Mormons Rock

January 31, 2008

Is there a nice way to call someone an IDIOT???

Filed under: LDS,Mormons — by steffielynn @ 2:44 am
Tags: , , ,

No, I don’t think there is.  But I feel very strongly about people who call themselves “Christians” and yet they lie and twist the beliefs of the LDS faith, now I know I just wrote a post about Charity, so I am trying the best I can to be as loving as I can in this situation.   (and I realize I am not doing a very good job, sorry)

OK, I’m sure you would like to know why, right?!?

Bill Keller.  Do you know who he is?  If not I am so sorry that I am introducing you to this man.   And I will warn you that this is really upsetting (so if you can’t stomach the anti, do not read any further!)  😦

So basically this guy is a Internet and television “evangelist” He has a website called “Live Prayer”.  This guy claims to have millions of followers, and he sends out a “Daily Devotional” to these millions of subscribers. 

Yesterday he sent out a “devotional” about Pres. Hinckley’s passing, He entitled his “devotional”….

“An Evil Tool of Satan Masquerading as a Godly Grandfather is Burning in Hell”I’m not going to paraphrase I will just leave the link and you can read it if you choose.’m discusted by this guys disrespect but not only that he is sending out false info about our church to people who BELIEVE him.  I know we are asked to stear clear of the anti bologna, but I think every LDS person out there should know what this guy is saying and teaching millions of people, and we should stand up and say NO WAY DUDE, you WILL NOT get away with this.YOUR thoughts???



  1. I can’t spare one minute of my life or one cell of my brain thinking about that guy. He’s wasting perfectly good air just by breathing.

    Comment by mcquinn — January 31, 2008 @ 6:35 am |Reply

  2. This is a man who, imho, simply has a cankerous soul – who has allowed himself to join hands with Satan and spread discord and filth. Honestly, I wouldn’t engage him for anything – since, as charitably as I can be, he isn’t worth the effort. I try very hard to refrain from judging others, but this guy makes it very, very hard to do so.

    Steffie, if you want my thoughts on the similarities between what you were taught prior to your baptism and Satan’s plan, send me an e-mail sometime. I won’t post those thoughts publicly, but I will share them with you if you are interested.

    Comment by raydegraw — January 31, 2008 @ 7:04 am |Reply

  3. A different perspective

    I am not saying I agree with or even like the presentation or message of the site mentioned.

    However, the things he claims as beliefs of the Mormon church whether Doctrine or not were at least at some time taught or presented by either a Prophet or Apostle or some respected Church leader in some form of church talk or publication.

    The point I wanted to make though is looking at things through a non-Mormon Christian perspective, based on the claims that the LDS church makes as a Non Mormon Christian there are only a few possibilities.

    The Christian Church I believe in is not the true Church of Jesus Christ or at least only has partial truth and is without authority from God.
    The Mormon Church is of Satan
    The Mormon Church was founded by Men who were lying and being deceptive.

    If you believe in God and are a Christian the First vision really does not leave much more room than this, JS was either lying, deceived by Satan or it actually happened as described.

    The church leaders have made it clear that the LDS Church can not be ecumenical in belief or doctrine but only in humanitarian efforts.

    Although I don’t agree with the Christians coming in here and saying you are not Christian at the same time I understand why they do. As an Atheist I can have many different views about Mormonism and Joseph Smith and the first vision that are not completley non threatening to my belief or world view.

    My point being is it any worse for a Non Mormon Christian to believe 2 or 3? At least if he is saying you are of Satan he is not necessarily saying that these men were liars they were just decieved. A teaching by the way that is consitent with Mormon doctrine as it is hard to find a conference that at least doesn’t have a talk or two that warn about how cunning and decieving the adversary is.

    They just believe that it is you that is being decieved, is that really hate?

    Comment by coventryrm — January 31, 2008 @ 7:48 pm |Reply

  4. ooooops
    “that are not completley non threatening ”

    should be

    “that are completely non threatening”

    Comment by coventryrm — January 31, 2008 @ 7:55 pm |Reply

  5. Excellent point, coventry, but I think the real kicker for us isn’t *what* is said but rather *how* it is said.

    Take the Pres. Hinckley thread and Keller. One approach is to say, “I sincerely believe that this man was deceived.” A different approach is what was said: “This old man was a tool of Satan – as bad as Hitler because he contributed to the damnation in Hell of almost as many souls.” One focuses on doctrinal differences; the other focuses on the person.

