How soon is Jesus coming?


Chilean
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

It is hard to say what needs to happen before the Second Coming and what will happen during the millenium

Another sign is that the gospel will be taught in all nations.  We are a really long way from that; though a lot closer than we were 100 years ago!

Brigham Young (and I'm not saying that I agree with him) said that the Jews were the most wicked people on earth and will be the last to be converted.  If this is true, than Israel will be the last nation where the gospel will be taught.  I don't know how much to focus on Brigham Young's statements though.  As far as I know, he is the only Church leader who predicted who the last people to be converted will be.   

Here is a list of countries where the gospel has not been taught (population wise, this is a majority of the world's population):

Afghanistan
Algeria
Anguilla
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Bhutan
British Virgin Islands
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Burma
Chad
China (missionaries have preached in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan)
Comoros
Cuba
Djibouti
East Timor
Eritrea
Equatorial Guinea
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands. (There were at least two official full time missionaries in the Faroe Islands in 1958)
Gambia
Greenland
Guinea-Bissau
Iraq
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Libya
Liechtenstein
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Monaco
Morocco
Nepal
Niger
Norfolk Island
North Korea
Oman
Pitcairn Islands
Qatar
San Marino
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vatican City
Wallis and Futuna
Yemen

Here is a list of countries that the (modern) gospel was taught at one time, but is no longer being taught:

Israel/Palestine 

Iran

Laos

Lebanon

Syria

Russia is a unique case.   Preaching there is now illegal, even by Russians.  I believe meetings can still be held by existing members though.  If the Church can't recruit more numbers, with the existing wards and branches still thrive or die out over time?  Only time will tell and the situation can change at any time.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scott said:

Another sign is that the gospel will be taught in all nations.  We are a really long way from that; though a lot closer than we were 100 years ago!

Brigham Young (and I'm not saying that I agree with him) said that the Jews were the most wicked people on earth and will be the last to be converted.  If this is true, than Israel will be the last nation where the gospel will be taught.  I don't know how much to focus on Brigham Young's statements though.  As far as I know, he is the only Church leader who predicted who the last people to be converted will be.   

Here is a list of countries where the gospel has not been taught (population wise, this is a majority of the world's population):

 

 

Officially or unofficially.

Unofficially the gospel has been BROUGHT (if not taught openly as it would be against the law in some of those nations) to them already.  There have been several that were called/instructed on bearing the gospel to many of those countries, though because it cannot be proselytized or taught, they were to be more of an example of how Members were and to build up the church as they could within the confines of the law in those nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, the fact that the church is not stablished with ward or branches and stakes in those countries and the are no full time missionaries, doesn't mean that people in those countries are not being taught the Gospel (formally or by example).

I've heard of members of the church getting converted here in the States and going back to their home-countries to teach the Gospel to their friends and families.

I think the Gospel is being taught everywhere by member-missionaries. (And the internet is becoming a great tool to preach and teach the Gospel).

The fact that a Temple is gonna be build in India it's a great deal, as only 0.0001 % (something along those decimals) of the population in India are members of the church. Makes you think, probably between now and the dedication of that temple many will be converted as you need people with temple recommend (tithe payers, faithful members) to go to worship in the temple. Why to have a temple in a country where no one is a member? Probably because from now to then many will be converted.

The temple in Thailand will also help convert people in Thailand and surrounding countries.

Member missionary work is so important as 70% of world population has no access to fulltime missionaries.  

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-pearson-independent-voices-needed-sustain-faith

 

Edited by Chilean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Unofficially the gospel has been BROUGHT (if not taught openly as it would be against the law in some of those nations) to them already. 

Quote

Exactly, the fact that the church is not stablished with ward or branches and stakes in those countries and the are no full time missionaries, doesn't mean that people in those countries are not being taught the Gospel (formally or by example).

I've heard of members of the church getting converted here in the States and going back to their home-countries to teach the Gospel to their friends and families.

 

That may be true of some of those countries, but almost certainly not all of them. 

Expanding on the sign, it says that the gospel will be taught to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. 

