Maureen

I agree! The board does practically everything for you. All you have to do is reply in the box above.M.

It looks like we don't know the exact date of his death but it appears that doctors may have discovered what he died from.More than 2,000 years after Herod the Great succumbed at age 69, doctors have now settled on exactly what killed the king of ancient Judea: chronic kidney disease complicated by a very uncomfortable case of maggot-infested gangrene of the genitals. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/Dai...erod020125.html M.

Here is a website called: The Dates of our Messiah’s Birth and Death http://www.studiesintheword.org/jesus_birth.htm I just skimmed it and I can't agree with everything they've speculated about but it is kind of interesting. There are 2 links titled 22-36 AD and 6 BC through 1 AD that are Jewish Calendar charts. M.

Actually, all those links do is show how perverse and off-base the "trinity" is. Well then porterrockwell, tell us what parts are perverse and why you think they are perverse. M.

Hello inactivetx,I don't want to load you down with heaps of reading but this following link is quite indepth. So if you have the time, you may find it informative. Here are some excerpts from this link: A definition of the Trinity is not easy to construct. Some are done by stating several propositions. Others err on the side either of oneness or threeness. One of the best is Warfield’s: “There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.” (2) Jesus Christ, the Son is declared to be God. His deity is proven by the divine names given to Him, by His works that only God could do (upholding all things, Col. 1:17; creation, Col. 1:16, John 1:3; and future judgment, John 5:27), by His divine attributes (eternality, John 17:5; omnipresence, Matt. 28:20; omnipotence, Heb. 1:3; omniscience, Matt. 9:4), and by explicit statements declaring His deity (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8). http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/proper/trinity.htm This 2nd link is titled <span style='color:blue'>"Why God became Man". I recommend this reading as well. http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/incarn2.htm Good luck! M.

That can also be said for infertile heterosexual couples. Are you implying that these kind of parents (ie. the ones who adopt, or use surrogates) are not true parents because they did not actually give birth themselves and/or the child is not genetically related to them. I'm sure this kind of parenting is not less rewarding. There is more to parenting than just giving birth and passing on your genetics. Ray, you of all people should know that. Do you not consider yourself a father to your wife's sons? M. I consider myself to be in the role of a parent, as every other parent is in that role on Earth. None of us have our own children, because we are all the children of God. If we do well in our role as parents on Earth, we may be given the privilege of having our own children, but none of us can claim that privilege yet. This is only a test, to see if we will do everything that God has commanded. So then it is a disadvantage for a homosexual couple to assume the role of parents but for you it is a privilege. Why is it not a disadvantage for you and a privilege for the homosexual couple? M.

That can also be said for infertile heterosexual couples. Are you implying that these kind of parents (ie. the ones who adopt, or use surrogates) are not true parents because they did not actually give birth themselves and/or the child is not genetically related to them. I'm sure this kind of parenting is not less rewarding. There is more to parenting than just giving birth and passing on your genetics. Ray, you of all people should know that. Do you not consider yourself a father to your wife's sons?M.

Way cool post Halley. Oh no! Halley is impersonating Winnie!! M.

For me, I am tolerant of the gay lifestyle because I don't quite understand it. Is it genetics or choice or a combination of both? I don't know. And even though I don't understand this type of sexual attraction doesn't mean I should be hateful to gays and lesbians. They are just like me - with good and bad qualities. Like we have heard or read before "He who is without sin, can cast the first stone." That leaves me out. M.

Thanks bizabra for your well rounded review and opinion about the movie. The more I read diverse reviews the more I want to see it. All I need now is the fortitude. M.

If you're not tired of reading about this movie then I recommend reading this indepth critique by Orson Scott Card. I've posted a small excerpt. The Passion of the Christ -- Three Reviews and a Letter Director and co-writer Mel Gibson's artistic achievement in The Passion of the Christ would have been noteworthy had the film been merely adequate, as art or entertainment. Instead, it is superb; I believe that it is, in every way that matters, perfect. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004...04-02-29-1.html After reading the review I am more interested in seeing the movie. M.

