Sunday, August 24, 2014

Obama: America's Lucifer

By Linda McKinney

When GOD made the heavens and the earth He had already made the angels and the angels shouted for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid. Thus, we know that the angels were happy that GOD was creating our earth and preparing a place for us (as He does now for when we leave our corporeal bodies and enter into His presence for eternity). We also know that heaven, when first created and before the rebellion of Satan, was a wonderful place full of love, light and cooperation and praise of the Lord GOD Almighty.

Within that band of angels was a special angel, a beautiful angel assigned the task of covering GOD’s glory and containing His beautiful light. This angel’s name, it is taught, is Lucifer: a “bright star”. According to the teachings of Christianity (that’s the perspective I write from because I am one), Lucifer was so beautiful and considered himself so very powerful (after all, he contained the glory of GOD, so he had to be more powerful than GOD) that he got puffed up, conceited, egotistical and decided he was going to lead a rebellion within heaven against GOD. Lucifer was going to take over. He was going to oust GOD and be the one in control. In other words, he was going to make us Lucifer worshippers.

GOD, on the other hand, didn’t agree with any of that. GOD decided that it was bad enough that Lucifer considered himself so “wunnerful, wunnerful” that GOD cast Lucifer out of heaven along with all of the angels who supported Lucifer’s attempt to take over and oust GOD. Good move on GOD’s part, I’m sure.

When I remember this story it reminds me of the “Hope” and “Change” thing that the president used to get into office --- along with the other lies and deceptions – and of the fact that he hasn’t kept any of his promises and he’s done all he can to destroy us and our great country. Let me illustrate if you will.

When the president campaigned, he gave folks the promise of “Hope” and “Change”; and many people believed him and followed him. Some followed him so blindly that they cheated for him so that they could ensure his election. He got elected, they got the shaft.

When Lucifer campaigned, he got angels to follow him (about one third of the angels followed him) did he promise them “Hope” to be like GOD as he did with Adam and Eve? Did he promise them “Change” in the same way, or that with him as head angel, the big Winger, whatever, did he promise them “Change” in that they’d get their turn on the throne because he’d give up the throne after a while and one of them could have their turn? After all, it’s only fair. Right? They got the shaft, too.

When the president won the Nobel Peace Prize without earning it, others were placing their belief in him without any real evidence of anything remotely close to success.

When Lucifer got other angels to follow him, had he had any successes besides big talk and bragging? He was going to rule heaven, and they put their trust in him although he never actually did that, got there, whatever. Because of his lack of success he – and all those who followed him – were cast out of heaven. Wow. Success!

Before even becoming president, he walked into some really sweet circumstances and parlayed them to his own advantage in 1996 using betrayal and dirty tricks to get what he wanted and betraying a woman to do so in his effort to win IL State Senator; and using the messy divorces of both his primary and general election opponents to his advantage in his 2004 U.S. Senate bid.

Lucifer, after being thrown out of heaven, and became ruler of this world. After all, if he can’t be in charge up there why not be in charge down here? His ego demanded he be in charge. So to get what he wanted he used betrayal and dirty tricks to get what he wanted. He lied to Eve and told her that she would be “like unto GOD” (verse 4) but that’s what he actually wanted for himself. In getting her to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, she was set up by him and he betrayed her trust in order to get what he wanted.

While running for president in 2008, he and his campaign used a lot of dirty tricks and lies to get what he wanted: control over as many people as possible, something he’d wanted for a very long time.

Lucifer, after being thrown out of the garden and told to crawl on his belly (verse 14), decided that he would start lying to all of the people of the earth to try to get control over more people. He is now called “the father of all lies” and he deserves to be so called. Controlling people – even through lies – was something Lucifer had wanted for a very long time.

After getting elected president, he started lying even more. His healthcare scam has been a lie all along, and he is daily lying to more and more people and is doing its utmost to destroy the economy of the greatest nation on earth. His policies have been disastrous. He has put our troops into greater danger because of his own policies than any president since…. When?

Lucifer couldn’t have done better himself, but he does try. He lied to Eve to get her to disobey GOD and he wants us to continue doing so today. In order to get you to disobey GOD, Lucifer will lie to you and accuse you and tell you that you are beyond redemption, a failure that GOD cannot use, someone who will just keep sinning and you’re going to bring dishonor to GOD because of your sin. Lucifer wants to keep you down and out and keep you feeling unloved, unqualified and unfaithful. Those -- and more -- are some of the lies Lucifer will tell you.

