June 26, 2007 marked the 18th year since my father went home to be with the Lord. I can't believe it sometimes, it still feels like yesterday to me. I guess that is the eternal part in all of us--made in the image of God. It is so wonderful to have the absolute assurance--the incredible promise that I will see my Dad again someday. I will feel that great big bear hug again . . . .I thought this would be a good time to post a little bit of his wisdom:Walter Martin on Being Mad at God . . .But God said to Jonah, "Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?" "I do," he said. "I am angry enough to die." But the LORD said, "You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" Jonah 4:9‑11
How do you deal with being mad at God? When He says He’s your rock and fortress, and the whole house burns down clear to the ground, what do you do?Well, I’d take a good long look at my life and find out if I was playing with matches. That’s the first thing I’d do. If that wasn’t the case, the second thing I would do is go to the Lord and say, “I know Lord, that it is you who, ‘...works all things together for good to them that love you and are called according to your purposes.’ (Romans 8:28) I love you and I am called according to your purposes. Therefore, whatever is taking place in my life right now you will not allow to become so great that I can’t handle it.”God is faithful. He will not allow you to be tested beyond your power to resist (1 Corinthians 10:13). You have not yet resisted to the shedding of blood as the martyrs have done before. So no matter how bad it is, you’re still here—and that’s a plus—because you can continue rebuilding with God.
As far as being mad at God is concerned, it’s totally fruitless. If you are offending God by your anger, you’re being petulant. Jonah got mad at God—look at the end of the book—and God rebuked him. If you’re angry with God, the best way to deal with that is to get down on your knees and confess the sin. Tell Him you’re sorry for being mad at Him—even though you’re mad at Him still. Ask Him to help you not to be angry, and to forgive and restore you...and He will.
He’s so gracious, kind, patient, and loving to a race of people who are determined to pursue their own goals.
Hmmm . . . I skip out of town for a cousin's wedding and come back to find more fun and excitement here in the land of Apologetics. The latest salvo was fired today in the continuing assault of the would-be Bible Answer Man on Dr. Tim LaHaye. Hanegraaff's response to Dr. Thomas Ice's article is as follows (WARNING: Strong stimulant required to maintain attention span):RESPONSE TO NATIONAL LIBERTY JOURNAL ARTICLE
ON THE APOCALYPSE CODETo the Editor:
Thank‐you for this opportunity to respond to the recent National Liberty Journal article titled, “Hanegraaff Calls Tim LaHaye a Racist and Blasphemer,” by Thomas Ice (http://www.nljonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=688&Itemid=0
).In November 2004 an article appeared in the Dallas Morning News titled, “Last Disciple vs. Left Behind: New Take on Rapture Puts Authors in Apocalyptic Feud.” In the article Tim LaHaye supposed that I subscribe to the “nonsense” that “Christ came back in AD 68.” As LaHaye’s charge was circulated via newspapers and the Internet, I was summarily branded a “preterist” and a heretic who believes the second coming of Christ has already come. Pre‐Trib Research Center fellow Mark Hitchcock not only associates me with preterism but uses the label to suggest I may be prone to anti‐Semitic proclivities.And now the National Liberty Journal headline: “Hanegraaff Calls Tim LaHaye a Racist and Blasphemer.” The article begins by characterizing The Apocalypse Code as “a sub‐Christian attack,” proceeds to say “Hanegraaff is certainly no lover of Israel,” and concludes with the assertion, “Hanegraaff embraces and argues for Replacement Theology.”First, a careful reading of The Apocalypse Code demonstrates that I do not call LaHaye a racist or a blasphemer. Rather, it is the implications of his theology that I call into question. For example, as I explain, LaHaye divides people into two categories on the basis of race. He goes so far as to assert, “After carefully analyzing the temperament of the first Israelite as he is described in the Bible, I have found Jacob to be a ‘dead ringer’ for the twentieth‐century residents of Israel.” The good news for Jews is that LaHaye believes that on the basis of their race they have a divine right to the land of Palestine. The bad news, according to LaHayeʹs worldview, is that as a direct result of the crucifixion of Christ twentyfirst century Jews will soon die in an Armageddon that will make the Nazi Holocaust pale by comparison. In sharp contrast, I hold the very suggestion that Jews are under a national blood‐guiltiness for the murder of Christ to be abhorrent.You can read the rest of the artice here (if you feel compelled):http://www.equip.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/PSN001.PDF