If the part about teaching the gospel to all kindred and tongues is literal, Papua New Guinea alone has 832 distinct known languages.  Since most of those groups are very isolated, it would take a long time to teach those peoples unless missionaries are all granted the gift of tongues.  

Right now there are a lot of groups we probably shouldn't preach the gospel to.  Isolated tribes in places like Papua New Guinea, Irian Jaya, Andaman Islands, or the Amazon have no exposure or immunity to diseases that are carried by outsiders.  Obviously the Lord can change this when he sees fit, but as of right now contact with those tribes could wipe them out.  It probably isn't a good idea to preach to someone who's entire people (including their future generations) could be wiped out by contact with missionaries, rather official or unofficial. 

Contacting some of these tribes would easily lead to disaster.   When one of the Nukaak Maku tribes (rainforest in Colombia) was first contacted in 2003, most of the tribe quickly succumbed to disease.  It is estimated that only 25 of them survived.  

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, FoolsMock said:

Are you referring to the persecution of the Nephites who believed in Christ near the end of the Book of Helaman leading up the sign of Christ's birth? I find it fascinating how the philosophies of the anti-Christs during that time period line up so well with the view points of  today's non-believers in Christ.  And it seems every year it becomes less and less acceptable in the world's eyes for The Church to believe in the things we believe

 

I would share a small portion of my testimony and witness of the Book of Mormon.  There is not another book quite like the Book of Mormon.  Some Latter-day Saints want to label the Book of Mormon as historical.  I believe that is the single most critical mistake of any one reading of the Book of Mormon.  Rather it is a divinely inspired prophetic vision of the Latter-day Saints of our day and time.  However, divine prophesy cannot be understood by any man without being endowed by the spirit. 

The Book of Mormon operates on so many levels from prophetic guidance for individuals in their moment as well as the entire body of saints.  Thus, from the opening words of Nephi to the closing remarks of Moroni, individuals, families and the entire Church can be inspired and directed – to prepare for personal destiny or knowing the signs of the times beneficial to all.  But there is more – the revelations from becoming familiar with the Book of Mormon will bring greater understanding for all scripture, all records testifying of divine covenants as well as navigating one’s marriage and daily experiences of dealing with one’s fellow men or comprehending the wonders being opened up from our age of science.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Some Latter-day Saints want to label the Book of Mormon as historical.  I believe that is the single most critical mistake of any one reading of the Book of Mormon.  Rather it is a divinely inspired prophetic vision of the Latter-day Saints of our day and time. 

I believe it is both of these things.  A record of what happened among a real people1 - though a record aggregated by Mormon (and Moroni, and quite possibly every writer they aggregated who followed the direction of the Spirit) for the express purpose of accomplishing the latter (guiding the saints of the latter days).

1I believe the writers recorded the bits they felt inspired to record, and which they felt were important and the best way to communicate the points which would benefit a future reader, rather than trying to stick to exact, critical, historic fact - they were communicating the lessons or notions rather than every cold detail (which would have wasted a lot of space for no good reason).  We do this ourselves in relating experiences - we focus on those parts which will accomplish the point of our telling and leave out details we consider irrelevant or confusing - we might even "lie" to avoid confusion while still forming a story which reflects the truth of what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a big proponant of feet on the ground for missionary work in all the world but this has changed my mind:

From Elder Bednar:

Please now listen to the voice of President Spencer W. Kimball, recorded in 1974, as he described the future of missionary work:

"I believe that the Lord is anxious to put into our hands inventions of which we laymen have hardly had a glimpse. …

“With the Lord providing these miracles of communication, and with the increased efforts and devotion of our missionaries and all of us, and all others who are ‘sent,’ surely the divine injunction will come to pass: ‘For, verily, the sound must go forth from this place into all the world, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth—the gospel must be preached unto every creature’ (D&C 58:64)” (“When the World Will Be Converted,” Ensign, Oct. 1974, 10–11).

His talk was basically that of flooding the earth with the gospel - by social media.