The president is known for looking down his nose at everyone. That’s one of the ways he shows his conceit and disdain for the rest of us. Arrogance is a sin, but that doesn’t prevent the president from practicing it. He’s also known for his disdain of the rest of us. He lays false accusations at our feet while he is the guilty one.

It was Lucifer’s conceit that made him think he could overthrow GOD and made him lead a rebellion against GOD. His conceit brought about his downfall and his ruin and the future for him is very dark because of it. Lucifer’s attitude is begotten into those of us who are not willing to humble ourselves and serve a loving, forgiving GOD. But even Lucifer will bow down at the mention of Jesus Christ’s name and he will someday have to humble himself. Unlike the president, it is written in blood that this shall happen, and he shall spend the eternity of eternities in torment and pain.

Finding new ways to destroy America is the president’s favorite past time. Whether it be with new EPA regulations that will hurt the poor, or with preparing for a non-existent “national emergency” in which he can declare martial law, he likes to destroy as much of America – and our children’s futures – as he can. He likes to gain control of things the government has no right to control, take away our rights and do everything he can to make America a weak, socialized nation in chaos.

Like the president, Lucifer likes chaos also: something GOD neither likes nor creates. He uses those who are willing to do his bidding and takes advantage of situations as he sees fit. Lucifer blinds people to his true intentions as the president did with “Hope and Change”.

Religion is something the president talks about, but apparently doesn’t participate in church services often. The problem is, he’s also quick to try to take away our religious freedom. It doesn’t matter to him and that’s proven by his actions. He’ll lie to you about religion, but he won’t support Christians’ right to practice their religion as they see fit.

As with the president, Lucifer will also target and persecute Christians. Lucifer will destroy as much of the Christian religion as he can: he looks for those he can destroy . Will he get you? If not, don’t worry the president will.

The president echoes Lucifer so minutely that it’s difficult to see any difference in them. The fact that Lucifer uses people to do his bidding is evidenced daily by the inhuman things we see done to our fellow man. The fact that the president of the United States of America is so in line with Lucifer tells me that it is quite possible – I’d go so far as to say probable – that Lucifer is using the president to try to destroy the only Christian-founded nation on earth. The sad part of it is that the president seems an oh-so-willing tool.

Thus, the question becomes when shall we prevent the president from being further used to destroy our nation? Or shall we just allow it and succumb to Lucifer and his demon servant? Where is your “far enough”? Or is it a red line drawn in sand as the president is infamous for using?

Monday, March 24, 2014

Tranferred: Already A LOSER

I wrote this and posted it to my previous blog way back in March of 2009 and read it today and realized how prescient I was. It's time to re-read it. It's sad that folks didn't listen.

Space Coat Conservative


Posted by Space Coast Conservative at 3/24/2009 12:50 AM

Categories: Politics

Tags: Future B. Hussein O. President

B. Hussein O.'s first sixty days in office have been nothing if not historical. And, no, I do not mean historical in that he is the first fraudulently, Acorn-elected "African-American" President. I mean something totally different.

Why his presidency is historical within the first sixty days is that no previous White House occupant so quickly, agressively and totally went socialist on us as this one. None other; no matter the skin color, political party affiliation, or the size of his shoes or bank account prior to being elected. No previous POTUS has ever accomplished the total sacking and trashing, the thrashing and bashing of the American economy as this POTUS. Within his first sixty days, B. Hussein O. has proposed (in his official budget: Budget), a budget that, "The Congressional Budget Office on Friday estimated that the budget proposal would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade — or $2.3 trillion more than the White House had estimated." (Quoted from That's historic.

The problem B. Hussein O. is not seeing is that — at the pace he's going — not only will America be broke and desparate fast and easy with his "bodget" proposals, but his actions are having an unforeseen consequence. That consequence? When will America, after this B. Hussein O. fiasco, be willing to elect an "African-American" person to the Oval Office again? B. Hussein O.'s lack of leadership in the right direction, his party-harty attitude (even laughing at the budget deficit he is proposing) and his idiocy when it comes to any ideas as to foreign policy or foreign diplomacy (twenty-five DVDs for the British Prime Minister that won't even play in British DVD players? Get real!), his lack of connectivity to the American people (when was the last time you saw him with anyone besides D.C. elitists?) and you add it all up to a failure as President already. Failure because he is already dooming any predecessors who may wish to run as an "African-American" candidate. Because he's allowing them to be painted with the same broad brush as he is painting himself with: IDIOT, MORON, COMPLETE LOSER. He may look like a GQ candidate for the front cover, but in his head, he's got nothing but game (probably Atari's"Pong"®).

