Ray A

Science doesn't attempt to answer theological questions, nor should it, but palaeontologists have a fairly accurate record from fossil evidence, dating the dinosaurs to 230 million years ago. They became extinct about 65 million years ago, but there is still speculation as to how. Contrary to some creationist arguments, there is no evidence that Noah took dinosaur eggs on board the Ark.

Is that you as a baby Mok?

I picked this up on You Tube some time ago, and don't even know who this young lady is, or whether she even posts here, but she has a terrific voice. I was looking for one of my long time favourite LDS hymns, "How Gentle God's Commands", and found it: YouTube - "How Gentle God's Commands."-A Hymn, sung by Camille. :]

I don't think anyone argued that, Kona, if so, I stand corrected. Maybe that's because it's a discussion board, and we don't have a life

The point here is not what a fundamentalist Baptist "would say", the point is whether the film is historically inaccurate. You'll have to forgive me for constantly giving links, because there are so many criticisms of the film, and not just from those with an antipathy to Catholics. This reviewer (yes, he's a Christian too) actually begins by defending Gibson: Then goes on to write: http://www.afterlife.co.nz/articles_and_reviews/passion_review.html The criticism about historical inaccuracy has been there from the start. If a Mormon film maker made a movie about Christ's appearance in the Americas, how do you think the public will receive that? When Gibson makes a movie with "strong Catholic influences" no one complains (except the critics and movie reviewers), maybe because there are only 13 million Mormons, but 1 billion Catholics? Maybe you don't see any comparison. Or what would the public response be if a Mormon movie-maker highlighted the suffering in Gethsemane, but not the cross? Weird, some would say, because the popular belief is that Christ's main suffering was on the cross, not in Gethsemane. That is not what Mormons believe. And I've already said I have no objection to that - the purely emotional feelings. I found Jesus Christ Superstar very moving, but maybe it's because I like Andrew Lloyd Webber's music, and think he's a musical genius.

Here is one LDS response to this question: Mormon Answers (LDS FAQ): Questions about Science and Mormon Views (Mormonism) Jeff Lindsay, though, incorrectly describes evolution as a "chance" process.

Here is a link worth reading, and it will give you a better idea about why the movie generated so much discussion and controversy: Mel Gibson Movie Passion of Christ

So far I haven't seen any convincing evidence that the BoM actually occurred, and that's looking at it purely from a "scientific" viewpoint, or examining the statements of archaeologists qualified in this field. I don't know of even one who accepts this, and there are even some Mormon archaeologists who don't accept it. Does that make the BoM untrue, or false, for me? No. I believe there is sufficient internal evidence to accept it as both divine and inspired. It was Einstein who stated that "God does not play dice". Later it was discovered through quantum mechanics that he does. Just an anaolgy.

They do, because there's enough hard evidence that the Vikings left when they landed. Norse colonization of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree. I'm only pointing out that some claims are wrong, and the idea that the Nephites were the "principal ancestors" of the America Indians has been shown to be wrong. The Church has acknowledged this by changing the wording.

D&C 117:8:

Those are quite good comments. The fact is, as many posters here have also said, regardless of Gibson's outbursts, he's done much good. I defer to majority opinion in this case. He's an exceptional actor and movie-maker, no one can dispute that. If the movie moved millions to more faith, and a better understanding of the atonement of Christ, and no anti-Semitic incidents resulted from it - then all power to Gibson's movie. I like movies to be as factual as possible IF they claim to be based on actual history, and my understanding is that this is the claim that was made (I do believe I read that), and the subtitles were in Aramaic to give this impression of dead accuracy. On that count the movie failed.

If you're trying to access MADB through ex-Mormon sites or even NOM it won't work. They have banned such sites from accessing them. Here's another suggestion which may be a wild card. Go to the MABD link at FAIR and click on that: http://www.fairlds.org/links.html That link won't be blocked. I think it may be that someone who uses your ISP may have been banned from MADB. In that case contacting an Admin at MADB is the only way to undo it.

Really, PC? Well here is the word of God I believe in, 2 Nephi 29: Is God "anti-Semitic"?

Continued:

Continued:

Okay, I'll post it in two sections:

Some comments to consider: LDS.org - Ensign Article____

You can't discuss the film without discussing the creator and producer, and the motivations behind it. The anti-Semitism debates have followed this film like flies following a garbage truck, or eagles gathering where the carcass is, because one has to discuss the motivations behind the film. Leaving this out would be like discussing the creation of the earth, as long as we leave God out of it. It could have all been an accident, but maybe there was a purpose?

I think your post is well-meaning, but seriously, is someone converted by a Hollywood movie likely to last the distance? A person would become more informed by reading Talmadge's Jesus The Christ, than by watching Mel's version of Christianity. There's far more to Christianity than nails penetrating flesh, and raw emotion. Anyone with an ounce of humanity can be moved by this, but how many will translate that into real sacrifice? It may well be a start. It may well inspire many. And it may well be a good thing in many aspects if it sparks thought. But will this translate into real change? Or just a pity for someone who died a heroic death? Did it change Mel? Seems not, but his bank account became MUCH healthier because of this.

I know of no revelation explaining this process. I do know of many scriptural mis-interpretations. D&C 101: All else is speculation, and some speculation can be harmful to faith. I presume "no man", includes you?

Note that the Book of Mormon Intro has been changed: BYU NewsNet - Church Announces Change in Book of Mormon Intro

I think this point is worth considering. First of all, according to Mormon doctrine, Christ's most poignant suffering was not on the cross, but in the Garden of Gethsemane, where he sweat "great drops of blood" (D&C 19). Second, why would anyone become a "voyeur" (excuse the harshness) to his nailing on the cross? The Garden was a private moment, which not even the sleeping apostles witnessed, but later recorded, possibly by revelation. I would think that this is something personal, and if revealed at all, will be done to individuals, not on Hollywood screens produced by Mel Gibson. That almost desecrates what is holy. And then to blame the Jews for this (and Christ was a Jew, who asked forgiveness of his persecutors), seems almost bizzare.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. If continental drift did not occur until the time of Christ, with massive upheavals, then how does that explain the rapid drift at the time of Noah? At least according to some speculation.

There are different interpretations about how the earth was "divided":