Jenda

In the scripture I quoted, the woman who travailed and gave birth to the child was the church, not the Roman empire. The child is the Kingdom of God (Zion). There is no way to interpret that scripture to mean what you are implying. None at all.And your remark about using only the Bible to find scriptures referring to the great apostasy is almost ludicrous. I say that because, except for the scripture that I quoted in Revelations (which is a prophecy), it is kind of hard to say something happened before it happened. The Bible ends about, what 70 years after Christ? The apostacy occured about 550 years after Christ. Let me spell out that scripture for you so you understand precisely what I am saying. Long about 570 AD, the woman (the church) flees to the wilderness for 1260 days (years). That is descriptive of the apostacy. The church is restored again in fullness 1260 years later, making it about 1830. In 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ is organized, God's church is restored.

Well, the act that Judas performed was a betrayal, but was that his calling is my question.I think that when Jesus made the statement he did in the scripture he quoted, he was not condemning Judas, he was asking if he had to use a symbol of love to betray him. Could he not have used another signal? That is my take on that scripture.

I guess I am not sure I believe that Judas is a betrayer in my mind. He was needed to help Jesus to fulfill all righteousness. He played an important part in what needed to happen, and he was true to his calling. Could that be the reason he was called by Jesus to begin with?

That was a woman???????? Drat, now I am going to have to see it again so I can read the credits. I sure thought it was a pretty man.I believe that just as there is a personification of Righteousness there must be a personification of Evil. I definitely feel that it is more than just random occurances, and if it is more than that, there must be a mind behind it.

Your relatively tiny little church has been around for about 180 years. I think I'll reserve my judgement on how well it's progressing according to God's plan until after, oh, say, another 800 years? That partial sentence you quoted was in reference to the Catholic church circa 570-600 AD. To be fair, you need to bring your judgment day back about 225 years. B)

Revelations 12:1-5 1 And there appeared a great sign in heaven, in the likeness of things on the earth; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 And the woman being with child, cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up unto God and his throne. 4 And there appeared another sign in heaven; and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman which was delivered, ready to devour her child after it was born. 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. which is reiterated in verse 14 12:14 Therefore, to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might flee into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. It actually is a fairly common understanding by many historians that a major apostacy occurred around 575-600 AD (unless you are Catholic (or anti-Mormon) that is). If you can't read anything that confirms that, just look at the history of the church up through, and including that time, and state with any sense of honesty whatsoever that the church was progressing nicely according to God's plan. The church going into the wilderness long about 575 AD, if you add the 1260 years that the revelation states it will be in apostacy, brings you to roughly 1830-1835. Wonder what happened around that time??????? Can anyone help me out here?

Good. Paul O Do your sentiments extend to your old flying buddy, bat? No. I wish Bat was here. Fortunately I get to talk to him on other message boards. Bat just has a hard time being good sometimes. I miss him. Paul O How about Antishock? Or was he a little too serious with his views? Antishock is not banned, he is on moderated status.

Just my two cents worth, what caught my understanding of JS was the age he was and the lack of education. That’s why he employed scribes or called them. If you have ever read his personal letter to family and friend you would catch on real fast that with his level of reading and writing skills making up the BoM would be an imposable. I was a skeptic I really checked this out. Now for her time that would have been OLD. Amazing! One needn't be literate to be a great storyteller. Education is not required to spin a great yarn. Imagination and the ability to speak well is all one needs. I always understood the need for the scribes to be because he did not have very advanced writing skills. Which does not equal "ignorance". As for being "young", well, he WAS 24, the same age Charles Dickens was when he wrote Oliver Twist. Was HE "too young" to write such a tome? eh? He was 24 when the church was organized in 1830. The BoM was published the previous year. I would say he was 21-22 during the time he was translating it. It took a little while to find a publisher and get it published. So, I think you are overstating his age by a few years. The younger you are, the more immature your writing style. I find the BoM extremely complex, and doubt that a 21 year old could come through with a work like that. To write in the style of 15 different people, to understand and expound on the Abrahamic Covenant, to describe in depth war scenes, and to carry it on through 777 pages, IMO, takes much more than just the imagination of a 20 year-old.

It certainly does. It makes life so much more picturesque and colorful.... And it also helps those who only relate by comparisons...you know the type.... Well, let's just say I best not mention the colorful and picturesque comparison I would make of you. I also don't think it wise to send an unarmed defenseless person onto a battlefield. Why would you mention a battle field....it seems so incongruous. Simple. You have the power (weapons) to ban or moderate me. I have nothing. You can use whatever colorful comparisons you like on me. You think maybe I can? Yeah, sure. I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack, but neither am I the dimmest. Believe it or not, I have edited, and even deleted, other moderator's posts. So take comfort in the knowledge that we are all under the exam light.

