Jenda

Starsky wanted me to post a picture of Joseph Smith, III, to compare it to Joseph Smith, Jr. Joseph Smith, III

Oh, sorry.

I've thumbed through the book. I should have bought it - 7 bucks used. I agree with the guy that wrote the review. Too many artists paint him like they are in love with him and "prettify" Joseph. Here's an interesting treatment of the real Joseph: http://www.comevisit.com/lds/js3photo.htm HELLO!!!!!!!!!!! That is one of the pictures I posted yesterday!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe if you look at the two actual pictures I posted of him, you would find you are mistaken. He was rather handsome, IMO.

Mormonism is a "revised" version of Christianity. The basic rules have been changed as have the practices. From the outside mormonism and Christianity look the same, but only from the outside. When you compare the the scriptures, doctrines, and teachings they just don't match up. Christianity and mormonism are not the same thing, they are very noticably different. The basic core foundations contradict each other, and discredit the other's foundations. If you believe one, you cannot possibly believe the other. Mormonism isn't a restoration of Christianity, it is something completely different. What concerns me a lot, that mormons don't seem to understand, is that mormonism came into existance with an experience (Smith's with the angel) in the exact way that Galatians described us to be cautious of. I've debated with Catholics about this, because the Pope is their equivalent to your prophet. There isn't the biblical basis for believing that we need a prophet to speak for God. In fact there are numerous scriptures that suggest that we do not need somebody like that. Trident, you need to step back a little and look at the difference between what JS restored in 1830 and what the LDS church is presently. They are two separate things. I agree that the LDS church is not the restoration of the early Christian church, but that does not mean that that church wasn't restored. There are other churches that have kept truer to the restoration, those being the RLDS church, the Church of Christ -- Temple Lot, and a few other (much) smaller churches.While we might not need someone to speak for God for us personally, the prophet is the person that is designated to speak for God for the church. We can each receive personal revelation, but that is all it is, for us, personally. If God wants the church to move in a particular direction, then, IMO, that must come through the designated figure.

In Solomon's Temple.Question: Who was the fourth party taken captive by the Babylonians with Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah? and what was the Babylonian name given him?

It was Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of the Nephites. Significance of the garment: Alma 21:50-51 RLDS (Alma 46:21 LDS) 50 And it came to pass that when Moroni had proclaimed these words, behold, the people came running together, with their armor girded about their loins, rending their garments in token, or as a covenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God; 51 Or, in other words, if they should trangress the commandments of God, or fall into transgression, and be ashamed to take upon them the name of Christ, the Lord should rend them even as they had rent their garments. My question: Who was it that, after having his head cut off, tried to rise up on his hands and fell, and after struggling for breath, died?

notwithstanding beats it by one letter.

Here is a picture and a painting (real, not imagined B) ) of Joseph Smith.

Seminary manual :) Is there a place where that is online? There is no way that the contents of the plates were known except as what was stated in the BoM by the people using them. And all it states there is that the plates held the geneologies of the fathers, the writings of some of the prophets and the law. Just was wondering where they came up with the idea that there were letters and a history of the language in the plates.

The plates weren't just geneologies. It was letters, prophecies, history of the language...it was a bunch of things. AFDaw, where do you get the information that the plates contained letters and a history of the language? The plates contained the geneologies of the fathers, the writings of Isaiah (among others), and the law. A history of the language wouldn't be needed, just having the plates accomplished that goal. It is having the written word that keeps the language pure. It is because the Nephites took the record that the Mulekites didn't have it, and their language became impure to the point where they were not able to understand the Nephites (and vice versa) when they found each other a couple hundred years later.

What is the time period this reference refers to. It is not stated in the text you provided.

I think the bottom of the page might be wrong. I'm reading critical text concerning the timeline of the bom. The argument that is presented for Lehi being a caravaneer arises from certain words in the text. One of the words is the tents, of which there is no indication that they were purchased. There were ten couples in the group, plus what possessions they carried, and several tents would be required. Lehi was considered to be wealthy and from what I read, they had servants, gold and silver; his family would not have lived in tents--but a caravaneer would have tents available for his work, which would include trade and marketing, and familiarity with the Frankincense Trail... all these things necessary to survive the trip through the desert. (BTW... that would not be MY argument... ) My argument would read quite differently. ~serapha~ The bottom of my page says the same thing, and we have different publications.What critical text are you reading? Maybe if you read further on in the BoM, you would come to the story of the Mulekites, which was another group that left Jerusalem about 10 years later, during the actual battle with the Babylonians. So, the text justifies itself. (But I am sure you would come back and admit you were wrong when you got to it if it hadn't been pointed out first. I have that kind of faith in you. )

Do scribes have the standard 250-pound tents laying around for 10 families? 4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness. BTW, I like Brant Gardner's page because it has all the evidneces posted in the text. ~serapha~ I don't know who Brant Gardner is, but his site is full of nothing but supposition.There are enough clues in the text to suppose (just as accurately) that Lehi and his family were scribes. Maybe, just maybe, because they were rich, they bought tents to travel in/with. It doesn't state in the text that they owned the tents previously, it just says they took tents and provisions with them.