U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the Local Church's lawsuit against Harvest HouseApparently Living Stream Ministry (LSM) aka The Local Church has been at it again--appealing their lawsuit against Harvest House, John Ankerberg and John Weldon all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. They claim to be Christians but think it's a-okay to sue their brothers-in-Christ (and push them to the brink of financial ruin). And--no surprise here--it seems that Hank Hanegraaff's enthusiastic letter of support, written for his buddies in the Local Church, also followed the lawsuit to the top. This is what happens when a fundraiser tries to be the Bible Answer Man.Fortunately, the Court saw the stupidity of it all and refused to hear the case. The Local Church must have tons of money to burn--based on the ridiculous amount they surely spent on a lost cause.In the end, LSM did a great deal of harm to their ministry by their go for the throat court case. Once upon a time your average, everyday Christian might have said something like, "Huh??" at the mention of Living Stream Ministry. Now, Christians from all walks of life are much more aware of the Local Church, their debatable teachings and their love for the legal system--all widespread negative publicity courtesy of the Local Church. Talk about shooting yourself in both feet . . . .I think this is a case of poetic (or divine) justice.You can find more details here:www.concernedbrothers.com/Legal/Supreme_Court_Rejects_LSMs_Appeal.pdfhttp://www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/Support%20for%20Texas%20Supreme%20Court%20Against%20the%20Local%20Church%20Cult.html
For future reference, I'm asking that comments posted here be short and sweet. If you would like to expound on my insightful blog entries, please use the WM Discussion Board. If your comment is longer than a paragraph or two, it may not get posted.At the risk of starting WWIII, I will go ahead and repost some comments that I made on Slice of Laodicea's blog (I've been subbing for Ingrid while she gets some long overdue vacation). Please feel free to agree or disagree briefly (and let's keep it civil, okay?) The subject of Roman Catholicism is a difficult one for many people. Lately, Kevin and I have had the accusation leveled at us that our site is "Roman Catholic" and I thought I would repeat my answer to that mind-boggling pronouncement:My husband, Kevin, and I are very clear on how we view the RCC on our website. We are firmly Protestant and will remain so. As I said before, we strongly disagree with some teachings in the RCC.
I think it is important to consider this, however (and as a historian, it made a difference to me): First, Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic--he saw himself as a reformer of the RCC. And so (in essence) Protestantism existed within the RCC. I would call Martin Luther a brother in Christ, wouldn't you?
Second, if we condemn everyone in the RCC, we must be prepared to say that Christianity died out after 300 A.D.and was not revived again until Martin Luther in 1521 A.D. This position would contradict Jesus when He said, "On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).This should make for an interesting week . . . .
I just heard the sad news that Billy Graham's wife, Ruth, went to be with the Lord today, and I'd like to express my heartfelt sympathy to all the members of the Graham family. It's sad to watch an era slowly coming to an end, but I can't help but envy Mrs. Graham her current address. :)When I was a little girl, my father traveled with Billy Graham and Bob Pierce (World Vision) on their crusades to the Far East (as it was called in those days). Sometimes, they would be gone for weeks at a time, leaving wives at home to raise the children. As a mother of two, I admire the fortitude of these women: Mrs. Graham, Mrs. Pierce and of course, my mother. I admire their hard work and their love. They had a very tough job and they gave it their best, quietly caring for their families.In today's world, where everything is all about "me" and success is usually measured by the size of your salary, it's good to remember the people behind the scenes who played such an important role in advancing the Kingdom of God.
Mitt Romney: Blood Oaths, Polygamy and the Curse of Dark SkinIn a recent 60 minutes interview, presidential hopeful and Mormon golden boy Mitt Romney told reporter Mike Wallace that, “I can't imagine anything worse than polygamy.” This struck me as a bit disingenuous since Romney is not just a Mormon, he’s a temple-Mormon, bound by a blood oath taken in a secret ceremony—and the best of the temple-Mormons plan to practice polygamy for eternity. The Mormon Church may currently forbid participation in it while here on earth, but the doctrine of eternal polygamy has never been revoked.
What does this mean for Mitt Romney? As long as Doctrine & Covenants 132 is still part of the LDS canon, polygamy will never end; it remains the foundation of Mormon Church practices. Men can still be sealed for eternity in a Mormon Temple to women other than their earthly wives. If Romney is a good Mormon, he knows he needs multiple eternal wives if he is ever to rule as a god on his personal planet. This is the ultimate goal for “good” Mormon men, and one goddess-wife can’t populate an entire planet.
