Behunin

Let's not forget about Paul, Alma, the sons of Mosiah and Zeezrom. These were all wicked men; Alma, was one of the "vilest of sinners" and after he repented he became the head of the church. The manner in which all lawyers (this is not a personal attack) operate is contrary to the teachings of Christ. A good example is D&C 121:41: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned..." All so-called "bar associations" are built and maintained on a foundation of violence. It is even worse for pretended "judges." Dallin H. Oaks was a "supreme court justice." This "job" is wholly inconsistent with the above revelation. Standard operating procedure for "judges" is to force their opinions on others. One of the questions in a temple recommend interview is: "Are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow man?" How can this be answered "yes" when you are a lawyer or worse a "judge?" How are "judges" paid? By money that was taken by force, not consent; that's called stealing. How can one be honest when they force their opinions on others and take their money by force? "These things I command you, that ye love one another." John 15:17.

Ummm, Aren't lawyers the largest and most powerful part of the legals system? Yes they are! You can't be a "judge" without belonging to the "bar". There would be no need for so called "lawyers" if we lived in a world where everything was voluntary. While that may be mostly true, it is not entirely true. Some judges are elected, and anybody can be nominated. I have a friend who is a judge, and he is definitely not a lawyer. Then you are fortunate. I am sure your friend will do a decent job.

Who you gonna call? Let's see, due to a monopoly maintained by violence, you have no choice but to call a member of the so-called "bar."Go to court yourself? Let's see, the average person deals with facts and concrete use of language. Lawyers? That's right, words mean whatever some black-robed lawyer says they mean, until more black-robed lawyers change the meaning AND the rules for the millionth time. Conflicting "precedent?" You bet, especially in California, good to be the king isn't it, can't ever be wrong can you? Who can "reason and persuade" when the meanings of words are changed and some black-robed lawyer controls what can be said? Drop the "legal precedents and statutes" and see how much easier disputes can be resolved. Oh, but then we wouldn't need lawyers then would we? People can reason, but when violence and uncertainty are Standard Operating Procedure, who can make any sense? That's right, "officers of the court," the insiders, the lawyers. Those same "officers" who real "allegiance" is not to their pretended client, but to the court, another lawyer. You praise a profession whose very foundation is violence. Even if you don't pick up a gun yourself, you and your fellow lawyers cannot maintain your profession without violence. If my car breaks down my husband can fix it and no "mechanics union" is going to send armed troops to put him into prison. But, if he writes up a simple agreement for me, oh no! Call the troops to protect those lawyers. Lawyers are there for one thing, to get what THEY believe they deserve under the law. Law of course written by lawyers, enforced by lawyers, interpreted by lawyers, all for the benefit of lawyers. And who do lawyers pray to? That's right, to another lawyer with a black dress on. In England they pray to their "lord," the lord chancellor in their "petitons and "motions." Lawyers do the same thing in the U.S. In their documents, they pray to the court, another lawyer. Reason? Lawyers use ad hominen attacks when they cannot defend their positions. The typical "government" lawyer's response to a non-government litigant: "specious, frivolous, scurrilous and for harassment purposes only." No susbstance at all.

Ummm, Aren't lawyers the largest and most powerful part of the legals system? Yes they are! You can't be a "judge" without belonging to the "bar". There would be no need for so called "lawyers" if we lived in a world where everything was voluntary.

Given the experience you have had with "thesits", I understand why you who feel this way.

I could not have said this any better. Money is the draw. Anyone can be a "lawyer". No special skill involved, unlike the talent and intelligence necessary to have a MD.

I can't stand lawyers! Bunch of deliberate thieves! This explains a lot about you. No wonder you like to argue. I can't stand religious authorities! Bunch of deliberate liars! This comment explains a lot about you. No wonder, they want you to remain ignorant. Criminy woman! How do you like broad sweeping generalizations? I like them fine when they are true. I know from experience that law schools teach how to think like lawyers, and it has nothing to do with honesty. I have found so called religious authorities to also be liars, just like you have. If you have remained ignorant, it is your fault.

I can't stand lawyers! Bunch of deliberate thieves! This explains a lot about you. No wonder you like to argue.

