capability and astuteness.

May God be with you over there and let your labors be blessings to both the people of Iraq and your family.

-a-train