I seem to remember another candidate who was a similar loser; Bill Clinton. Anyone remember him? Anyone remember his attitudes and disconnectedness when it came to the American people? Remember his attitude toward the little people in "fly over country"? Remember how his disdain was shown for those of us who pay our taxes and live free in America and love our country? Remember how his wife displayed her hatred for Americans voicing their opposition to the two Arkansans who didn't know right from wrong (and still don't). Look at their legacy. When will anyone from Arkansas ever hold high elected office again? I'd bet it's going to be a long time.

Has B. Hussein O. thought of this? Has he even stopped to consider his legacy for those who may wish to follow in his footsteps? Nope. He's too busy following his teleprompter down the road to perdition and his recklessness down the road to political Hades. He's messing up big time and too stupid to realize it. (Either he's too stupid, or he just doesn't care. My guess is both.) He doesn't care about those who may wish to come after him and try to follow in his (illegal, Acorn-aided) footsteps. Nope. He's too busy schmoozing with the hoity-toity to care about those who may wish to emulate him. He doesn't care if he's messing things up for them: as long as he gets his now, that all that matters. Ask Michelle, she'll tell you. She's on the same road, the same page and the same note as her hubby-bubby. Neither of them care that they are totally screwing it up for the rest of the "African-American" dreamers.

When great men make a path for others to follow, it is a lasting path. One of those great men was Martin Luther King, Jr. His speech, "I Have A Dream" was a great speech. It inspired millions and is still inspiring millions. It was and is a powerful dream-maker. When we look at how Mr. King led people, we see that he had a real impact on people's lives and that he was a man of character, courage, conviction and leadership by example. His legacy is that, because of his life, others will be and are better off. He taught us and continues to teach us to judge a man, "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

When I think of those "African-American" men who have been great leaders, I do not think of B. Hussein O. (although as the first of his race to be elected POTUS, shouldn't that be the first person who comes to mind?). I think of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Dr. Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas (first "African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice), Bill Cosby (a great man, indeed), and others like them who, after their tenures are up in their current or former positions, their legacies will lead to more "African-American" men and women being able to pursue their dreams and have their futures be brighter because of those who came before them. The men listed in this paragraph have done something legitimate and worthwhile that will have a positive impact on the lives of current and future people of "African-American" descent. A positive impact, not a negative impact; that's the standard.

I judge B. Hussein O. not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. He does not care about those who come after as long as he gets his. He does not meet the standard of leaving the world a better place (how can a financially devastated America be part of a better world?). He does not meet the standard of leaving a goal for others to attain except and unless they aspire to defraud the American electoral system as B. Hussein O. did with Acorn.

I judge B. Hussein O. as a negative influence because he laughs as others are suffering (calling it "gallows humor"), he plans more hard times for everyone in America — not just the rich as he promised during his campaign — making even those who wish to emulate him to have a more difficult time in the process. B. Hussein O. has totally messed up in his first sixty days with the worst budget in the history of the whole of America's existence. And for this I condemn him to being already the worst POTUS ever. Let me repeat that: B. Hussein O. is already the WORST POTUS EVER.

He is not a great man. He is a loser, a gamer and a fraud. He could have been — and SHOULD have been — so much more. He chose otherwise. That makes him a sorry excuse.

Friday, January 31, 2014

Difficult Questions: Moved from my forums

A few years ago I did a series of what most folks consider "Difficult Questions" covering biblical questions that people find hard to answer. I don't like my forums where they are currently stored, so I thought I'd send them over here to make things easier. I may continue the series here, we'll see.

The questions with their answers are as follows:


1) "Where did Cain, Enoch and Seth get their wives? Did they marry their own sisters?"

My Answer:

"And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."

1) Cain could not have found his wife among his sisters because he was already away from his family when he married.

2) It says that Cain "dwelt in the land of Nod" which apparently already had people there because it was "east of Eden" and had a wife for Cain.