    You, for example, are VERY different than those Steffie is discussing here. We all know you disagree with us, but you nearly always are respectful about it. Charles, on the other hand, relies on belittling, bullying, insulting, name-calling, badgering and deflection of whatever points are made about his arguments. He NEVER considers ANY criticism as potentially valid – never. He is out solely to posture and throw bile.

    That, I think, is a critical difference, since you don’t pretend to represent someone who gave the Sermon on the Mount – which directly condemns the tactics used by those Steffie mentions here – those who claim to be Christian as they break nearly every injunction He ever uttered. It’s the rank hypocrisy that is the central issue, imo.

    Comment by raydegraw — January 31, 2008 @ 8:34 pm |Reply

  6. I read the daily devotional ….

    It’s nothing new and nothing different fom what Mormon Leaders ( calling themselves Apostles and Prophets ) have taught in the past …..

    Brigham Young

    “Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity” (Journal of Discourses 10:230).

    “Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and kicked on to the earth” (Journal of Discourses 6:176).

    John Taylor (Mormonism’s 3rd President)
    “We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense …the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century” (Journal of Discourses 6:167).

    “What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing …Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest of fools; they know neither God nor the things of God” (Journal of Discourses 13:225).


    1 Nephi 14:10
    And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

    At the official Church website, in the Guide to the Scriptures it says this:
    The church of the devil: Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God.

    There are many more but I think the point is made . The LDS church has its own Prophets and Apostles at least partly to blame for creating the hate like we have read from the Pastor in his daily Devotional .

    I feel angry when I read how self righteous and so full of arrogance those early Mormon Leaders were and the things they said and taught and their behaviour as well .

    I believe in Karma , what goes around comes around .

    I liked Gordon Hinckley and will miss him .

    However he bares some responsibilty for lying and evading direct questions in his media blitz some years ago .This is what I have difficulty with .Had he told the Truth then the church would have looked bad I guess .

    The simple answer to all this is an easy one in my opinion: The church simply is not what it is claiming to be and by saying that I don’t have any disrespect for ordinary members because if there was ever a church that fitted me like a glove in terms of similar ideals and thinking ( on most things that is ) then Mormonism (LDS ) would have been it .

    The church is as lost as I am for answers .I can’t sustain the leaders are divinely exlusively inspired Apostles. In fact I have no confidence in them as far as Inspired knowledge is concerned .In terms of practicality and provident living , then their advice is pefectly acceptable and worth taking on .

    Even the food storage is s good idea except a years worth is a bit extreme .We all depend on the economy .Anticipating survival outside of this economic system is not really practical.

    I enjoyed some of the Joint High Priests/Relief Society.EQ meetings .It did some times feel like I had stumbled on something important and that critical times were ahead !

    I particularly enjoyed one Joint High Priests and EQ lesson given by our newly ‘set apart ‘ Bishop .Normally a quite man but as Bishop gave us a powerfull reminder of Priesthood responsibility … Raising the dead !

    I asked about raising my dad from the dead and somehow they were all so sure it was not possible ? Where was their faith as Priesthood Power Holders I ask ? lol

    Comment by elderjoseph — February 2, 2008 @ 9:03 pm |Reply

  7. ej, I mean this seriously. You can’t give me one single example of a lie that Pres. Hinckley has said in an interview with the media. Not one. I have said this over and over and over again every time someone makes that claim, but when you parse what he said in each and every instance, he was telling the truth.

    Here is a direct challenge:

    Give me ONE instance of a lie Pres. Hinckley told the media. I will answer the charge and show you it was NOT a lie. After you get that answer, give me ONE MORE instance. I will show you that it was not a lie. Then give me ONE MORE, and I will show you again that it was not a lie. We can keep going as long as you want – until you have no more instances left. (Don’t blast a shotgun and throw out more than one example at once. Give me one at a time.)

    It is WAY too easy to accept the definitions and claims of those who are convinced he is a liar, but when you parse carefully what he actually said, there is no “lie” being said. More than once, like in the Romney interview coventry just sited, Pres. Hinckley carefully answered in a way that deflected the question, but even Jesus did that on more than one occasion.

