Traveler

I’m slowly starting to see how you think Traveler. From your quote I’m guessing you believe in a multitude of Gods. You believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are really 3 gods. That’s why you find the Trinity so hard to accept, because the Trinity is emphatic about the existence of only one God (remember ehad). The Trinity denies this notion implying that without their unity they could not be G-d and G-d would cease to exist. If I am understanding the statement of yours correctly I would say Yes, that is correct. The Trinity sees God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That God would not exist without all 3 persons of this godhead. In fact the Trinity states that God has always existed as these 3 persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They are God individually and as a unity. They are not 3 separate Gods, they are one God (ehad). M. First I want to say that I am greatly impressed in your effort to understand. You went to a lot of work to learn more about "ehad". Thank you. If you were to study ancient Hebrew you would learn that in the united form “ehad” is plural. It requires that there are many. You can be happy sometimes and sad other. You can be strong at times and week at other. Your person can be expressed in many different ways. That is because you personality has different expressions. But all these expressions come together in you as a single individual. The expression for this kind of coming together in ancient Hebrew is “yahed”. “Yahed” is the singular expression of many different parts in one soul. This is why I have attempted to express that the Trinity has been putting a round peg in a squar hole for 2000 years and saying that it fits. But the scripture does not tell us G-d is “yahed”. The scriptures say G-d is “ehad” which means many working together. “Yahed” is many parts of something that is a single thing. The bottom line is that the scriptures just do not say what you have been lead to believe. Have you ever tried to convince someone of truth when they want to believe the lie? They will treat every truth that fits with contempt and embrace any deception that justifies the lie. When you (or anyone) are borne of the of the spirit or borne of G-d then it is said that you are “one” with G-d. Jesus prayed that all that followed him would be “one” in this manner and he further explained that he and the Father are “one” is this very manner. The next very important notion is that by becoming one with G-d we become like G-d. Usually if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is logical to assume that it is a duck and not a tree. If something is like G-d why would it not be true to say it is a G-d? If G-d created all things and can do anything - why would he not create G-ds? Because G-d is evil? Because if there were many there could not be “ehad” and would fight among themselves? Think! If G-d can create a “ehad” with mankind that has fallen and fights among themselves by nature - could not G-ds be “ehad” that are loving, kind, full of grace and service and willing to lay down their life for the benefit of others be “ehad”. If there can only be a singular G-d then there cannot be a G-d because G-d by definition can do anything. If there are no other G-ds then either there is a lack of power which means he is not really G-d or he is selfish and will not share, which is not the nature of a loving G-d. The Traveler

Again I would point out that the unity of husband and wife is not one single body. There are two bodies of flesh. In fact they still have their own separate DNA. The color of their eyes does not change nor does the color of their skin. Their "UNITY" is not "yahed" it is "ehad".And now you have another word to look up - good luck. I think you would have better luck talking to a Rabbi or University professor that teaches ancient Hebrew. Once you understand the meaning of “yahed” you will understand how the doctrine of the Trinity extends the definitions to incorrect meanings taking advantages of translations and differences of language. The Traveler