3) God says that we are not supposed to commit incest (although several people in the Bible did). In Leviticus 20:17, it states (KJV) "And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it [is] a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity."

4) In James 1:17, it says about God, "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (God does not change), then He thinks the same about incest today as He did back then, and He thought the same about incest in Genesis as He does today.

Cain got his wife in the land of Nod, as it states in the Bible.

The Bible traces the lineage of Adam and Eve because Adam was the first man. It does not say Adam was the only man. The tracing of Adam and Eve's descendants establishes the lineage of Jesus and that establishes the lineage of Israel as the blessing of all the people of the earth (Gen. 26:4b). The blessing of all the nations of the earth is Jesus Christ and His dying on the cross for all of us.


2) II Peter 3:8 says: "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

I was once asked how that can be true? How does God see time? Can you answer these questions?

My Answer: "Clean off your dining room table. You can see every part of the tabletop and you can see the beginning and the end. You can see it side to side and you can see every scratch (if any) and every ding (if any). That's the way God sees time.

God sees the beginning and the end ("the Alpha and the Omega") and He sees it fully. That's how God sees time. It's all the same to him: One second to one thousand years all visible to him at all the times.


3) According to the Bible, is there such a thing as predestination, or do we have free will in all things?

My Answer: Predestination is not biblical. God gave us free will. It says so multiple times in the Bible. We have free will.

If you read the second difficult question about how GOD sees time, you can relate this to that. When GOD sees time, HE also sees the possibilities of our choices. Imagine it this way,

Think of a bird's feet. Some of them have four toes (some three toes) going forward, one going backward. Imagine your life is a bunch of bird feet, the backward toe of the next foot touching one of the toes of the first foot. So, two touches foot one's third toe, foot three touches foot two at the first toe, foot four touches foot three at the fourth toe... etc.

If you start at your birth and you go forward making decisions and choosing which way to go, where to turn, what is right and wrong for your life, you have gone along one of the "toes" going forward (or sometimes backward). Maybe you are choosing to go along toe one, or toe two.

When you compare that path to the path that GOD would have had you choose, you may have travelled along HIS path maybe for a while in your life, maybe never, maybe -- from adulthood on at least -- almost always if not always.

If you colored the path GOD would have you travel red, then the path you actually travelled blue, most of us would see that our path is not always on the line with GOD's path. Some of us try to make it close, some of us don't believe in GOD, so don't worry about following HIS path.

Either way, because GOD sees the beginning of time and the end of time at all times, HE can also see the results of each of the choices each of us makes. HE knows what our choices MAY be, HE knows what the results of those choices will be, and HE knows what the results would have been IF we had followed HIS perfect will.

That's not predestination, that's free will, but GOD knows the results of whatever you do before you do it, but HE doesn't make you do it. HE lets you choose, HE lets you make your mistakes, HE lets you do what you want to do, but HE knows what your life is going to be like because of those choices. HE knows what your life COULD HAVE been like if you had followed HIS path. But HE doesn't force you.

HE allows you to make your mistakes. HE allows you to be wrong. HE allows you to decide to love HIM or not. That's how much HE loves you. HE wants you to choose HIM, but HE loves you enough to let you have your own will, your own choices. Even if you suffer the consequences of those choices.

GOD loves you enough to NOT make you do the right thing. HE loves you enough to let you CHOOSE to do the right thing.


Question #4 is inspired by Rush Limbaugh. Some of you may have noticed that Rush Limbaugh says that Revelations does not fit into the Bible and should not be part of it. Some scholars and preachers agree with that, and that's probably where Rush got the idea.

4) "Does The Book of Revelations agree with and belong in the Bible?"

My Answer:

Does "The Book of Revelation" belong in the Bible, despite what Rush Limbaugh says?

I don't know where Rush got info about that. I have looked online for information against "The Book of Revelation" being in the Bible and I cannot find anything that would make me think he's got good info. I can't find anything that would support that idea. I looked, but maybe I didn't go to page 1,203 of the search engine results (don't count on that number being accurate, it's made up) to find the info Rush may have found and based his belief upon. I have no idea where he got that belief.