By their fruits ye shall know them. What? You somehow don't think that they think their fruits are better than yours? I'm sure they do, but it isn't my decision, or theirs. It is God's. If it produces good fruit, like it states all through the scriptures, then they are of God, but if it doesn't produce good fruit, it is likely not of God.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

Winnie, this is a tough decision you have to make. I don't know what to tell you. I recommend D&C Section 9: 8-9. I didn't care for the movie - it was extremely gruesome for extended periods of time. I think Mel Gibson was going for maximum shock value and if he didn't get it he came close. I'm not sure how seeing all of the gore would help your son. I think feeling the Spirit of God would have the greatest effect and I certainly didn't feel such during this movie. Perhaps others have and I'm just insensitive. Kevin, I would agree with you without even having seen the movie, except for "trailers". One must be aware that Gibson is an arch-conservative Catholic. His perspective is the same as that of the early Irish Catholics in America who called Jews "Christ killers". Of course, Mel may have sidestepped the questions put to him by Diane Sawyer: that is to say, that his answers were "thoughtfully considered and weighed", even before answering--for the purpose, I'm sure, of smoothing over any potential conflict that he would otherwise create had anti-Semitic overtones been suggested, thereby. Mel Gibson's father denied that the Holocaust ever happened. Mel didn't exactly "defend" his father: just that his father was "off-limits" to Diane Sawyer, in her discussion with the younger Gibson. So, NO, the violence, in and of itself, is not like sitting in a sacrament meeting or being in general conference. I personally think that sectarian Christianity is what will be most-favorably impressed by the movie. The word "Passion"--as in the passion of Christ's sufferings--is a wording typical of sectarianism, not Mormonism. I heard [listened to] reviews of the movie from various tv personalities, and I particularly noted that some observed an almost altogether absence of emphasis on Christ's "Victory"--his "triumph over death" [i.e, pertaining to His resurrection]. So, if the "dying part" were the main focus of Christ's own, earthly mission, then we--those who have come after--would be utterly without hope... [if the Resurrection were not the "Final Reality" of the Life of Christ]. For Catholics to have traditionally called Jews "christ killers" is to deny such a reality: not only of the Resurrection, but that Jesus Christ's purpose and mission would have been frustrated had he not been crucified. In pondering the life of Christ, one also remembers that Christ had the power to lay His life down [and the power to prevent others from taking His life from Him], as well as the power to "take it up, again." It is this "taking it up, again" that is of most value, to me--an average "Joe EveryMan". While the resurrection was an extremely important part of Christ's work, it was no more important than His death. He died specifically so we could be worthy enough to approach the Heavenly Father. Without his suffering and death, there would be no need for the resurrection, because none of us is worthy without that sacrifice. The fact that liberal protestantism is trying to white-wash the story of Jesus life and deny the need of the suffering and crucifixion and the reality of the resurrection made this movie imperative. Without it, within mere years, the fact that Christ was God's own son would be swept away, and only handfuls of people would have a remembrance of it, and his death (and resurrection) would have been in vain. I hope everyone here, and everywhere, chooses to see this movie. You will come away humble. You will come away rejoicing. You will come away with a new testimony of Christ in your heart.

What are your thoughts on it Jenda? I think the movie is extremely powerful. I cried for hours after seeing it, and still was crying this morning when someone posted something about it on another board I post on. The spiritual suffering is evident in the opening Garden of Gethsemane scene as well as isolated spots in the rest of the movie, such as when Jesus was talking to Pilate. The physical suffering was almost too much too look at. And it went on forever. The last scene is the only scene that brings a glimmer of hope in all the movie, it lasted about 3 minutes. The people in the theatre cried loud and long, and when it was over, we sat looking at the screen for 5 minutes in silence or crying. A friend of mine says that the people in the theatre with her stood and applauded when it was over. It will leave you changed. I could not even post anything about it till today. And still, so much of it is so personal.

Please quote the scripture that states that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. Also, if marriage is only an institution for the building of a family, why should infertile people be allowed to marry? Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Genesis 19:1-12 (Inspired Version) 1 And it came to pass, that there came three angels to Sodom in the evening; and Lot sat in the door of his house, in the city of Sodom. 2 And Lot, seeing the angels, rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 3 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. 4 And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 5 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 6 But before they lay down to rest, the men of the city of Sodom compassed the house round, even men which were both old and young, even the people from every quarter; 7 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in unto thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 8 And Lot went out of the door, unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 9 And they said unto him, Stand back. And they were angry with him. 10 And they said among themselves, This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them. 11 Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good. 12 Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom. As far as your other question, you must not have seen TPD's response up above. But, let me add one thing to it. Infertile people usually don't know they are infertile till some time after they are married and have started to think of having a family, it is then that they find out they are infertile.