I looked up the word “ehad”, just to make sure Traveler knew what he was talking about because sometimes I think he’s from another planet. From what I found (which was difficult), ehad means one as in singular or one as in unity. This statement of Traveler’s is strange: If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds. I totally disagree! It does not in any way mean multiple. In fact the word ehad when referring to God validates the Trinity, because Trinity is describing a Tri-unity. The 3 persons of the Godhead are a unity and exist together as one God. For example, this explanation: III. Unity of Multiple Entities Viewed as One The Bible gives us models or examples of heavenly things (cf. Hosea 12:10) to help us in understanding heavenly and divine concepts. It is God’s way of helping us to visualize heavenly concepts. By understanding the earthly example, we can transfer that understanding to the related heavenly concept, and, thus, come away with a better understanding of the heavenly concept. One example of this biblical modeling can be seen with the use of the Hebrew word “ehad” used in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (NKJ) This Hebrew word, used in this passage to describe the singularity and uniqueness of God, is the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:24, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (NKJ). Here we have an example of two entities, that is, a man and wife, coming together and forming one entity. Each is a separate person and can function separately, but their union in marriage is to create a oneness. Here we have a model presented to us that can be used to help us understand the concept of the Trinity, that is, three “persons” comprising one divine substance, that of God. Obviously, the union of the husband and wife is not a perfect union into one, but it does give us an insight into the heavenly concept of the Trinity pointing to “one” being a perfect divine union of three. http://www.foundationsforourfaith.com/trinity.htm M. As I said there are two definitions of "ehad". You are correct in the plural definition. It is a definition of plural unity. This is very much one of the correct definitions. A unity does not imply a single element but a common unity of multiple separate distinctly different units. The concept of difference also implies not equal. Which is exactly what Jesus meant when he said he is less than his Father. But the Trinity implies that they are equal - one not being greater than the other. Also note that on several occasions the scriptures refer to a plurality of G-ds with one acting as leader - with phrases such as "let US make man in OUR image". Also there is not a single reference to “Person” the Father, “Person” the Son and “Person” the Holy Ghost. The reference is G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost. The stand of LDS is that there us a unity of G-ds. That because of the fall there is only one G-d, G-d the Son, that is the mediator. Meaning there is only one single G-d - G-d the Son that all by himself is the keeper of the way back to the Tree of Life. Without the Son man cannot deal with any other G-d especially the Father. There is nothing of heaven that comes to man except it comes only By the Son. And man will never see the Father except by the Son. I would also point out that in the unity of the G-d head is okay for the Son to be a G-d and understood as a differentiable distinctively different G-d. Likewise the Father is G-d even without the Son is still G-d. “Ehad” only tells us that they are united in their cause but that each by themself is G-d. The Trinity denies this notion implying that without their unity they could not be G-d and G-d would cease to exist. The Traveler

I have not had time to read all the post so I don't know if some points were covered are not. First I would like to explain that ancient Hebrew did not understand fractions. What I am attempting to say is that those that followed Satan were not equal to 1/3 of all our Father's spirits. What the one third means is that the society of heaven was divided 3 ways. There was in the society three choices. If the 3 parts were the same size is not understood to ancient Hebrews. Satan's plan was one of the choices. We know that the Father's plan that was backed by Jesus was one of the other choices. The final choice is left to some speculation. I would point out that there are 3 degrees or glories of heaven - I submit that this is no coincidence. Second. There is an assumption of some ignorance. In the light of heaven there was no ignorance. Those that sided with Satan declared war against G-d in full knowledge that it would cost them eternal life with G-d. Third. The war is not over. The battle for heaven has been lost but the war for the souls of mankind continues. The third notion is the most telling part of this war. In this we learn that the actual cause of the war had to do with the souls of man. Without the truth of the restoration most religions would have you think that Satan and his legions risked it all in a hopeless war to keep man from being washed clean of sin. But man was created clean without sin in Eden to begin with. Why would Satan care if man was washed clean of sin or not? Can we really think Satan so stupid to wage war over that? We also know that the sin of Satan is selfishness and pride. This lets us know that he and his followers wanted something and they wanted it for themselves and had no intension of sharing. G-d on the other hand is neither selfish nor prideful. So why is mankind such a focal point for the plan of G-d and the plan of Satan? Because Satan and his followers, in their pride, wanted to ascend to the highest of heaven and have that for themselves alone. They wanted to deny repentance and make heaven exclusive. And that is their beginning of sin that they will not let go. Alma tells us we must be striped of our pride. The pride that makes us think we are better and deserve more than someone else. Can Satan and his legions repent? This question is completely wrong - the real question we should ask ourselves is can we repent and be striped of pride? The Traveler

All I asked is for an example of such an institution that does not provide lip service but allows their neighbors to worship as they expect them to allow them to worship. I asked if you could provide evidence of such a society between the years 329 AD and 1649 AD. Having observed your responses - the only conclusion that appears rational to me is that you are not Christian and have no intention of helping me. This is based on your insistence that I have said things that I have not said and calling me insane for asking for a demonstration of true Christianity during that time according to what you say is a Christian.Yes I am LDS but before I consider something else I believe a true Christian will demonstrate a more excellent way. This you have not done. The Traveler