I think we need a brief Khazar history lesson to appreciate your thread, Peace:<span style='color:blue'>"At about the same time that the Mohammedans had conquered Spain, the king of a people, called Khazars, had become dissatisfied with worshipping idols, and had become a Jew. A great many of his lords, generals, and soldiers had done likewise. Rabbis were then invited to come and teach Jewish laws and customs to the Jewish Khazars. During the two hundred years of the existence of this Jewish kingdom, most of the Khazars had learned the Jewish religion and were living in accordance with its laws. Hasdai rejoiced greatly to learn of the kingdom of the Khazars. Unfortunately, the Russians destroyed it a few years later. You are probably wondering: ''What happened to the Jewish Khazars?'' Some of them mingled with the other Jews of Russia, and the others || gradually forgot their Judaism and became Christians." - Mordechai I. Soloff, in How the Jewish People Grew Up (Cincinnati, OH: The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1936), pages 219, 221. Dan Rottenberg, author of "Finding Our Fathers: A Guidebook to Jewish Genealogy" (1st edition, 1977), has ancestors from the Austrian and Russian empires. Some of his wife's ancestors were allegedly Khazars. Karen De Witt, in The Washington Post, wrote the following on page B3, in the Saturday, August 20, 1977 issue, in her article "Family Lore and the Search for Jewish 'Roots'": "Rottenberg, who has traced his and his wife's family back to the early 1800s and found one line that goes back to the Khazar kingdom in the Crimea, which dates to the 8th century, notes that there is only a finite number of Jews in the world." And Rottenberg wrote in his book "Finding Our Fathers" on page 45: "In any case, some East European Jews, and perhaps a great many, are descended from the Khazars. Figuring out whether you are or aren't of Khazar ancestry may be impossible, but some families seem to have clues. For example, a branch of my wife's family named Tamarin, from Russia, maintains that the family came into Judaism via the Khazar conversion and that the family took its name from Tamara, queen of Georgia in the thirteenth century." http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html It appears that the Khazars were converts but later mingled with other Jews when forced to flee to other countries. M.

My daughter wants to see it, so I will take her. I am curious about the movie but terrible with blood and guts. I will more than likely hide behind my hands during the gruesome parts and try to read the subtitles at the same time. M.

Snow - You are giving your BofM Translation lesson this Sunday? Can you give us any predictions how you think that one will take? M.

Fashionable or not, I think that we can all agree that you are old and getting older by the hour. Whoops, there goes the spyderman suit cutting off my oxygen supply again. Yes, older and wiser by the hour! :) M.

I forgive you! Call me old fashion but I'm not into on-line buying - maybe fashion has nothing to do with it, I'm really paranoid. :) M.

I'm going to have to buy the book. I doubt the LDS bookstore in my city would have it, even though I was surprised to find they had the book: Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God/Son of Thunder by Harold Schindler (and of course bought it). Once I read it for myself I'll be able to make a more informative judgement on it. M.

I don't see his answer as being the point of his comment. I see the reaction it created as the point he was trying to make. He was remarking on his own biography - don't know how scholarly you have to be to do that. :)M.

Since I posted an excerpt of Grant H. Palmer's book; I might as well post an excerpt about the man himself: Grant H. Palmer: Biographical Sketch of my CES Career, 1967-2001 ...During the 1985-86 school year, I experienced some difficulty with my file leaders while at Brighton Seminary. Two problems emerged: (1) I shared my research on Joseph Smith and magic with faculty members and several of them did not appreciate it. (2) In one of my classes, a senior student asked if the golden plates were used during the translation process. I answered no, and the student reported this to his mother, who then visited my principal, who then went to his file leader, who then took the "problem" to our zone administrator at the church office building. A meeting was soon convened with me and my three file leaders present. We spent about an hour together, mostly discussing whether or not the plates were used during the translation process. They said they had never heard a General Authority of the church say the plates were not used in the translation process; and that church magazines depicted Joseph using the plates while translating. It was frustrating. I told a senior historian at BYU, that I felt that on a scale of 1 to 10 that their collective understanding of our history was about a 3. He said, "I think you are being too generous." I was placed on probation for one year, beginning on 3 January 1985. In sum, I agreed to tone things down and I apologized to the Brighton faculty for creating an unsettling environment in the seminary by sharing with them. 1987-88 was my most successful year and a half of teaching seminary. From 1967-85, I was totally a true believer, yet always open to new ideas and freely shared them with others. In the fall of 1984, the Martin Harris Salamander Letter caused me to explore what impact Joseph Smith's magical mindset may have had upon the Moroni gold plates story and the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. In 1986-87, I was uneasy enough by my continuing research (and also preferring to teach the adult mind) that I asked to teach inmates at the Salt Lake County jail. The Area Director over the entire Salt Lake valley knew I was struggling. He asked how I felt about the Book of Mormon. I said that it should go to the entire world because it brings people to Christ (my book also says the same on pages 49, 118). I was appointed Institute director because the position was open and because my Area Director found my testimony sufficient. Being the only full time person at the jail and with classroom space limited, I was instructed by jail administration and by CES, to teach lessons suitable for all Christian inmates, which was perfect for my situation. I accordingly taught only the Bible and counseled inmates from 1988 until I retired in 2001. I immensely enjoyed these thirteen years of teaching the New Testament and counseling. http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/ins...ider's2.htm M.

