speedomansam

That's what they taught me, all those years ago. "Book of Mormon Stories..." was the Primary song on that theme. And perhaps Brother West remembered that as a faithful Mormon he should not use websites that are not official LDS church websites? Or has that rule been withdrawn? I guess you forgot the verse that starts "Lamanites met others...." . Who do you think they were referring to? what verse is that?

don't do stuff to look good. do it for the money

i know you're being sarcastic, but the only mention of native americans in that article was stating how the skeletons were not native americans. so, did you just bring this up because an anti who totally misread the article might conceive it deals with native americans being scandinavian? if so, i see your little humor but it seems strange; you might as well start quoting articles that say "horses found in american grave sites" and comment how stupid it would be for an anti to misread and claim that, since no horses have been found, the bom is not true. i need to go to bed.

yeah, how's that disproving?

I believe Christ has already come when He appeared to Joseph Smith and established his kingdom on earth again. Those who are zion know this already. but what about every knee bowing? the millenium where Christ reigns personally upon the earth (article of faith)? the millenium where satan is bound? prophets in jerusalem dying and being resurrected? the wicked all being burned? and tons of other things? these things haven't happened yet. when Christ comes, then the millenium will come where the wickedness we see today won't exist.

mwaha

Interesting. What is it in the Dead Sea Scrolls that suggests their writers knew the earth was round? I'm thinking of the passage in Isaiah where it talks about the earth being rolled together like a scroll at the end of the world. A scroll is flat; ergo, Isaiah thought the world was flat. I don't see how "Trinitarians" would have needed to "interpret" this language to derive its meaning; you'd have to seriously wrest it to give it any other. prophets speak the word of God through inspiration. just because Isaiah was inspired to use some amazing imagery of the earth being rolled together like a scroll (which could mean a variety of things like all the continents merging together like they were before they were split) doesn't mean Isaiah thought the world was flat. plus, since it seems that many prophets were shown all of God's creations, i'll bet Isaiah was given the universe tour too.

where'd you get that article? it doesn't even good grammar.

It's my time to shine No more holding back His will not mine I'm not going to hide The need to share This peace inside Held Back, Way to long For anyones good. I'll ask her on a date We'll do some service Instead of saying "Lets procreate"

i heard it was going to cost 30 dollars. is that true!!?! if it is, those crazy marketing fiends are devilish beacuse they know there's a lot of us that would pay it.

hehe

was it inappropriate? i don't remember any bad connotations. what were they?

somebody should close this thread. it's breeding an arrogance on both sides that will destroy us all!

i've never seen giraffes mate, but i don't need to have faith to know that's how baby giraffes come to be. that's just how things work.

jenda, you're frustrating. i quit trying to discuss/prove stuff to you because nothing anybody says, even if it's the smartest, most brilliant, genius thing anybody has ever said, will affect you. i'm not saying i, or anybody on this board has said these genius things, but it just seems you always sidestep around whatever's thrown at you. there's been a lot of good points defending the LDS church in this thread, yet i feel that you refuse to acknowledg that any of them might have any merit. i mean, do you consider the possibility that what you learn from history may not be true (you'll find stuff to both credit and discredit BY, credit/discredit JS, etc)? I suppose, though, these questions are a bit hypocrytical. Though i try to examine what's been said logically, analytically, and spiritually, i know i'm probably biased to make things support what i want them to support (the truthfullness of the LDS church) because i know it to be true (just as you'll probably say you know your church to be true). Ultimately, I'm just frustrated that you, who know so much of the gospel that i love and that feels so true and right, won't accept it, and i wish i knew what to do so that you would! I feel like alma: "oh, that i were an angel!" But i suppose i do sin in my wish.

hmm, somehow i missed all snow's posts before i posted. jenda, why are you questioning this section of the D&C if you don't believe it anyway? It seems impossible to question that which you don't believe; do you believe deep down? My real question is this: if you don't believe it, why is it in your RLDS D&C?