Lets look at Mountain meadows. Was it the exception or the rule? Was it according to doctrine of the institution of LDS or was it counter to the Doctrine and published declarations of the LDS institution? Was it a practice of the Majority of LDS or an localized minority? If you believe the LDS institution was responsible for Mountain Meadows then tell me what protestant religious institutions are responsible for the KKK.As for the Utah war? What did the institution of the LDS Church do that convinces you that it was wrong and that those that declared the war were Christian in doing so? Here is my point. There were no followers of Jesus Christ for over 1000 years (392 AD to 1649 AD.) Jesus said where 2 or more gather in his name there is love. Tell me when was the first time a Trinitarian society passed a law to allow a non Trinitarian to practice their religion without risking to their life. Was there a society of Christian Monks or something the sheltered non-Trinitarians? Where did 2 gather in the name of Jesus during the more than 1000 years 392 - 1649? If Jesus taught a true doctrine - why can institutions change his doctrine, ordinances and organization and call themselves Christian? But the question I want to know the answer to more than anything else - What institution do you claim to be an institution to preserve all that Jesus taught. Who rightfully maintains the title of Christian today and throughout history? The Traveler

In this enlightened day and age, one would think so, but in reality it is alive and well and growing strong on ChristianForums. B) I wonder if something is being missed here. The question is why was there ever an inquisition or if it has been done away with. If the inquisition is counter to the doctrine and teaching of Jesus how can we say that Christian institutions were involved? Can we all agree that Christianity was not being practiced or taught by the institutions that gave us the inquisition? If the inquisition is acceptable to Christians - Why has the practice ended? Clearly it cannot be both ways - it is eather part of the kingdom of G-d or it is part of the Kingdom that opposes G-d. The finel question is by what authority was the inquisition practiced? and by what authorty was it altered and changed? The Traveler

QUOTE 1. The Trinity denies the Fall of man. Meaning that in the fall man was excommunicated from G-d the Father. Wrong! ?????? Please explain - If it is possible for man to come unto the Father by an name change of the Father or the father pretending to be someone else then man has not fallen. If man can approach the Father or has ever approached the Father since the fall of Adam then there was no real fall. Are you telling me that it is the Doctrine of the Trinity that Man has had no interface of any kind of contact with the Father since the fall? That it is the Son of G-d and only the Son that deals with man throughout all Scripture since the fall? QUOTE 2. The Trinity denies that Jesus is the only mediator and intercessor for man with the Father. Wrong! ???? With who did Moses deal with according to the doctrine of the Trinity? The Father or the Son? QUOTE 3. The Trinity denies the Christ - that he is the G-d of the Old Testament that presented himself to man in the ““Name”” of the Father. Because he represents the Father in the name of the Father the Trinity doctrine denies that he can take upon himself the name of the Father - Therefore they claim man (Moses, Abraham and others) needs no mediator but that the G-d of the Old Testament was the Father. Wrong! It does just the opposite. ????Really? What person of the G-d head did Moses receive the 10 commandments from? QUOTE 4. The Trinity denies the scriptures in their most pure Hebrew from. In all cases of the ancient Hebrew where the scriptures speak of ““one”” G-d the Hebrew word ““ehad”” is used. ““Ehad”” has two meanings. The first is the counting meaning of one. If this is what is meant it means that in always that we can consider G-d we can only count one. Therefore G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost is three and for any Christian that believes in the G-dhead they know that the singular meaning of G-d is incorrect. The second meaning of ““ehad”” is the plural united meaning, such as when a man and women become one (ehad) flesh through marriage. If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds. A concept denied by the Trinity doctrine. Therefore in all cases for defining ““ehad”” G-d the Trinity doctrine denies any possibility presented in scripture. I am not familiar with the word "ehad", but considering you got 1 to 3 wrong I wouldn't be surprised if this one is way off too. The is a very important notion. Your ignorance here, on this point is one possible reason that you has such great misunderstanding on the other points. QUOTE 5. No prophet ancient or Modern has ever endorsed the Trinity doctrine. In addition no ancient documents prior to the Creeds where the Trinity doctrine was invented has the doctrine been presented. Only by wild speculation of interpretations by man is the Trinity established. Only in your opinion. As I have read translation of the original documents from which the Trinity Doctrine came - In particular the Nicene Creed. It is stated specifically that the reason for creation of the creed is because the Scriptures were not sufficient. I want you to think on that notion as I ask this next question. Can you supply any documentation that indicates any Christian apologist tied the Doctrine of the Trinity directly to specific scripture prior to 600 AD. Would you please supply that Christian apologist and their reference. The reason I ask the above question is because it is my opinion - and I would dearly love to be corrected by some historical document. As near as I can determine the Trinity doctrine being supported by scripture is fabrication of modern times because of criticisms that has arisen. And that the connection of scripture is only established by variant readings based on speculations in interpretations and translations. For example: discovery of ancient commentary such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other finds indicate that interpretations used today by Trinitarians was not part of the ancient tapestry of understanding. Can you provide any historical documentation to demonstrate otherwise. All I ask is that you back up your prejudice with some historical reference. Thanks The Traveler

