Jenda

That is the same one I use. I think I have two things on it. Maybe just one.

That might have been true before the Nauvoo era, but once the beliefs of the early church started changing to include things like temple ordinances, etc., the BoM had been left far behind. And from that time on, the BoM is a footnote in LDS theology. It is used as a conversion tool and then quickly discarded, because there is nothing in post-Kirtland LDSism that in any way resembles BoM theology.

If you don't have a place to upload a picture to, I have a place I can host it if you want.

Funny how things change, eh? I remember when I was first grasping at the Trinity, and you said that my description of beliefs was actually modalism. So I owe it all to you, babe! So..........................is that good........or bad?

Actually, Jenda was a modalist. After studying the scriptures regarding this issue for a while, I have moved to a Trinitarian position. Yes, there are still some things that are very hard to understand and accept about the Trinity, but I evaluated the scriptures that led me to modalism in the first place, and they don't say what I believed them to say to begin with.But the rest of your statement is true.

Randy, last night I got an email from Mike stating he reinstated my account (which is really surprising since I blasted him, too. (This was not a good weekend for me (I think I blasted everyone.)) Again, I hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive me.

Dawn, Yes...I misunderstood the situation. In light of this new and correct information...it makes his action against you now even more grievous and offensive...at least IMO. He just seems to go off half-cocked all the time, making making rash judgements...taking other peoples word for things that he just simply should not do. Dawn, like I have said....I have always admired you. You are strong and steadfast in your beliefs...and I admire and respect that very much. I always knew where I stood with you. My good friend...I do apologize for this mess. I hope the Moderator will review what has happened and do the right thing. I truly am sorry for what has happened....I really am. The only thing I can do is to try to help resolve it. Dawn...I hope you can forgive me....and I truly hope we can continue to be good friends and go forward from this with even a stronger friendship. Take care...and God bless you Dawn! Something that I have learned in life is that friendship is more important than almost anything else. That board is just a board. You are a friend, and that is more important. I hope that you can forgive my anger over the matter.

I am sure you were singled out, Randy. There are some very conservative 'oldsters' that lurk there that don't like to see anything out of the ordinary there. I am kind of surprised Steve has lasted as long as he has, in fact. Anyway, I was not on the board much for a few days around the time in question, so I don't know if you said anything that could be considered particularly offensive, or if someone just didn't like the LDS view being propounded so loudly in connection with the Remnant being so strongly favored (a position you seem to take.) I was surprised, like I said, about you being banned, and I had e-mailed Everett and he thought it was interesting you were banned, he thought you kept the threads challenging, but never thought you crossed the line. I'm sorry that that action was taken against you.

Randy, you somehow have gotten the mistaken impression that I pleaded my case before anyone the previous time. I did absolutely nothing. He banned me and the other girl without even looking at the exchange that was complained about. It wasn't until he looked at it a few days later that he realized that I was doing all I could to not participate in the discussion and was being goaded into answering. It was his error, and he rectified it by re-instating me. I did not plead my case, or ask to have it reinstated. In fact, I did not say one word to him. He did everything he did on his own.

I have spoken via e-mail with the pastor of the Abundant Life Fellowship. He seems rather nice, but I have never been there to worship. They are the branch that sponsors the RLDS scripture search program. It is one of 5 traditional branches in the Independence area, and there are only a handful (if that many) more traditional branches in the rest of the US. I suppose if you hang out with them, things are better there, but with the direction the CoC is heading, I doubt that they will be around much longer. Unless things change with the new president, that is.I remember a few years ago when you posted here quite a bit we were on opposite ends. You were speaking from a more traditional view and I was speaking from a more liberal view. It's funny how things change. Good luck in whatever you do. I hope it brings you peace.