Also, I believe the 144,000 go out and finish up the preaching to all nations and the Jerusalem get's the gospel last - When the Savior bails them out.  

As for how close are we - I think very, very close.  The signs are all around us - the work is hastening.  I heard one rumor recently that in part of Europe wards had received a letter about harvest ending soon. President Nelson gave a great talk on Millennials - he said they were called that for a reason.  Another rumor I heard was that a general authority said that each prophet has a purpose and the purpose of President Nelson was to prepare the youth for the 2nd coming.  -  I only spread these rumors because I think there are members that don't give the 2nd coming much thought and thinks 100 plus years away.  I don't know when but wouldn't be shocked if it was in the next 10-20 years and if that is the case we have tribulation, and a lot of things that will be happening.  Just look at the changes going on in the church and that are yet to come - we will become a more zion people as the world becomes wicked.  Pieces are being put in place - it's awesome! 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2018 at 7:14 AM, JohnsonJones said:

For each of us, his second coming will probably not be as important as when we see him again...which for some of us will be sooner than others.  I expect I'll see him sooner than many of you, but that's only because some of us will die before others will and I expect many of you will out live me.  The day that you pass away is the day you might want to be prepared to meet the Lord.

I find it interesting that when the subject of the second coming comes up there are always people who say they don’t want it to come yet because they are not ready for it. I feel that we are not preparing for the second coming but as you said we are preparing for our own meeting with Christ. I believe the second coming may not come in the lifetimes of most people presently living.  It certainly didn’t come to lifetime of anybody already deceased but that timing doesn’t matter as far as our personal worthiness is concerned because we might meet him this afternoon. We need to always be prepared to meet Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, zil said:

I believe it is both of these things.  A record of what happened among a real people1 - though a record aggregated by Mormon (and Moroni, and quite possibly every writer they aggregated who followed the direction of the Spirit) for the express purpose of accomplishing the latter (guiding the saints of the latter days).

1I believe the writers recorded the bits they felt inspired to record, and which they felt were important and the best way to communicate the points which would benefit a future reader, rather than trying to stick to exact, critical, historic fact - they were communicating the lessons or notions rather than every cold detail (which would have wasted a lot of space for no good reason).  We do this ourselves in relating experiences - we focus on those parts which will accomplish the point of our telling and leave out details we consider irrelevant or confusing - we might even "lie" to avoid confusion while still forming a story which reflects the truth of what happened.

 

It is not that I disagree – as much as that I have a different perspective.  In fact, Mormon tells is that his record is not “historic” nor intended to be so.  He does explain that the Nephits kept copious historic records but this record (the Book of Mormon) contains “things” instructed to him by the spirit and not to give an accurate historical account.  I believe that, part of the problem is in concluding what constitutes an accurate “historical record” or even just a historical record.

Perhaps if I provide an example.  If one listens to news on CNBC they would think that an accurate historical record of the last election would outline how president Trump has been plotting and scheming with foreign powers and motivated by money, power and racial prejudice to exploit poor and working classes to make himself richer and more powerful.  But if one was to listen to Fox News they would think that the Democrats are moving to disenfranchise the constitution of the USA, overthrow a lawfully elected president, bring down our republic form of government and create a new global social order.  My point being that even though CNBC and Fox News are both espousing various views or opinions of our time – that it is quite possible that neither are correct in understanding of what is actually historically going on and what actually occurred during our last election.

By definition a “historical” record is unbiased or at least intended to be unbiased.   It is possible that even the most fanciful stories being written or told have some bits and pieces of historical accuracies just from the standpoint that anything written, of necessity, is colored with thoughts and notions that depict a particular time and place.  But it is my understand that just because something was written in a particular time and place – does not make it historical.  And since I realize that within the context of religion that attempting to label anything as historical is a mistake that will create more confusion than establish a platform of understanding.