Just some thought about the Trinity. 1. The Trinity denies the Fall of man. Meaning that in the fall man was excommunicated from G-d the Father. 2. The Trinity denies that Jesus is the only mediator and intercessor for man with the Father. 3. The Trinity denies the Christ - that he is the G-d of the Old Testament that presented himself to man in the “Name” of the Father. Because he represents the Father in the name of the Father the Trinity doctrine denies that he can take upon himself the name of the Father - Therefore they claim man (Moses, Abraham and others) needs no mediator but that the G-d of the Old Testament was the Father. 4. The Trinity denies the scriptures in their most pure Hebrew from. In all cases of the ancient Hebrew where the scriptures speak of “one” G-d the Hebrew word “ehad” is used. “Ehad” has two meanings. The first is the counting meaning of one. If this is what is meant it means that in always that we can consider G-d we can only count one. Therefore G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost is three and for any Christian that believes in the G-dhead they know that the singular meaning of G-d is incorrect. The second meaning of “ehad” is the plural united meaning, such as when a man and women become one (ehad) flesh through marriage. If this meaning is used it implies that there are by definition multiple G-ds. A concept denied by the Trinity doctrine. Therefore in all cases for defining “ehad” G-d the Trinity doctrine denies any possibility presented in scripture. 5. No prophet ancient or Modern has ever endorsed the Trinity doctrine. In addition no ancient documents prior to the Creeds where the Trinity doctrine was invented has the doctrine been presented. Only by wild speculation of interpretations by man is the Trinity established. The Traveler

The goal of creation is motivated by love, compassion and service. There would be no purpose in a world if it was not an act of incredible service by its creator. Creating a world for fun or making yourself look or fell powerful is not at all what defines the true G-d that created our universe and that we should be striving to become like.The Traveler

My last daughter is going through today - which is the same day. About 30 family members are gathering to go with her on her first session and welcome her and her husband to be in the Celestial room. She has always been Daddy little girl and one of my best river guides. Talk about empty - our 7 bedroom home is left to just my wife and I.The Traveler

Thank you for your interest. It is my belief that the book of Isaiah is exactly the rerun of earth history that you may be interested in. Avraham Gileadi (a converted Jewish Rabbi) has interesting insight in this matter (a history of the beginning to the end - see Isaiah 46:10) he divides Isaiah as follows:I. Ruin and Rebirth - Chapters 1-5; 34-35 II. Rebellion and Compliance - Chapters 6-8; 36-40 III. Punishment and Deliverance - Chapters 9-12; 41:1 - 46:13 IV. Humiliation and Exaltation - Chapters 13-23; 46:13 - 47:15 V. Suffering and Salvation - Chapters 24-27; 48-54 VI. Disloyalty and Loyalty - Chapters 28-31; 55-59 VII Disinheritance and Inheritance - Chapters 32-33; 60-66 Note two things: First that there is a way outlined for the righteous and the wicked. Second is that the entire history is given twice. (See Genesis 41:32) The Traveler

Ancienty the name of G-d was altered to keep it sacred. I alter references as part of a personal covenant to keep his name sacred.The Traveler

Mankind cannot survive without bringing children into the world. I would point out there is a great difference between sacrifice and selfishness. One cannot pretend to be a “Christian” and not suffer little children. I am not saying all should be forced to suffer children - only real Christian believe it is necessary and understand how caring for children as a parent provides knowledge of our Father in Heaven. The Traveler