So, all the negative talk from Romney and the little jokes from his wife about polygamy are just so much political smoke blown by the great-great grandson of Joseph Smith’s right hand man, Parley P. Pratt who “defined Mormon doctrine and theology for much of the church's first hundred years.”  And exactly what did Apostle Pratt have to say about polygamy? “It should be the privilege of every virtuous female . . . to demand either of individuals or government, the privilege of becoming an honored and legal wife and mother; even if it were to be necessary for her to be married to a man who has several wives . . . .”
Romney’s great-great grandfather Pratt was an ardent supporter of polygamy; one of the original twelve Mormon Apostles who defended it to the death—literally—when he was shot in the back stealing his twelfth wife. Polygamy was practiced in the Romney family all the way up until the birth of his father in Mexico in the twentieth century.  It is a strong Romney tradition, to say the very least. The question everyone should be asking is, why?
The truth behind the political song and dance is simply this: Mitt Romney may truly be appalled by polygamy on earth, but he is required to practice it for eternity as a good Mormon: this is Church doctrine. He will say whatever needs to be said in order to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office, but he absolutely cannot deny the doctrine of eternal polygamy.
Media luminaries and religious leaders who support Mitt Romney just don’t seem to get it. They don’t get that the Mormon Church presents the public image that polygamy is wrong, while privately approving it for eternity. They don’t seem to notice the Mormon Church's teachings that women will never be equal to Mormon men, and people with dark skin are cursed.  They don’t understand that the Mormon Prophet’s influence can affect the Presidency because a temple-Mormon is bound by a blood oath to obey the Mormon Church over U.S. Law and the U.S. Constitution.  They are blissfully unaware of the fact that according to Mormonism, their eternal fate is that of sterile servants to the Mormon gods. They will serve Mitt Romney for eternity, or as Parley P. Pratt put it, “They are angels, and not gods; and are ministering spirits, or servants, in the employ and under the direction of THE ROYAL FAMILY OF HEAVEN—THE PRINCES, KINGS, AND PRIESTS OF ETERNITY.” 
In light of these facts, I’ve compiled a short list of questions the elite press corps should ask Mitt Romney. The answers to these questions have political ramifications that might interest millions of Americans.
1. Did you take a blood oath to obey the Mormon Church above the United States Constitution and U.S. Law?
Correct Answer: Yes.
2. Are dark-skinned people cursed according to the Book of Mormon (and other Mormon Scripture)?
3. Are men and women eternally equal in Mormonism?
4. Will a good Mormon man become a god and rule his own planet with multiple goddess wives for eternity?
5. Will people who reject Mormonism become servants of the Mormons?
This is the truth at the heart of Mormonism, and it presents numerous difficulties for Mitt Romney. Can a man who believes in a cult of Christianity—a cult that devalues minorities, women (and well, everyone other than themselves)—ever find any middle ground from which to rule America? And how will millions of Americans (and the world) view a god-to-be in the White House? Because Mitt Romney, for all his polish and political sophistication, is devoted to Mormonism and actually believes he will become a god.
And Mormon gods practice polygamy for eternity.
 Peter L Crawley, The Essential Parley P. Pratt, Signature Books, 1990,
 Parley P.Pratt, Key to Theology, F. D. Richards, London, 1855, 167.
 Deseret News.com, http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660198565,00.html (accessed May 20, 2007).
 Doctrine and Covenants 84:33-9; Goddesses are always subject to a god. Women are denied the Priesthood (meaning they are denied authority—not the same as Catholic priesthood). “In the LDS universe, theologically described as the real eternal universe, each man who achieves the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is worth many times more than each woman, even the women who qualify at that highest Celestial level, because each man who achieves Godhood-level may have numerous God-wives, but each God-wife may have only one husband. This can only mean that each "heavenly father" is worth many times more than each "heavenly mother." And, even if the ratio were strictly one to one, the male God, not the female God, holds the priesthood authority and is the only one of the God parents to whom his earth-mortality children are allowed to pray. So Mormon women can never, NEVER achieve equality with men, no matter how outstanding or righteous the women are. That's just the way it's set up." MORMON WOMEN, PROZAC® and THERAPY By Kent Ponder, Ph.D. e-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org http://home.teleport.com/~packham/prozac.htm.The curse of dark skin is found in Mormon Scripture: Book of Mormon: Alma 3:6-19; 3 Nephi 2:14-15; Enos 1:20; J of D, 7: 290-291.