I do believe that there was a historical civilization that called themselves the Nephites as reflected in the Book of Mormon – what I do not believe is that the Book of Mormon has enough “historically” data accurate enough to get anyone even knowingly within a thousand miles of Zarahemla or any other Nephite historical place.  And that it is even a mistake to think of the Book of Mormon as intended to be such a historical marker for such purposes.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do believe that there was a historical civilization that called themselves the Nephites as reflected in the Book of Mormon – what I do not believe is that the Book of Mormon has enough “historically” data accurate enough to get anyone even knowingly within a thousand miles of Zarahemla or any other Nephite historical place.  And that it is even a mistake to think of the Book of Mormon as intended to be such a historical marker for such purposes.

I think we agree.  "History" can either be a formal, academic discipline with fixed rules; or it can be used colloquially to refer to events from the past which actually happened.

The Book of Mormon is not intended or useful for "formal history" - facts, names, dates, places, etc.  But it is a record of a real people who actually lived and experienced what is described (more or less).  The purpose of the record is not to give a factually correct detailed accounting of their existence, but rather to lead the readers to a true understanding of Christ and his gospel by presenting stories and lessons and testimonies of a culture which tried, or failed to try, to be disciples of Christ - and which culture is presented as a type and shadow of what would happen in the latter days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Scott said:

Another sign is that the gospel will be taught in all nations.  We are a really long way from that; though a lot closer than we were 100 years ago!

 

We may not so far from fulfilling the prophesies you reference as you may think.  The #1 method to gather information in our day and age is by the internet.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has worked very hard to become the primary source of gospel related topics on Google, Yahoo and any other search engine.  There are very few places in the world where missionaries and gospel lessons cannot be contacted through the internet.   I have discussed gospel topics over the internet with individuals in lands where missionaries would not be allowed to physically teach.  I believe it is possible that the internet could be included in the prophetic sign of the gospel being preached in all nations.  This would mean that those waiting and adjusting their expectations around missionaries walking every street in every nation - will not be aware of all possibilities G-d may be utilizing to fulfill his prophetic word.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zil said:

I think we agree.  "History" can either be a formal, academic discipline with fixed rules; or it can be used colloquially to refer to events from the past which actually happened.

The Book of Mormon is not intended or useful for "formal history" - facts, names, dates, places, etc.  But it is a record of a real people who actually lived and experienced what is described (more or less).  The purpose of the record is not to give a factually correct detailed accounting of their existence, but rather to lead the readers to a true understanding of Christ and his gospel by presenting stories and lessons and testimonies of a culture which tried, or failed to try, to be disciples of Christ - and which culture is presented as a type and shadow of what would happen in the latter days.

Even though I do not want to classify the Book of Mormon as a historical document.  I have gathered about 100 historical facts referenced in the Book of Mormon specific to ancient Arabia that would not have been available or known to anyone on the American continent at the time Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.  The statistical permutations possibility that Joseph was able to "guess" based on best know possibilities for that many unknown facts is about the same as someone picking up a particular grain of sand on an ocean beach to inspect and then discarding it and a couple of days later someone else by chance picked up the same particular grain of sand to inspect.

Therefore, I believe that I can say with authority that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate concerning the Saudi Arabian peninsula.   I do not believe that in regards to the Americas that we can identify anything as being historical - and that does not bother me one bit or cause me any concern.  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 There are very few places in the world where missionaries and gospel lessons cannot be contacted through the internet.

Very few?  There are a lot of places that don't have internet:

1024px-InternetPenetrationWorldMap.svg.png

Only about half the world has access to internet. About 3.9 billion people have no access to internet. Even in many places that do have access, Church websites are blocked.  Such is the case in most of the Middle East, China, and much of Africa. Cuba and North Korea as well.

 1.2 billion people have zero access to electricity.  

Obviously, this may change in the future. We can only guess how long that will take.  

PS, I have been to many, many places that don't have internet.  Here are the countries that I have been to (marked in red):

How many countries I have been to. Visited Countries Map Maker

I have been to 54 countries and there are many times I had no access to the internet.  A lot of towns, villages, and even cities don't even have access to roads.   I have been to a lot of towns and villages where the people have never seen anything like electricity,  computers, or even motor vehicles, let alone the internet.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 8/29/2018 at 3:18 PM, Chilean said:

I know, we don't know when He's coming (He doesn't even know). But I just want to know your thoughts on this topic, just for the fun of it, as probably everything we say here about will be speculation.  