"1. From the Book of Enoch - One of the prime reasons for the destruction of Antediluvian Society is that societies acceptance and support of same sex marriage." Not sure that's a plain and precious truth. It may be so, but there's enough in the Bible to understand that God does not approve of same sex relationships of any kind. Sorry we may understand he does not approve that is a vast difference in destroying an entire society. I do not think that is in the Bible - nice try. "2. DSS "The Son of God" scroll - That the Son of G-d is a separate G-d from G-d the Father of Heaven." Hey, I'd actually like the reference for that. Thank you "3. Missing words in Samuel. Spiritual blindness is the result of disobedience to covenants." Im pretty darn sure you can find that elsewhere in the Bible. I know another reference that is close but it is not as straight forward. "4. Text changes in Isaiah - indicates man cannot see G-d the Father but can see the Son." Hey...uh....wouldn't that actually invalidate Joseph Smith's "First Vision"? Actually it does not because the Son acts as mediator to make it possible. "5. Testaments of the Patriarchs. The great Gentile prophet of the Last Days will be a High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek." I'd like that reference too. Your welcome. "Can you name a doctrine or ordinance agreed by all claiming to be Christian that has no disputes on how it should be interpreted and understood?" Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and love thy neighbor as thyself. Why did the Pilgrims come to America? Who drove the LDS from the United States - Moslems? There were no Christians that owned Slaves in America? When was the first law passed by Christians that would allow an non-Christian to not be put to death under the law for not being Christian? The Traveler

A response from a 5th generation LDS. I believe because of manifestations of the spirit concerning the fall - the G-d head - the atonement - and the resurrection. I have yet to find a more complete fath that embraces all truth and provides a vessel to hold all of it - including science and yet still inspires more devotion and service to G-d and our fellow man.The Traveler

As a side note to this discussion. It is my opinion that most of the weeping on judgement day will not be from the poor souls that did not receive any of G-d's grace - but a large number of those that did receive his grace when they find out all who received G-ds grace. The Traveler

It has already been stated - what is necessary depends of the blessing expected. One cannot expect any blessings when they are not willing to convenant with G-d. I see nothing in the scrptures to indicate that a part covenant is acceptable for justification. In Matt 5:48 it says to be "Perfect". Many do not understand that the ancient meaning of "Perfect" could be better understood as "Complete". Complete meant to seek G-d's will in all things. I submit it is the will of G-d that mankind enter into mariage that will bring children into the world (replinish human life). One last thought - One does not acomplish things that are great without great effort. The Traveler

Since you did not want any references but only the missing doctrine:1. From the Book of Enoch - One of the prime reasons for the destruction of Antediluvian Society is that societies acceptance and support of same sex marriage. 2. DSS "The Son of God" scroll - That the Son of G-d is a separate G-d from G-d the Father of Heaven. 3. Missing words in Samuel. Spiritual blindness is the result of disobedience to covenants. 4. Text changes in Isaiah - indicates man cannot see G-d the Father but can see the Son. 5. Testaments of the Patriarchs. The great Gentile prophet of the Last Days will be a High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek. This is by no means all from the plane and precious truths in missing Bible Scriptures I have provided more than the one you asked for. Sorry you are not more versed in the recent discovery of ancient manuscripts and that you stumble over the possibility that something important is missing. How else can you explain such large scale disagreement on the entire spectrum of Christian Doctrine. Let me ask one question in return. Can you name a doctrine or ordinance agreed by all claiming to be Christian that has no disputes on how it should be interpreted and understood? The Traveler