first of all, those verses are 31 and 32, not 10 and 11. secondly, your taking this out of context. verse 29 says: "For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for their dead". Accordingly, God granted time that the saints could do baptisms for the dead outside of the temple, since they didn't have one. This was the appointment. If the saints continued to do baptisms for the dead outside of the temple after the appointed time, then they would have been rejected as a church. Thus, as randy said, after this appointment baptisms would only be accepted in the temple, but they would always be accepted. the period didn't just end. Since we were discussing the RLDS D&C, I used those verse references. But thanks for looking them up in your own D&C. The whole church was the subject of those verses, not just baptism for the dead. Maybe you should read them again. It says that if the temple was not finished in sufficient time, the church would be rejected as a church with it's dead. The temple was never finished, therefore, the church was rejected as a church. I'm not sure as to how true Ray's statement about RLDS removing verses they didn't feel the need to be there is, but this seems eerily familiar to the early apostate church after christ--them removing "plain and precious truths from the Bible". in any case, as the verses you quoted in RLDS D&C started at 10 and 11, and our D&C has them at 30, that's 20 verses that have been deleted!! How can anyone expect to get an accurate understanding of scripture with 2/3 of it removed? Jenda, thanks for humbling my natural, teenage cocky attitude of knowing it all. You suggested I go back and study the verse some more to understand it, so I did, with new understanding. Now, let me prove my point: vs. 11/32: "But, behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a church with your dead, saith the Lord your God. " You said that this is a reference to the church being rejected if they didn't finish the temple on time. Entirely not so! They would be rejected as a church if they didn't do "these things at the end of the appointment". What were these things? I'll point you back to the text to understand, but first let me be assured that you understand and cannot argue with what this "appointment" is. Vs 10/31-11/32: "... I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me...But, behold, at the end of this appointment..." --thus the appointment was clearly the time appointed to build the temple. Now, after this appoitment (after the saints had a temple built and a baptisimal font), if the saints didn't do certain things, they would be rejected with their dead. What were these things? Here's some context:"...your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things" --these things are clearly baptisms for the dead! I don't know how I can prove it any more plainly that the LDS church has not been rejected as a church because we are faithfully continuing with baptisms for the dead, as commanded us. If you still do not believe me, then I'm tempted to give up proving things by scripture because faith is not intelectual. It's spritual. And now I must go finish writing a compare and contrast essay on Heart of Darkness and The Birthmark.

first of all, those verses are 31 and 32, not 10 and 11. secondly, your taking this out of context. verse 29 says: "For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for their dead". Accordingly, God granted time that the saints could do baptisms for the dead outside of the temple, since they didn't have one. This was the appointment. If the saints continued to do baptisms for the dead outside of the temple after the appointed time, then they would have been rejected as a church. Thus, as randy said, after this appointment baptisms would only be accepted in the temple, but they would always be accepted. the period didn't just end.

if you believe JS was a fallen prophet, how would his blessings he gave his son about leading the church have any credit? do the RLDS believe in all of the D&C? With regards to polygamy, do you just disregard sections like 132? How do you explain D&C 115 vs 4: "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"? You don't believe in baptisms for the dead? What about 1 Corinthians 15:29? What about the sea of brass in old testament temples? You don't believe in sealings? Why did Elijah then come back and give JS the sealing power? Do you believe JS gave his son this power and the keys of the kingdom before he died? Jenda, I'm curious how you'll refute these things, but I know you'll find some way to explain them that will satisfy you. Faith and testimonies can't be proven through the scriptures--that's why Bible basing isn't allowed with missionaries; it breeds a spirit of contention that drives away the spirit, and the spirit is the only thing that can give someone a testimony. Church history never can never prove anything either. Can you prove that Joseph Smith actually saw God and Jesus Christ and received golden plates at the direction of and angel and didn't make the whole thing up? Absolutely not. History won't tell you a thing, just like it won't truly tell you if people witnessed divine intervention to witness unto them that Brigham Young was the next prophet. And so, I'm curious as to how you received your testimony. Is it based off the spirit witnessing to you the truth, or off of history which may or may not be true? (just like the lamanites, because they were taught by their fathers, absolutely incorrectly believed that Nephi wronged their Laman and Lemuel)

well, whenever i see a 4 page thread, i assume it's usually full of random rants and subjects not relating to the topic, so in my laziness i didn't want to read through all that. but, since your reply, i read through the other RLDS thread. and, it was full of rather pointless discussion on tithing, with very little discussion on the RLDS and people's opinions on it (hence snow created this thread!)in any case, my original post still stands. nobody directly expressed that opinion in either thread, so i don't get your headshaking (and if you mean i should have done a search through the forum archives to find info on the RLDS, then... meh. that's definitely too much work). and fatboy, good point. does anybody understand physics? i have too find out how to find the coefficiant of friction by tomorrow...

since we're expressing opinions, how come nobody's directly expressed the opinion that the RLDS church isn't true, therefore the spirit doesn't manifest itself to people as a witness to its divinity? i mean, who would believe a crazy story about Jospeh Smith if the spirit didn't testify that the LDS church was true? It's just an opinion, nobody get offended.

I'm sure GTA is fun, just like Halo and Unreal and Quake and all that jazz. I actually played it once a long time ago. But we all know, somewhere deep inside, that we really shouldn't play those games, just like we shouldn't watch movies that are full of sex and violence. I mean, it would be very awkward to take the sacrament, covenenting that you'll "always remember" Christ, right after you were playing a game stealing a car, having sex with a prostitute, and then murdering her. Christ commanded us to be perfect as he's perfect, and there's no way anyone can say anything besides to acknowledge that playing a game such as GTA is hindering your progress towards being like the Savior.

bad game. don't play it.

i think those pictures are cheep shots

guitar- martin dm dreadnaught. i want to get some pro tools recording gear soon.