Shaun's natural man is showing. To define witness as hearing and seeing is use of the senses, thus being sensual. Depending on your senses to prove spirituality is to be a natural man.(This was an excellent example of what I was trying to say in another thread, thank you!)

A clearer definition of the natural man is one who depends on his/her senses to define and judge the world. So to be sensual is to be a natural man. To only understand literally is to be a natural man. There are many LDS people (including myself, at one time) who feel their church membership keeps them from being natural men. There are many who claim church membership and stand right in the middle of the great and spacious building.

Blessed,You have got the right stream of thought here. Peace is correct. All are the Lord's annointed.

Not to sound lazy either, that is a HUGE task way beyond the scope of this list. It would be the same as asking to explain the symbolism of the Endowment. There are parallels to the Endowment of course as the Endowment serves the same purpose i.e., to bring you back to the tree of life. This is where the Book of Mormon restores the plain and precious truths. All I have time for right now is to point out James 1:8: "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." I already mentioned Amos 3:3: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" The two are faith and love. A "double-minded man" believes one thing and loves another i.e., he knows (faith) the commandment is love the Lord, but he loves himself and the world. This sets the stage for internal conflict. Abraham is faith and Sarah is love and the rest follow suit. The tree of life equals Charity. This is explained in greater detail in my husband's forthcoming book "Esoteric Book of Mormon."

What is important is that Christ joined the human to the divine, the atonement. How he did that is important, so important most of the Bible is dedicated to it. How Christ joined the human to the divine is part of the deeper meaning of the stories of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Rachel. These are details on how one may return to the tree of life, or enter the rest of the Lord. "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory..." Galations 4:22-24. As far as Gethsemane, keep in mind that Isaiah wrote: "I have trodden the winepress alone..." Isaiah 63:3. Gethsemane means winepress. The atonement did start in Gethsemane as prophesied by Isaiah. The winepress is also symbolic. The crucifixtion is also symbolic. His hands were pierced because hands are symbolic, think of the laying on of the hands. Feet are also, such as the washing or dusting of the feet. The crown of thorns has the same meaning as the thorns is Genesis 3:18: "Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee..." Begin to look at deeper meanings, not just the literal (natural man), and you will see that to be come the Christ, He had to be crucified, and resurrect on the third day.

How many nails (or equivalent) and where they were placed.

Me either....I think for myself, and I won't back down on what I believe...to those who have a problem with how we look at things...it just makes me sad that they can't comprehend that There is only one Christ. My Jesus...Your (their) Jesus = OUR Jesus I only wish people could open their hearts and their minds to accept that fact. I could tell from your posts that you think for yourself. You are an intelligent woman. You GO!! :)

Jenda, I mailed your BoM last week. You should be getting it soon. I just found this thread, so I will read and get caught up.

If this comment was aimed at me, I take acception. I am not the sterotypical "mormon" who blindly follows whatever a churchleader says just because they say so. So if you are taking a shot at me and my question, back off. I think, read, breath, live, etc.... for myself, as I am sure many (not all) LDS people do.The Jesus of the Bible is the same Jesus in the BoM. There is only one Christ. This is probably contrary to what some other religions or people believe about the LDS church. But that is of their own doing and thinking, not based in reality. So now, does anyone who has seen or read reviews about Gibson's movie that would indicate that he was accurate in the way Christ was nailed to the cross?

Does anyone know if Gibson was accurate in the way Christ was nailed to the cross? This is something that the Catholics might not know or refuse to accept.

Dare I ask, is he LDS?

Ellisisland.org is an excellent site for FH. You do not have to pa anything to join, just register.

WOW! I am impressed.I saw lots of red flags when this thread started. AS, you hit it head on..... I agree.

I think you are accurate in your view. Good insight!

Well, if we use the LDS BoM, we can do a chapter a night. But......................could you all send me a BoM? (I really hate reading off the computer. ) Yes, PM me your physical address.

It is possible that the command to destroy cities and people is purely symbolic and not literal. I, like you, do not believe that God commanded to kill innocent lives.

I thought is was bold for a Mormon producer to take on a story line that includes murder. I guess I will be the odd man out and say that I liked Brigham City.