I don't know that "The LDS have glommed on to one Old Testament scripture" when there are other passages which clearly say as much. Do you mean the Section 132 that Joseph Smith never presented to the church for canonization prior to his death? The one that can't be verified to be his?I thought so.

Hi there! From the text (and other writings), it is obvious that Lehi is either a caravaneer or a skilled craftman, or both. If he "in Jerusalem" as the text reads, why was he not removed in captivity to Babylon? Also, the text identifies that, "None remained except the poorest sort of the people in the land. " Now one could say that Lehi did not live in Jerusalem (the city), but in the land of Jerusalem meaning the outlying city, but then, there is a diffulcy with the passage that states, "none remained except the poorest sor of people in the land". Now, obviously because of the references to gold and silver, they were not the "poorest sort of the people"... ~serapha~ It was answered at least once in this thread, in answer to your question. Lehi and family left Jerusalem about 20 years before the Babylonians attacked and took all captive. And from the text, it is obvious that Lehi and family were scribes.

A question... Do humans in glorified bodies radiate glory... or in heaven, is the "Glory" reserved for God the Father and God the Son? Now, we used the term "glorified bodies" for lack of a beter terminology, but when Christ on upon the earth with His glorified body, there is no indication that the body radiated "glory". Glory was a part of the deity of Christ which was suppressed for the 33 years He was upon the earth, never calling upon the "glory" of his deity. Exactly what is "glory"... a radiance, a brightness? But why does Christ have "glory"? Pure light perhaps? It was a vision. Often in visions, there are objects that represent different objects, that is why they often need interpreting. The brightness that seemed to radiate from the "12" represented, IMO, the "choiceness" (for lack of a better word) that the Lord bestowed on the apostles for choosing them and giving them special tasks and witnesses. http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LD...phi/1Nephi1.htm Verses 19 and 20 show two phases in the reaction of the sinful to the message of righteousness. The first is to mock, and the second is to attack. Well, I guess everyone comes by "mock" and "attack" in a very scriptural manner to anyone speaking the "truth". Guess I don't see what the question here is. Sorry. But, if you are questioning why Lehi felt mocked and attacked, look at the reception most other prophets got, too, not just him. Depends on if you are American or Jewish. Americans say nee-fi, Jewish people say neph-ee 'Which plates are these? These are the plates that Nephi made after leaving Jerusalem. They are the large plates of Nephi. I'm not sure what your question about skilled smiths have to do with anything. Lehi, nor Nephi, nor his brothers were smiths. They were scribes. Could you please elaborate on the connection you are drawing?

New Age is not "new"... but very old... It is a discipline of concepts, not a time frame. ~serapha~ Maybe since you are soooo knowledgable on the subject, you could explain it to us instead of leaving it hanging.

Is this post offensive to anyone beside me? Come on TR2..... I edited out the worst part of it. So, considering that it was worse .................

I use the Inspired Version. And even if I used the KJV, the interpretation would be the same. When something is spoken of in prophetic terms, 'days' is usually interpreted as years. (It is a prophetic thing. )

Fuzzy math??? Don't understand your implication.

What's so special about 570 other than ist fits your math> Gregory the Great was not pope for another 20 years or so. While the specific year 570 fits into my math, it is the whole decline of the church from Constantine on that marks the beginning of the apostacy. By the time 600AD rolled around, the church was no longer recognizable as the NT church that was started by Christ/the apostles.

Are you sure that is the RLDS line Jenda? 570 is a long ways removed from the early Christian Church of the 1st century and the early 2nd century and is also a couple hundred years after Constantine. Yes, this is the RLDS line. Well, let me restate that. That was the RLDS line until the RLDS decided that we are no longer a "restored" church, and that God did not restore anything because He didn't have to. But, as I am a RLDS restorationist, we continue to hold to that belief. I realize that that is a couple of hundred years after Constantine, but the time of Constantine is when we feel that the true decline of the church started. We believe that the apostacy was complete when God removed his blessing from the church, and that happened about 570 AD. That fits into the timeline, also, of the 1260 years the church was in the wilderness (Revelations 12: 5 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore years.)

This is exactly why the RLDS believes that the apostacy began about 570 AD. The church changed when Constantine assumed control of it, and it went downhill from there.

Cal, I realize that they go back much farther than the NT. If one is into creationism, they go clear back to the Garden of Eden. That is the point I was trying to make. Serapha claimed that "spiritual experiences" are New Age. I was just wondering at her definition of New Age since she made that statement.