What are your thoughts? Do you think he's coming within the next 100 years? I personally think He is coming soon, maybe even within the next 30 to 40 years.

 

Unbenanntkkk.JPG.7cc5dc636a3314715e46f7b99d46437e.JPG

Edited by goor_de
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2018 at 12:00 PM, Vort said:

Suppose you were somehow given the sure knowledge of when the Lord would return. What would you do with that knowledge? Would you live riotously up until a few years before his coming, then try to repent?

To be fair, you're really need to know the time of your death to even attempt this, rather than the time of the second coming...not that it would work anyhow...but in theory...it's our deaths that matter as to deathbed repentance. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2018 at 11:00 AM, Vort said:

Suppose you were somehow given the sure knowledge of when the Lord would return. What would you do with that knowledge? Would you live riotously up until a few years before his coming, then try to repent? Would you make large stock market buys or sells, or engage in speculative real estate purchases in Jackson County, Missouri?

I submit that knowing the day and hour of the Lord's coming would not make even a particle of difference in our behaviors, or if it did, that just shows that we don't have the faith and testimony we need -- all the more reason not to know such things.

Relaize that there are pages of this  thread I have not yet read, but I wanted  to repsond to  this. I actuaIly go opposite on this. If you legitimately don't think there are things in your life you would like to change before Christ's return then I'd suggest you are too comfortable in your sins. I would hope that such knowledge would at least hasten your work on bettering yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2018 at 10:54 AM, Traveler said:

Some Latter-day Saints want to label the Book of Mormon as historical.  I believe that is the single most critical mistake of any one reading of the Book of Mormon.

Those pesky Saints. How dare they consider a book that tells a history of a people historical! Fools!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Those pesky Saints. How dare they consider a book that tells a history of a people historical! Fools!

First - it is good to have you back.  I recently read an article about why Christianity is diminishing in the 20 to 35 age group.   The number one reason of several was the discovery that sacred scripture is not inviolate (meaning without flaws, contradictions and inaccuracies).   Part of the problem is in understanding terms and using them correctly.  There are many ancient text - what is considered historical?  Is something written about battles of WWII to be considered historical if they are written by someone that was not present at the events?  Or someone that was not even alive when the events took place?

I would ask - what is a false witness?  A witness is not something someone believes to be true nor is it even an honest representation of their opinion - it is something that they experience and witness.  The Book of Mormon is an abridgment of other documents.  The dictionary definition of historical is in essence a representation of things that happened in the past.   By this very broad definition - movies like the Ten Commandments are historical.  So are the stories of Homer and the pagan mythologies.  They are stories that have a setting in the past. 

But let me ask a question - is it historic that the earth is flat or that the earth is the center of things and all things in the heavens move around the earth?  It is historic that such things were believed but it is not historic that such was ever true.  Are portions of Isaiah appearing in the Book of Mormon historic?  Is the parable of the Olive Tree historic?  Is the Book of Mormon an accurate history of the origins of all pre-columbian civilizations in the Americas?

Let us be clear - I agree that Nephi and that all the characters mentioned in the Book of Mormon were individuals that once lived.  But what I believe is a mistake is that the Latter-day Saints claim that the witness of the Book of Mormon is intended as the history of the descendants of Lehi.  Rather the purpose of the Book of Mormon is a witness of Jesus Christ, his mission and his atonement of mankind.   Whatever history there is in the Book of Mormon it is of Jesus and a few individuals that lived anciently in the Americas to preserve that witness of Christ to come forth in the last days before Jesus returns.  