However, my info is that "The Book of Revelation" supports the other books of the Bible, stating similar things (wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, etc., when it comes to the physical world), Jesus is the Son of GOD, alive today and sitting at the Right hand of the Father, is beloved by GOD, etc. It supports the teachings of the other books of the Bible where it concerns the "Lambs Book of Life", where it concerns the return of Christ, where it concerns judgment. All of this and more are supported by the other books of the Bible, reiterated in "The Book of Revelation", and therefore, to the best of my knowledge, "The Book of Revelation" fits and belongs in the Bible.

Why Rush would say otherwise, I just don't know.


5) How can a loving GOD send anyone to eternal punishment?

My Answer:

Answer: He DOESN'T.

Now, before you get your knickers in a twist, let me finish. He doesn't. People CHOOSE to be sent there.

How's that?

Well, GOD set the rules up a long time ago,

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD. The same was in the beginning with GOD. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:1-5)

Jesus Christ is the "Word" and he has been with his Father since before time and helped GOD create the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1-31). So the rules have been in place since before time began because GOD knew the plan, thus Jesus knew the plan. It was GOD's plan all along to offer a savior and the only one capable of being the sacrifice was Jesus Christ in human form (all the rest of us would have sinned and negated our own offering).

Remember how often he told his disciples that he would be crucified? (See Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22, Mark 14:8, et al) Christ knew he was to die for man's sins.

Now, remember that there are rules set in place. When you play a game of soccer and someone tells you the rules, you must obey those rules to win the game. There are refs who say when someone gets penalized and when someone scores. Assuming the refs are impartial, then the team who scores the most wins. Correct? Imagine if the refs scored Team A even if they didn't really score, and if the refs penalized Team B for no reason whatsoever. That would not be fair, would it?

Same holds true with going to heaven or hades. GOD set the rules in place a long time before you and I got here. We have to play by the rules in order to win the game. (Crude comparison, I know.) GOD sent His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for you and for me and for everyone who has ever been born. If GOD were going to change the rules midstream and say, "Well, I've changed my mind. Anyone can come in, and it doesn't matter if they know Jesus or not." Don't you think that would be unfair? Rules are rules, right? Otherwise soccer, cards, polo, sudoku would be something you would never play again because rules mean something.

Also, if GOD changed the rules midstream, it would mean negating His Son's sacrifice -- Christ's suffering on the cross would be for naught. GOD is not going to do that. All the sins of the world rested on His Son for a moment and at that moment GOD turned His eyes away from His Son for the first time ever (Jesus cried out, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

Can't you imagine how much that hurt the Father of a suffering Son? GOD had to look away because He couldn't look upon all that sin. Separation for an instant, and then death. Jesus took your sins and died for them and GOD looked away and didn't help His Son in that moment of critical pain, agony, filth and separation. If GOD changed the rules and let us all into heaven because He loves us all, He would be undoing what Jesus Christ did for us and no one would be in heaven. Because without that sacrifice of a pure, sinless man there can be no eternity of forgiveness of sins.

Now, it is your choice to not accept Jesus. The Bible says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of GOD" (Romans 3:23) and that "For GOD so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) It's your choice to accept Jesus or reject him. Accept him and you get to go to heaven and you get to be in heaven with GOD and Jesus. Reject him -- your choice -- and you go to eternal condemnation.

GOD does not force you to do either. That's why we have free will. GOD calls you (you're reading this, aren't you?) and He wants you -- everyone -- to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, but He won't force you to do so. If GOD doesn't force you to do so, then it's your choice to choose heaven or hades. Either way, it is eternity, so choose carefully.

I'll post more in the following posting.

Now for more of my posting:

What about things like Mormon "Baptism for the Dead", will that save anyone?

No. If you read that page, it says that "those who accept the gospel in the spirit world may qualify for entrance into God's kingdom".

First, "may qualify for entrance"? May? If baptism saves, and they're doing a baptism for the dead, then that's a guarantee, is it not? What's with this "may" business? If baptism does not save, thus guaranteeing entrance, then why bother?

Second, it doesn't say WHERE those folks are who are being offered baptism after they have been dead for however many years. Are they in hades already? If so, there's no escape. Are they somewhere else: purgatory or something similar? Where, and how does anyone escape the judgment of GOD and where He sends you, for that is what would be happening there.

Third, it doesn't say if how they're offered the gospel. It just says "those who accept the gospel" and I have never heard of a Mormon going to wherever those dead folks are on a mission trip and staying there long enough to win them over to Mormonism! So how do they hear the gospel?