I saw it this morning.

Let me add that there are several rules in the Rules of Conduct which is posted above for all to see that you are not adhering to, it is the purpose the board was cleansed not too awfully long ago, and this type of behavior will not be tolerated. Specifically:Bashing ones church or faith will not be permitted. -- Including disrespectfully discussing Temple Ceremonies. Offensive name calling of any sort to anyone on this site will not be tolerated. Offensive name calling is obvious, I don't think I need to explain that one to you, if I do, then you shouldn't be posting here without your mommy's permission, anyway. Bashing includes just exactly what Peace was referring to in her post (which I quoted). Making statements just for the sake of inflaming the discussion, posting the same thing over and over, even though the discussion has shown that there can be no resolution. If people don't choose to believe you, JUST GROW UP, ACCEPT THAT FACT, AND MOVE ON. Because if you don't, you won't be around here long. If you choose to discuss things on an adult level, you are welcome to stay and discuss, but so far, you have not displayed that quality.

I see you refused to answer the question I put to you. What is it you believe that you can supplant the LDS doctrine with when you pull it out from under the unsuspecting people here on this board? That is the only thing I want an answer to, because in actuality, for every proof against the BoM that you make, I can make a proof for it. None of your's are conclusive, and none of mine are conclusive. It all comes down to faith. So tell me about your faith. What do you believe in? I am not interested in what you don't believe in. If you can't provide something for people to believe in when you try to destroy their myths, than you are an uncaring, insensitive oaf. And I want you to prove you aren't. Can you? I see you don't know how to answer questions. Or maybe its that you don't know how to read questions. I bet you did horribly on essay tests. The question specifically asked what you do believe in, not what you don't believe in. What is it you believe now that you can offer to mormons who believe your garbage and stop believing in the BoM? BTW, the other mods have been discussing the problems caused by both you and Pahoran. You have both been warned, and soon (later today) other actions will be taken. Stay tuned!

Sounds like you had a very interesting and productive afternoon, Winnie, and a great discussion. :)

Wow! You must really have a lot of respect for Joseph Smith if you think that he (as a child 17-twentish years old) could write a book like that! I'm impressed you feel that way! Way to go!

I see you refused to answer the question I put to you.What is it you believe that you can supplant the LDS doctrine with when you pull it out from under the unsuspecting people here on this board? That is the only thing I want an answer to, because in actuality, for every proof against the BoM that you make, I can make a proof for it. None of your's are conclusive, and none of mine are conclusive. It all comes down to faith. So tell me about your faith. What do you believe in? I am not interested in what you don't believe in. If you can't provide something for people to believe in when you try to destroy their myths, than you are an uncaring, insensitive oaf. And I want you to prove you aren't. Can you?

I think it depends on the reason for the R rating.For the most part, the ratings are for parental guidance, and it often takes on a negative tone. But in this case, I don't think the rating system is adequate for the content/coverage. I go by the reviews more than the ratings, in this case. And the reviews are most powerful. I will go see it tomorrow on the first showing. (It doesn't open here till tomorrow.)

There is already a discussion of this nature going on in General Discussions. You could check for answers there.

This is the most reasonable thing I have read in a week! B)

That would be Ms. Jenda to you! No, I don't wonder, I know. God actually wants us to accept things on faith. You accept the Bible on faith. If something is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it is no longer faith, it is knowledge. God blesses you with more faith when you exercise your faith. If that faith leads to knowledge, that is good, but it doesn't necessarily have to. What are things that you have accepted on faith (assuming you have faith): There is a God. God created the earth (in one way or another). Christ is the divine son of God and died for our sins and rose again on the third day. etc., etc., etc. All of these are looked on as fairy tales by the non-religious community. Why is the BoM any more far-fetched than some of these stories? IMO, it is more plausible than any that I listed above.

I would be more than happy to have you show me ANY credible evidence that establishes the historicity of the BoM. Something more than chest pounding and puffing would be nice. Cal, the evidences are too numerous to list. Four or five have been mentioned in just the couple of threads we have been discussing, and a few have been mentioned over the preceeding months. Like I said, all you want is something concrete, and unless someone found a sign like I mentioned above, there is nothing that will change your mind. So, I want you to answer the question Peace asked. It has become the topic of the day? If you have found something so much better than Mormonism/the BoM, why are you not preaching it? Why are you just trying to take away the faith of others without replacing it with something better? Speaking of which, if what you have is so much better, why do you sound so resentful and bitter?