Behunin

TEE HEE have a great day! Paul O and you too! :)

TEE HEE

Are you looking?

If you feel this way, why do you keep posting on a LDS message board?You know what you should do Tr2? You should bannish these "Mormons" from your life. That would teach us!

Thank you Ray. I feel sure that the multitude of homosexuals who frequent this board will read your post and quickly see the error of their ways and become heterosexual. WOW!! ooooooooooo owchie!!

Spirit bodies are real bodies, male and female.

Very good!Peace you stand up to Tr2 and Kudos abuse very well. A pillar of strength you are!

Satan was created as an angelic being, therefore satan is neither male nor female. "he" is just in the context that we can understand more about "him". LOL...angels are male and female. Have you ever met any? Big LOL! Not only are they both male and female, they DON"T have wings. Peace, do you get weary stating the obvious?

The person who played satan was not a woman. Mel Gibson used an actor who is male to play satan. I never once thought satan was portrayed as female. I agree with the rest of your post Ray. This was a powerful movie. I hope Heavenly Father blesses Mel Gibson for this movie he has given to the world. Sorry, Beh. Here's a link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0147988/ Rosalinda Celentano is her name. Then this ACTRESS was portraying a male being, satan. Yes, Satan/Lucifer IS male, and Mel was not trying to make a statement that he was female. He simply used an actor he thought had the right "look" he wanted. The actor was a woman, but the character is most obviously NOT! Yes, you said it much better than I! (again, your writing skills are very good. Did you major in english?) :)

The person who played satan was not a woman. Mel Gibson used an actor who is male to play satan. I never once thought satan was portrayed as female. I agree with the rest of your post Ray. This was a powerful movie. I hope Heavenly Father blesses Mel Gibson for this movie he has given to the world. Sorry, Beh. Here's a link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0147988/ Rosalinda Celentano is her name. Then this ACTRESS was portraying a male being, satan.

Excellent post!!!!!!!

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. This is very interesting. Jenda raises another question: If Judas was performing his calling as a betrayer of Christ, then was Lucifer fulfilling his calling being cast out of heaven and becoming our temptation on earth?

You know, there are probably plenty here who believe in a Heavenly Mother. And just because YOU don't believe in one, you don't see others mocking you. Why can't you at least display the same amount of respect that others are giving you? I agree with you AFDaw!! It is posts like this one from Tr2 that make me question intent. Why does Tr2 and people like him come to a LDS message board? To tell us that the way we believe is laughable? And disparage LDS people just because they want to? If this is the situation, then Tr2 and those like him just want to create contention. And there are anti LDS boards they could go to, post on, and enjoy themselves. BTW, there is a Heavenly Mother. "Truth is reason, truth eternal tells me I've a Mother there"

I really liked the symbolism in the Garden of Gethsemane when Christ stomped the serpent with his foot. "You (satan) will have power to bruise his heel, but he ( or they) will have power to crush your head"

The person who played satan was not a woman. Mel Gibson used an actor who is male to play satan. I never once thought satan was portrayed as female. I agree with the rest of your post Ray. This was a powerful movie. I hope Heavenly Father blesses Mel Gibson for this movie he has given to the world.

Of course he was married. Still is.

You were married in a leap year!! :) What day do you celebrate when there is no Feb. 29th?

BizYour review of this movie is the best one I have read. You write well.

PeaceMy husband and I went to see The Passion of the Christ last night. You need to see this movie. I sobbed. I couldn't help it. There is symbolism in it that you will understand. There were only 2 things I found that Gibson did not portray as I would have. (Like I could make a stunning movie like this one ) Mary Magdelene was not the woman taken in adultery, and Gibson used ropes on the wrists instead of the additional nails that we know were there. Things two things do not take away from the otherwise accurate portrayal of the atonement. I left the theater feeling that I wanted to live my own religion better. I feel a renewed effort in daily repentance. When people criticize Mel Gibson for making this movie, (some have accused him of terrorism) I am reminded of this scripture: D&C 59:21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

Smart

Should we come to you, or do you want to come down to see us? Seriously, I really wish we could see it together.

PeaceMy husband and I are going to go see the Passion. Do you want to go with us?

I disagree. It is refreshingly easy to get the point and make replies less than a book long. I agree also. (with Peace, that is)

Touche

I can't see that anyone calling JS a moron has enough spiritual sense to deal with any more facts than has already been put out here. And there are great University scholars who have given more credence to the Mormon 'literature' as you call it than you. And I don't consider that intelligent of you either. So whose the moron. I have watched at least 5 or more documentaries put out by the UofU that absolutely back the church history up....and they are as unbiased as they get....these documentaries of the Mormon history are researched out by non-mormons...some even ex-mormons. I have seen interviews with other well educated men who have a high regard for the church and it's history. I will grant you that 'some' historical facts have been over played while others were not mentioned when the church is presenting it's history...but that doesn't make it false, just biased. I think you need to spend more time learning from other sources than the anit-mormon sites...you are getting so narrow and uneducated in your perspective. Very Good Peace! This is why I always question intent. Does Tr2 really want answers, or is he just being contentious? I wonder this about AS also.