 “His oath in the temple was to “consecrate himself, his time, talents, and everything he now has, or will have in the future, for the building up of the Kingdom of God here upon the earth, and for the establishmentof Zion”. It is important to know and understand that the ‘Kingdom of God’ to a Mormon, is not at all the same as the Kingdom of God to a Christian. To a Christian, the phrase means throwing the goodness and love of God into the world wherever you go and sharing the truth with others. But to a Mormon, building the ‘Kingdom of God’ means advancing the physical earthly organization of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City, Utah.” Rauni Higley with Andrew Longman, Why I, as a former Mormon, would not vote for Mitt Romney for President of United States. CWN,http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/print.php?&ArticleID=2125 (accessed June 12, 2007).
 Pratt, 173. Emphasis in the Original.
Recently I had the privilege of speaking to a Ladies Bible Study about the occult, and someone asked me a question about Christians participating in Yoga. My first response to this had to do with freedom in Christ: I did not think that the Hindus had cornered the market on physical exercise. I felt we could physically work out any way we liked as long as the instructor was a Christian and it was meant to glorify God.
Lately, I've revised my opinion--mainly because there are some Christians who would stumble over this, and I do not wish to be the one to cause them to stumble. I also ran across the testimony of Laurette Willis who taught Yoga for many years, and I took her words to heart.
From experience I can say that yoga is a dangerous practice for the Christian and leads seekers away from God rather than to Him. You may say, “Well, I’m not doing any of the meditation stuff. I’m just following the exercises.” It is impossible, however, to separate the subtleties of yoga the technique from yoga the religion. I know because I taught and practiced hatha yoga for years. Hatha yoga is the most popular yoga style available on store-bought videos and in most gyms. For an eye-opening account of the background and meaning of “hatha yoga,” please see my notes at the bottom of this page.
Perhaps you have sensed uneasiness while doing yoga (what some call a “check in your spirit”), but you ignored that quiet nudge. I urge you to pay attention to it. Jesus Himself said, “…the sheep follow Him, for they know His voice” (John 10:4).
Your yoga teacher may bow to her class saying, “Namaste” (“I bow to the divine in you.”). Postures have names such as Savasana (the Corpse Pose) and Bhujangasana (the Cobra or Snake Pose). References are made to chakras or “power centers” in the body, such as the “third eye.” The relaxation and visualization session at the end of yoga classes is skillfully designed to “empty the mind” and can open one up to harmful spiritual influences.
As Christians, you are instructed to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2), not the emptying of your mind. Many believe that transformation process occurs as we meditate and feed on the Word of God – renewing our minds by filling them with God’s thoughts, not emptying them or filling them with the prideful thoughts of man.
It seems the enemy has a counterfeit for almost everything the Lord offers. While mind-numbing tranquility may feel good for a time, it’s a poor substitute for the “peace which surpasses all understanding” (Philippians 4:7) and “the joy of the Lord (which) is your strength” (Nehemiah 8:10). *
Laurette Willis has now designed an amazing workout based on the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, and I've got my order in for it. I thought you might be interested in learning more about Praise Moves: http://www.praisemoves.com/ "a Christ-centered alternative to the practice of yoga."
1 Corinthians 6:20, “For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
I'm so looking forward to getting my copy. :) *Praisemoves.com (accessed June 8, 2007).
From the Desk of Walter Martin:
"Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. Therefore He said: "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. So he called ten of his servants, delivered to them ten minas, and said to them, 'Do business till I come.' But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.'"
Before his triumphal entry into Jerusalem Jesus told the people a parable, and therefore this parable has enormous historical and chronological significance. What is He talking about? In the first part of the story He is talking about the coming of the Kingdom. He is saying the people of that day did not know the time of their visitation. They thought the “Kingdom” would come at once, and when it didn’t, they turned away. When the true Kingdom of God itself was offered unto them, they did not understand and turned from it.
Jesus says this just before He enters Jerusalem—before all the “Hosannas”, before the people give Him a tumultuous welcome. He knows their hearts before they do. These are the same people who will be out there not long afterwards saying, “Crucify him! Crucify him! We have no King but Caesar!” How fickle, how fragile is the human heart and the emotion of the moment. It changes like the current and the tide—suddenly—and in this case, for their own destruction.
Jesus is pointing to Himself as the King in this parable. He’s saying, “Let me tell you something: This King is me and the citizens here are the Jews. They may yell ‘hosanna’ today, but they will end up saying, ‘We will not have this man reign over us,’ tomorrow.” And that’s exactly what they did. Jesus told this parable when He did for many reasons, one of which was this: He wanted us to know that He knew in advance what was going to happen. And even then, He was trying to warn them. He was trying to teach them but they would not listen.How well He knows the fickle human heart and still, He loves us.