Few know or understand much of Baal and associated corruption or pollution of Baal worship on true faith. Especially as the worship of Baal relates to the “Last Days”. Anciently the worship of Baal lost more soles of the house of Israel than any other temptation I am aware of. There was this notion that one could be involved with the worship of Baal and still be a good Jew. Ever wonder why that notion persisted? It had to do with the manner and methods in which Baal was worshiped. The temple where the worship of Baal took place was actually a theater. Worshipers would come to the temple, pay an admission and find a seat to watch a dramatic presentation of the saga of Baal. The saga begins with his birth. Baal’s mother was a mortal woman and his father was “El” the Father of Heaven. Does this story sound a little familiar It should, this half man half g-d, son of the Father G-d appears in many ancient places. Hercules, Zoroaster, Beowulf, to name some legendary characters and Alexander the Great to name a historical character - and of course Jesus Christ. One of the reason I point this out for the reader is so that we can understand the concept of the son of g-d as a savior was not new with Jesus Christ - the idea is a very old one. Remember, the worship of Baal goes all the way back in the Bible to the Tower of Babylon and Nimrod. Funny how the Son of G-d as the Messiah has turned up missing from the Old Testament we have today and few even wonder why. Anyway let us press on. Baal is depicted as a really cool likeable guy. He is strong, good looking and especially popular with the girls. But there is one special girl in his life - Her name is Annath. And just if your interested she is one hot babe - the perfect match for Baal. Now back to our story. Baal is not a Satan worshiper, in fact he is the opposite. Satan in this story is Mot the g-d of the underworld. He has a friend, Yaman who is the g-d of the Sea. These two join together and form an unbeatable army of demons and monsters from the underworld and the Sea. Mot and Yaman are big time bad guys that are going to take over the world and rule with chaos. Note that the ancient meaning of chaos and the biblical perdition is very similar. Baal finds out about this plot and decides he is the only one that has a chance to stop Mot and Yaman - but he needs some help. Baal turns to his Father El, that tells Baal he must face Mot and Yaman without his Father but Baal is given a gift from his father. He is given thunder and lightning which he can use to kill from great distances. With thunder and lighting Baal also has control of the weather. Interesting that the son of g-d has control over weather. Baal goes off to confront Mot and Yaman as a surprise but he is betrayed by a trusted friend and is ambushed instead. A hard battle ensues and Baal is seriously wounded. Wonder why Peter thought there would be a fight when Jesus was taken? Sorry back to Baal - the weather goes out of control and Baal is left for dead. Annath finds Baal in the storm and realizes he is still alive. She takes him home and takes care of him through a long dark stormy night. During the night all mankind is gathered for one last battle, including old men, women and children. The next day they will fight to the last person which does not really matter because Mot and Yaman plan to kill all humans anyway. The next day a great battle takes place - mankind make a noble stand but are seriously outnumbered and outmatched. Finely man is surrounded and all is lost. But at that last moment a recovered Baal appears with his thunder and lighting and the tide of battle is turned with an awful display of violence against the bad guys. Mot and Yaman’s armies are destroyed and they escape with just their lives - banished forever to the Sea and underworld. With the battle over there is a great celebration and everyone gets drunk and there is a gigantic orgy. And of course Annath and Baal have their celebration as well. The whole thing is quite fun except for some R rated seens of violence and sex it is an otherwise exciting production. Oh I almost forgot for a small fee you could pick up some silver and gold action figures of Baal and Annath in the lobby on your way out to take home. Yup, the worship of Baal was quite popular in ancient times. But why was it such a problem to covenant Israel? Much of the problem has to do with improper interpretation of scripture. For example Exod. 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other g-ds before me”. Some think that the “before me” is a ordered statement meaning that G-d should always be first. But the Hebrew phrase “al panai” actually means before my face or in my presence. What it means is that is you come into the presents of G-d (or his spirit - being spiritually born again) you will not be allowed if you attempt to bring with you any other g-ds. Also the Hebrew word to serve (Exodus 20:5) means to spend time with or resources on or to set your heart upon. Once gold and silver is polluted by being formed into false g-ds it is an abomination that must be burned with fire (Deut. 7:25) Also note that anything that is polluted by this false worship of Baal must be destroyed (Deut 7:4-5). Now ask yourself this question - Why must the world be cleaned by burning in the “Last Days” before Savior can come the second time? Could it be that the world and the homes of some good Christians (LDS) will be filled with videos, pictures and magazines of a latter day Baal? Do you “serve” a false g-d of R or some PG rated pornography (Great and Abominable Church) that will prevent you from being in the presents of G-d? (See Deut 7:26) The Traveler

Nidk: I am LDS and I have respect for evolution and the Big Bang theory. I also understand that Science does not have all the answers. Such as why the Big Bang went off Late - there is far too much matter and energy in the universe to be contained - The Big Bang could have created a much smaller universe - and why is there no evidence of containment. BTW - What's up with the "Big Attractor"? Just dark matter and maybe dark energy? I just believe that G-d is not what cannot be explained. I think that he is our father is important to understand. You appear to have a good mind just don't fall over trying to miss the cracks in the sidewalk - There is so much more to see - if you are going to stumble because your mind is somewhere else stumble over kindness to your enemies. The Traveler

I assume any society that surrounds G-d in heaven is both enlightened and advanced. You disagree with this logic? - if so would you indicate why?I agree that the LDS concept of a pre-existence presents new questions that cannot be answered with old thinking. Perhaps you would share your opinion concerning Lucifer (Meaning one bringing Light) could turn to darkness and convince many to follow. I find no reference from scripture or anywhere else to imply that they did it because they were stupid. If they were not stupid - what intelligent objection could they have worth going to war with G-d? The Traveler