    Comment by raydegraw — February 2, 2008 @ 9:24 pm |Reply

  8. “I asked about raising my dad from the dead and somehow they were all so sure it was not possible. Where was their faith as Priesthood Power Holders I ask ? lol”

    What a loathsome comment – below anything you have written that I have read. Incredibly low blow, and I have to believe you know it. I say this in complete sincerity:

    I have seen miracles that are just as obvious and undeniable as seeing someone raised from the dead. I will not tell you of them, especially given how you phrased your last comment, but I will tell you in no uncertain terms that I have witnessed and been involved in them. If you had asked me personally, in the tone that echoes in your last comment, to raise your father from the dead, I would have looked at you and politely declined. I would never dream of going to the Lord and asking to raise the dead in order to give you a sign of the Priesthood power. I know how those who make such requests are described in the scriptures, and I would never, ever go there.

    Comment by raydegraw — February 2, 2008 @ 9:31 pm |Reply

  9. ej, I meant my last comment completely – IF you actually said it in the tone that comes through the written words. If it was said in a joking way or not with the mocking tone it conveys in print, then my general answer is the same but I apologize for calling it loathsome.

    Comment by raydegraw — February 2, 2008 @ 9:37 pm |Reply

  10. raydegraw

    1 The bottom line is your Priesthood power is no different from a wiccan mother earth pagans priesthood power .

    2 I don’t want to know your experiences .I heard enough of that in my two years in church .Alot of it was sheer claptrap , maybe yours is different ,I don’t know , and I don’t want to know anymore Mormon spiritual experiences or priesthood power examples.They are no more authentic than hindoo ones or athiest ones ….

    3 I asked them in church if they could raise my dad seeing they claimed to be exactly the same as the first century chsistians .It was not for a sign , I couldn’t give a hoot for a sign , I just asked about raising my dad .They all fell over themselves to say they couldn’t. It was despicable to see the sudden excuse book out ..Thats not Faith , thats reality of Mormonism.
    Even death frightens those ‘ who know without a shadow of a doubt ‘ ! Mention a slight cough and they all fall over themselves to give a blessing …

    The Mission President gave an example of Missionaries knocking on a door and confronting a grieving couple who had just lost their child to death. Then he went on to say how the missionaries were able to give an answer ? An answer ? What answer ? Simple ….. ‘Oh your child is in Celestial Kingdom ‘ !

    No mention of ‘oh we can ressurrect her , we have Priesthood Power ‘ , not even the thought or an attempt seem to enter their mind , why is that ? and also no mention that by the way if you want to see your child again you have to join us and pay ten percent , obey our prophets and Apostles amongst other things to see her again .

    JW’s have an answer too when they knock , and its exactly as blackmailing as yours .. The child will be ressurected but you won’t if you die in Armagaddon and wasn’t a JW at the time.

    4 The Mormon Priesthood power is no better then my own power.They equally pass or fail .. In fact my back ache was healed without even having to pray .

    5 Joseph Smith invented his Priesthood Power to give himself authority over others and he even used against a 14 year old girl into marrying him (supposedly for her own and family’s salvation). How kind of him ……

    6 I have no ‘shadow of a doubt’ that your Priesthood Power is no better ,no worse than anyone else asking for ‘God’s ‘ assistance.

    Gordon Hinckley’s lies are coming up soon.

    Comment by elderjoseph — February 3, 2008 @ 1:22 am |Reply

  11. Got it, ej. I am either deluded or a liar. Got it. No need to address my experiences, since they are false or hallucinatory anyway. Got it. Please don’t respond to this message; I really don’t want to continue this topic.

    Comment by raydegraw — February 3, 2008 @ 1:59 am |Reply

  12. raydegraw

    Topic – Gordon Hinckley …… and

    My apologies for soundin too brash .I don’t acuse you of lying .I just think you are desperately trying to connect to God tangibly somehow and are making too much of natural random events .

    For example
    1 I was singing a church song at home one evening and suddenly the telephone rang , it was the Bishops councillor ? A sign of the Holy Ghost ?

    Real Answer – I sing church songs most times and don’t think to remember the lack of a phone call on all the other occasions.