Of course Im not saying that all RC's and Orthodox are open-minded and willing to hear God's voice. What Im saying is that there are those in both churches who have made claims of literally conversing with Angels and a few (very few) who've seen and spoken to Christ. For example, 30 years before Joseph Smith was born, St. Seraphim of Sarov (in Russia) says he saw Christ and spoke with him. Assuming (as I do) that this was a true vision, it does cast a lot of doubt on Smith's "first vision" which alludes that all are astray, and that none are listening. That depends on which version of the vision you accept as true (and why you accept that particular one as true.)Out of the multitude of versions, are you accepting the one that casts the worst light on things for reasons of proving a point? Is there a reason that you don't accept the first version (the only one in Joseph Smith's own handwriting), that says something very different? I, personally don't believe even the worst one says what you are claiming it says. It speaks about "churches" and "creeds", not individuals. I don't believe God was ever absent on the earth, removed from those that earnestly sought Him, I do believe He removed His blessings from the churches (in general) to speak in His name because of the evil they committed in His name.

Drat, I missed it. I was just typing out a Happy Birthday message yesterday when I got called away, and it was hours later (and I had forgotten) by the time I got back. Hope it was a good day! :)

I'll take a crack at this one. Because he didn't exist yet? He wasn't even a glimmer in his non-existent parents and grandparents eyes yet? M. :)

Yes. I realize that I am very angry and am posting in haste, and I, also, will need to seek Randy's forgiveness in the matter.

Literally (not too many CoC folks in Utah), and spiritually (like I felt in the LDS church). The CoC is quite empty, spiritually. They have denied everything in a bid for trying to be everything to everyone. They are on the road to rejecting the deity of Christ, and many once-faithful members are finding themselves without a home. The traditional RLDS (too bad you didn't run into any (that is why I invited you to the one board I post on)) are sooo deep that after 20 years in the liberal CoC, I am lost when it comes to keeping up with them, spiritually as well as scripturally. I did it for you, babe! gosh...........thanks

There's no evidence that once one encounters a true spirit, that they can always discern a false one. Perhaps that's true of Protestants and neo-protestants, but I can say without a doubt that this is not the case with either Roman Catholics or Orthodox. You can speak for all Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics?So where were you when the Catholic church was slautering people in God's name? Where were you when the Catholics were selling indulgences? Where were you when the Catholic church changed all the sacraments? How come you didn't speak up for God then? I do honestly believe that once you have encountered the Divine, you definitely can discern the not-so-divine. I don't claim that all the not-so-divine are evil. I am sure that there are a wide variety of spirits that grasp for us, but I do believe that when we recognize the difference between spirits, we are required to choose the one that will bring us closer to God. I will PM you.

Dawn, I wasn't even trying to be condescending to anyone. I was telling TS that I understand where's he's coming from, since at one time I was an agnostic who would have said the same thing. I never said that anyone here wasn't a christian. Notice I said "Christian again". Look at the sequence: Mormon, Agnostic, Catholic (Orthodox). I think you're trying to take things the wrong way here. That's not fair to me. I'm sorry, Jason, I did not understand the perspective you were posting from. Maybe if you made it a bit clearer in your posts...........

Amilia, Randy was banned from that board before, and as such, should not have been so up in arms when he was banned again. He also knew the rules of no tolerance when he agreed to join. When I "passed out" that information, he and I were the only ones who knew which board we were talking about, knew who the parties involved were, etc. It was as if the information was given out in private because everyone here knowing it had no bearing. I posted that information in good faith, thinking that it would be kept between us. At the very least, he should have asked before using it. And he only used it for prideful things. He is the one who showed low character in this situation. I have taken the issue up with the other person involved, also. Not just Randy.

I wanted to do it here because here is where you wronged me. Do you know what you have done? You took something that was confidential and threw it up in someone's face. If I had known that you were going to do that, I would never have told you what I did. You also robbed me of the only significant contact with people who believe like me that I have. I am not fortunate enough to live where there are thousands or hundreds (or even tens) of people who share my faith. I have no one. And now, thanks to you, I can't even have contact with others who live significant distances away but who were willing to share a bit with others less fortunate on the internet. So, in order for you to have the satisfaction of proving a point, you had to rob me of the only type of fellowship that I have available to me. You should have thought about what your pride would do to someone else's life. I really hope that you feel the need to talk to your bishop before the next time you take communion, because you offered me no reason for me to forgive you.

