gdemetz wrote:Hi Bond,I am looking into Greece before Otto, and also information concerning those ten countries. I have them somewhere in my many papers. Maybe you can help me with this.
I'm not sure what help you want? Greek history goes back to the Mycenaean and Minoan civilizations 3000 years ago and has several phases.
As to the ten countries, I mean there are more than ten countries that came out of the Roman Empire.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Yes Bond, that is true. there was much more than ten. It is referring to a certain time period there. I think the information I put for Greece, which I received from another source, may have been copied wrong, either the country or the dates, or both, so I am deleting that from my post.
Drifting, the reference you asked for concerning the sign of the cross is found in "Mormon Doctrine" (second edition) under "Sign of the Cross." McConkie uses the verse(s) in the 13th chapter which tells of the "mark of the beast."
gdemetz wrote:Drifting, the reference you asked for concerning the sign of the cross is found in "Mormon Doctrine" (second edition) under "Sign of the Cross." McConkie uses the verse(s) in the 13th chapter which tells of the "mark of the beast."
Sorry dude, 'Mormon Doctrine' is not an official Church source (correct bcspace?) and as such should be treated as one man's opinion that is not reflective of the Church's position.
Try again but with an official Church source (published by the Church)...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
I doubt seriously that it is official church doctrine, but anyhow, it's the truth which he and I both received by revelation independently of each other.
I doubt seriously that it is official church doctrine, but anyhow, it's the truth which he and I both received by revelation independently of each other.
If it contradicts some other existing LDS doctrine, it can't possibly be truth. If it doesn't, it may be truth.
I doubt seriously that it is official church doctrine, but anyhow, it's the truth which he and I both received by revelation independently of each other.
If it contradicts some other existing LDS doctrine, it can't possibly be truth. If it doesn't, it may be truth.
Does it contradict other existing LDS doctrine?
I noticed that gdemetz claimed to have some personal revelation on this, have you received any revelation to the contrary?
Somehow, the phrase "in their right hand, or in their foreheads," whether by error or deliberately, was changed from "with their right hand and forehead" (see the reference under "Sign of the Cross," "Mormon Doctrine," 2nd edition, by Bruce R. McConkie).
I don't have access to a copy of this book, and I don't think it's available online.
What exactly did McConkie say about this?
Did he actually say that "in their right hand and forehead" should be "with their fight hand and forehead"?
No, he didn't state that. However, the fact that he used that scripture as a reference to the subject "Sign of the Cross" is very telling, especially if one has already received a revelation that that is the case and also receives a confirmation revelation when he sees that reference.