Fourth, it says that, "each deceased soul has the personal choice to accept or reject it." How do they know here on earth when they're doing the "Baptisms for the Dead" which dead person accepted the teachings? Walkie talkies? Channeling? Who tells them which dead person said, "Okay. Yeah. I'll take you up on that offer?" Is it the Mormon missionary who is down there, and if so, what did the missionary do that was bad enough to condemn him as those folks are and will someone stand in for him or are his Mormon credentials enough to get him back out of there? If it's a Mormon missionary, can a house divided stand against itself (see Matthew 12:25 and Mark 3:25)? If he has sinned enough to be condemned, why would he be able to preach the gospel wherever those dead folks are, and who says he'd be good enough preacher to get them out of there since he's the same place for similar sins? Christ had no sin. When he preached to the dead in Paradise he was not in hades, he was in a place between heaven and hell that is no longer available because the pathway to heaven is now complete. (Paradise was a waiting place for those in the Old Testament times who believed in God but had no way to get to heaven because the pathway was not completed yet, via Christ's crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension.) It could not hold Christ because he was the Son of GOD and had no sin, therefore his voluntary attendance to the folks in Paradise (the waiting place) was not condemnation and he left when GOD had planned for him to leave and completed the pathway. A sinful man could not do that; only Christ could.

Fifth, if they are baptizing dead people without knowing for certain that the dead person they are baptizing in absentia actually accepted the teachings, and they baptize even one person without knowing for certain that the dead person "accepted the gospel", does that not throw doubt on every person's post-death baptism? After all, that would let a bad person into their heaven, thus negating Christ's sacrifice, negating the whole Mormon teaching of having to accept their teachings, of having to do the works they teach.

Sixth, they quote 1 Corinthians 15:29: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" to justify their teachings, but admit that it is a "rhetorical question". We all know that "rhetorical questions" are not to be answered. Also, given the context of the chapter, there were apparently some sects that were baptizing for the dead at the time that Paul was addressing and mocking. Paul was teaching that the resurrection happens, but not because anyone was baptized while dead, but because of that person accepting Jesus Christ while they were alive. Big difference.

Seventh, some studies also suggest about 1 Corinthians 15:29 that there was a word substitution in that verse, but if you look at the context of the verse in the chapter, it doesn't need to be a mistake to make the concept of baptizing for the dead an unacceptable, illogical doctrine. After all, would Paul mock something that was of GOD?

More in my next posting.

I've already touched on this but I must write a short response to the section Elder Petersen wrote.

To wit:

1) He states, "Jesus was a Personage of both spirit and flesh, like all of us." Elder Petersen forgets "SINLESS" personage UNLIKE the rest of us.

2) "When Jesus went to the realm of the dead, he was still himself, an individual...." Yes, BUT Jesus was also the SON OF GOD, not like us. He was there to do a job, not to wait for a way out.

3) "The dead—even those who died in the flood—also were intelligent persons..." Yes, but it isn't intelligence that saves anyone. A high IQ gets you nowhere. And it wasn't just those who died in the flood of Noah's day who were there: it was everyone from the Old Testament times who believed in GOD and GOD counted it for righteousness and gave them a chance to hear Christ preach to them so that they may believe in him and go to heaven after he had completed the path. "I am the resurrection and the life, NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY ME" (John 11:25) Christ said. It isn't via baptism after death that anyone gets there.

4) "These dead were so much in possession of their reason and their faculties that they could hear the gospel like men in the flesh although they lived in a world of spirits..." Yes, but they were listening to JESUS CHRIST, the SON OF GOD, not a mere mortal who wound up down there somehow, or not to someone alive on earth. Again: how would anyone on earth know who accepted the offer?

5) "Jesus taught them the gospel..." FINALLY! We agree on something!

6) "Having heard the gospel, they might accept it or reject it..." Yes, but JESUS was there preaching to them so he knew who accepted or rejected his offer of salvation. Any Mormons down there? Anyone with a walkie talkie? No? Then there is no way to know who said yes.

"Mormons are therefore very zealous about collecting and submitting the names of their ancestors..." They collect and submit more than the names of their ancestors. They do everyone's ancestors: including Jewish folks who don't want to be changed from their Judaism to Mormonism against their will.

What do they do about that? Do they ask the relatives of those they have on their next baptismal list if they think that their great-grandma would mind becoming a Mormon? No? They don't have the walkie talkies, so could they be acting against someone's wishes? Yes? I'm sorry, would that be considered a sin?