People who love history care. I am infatuated with history. If only I could have been a fly on any of those 19th century Mormon walls. :)M.

Actually there are only 2 that know for sure - God and Joseph Smith. JS is dead, so no luck there and personally I think God would rather leave it as a mystery for us to search and solve ourselves. It's more fun that way.I'm putting my theories on hold for now but offer some reading material instead. Here is an excerpt from Grant H. Palmer's Preface to his book: An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins <span style='color:blue'>...Perhaps the reader is already puzzled by this lengthy dialogue on historiography and freedom of belief. If so, let me state clearly what can be expected from this book. I, along with colleagues, and drawing from years of research, find the evidence employed to support many traditional claims about the church to be either nonexistent or problematic. In other words, it didn't all happen the way we've been told. For the sake of accuracy and honesty, I think we need to address and ultimately correct this disparity between historical narratives and the inspirational stories that are told in church. Hopefully my book will be received in the spirit in which it is intended. As English philosopher John Stuart Mill said, any attempt to resist another opinion is a "peculiar evil." If the opinion is right, we are robbed of the "opportunity of exchanging error for truth." If it is wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in "its collision with error."4 On 4-5 January 1922, B. H. Roberts, senior president of the church's seven presidents of the seventy, presented to ranking church leaders what he called "Book of Mormon Difficulties" discussed in chapter two of this book. Elder Roberts said: "In a church which claimed continuous revelation, a crisis had arisen where revelation was necessary." He hoped his brethren would bring "the inspiration of the Lord" to solve these problems. However, after his presentations, his colleagues reaffirmed their testimonies of the Book of Mormon and offered no solutions.5 I would like to renew Elder Roberts's call for a more candid discussion of the foundations of the church beginning with the Book of Mormon. I discuss these issues in eight chapters, the first of which evaluates Joseph Smith's efforts at translation. Chapters 2-4 examine Joseph's intellectual environment, including the King James Bible, evangelical religion, and American antiquities, all of which influenced the content of the Book of Mormon. Chapter 4 also discusses religious feelings and the Holy Ghost. Chapters 5-6 reveal the impact of folk beliefs on two early claims of Mormonism. Chapters 7-8 investigate priesthood restoration and Joseph's first vision, detailing the developments and what precipitated the changes in the history of these two experiences. http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/ins...ider's.html M.

My theory isn't carved in stone and I may need to work at it a bit but I'm positive there's a reasonable explanation for the creation of the BofM. I doubt that it was created in those 80 days as described in Mormon history. If JS had already finished writing the BofM and was being deceptive with the seer stone activities to involve his friends and family in the belief that scripture was coming forth by the power of God; then either he was being deceptive diliberately (for whatever reason) or he himself believed his book was actually from God and he convinced himself that he needed the deception to introduce the book to the world or no one would accept it. Who really knows!?M.

srm - The list you provided does credit Isaiah but the pages that are part of the "reading of the book" that was mentioned in 2Nephi 27:15 don't mention Isaiah at all.M.

Just to begin, I checked an 1830 BofM edition and nowhere in 2Nephi from about pages 107 to 111 does it mention that the words were quoted from the book of Isaiah.As to your question, my theory is this: First of all, it’s hard to speculate JS’s state of mind in creating the BofM - to sell for a profit or to see if he had any talent at writing? I personally believe JS had a passion for language and writing (ie his letters to Emma were very colourful and descriptive). Maybe deep down inside he wanted to be an author but knew he was lacking in certain skills. Since the selling of the copyright did not pan out as time went on it appears the book evolved into something more – a following. In regards to the BofM - to make the story of the book to be somewhat scriptural since it was about a Jewish family, JS may have been inspired by certain Bible passages. Isaiah 29 may have given JS inspiration for introducing his book (BofM) to others. The Isaiah passages are talking about a book and JS happened to be writing one so he may have thought (since he knew the words/thoughts came from the book of Isaiah) that that would give his story a credible scriptural foundation – or – if JS actually thought he had a calling from on high; he may have sincerely felt that what he was writing (his own creative story, not the stuff he borrowed) was inspired from God – hence the discovery of the Isaiah passages (a coincidence or God inspired?) fit well into what he was trying to create. It may be just a tiny coincidence regarding Dr. Anton and “reading the book” as mentioned in the BofM. But if I remember, Martin Harris did not give Dr. Anton a book to read but just scribbles of a supposed language on some paper. I believe that the passages in 2Nephi 27 are about introducing the whole BofM at just the right time and not what happened with Dr. Anton. As I said above this is just my theory. I do not believe the BofM is from God but I do believe that JS had a hand in creating it – whatever the reasons for doing so I can only speculate. M.

Peace - I never said it was a fact, I said it was a possibility.M.