    2 A missionary prays to find an investigator , One turns up for him ? The Holy Ghost ?

    Real Answer – Missionaries pray all the time to find Investigators , one is bound to turn up eventually….

    3 My missionaries thought I was an answer to their prayers .The Holy Ghost ?

    Real Answer – I just wanted to learn about the church ,I told them from the beginning don’t ask me to join or anything.( if its true then I will join – I wouldn’t have much choice ).They mistook my willingness to investigate and participate as a conversion sign ? Where was their discernment ? I was asking hard questions from the beginning although I didn’t suspect the difficulties of what I eventually found out…..SHOCKING and of Great Concern !

    Anyway about Gordon Hinckley’s suspected lying ?

    Gordon Hinckley -Interview with Time: August 4, 1997 cover story, p. 56.

    “Question: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

    Gordon Hinckley: Yeah

    Question: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

    Gordon Hinckley : I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it. ”

    Its being taught in the new Joseph Smith Priesthood manual .. Chapter 2 …. and all ‘informed’ members I know have been taught it and have told me about it , so why does he say what he did when its a belief and teaching of the church.

    Comment by elderjoseph — February 3, 2008 @ 11:26 pm |Reply

  13. “I just think you are desperately trying to connect to God tangibly somehow and are making too much of natural random events .”

    I have heard that from many people, including one adamant atheist friend, who assumed my experiences are like those you describe. Once I have explained them, in every instance the other person admitted they are not like those you describe. They didn’t accept them, necessarily, but they stopped disputing them. Suffice it to say, there are no easy explanations that can dismiss my experiences.

    As to the Hinckley quote, this one is easy. Pres. Hinckley was an incredibly intelligent man (as everyone who interviewed him attested – including Mike Wallace), so even if you don’t accept him as a prophet, you have to consider his answers as carefully constructed – even if you don’t accept them as inspired.

    I saw the actual interview live, and there is one punctuation change and one emphasis that needs to be made to reflect more accurately what Pres. Hinckley said and how he said it – that makes the whole quote perfectly reasonable and understandable. I will quote it again, sentence by sentence, with commentary. First, however, I need to highlight something about the question he was asked:

    The interviewer asked, “Is this the teaching of **the church** today . . .?”

    This does NOT ask if many or most members believe it; it asks ONLY if **the church** “teaches” it.

    With that background, here is my response to what you quoted:

    “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know.”

    First, I was raised in Utah. My own father and father-in-law are from the same basic generation as Pres. Hinckley, as were many of my teachers when I was a youth – most of whom were raised in Utah. I heard almost all of them them use the phrase “I don’t know that . . .” my entire life as a child and adolescent. Sometimes it meant “I’m not sure that . . .”, but it also meant “I wouldn’t say it that way.” It was a “polite” way of disagreeing – a way to do so without saying, “No, you are wrong.” I literally heard it at least hundreds of times in my youth.

    (For example, my dad often said, “I don’t know that your mother said that” – meaning, “I’m not sure that your mother said that.” Another example: “I don’t know that Grandma is stubborn” – meaning, “I wouldn’t say that Grandma is stubborn.” He never told me that Grandma wasn’t stubborn, but he told me more than once that he wouldn’t call Grandma stubborn – that he wouldn’t say it that way.)

    When I heard Pres. Hinckley’s interview, I automatically heard what I had heard constantly growing up and understood his words in that usage with that meaning. So, the quote can be rendered more accurately as to meaning thusly:

    “I wouldn’t say that we (“the church”) *teach* it – I wouldn’t say that we *EMPHASIZE* it.”

    (In the actual interview, Pres. Hinckley paused slightly then added “EMPHASIZE it”. It was very clear, and he actually emphasized the word “emphasize”. He said the concept isn’t “taught” by “the church”, then he defined that even more specifically by saying the concept isn’t “emphasized” by “the church”.)

    “I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse.”

    (I personally have never heard it discussed in “public discourse” by “the Church”. Pres. Hinckley had, but he hadn’t for “a long time” – at least from before my memory.)

    “I wouldn’t say it that way.”


    “I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made.”

    (None of us do. The only transcripts we have are from records of four members who heard it, and what we have is the summary combination of their records. We know very little about the background of the sermon – the “circumstances under which [it] was made”, since they were never recorded and Joseph never addressed it. It literally came out of the blue and was truly unique in many ways.)