Are the Inca, Aztec, Maya, Navajo or any other particular group descendants  of Lehi?  All or which one or ones?  Did any of these peoples ever have dealings with any of the decedents of Lehi? Do we have a single artifact anywhere that we know is a historic artifact of any descendant of Lehi?  I do not believe so.  And I am not going to witness nor speculate in such matters.  But I would say one more thing - There is a song sang by many Christians with these words - "Jesus loves me, this I know because the Bible tells me so".  And some would add - the Book of Mormon as well.  If this is the reason to believe in Christ - I understand why many are leaving the belief in Christ for other beliefs.  These are witnesses but they are not your witness nor mine.  We can only witness of Christ covenant with Christ because of our experience with Christ and keeping the covenants we have made.  

Perhaps there are Saints believe the purpose and intent of the Book of Mormon is to witness of Lehi and his decedents.  I disagree - I believe the Book of Mormon to be a witness of Christ.  For me - my understanding of Lehi and his decedents is validated based on my experience in covenants with Christ which validates the Book of Mormon for me.  Beyond that I have no understanding of any history of peoples in the Americas - nor do I pretend to know any history.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

First - it is good to have you back.  I recently read an article about why Christianity is diminishing in the 20 to 35 age group.   The number one reason of several was the discovery that sacred scripture is not inviolate (meaning without flaws, contradictions and inaccuracies).   Part of the problem is in understanding terms and using them correctly.  There are many ancient text - what is considered historical?  Is something written about battles of WWII to be considered historical if they are written by someone that was not present at the events?  Or someone that was not even alive when the events took place?

I would ask - what is a false witness?  A witness is not something someone believes to be true nor is it even an honest representation of their opinion - it is something that they experience and witness.  The Book of Mormon is an abridgment of other documents.  The dictionary definition of historical is in essence a representation of things that happened in the past.   By this very broad definition - movies like the Ten Commandments are historical.  So are the stories of Homer and the pagan mythologies.  They are stories that have a setting in the past. 

But let me ask a question - is it historic that the earth is flat or that the earth is the center of things and all things in the heavens move around the earth?  It is historic that such things were believed but it is not historic that such was ever true.  Are portions of Isaiah appearing in the Book of Mormon historic?  Is the parable of the Olive Tree historic?  Is the Book of Mormon an accurate history of the origins of all pre-columbian civilizations in the Americas?

Let us be clear - I agree that Nephi and that all the characters mentioned in the Book of Mormon were individuals that once lived.  But what I believe is a mistake is that the Latter-day Saints claim that the witness of the Book of Mormon is intended as the history of the descendants of Lehi.  Rather the purpose of the Book of Mormon is a witness of Jesus Christ, his mission and his atonement of mankind.   Whatever history there is in the Book of Mormon it is of Jesus and a few individuals that lived anciently in the Americas to preserve that witness of Christ to come forth in the last days before Jesus returns.  

Are the Inca, Aztec, Maya, Navajo or any other particular group descendants  of Lehi?  All or which one or ones?  Did any of these peoples ever have dealings with any of the decedents of Lehi? Do we have a single artifact anywhere that we know is a historic artifact of any descendant of Lehi?  I do not believe so.  And I am not going to witness nor speculate in such matters.  But I would say one more thing - There is a song sang by many Christians with these words - "Jesus loves me, this I know because the Bible tells me so".  And some would add - the Book of Mormon as well.  If this is the reason to believe in Christ - I understand why many are leaving the belief in Christ for other beliefs.  These are witnesses but they are not your witness nor mine.  We can only witness of Christ covenant with Christ because of our experience with Christ and keeping the covenants we have made.  

Perhaps there are Saints believe the purpose and intent of the Book of Mormon is to witness of Lehi and his decedents.  I disagree - I believe the Book of Mormon to be a witness of Christ.  For me - my understanding of Lehi and his decedents is validated based on my experience in covenants with Christ which validates the Book of Mormon for me.  Beyond that I have no understanding of any history of peoples in the Americas - nor do I pretend to know any history.

 

The Traveler

I understand what you're saying and generally agree. The only thing I have a problem with is the implication that those Saints who understand the Book of Mormon to be a historical record (as well as a book of Scripture, etc.) are...how did you put it....making a "critical mistake".
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share