So their doctrine teaches them that they should do this as part of their works to get into heaven, but in doing so, they're forcing a conversion against someone else's will -- selfishness -- and that's a sin, so obeying their doctrine is a sin? Hmmm...

Caught in a Catch 22 in the Mormon religion. Condemned if you do, condemned if you don't. Can't win.

Now, who's going to heaven in Mormonism?


6) We know that Jesus died so that everyone's sins can be forgiven. Everyone who asks and accepts Him as Lord and Savior has the promise in John 3:16, "that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" (KJV). (Yes, Mormons to Muslims, Hindus to Atheists, Catholics to Pentacostals: everyone who asks and receives goes to heaven.) We know that He is the only one who could have died for our sins because He lived a sinless life and was the Son of God: fully qualified, unlike any of us.

My question is, when did the way to heaven get completed? This one is easy when you think about it.

My Answer: The path to heaven, if you recall, was started before God created the heavens and the earth (Ephesians 1:3-10 and elsewhere) because it was GOD's plan all along to do this for us. Then when Jesus and GOD were creating the earth (John 1:1-5) it was also ordained. It was prophesied in the Old Testament (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) that Jesus Christ would come to die for us. Christ's virgin birth (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-80) and his sinless life (Hebrews 9:13-14) made Him the only one capable of dying for us because He was the only person ever born who had never sinned (Romans 3:23).

His spotless (sinless) life was a daily walk with GOD, His Father and it paved part of the pathway for us. Then His crucifixion on the cross (Isaiah 52:13-53:12, Matthew 27:1-66, Mark 15:1-47, Luke 23:1-56, John 19:1-42) to take away our sins and His three days dead preaching to those in "Paradise" (a waiting place for those in the Old Testament times who believed in the coming Messiah) (see Luke 23:43, AKA "Abraham's bosom"; also Ephesians 4:9-10, Mark 16:19-31) and His resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-20, Luke 24:1-53, John 20:1-21:25) were part of the pathway, too.

All of those steps allowed Christ to be the Redeemer, but the pathway to heaven was not completed -- not even for those He preached to in Paradise (AKA "Abraham's bosom") -- until He ascended into heaven, untouched by hands of anyone who had sinned (John 20:17) because it was only after Christ's first ascension into heaven that the pathway was completed. After His first ascension into heaven, where He completed the pathway for us, where He was received of His Father, where He established the right for our forgiven eternal souls to be allowed into heaven via the pathway He completed (planned before the earth was formed) then He could come back down and be touched by His followers (Matthew 28:9) and go back and forth for a while until His final ascension recorded in Luke 24:49-53.

Thus the pathway is completed not just by His death, or resurrection, but because He went as a sinless man, cleansed after taking all of our sins upon Himself, to the grave and rose again, but it was the first ascension that completed the pathway for us.

IF Christ had been touched prior to his first ascension by a person who had sinned, it would have all been cancelled out. Sin cannot travel to heaven. Sin would have contaminated Christ and He would have died in vain.

That's something to think about, is it not?


In the New Testament, we see that Jesus Christ had a crowd of people who followed Him and went to where He was to see and ask Him to do miracles, to hear Him preach, to just see what all the fuss was about. He was reviled by the Sadducees and Pharisees for eating with "publicans and sinners" (Mark 2:16). A "publican" is not an early REpublican; he's a tax collector (an early Democrat). So, considering that "sinners and publicans" were good enough for Jesus, should you be friends with and "hang with" "sinners and publicans"?

My Answer: If you read the Psalms of David, the Book of Proverbs and elsewhere in the Bible, you can see that it is not a wise thing to hang with liars. You should choose your friends carefully and you should be rigid in your standards as to who you regard as your friends.

Friends should be people of godly character, not drunks, neither liars nor deceivers, steadfast and strong in the LORD. This is biblical and should be a guideline for accepting someone into your life as a friend.

Acquaintances, on the other hand, you may have because if you don't you cannot witness to them. But do not hang out with people who won't be good influences over you, or whose reputation will besmirch your own. "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold." (Proverbs 22:1)


So that's the start of the "Difficult Questions" series. What thinks you? Agree? Disagree? We'll see what happens here.

Until the next Difficult Question, GOD Bless!