I do not think you are LDS so I am not sure you will understand the relationship between the "Great and Abomnimal Chruch" and "Babylon the Great" (Revelation 17:5) .In my post I intended to show the correlation - Sorry I was not clear enough on that point for you. The Traveler

"Sorry I am not around to answer more and I will be gone for a while - kind of a busy time. The G & A C was responsible for removing "plain and precious" truths from the scriptures." Name one? - I will gladly name a few. 1. The full Book of Enoch - a part of which is quoted in the Book of Jude verses 14-16 2. The Dead Sea Scroll (4Q246) titled “The Son of God” 3. 49 Hebrew words missing between the last verse of Chapter 10 and the first verse of chapter 11 of 1 Samuel. 4. Text Changes in Isaiah 38:11 5. The Gentile prophet of the Last Days as described in the Testaments of the Patriarchs. "Most of this was accomplished by 100 AD and there really was not a Catholic Church at that time." Yes there was a Catholic Church. It was founded by this dude from Nazareth.... Sorry I missed the scripture where Jesus ordained a “Pope”, or “Cardinals”. Apostles I can find but not the structure or organization of the Catholic Church as it appears today. "Recent finds in Caesarea indicate that by 75 AD scriptures were being systematically altered." Source please? - Tom Newman - retired archeological chair Harvard University "We know through the Dead Sea Scriptures that the pure parts of the scriptures were still in tact (Old Testament) up to about 73 - 74 AD." Don't you mean Dead Sea Scrolls? - No I mean the Dead Sea Scriptures. Among the Scrolls that were discovered are scriptures - All of the Old Testament except for one book. Do you not consider the Old Testament Scripture? These documents are the most accurate text found to date - I believe they should be recognized as sacred. "There should be some overlap as scriptures were hidden up to be preserved. As a matter of fact, I believe there are several relevant scriptures found among the DSS that give understanding. Those that have followed the attempts to keep certain DSS from the public realize that all 50 of them play at least a small part in scriptures being removed from the public." Care to share an example? - Again there are 50 to name just a few 1.The Messiah of Heaven and Earth (4Q521) 2.The Messianic Leader (4Q285) 3. Servants of Darkness (4Q471) 4. The Tree of Evil (4Q458) 5. The Angels of Mastemoth and the Rule of Belial (4Q390) "I am sure that the G & A C has been around a long time. 2000 years ago it united leaders from several religious organizations to alter scriptures and is still effective today in keeping many confused and from the truth when the scriptures are rediscovered or restored." Let me see: Illumaniti, Trilateral Commission, Freemasonry....name your conspiracy. The Hellenist - Debates concerning Grace vs works. Peter the keeper of Heavens gate vs Mot and the scales of Mot. G-d is unknowable. Just to name a few ideas coming from the Hellenistic conspiracy. "If one studies the methods and worship of Baal much more becomes clear. Perhaps the next chance I get I would post more about Baal and the interesting method of burning to clean away this particular effect before society can operate ““cleanly””." Oh, please do. - Later when I have some time. Perhaps you would not mind starting the thread by telling us what you know about Baal, who he was and his role in the scheme of things. The Traveler

Sorry I am not around to answer more and I will be gone for a while - kind of a busy time. The G & A C was responsible for removing "plain and precious" truths from the scriptures. Most of this was accomplished by 100 AD and there really was not a Catholic Church at that time. Recent finds in Caesarea indicate that by 75 AD scriptures were being systematically altered. We know through the Dead Sea Scriptures that the pure parts of the scriptures were still in tact (Old Testament) up to about 73 - 74 AD. There should be some overlap as scriptures were hidden up to be preserved. As a matter of fact, I believe there are several relevant scriptures found among the DSS that give understanding. Those that have followed the attempts to keep certain DSS from the public realize that all 50 of them play at least a small part in scriptures being removed from the public. I am sure that the G & A C has been around a long time. 2000 years ago it united leaders from several religious organizations to alter scriptures and is still effective today in keeping many confused and from the truth when the scriptures are rediscovered or restored. If one studies the methods and worship of Baal much more becomes clear. Perhaps the next chance I get I would post more about Baal and the interesting method of burning to clean away this particular effect before society can operate “cleanly”. The Traveler