There's no doubt in my mind than this was a common practice. What I think you've failed to realize is that "God" apparently never had a problem with this, nor any of the "spirits" that spoke with Smith. Therein lies the key about the source of Mormonism, and the "spirits" with whom he communed. I think that what you fail to realize is that not all spirits are bad. And once people have an encounter with the Divine, they know, without a doubt, what an evil spirit feels like.I believe that God used Joseph Smith precisely because he did allow himself be open to that type of encounter. He certainly couldn't use someone who was as close-minded as today's (and probably yesterday's) OC's. They would refuse to hear Him, no matter how loud He shouted.

Big T, Of course you don't think it's fair. And before I became a Christian again, I would have agreed with you. Please stop being condescending, Jason. The same basic rules apply here that apply on our other favorite board. You cannot tell people they are not Christian. In fact, I will go the step further than they go there. You can't even imply it. Please refrain from these types of remarks.

The practice of Folk Magic in JS's time was quite popular and not seen as evil but as the norm. It was the basic religion of the common folk. The 21st century attitude toward Folk Magic is quite different than how it was viewed in JS's time. M. Quite right, Maureen, but lots of people have trouble seeing the 19th century with 19th century eyes. Mostly because they don't want to. It is more convenient to see it with 21st century eyes.

I guess that counts me out, too.

Dawn, I know you respect Bradley...heck, I do! But, he is not a lawyer....and he is cherrypicking what it is he wants to actually present in his posts. He is missing the entire point of the book. If you will notice...all of his comments are his opinion on the conclusions drawn by Mr. Reimann. He has been unable to refute any of his conclusions based upon the law. Listen...the book is exhaustive. Bradley just briefly mentioned about JSIII being the "Trustee-in-Trust". This issue is complicated and lengthy and is gone over extensively in the book. He also has not addressed the fact that the LDS church was not a defendant in the case. The RLDS attorneys attempted to make it appear so...but it was not. The tactics used at the time were illegal for the many points that are shown and which Bradley fails to point out. Going back to the issue of the RLDS choosing to use "coined phrases" is because they tried to "piggyback" the issue of succession along with the "ownership of the Temple" case. They had to try to paint the picture that the original church had somehow became "disorganized" and in effect..."ceased to exist". Like I had mentioned, and as Mr. Reimann goes into detail about....if the official name of the Church had been used in the official pleading of the case...the RLDS church's case would have been fatally flawed at the outset. Actually, as Mr. Reimann points out numerous times by numerous ways...the case WAS fatally flawed from the outset. The fact that the original "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as an institution went west with the official records, history, and acknowledged leadership and assets of the original church....it would have been a no brainer for any judge to be able to rule that said church was neither "disorganized" or that it had "ceased to exist" thereby needing some sort of "reorganization". Bradley mentions that it is obvious that Mr. Reimann didnt like the outcome of the case as it was decided by Judge Sherman. Actually, it could be said that Bradley simply doesnt like the conclusions that an experienced lawyer, whose speciality was in real Estate litigation...and who examined these two cases extensively....was able to show beyond any doubt that the RLDS church LOST both cases and NOT for the reasons that have been traditionally given by the RLDS church. No..Bradley could not give the book anywhere close to an honest review because of the obvious implications. Dawn, is there a way that you can post some emails from me addressing these issues on the Center Place board....or do you feel you cant or should not do it? Let me know...thanks. I would feel that I would have to email Mike Palmer and ask him about it. I was already banned and unbanned when a girl from another board brought a discussion from that other board to Centerplace, though I explained to her that I was not going to discuss it there. We were both banned because of that interchange, but my ban was lifted because Mike felt I was goaded into having to defend myself. He did tell me to be more scrupulous in the future. So ............... If you want me to ask him, I will, but I will abide by his decision. I might add here, though, that there were no conclusions in that book because it was not based on precidents to the case, it was based on what happened after it, which makes those "conclusions" moot.

Empty in what way? I would agree with you (depending on your answer to that question, of course) if you are talking about the CoC, but the traditional RLDS are anything but empty. IMO (of course).Your new avatar is quite dashing. Doesn't have as much personality as your last one, but infinitely less terrifying. B)