    “I understand the philosophical background behind it.”

    (True for many of us.)

    “But I don’t know a lot about it”

    (Joseph never elaborated on it, since he died only two months after giving the speech.)

    “and I wouldn’t say that others know a lot about it.”

    (Perfectly accurate statement, given how debated it has been over the years.)

    Finally, the concept is included in the manual **as one sentence in a 7 page lesson**. Further, not one of the follow-up questions at the end addresses that sentence. There is absolutely no “teaching of it” and certainly no “EMPHASIS on it” in the lesson, while other things ARE emphasized. What Pres. Hinckley actually said is perfectly consistent with the way the concept is handled by “the Church” (as an institution) – included in materials (not hidden) as something Joseph Smith said, but not emphasized in any way. Individual teachers might emphasize it over other things in the lesson that “the church” emphasizes, but “the church” certainly doesn’t emphasize it – not even close.

    There is no lie in this quote – none whatsoever.

    Comment by raydegraw — February 4, 2008 @ 1:19 am |Reply

  14. yeah… it’s really absured how a christian leader can run down another denomination !! the obvious question is: who is really the one inspired by satan ?

    Comment by mrfrancis75 — March 24, 2008 @ 5:05 am |Reply

  15. raydegraw,

    I’m sorry, but in that interview Pres. Hinckley WAS lying — and I don’t make that accusation lightly. At best, he was being very cavalier with the truth.

    In the October 1994 General Conference Pres. Hinckley gave a talk entitled “Don’t Drop the Ball” which included the following:

    [T]he whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood. This great possibility was enunciated by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the King Follet sermon (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 342–62; and emphasized by President Lorenzo Snow. It is this grand and incomparable concept: As God now is, man may become! (See The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, comp. Clyde J. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984, p. 1.)

    Our enemies have criticized us for believing in this. Our reply is that this lofty concept in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father. He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the universe. He is the greatest of all and will always be so. But just as any earthly father wishes for his sons and daughters every success in life, so I believe our Father in Heaven wishes for his children that they might approach him in stature and stand beside him resplendent in godly strength and wisdom.

    So: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we… emphasize it.” Untrue. Pres. Hinckley himself taught it, over the pulpit in General Conference, just under three years before that interview.

    “I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse.” Again, obviously untrue since Pres. Hinckley himself discussed it less than three years before the interview.

    And I don’t believe it’s right to speak of “milk before meat” when doing so involves deception. Pres. Hinckley, just months before his death (Sept. 2007) spoke the following words to BYU students during homecoming week:

    In matters of honesty there are no shortcuts, no little white lies or big black lies, only the simple honest truth spoken in total candor

    Honest reporters asking honest questions for a major national newsmagazine deserve honest answers. In the particular case above, relating to a key point of Church doctrine, President Hinckley did not give such answers: he called the doctrine a “grand and incomparable concept” in General Conference 1994, and a few years later it was reduced to “more of a couplet than anything else.” That is dishonest.

    Comment by reconsidering — May 24, 2008 @ 4:52 pm |Reply

  16. Hi,

    I can see where you are coming from, reconsidering. I’m not sure if you are LDS, or maybe you were at one time, but either way it is a complicated question that cannot really be answered and explained in just a few short minutes.

    I have been asked this question myself and I find that if I don’t have at least an HOUR to discuss this topic then the person who asked will not recieve a thorough and complete answer. It is not a “yes” or “no” question. It needs to be explained to people. I feel he did the best he could with the time he had.

    Comment by steffielynn — May 24, 2008 @ 7:56 pm |Reply

  17. Steffie ,

    How many hours would you need to explain all the lying over the secret polygamous marriages of Joseph Smith and behind his wife Emma’s back and how after coersion she finally relented ( broke down )and gave so called ‘approval’ to him marrying BOTH Eliza and Emily Partridge where he then artranged a fake marriage ceremony having already married them two months earlier without Emma knowing!

    Is this how a husband treats his wife.Would you like to be treated this way ?

    How many hours will it take you to explain how Joseph Smith and all the early LDS leaders were lying throughout the Times and Seasons newspapers and in sermons to church members and the public alike denying that any polygamy was being practiced by them and instead were condemning it all as APOSTATE LIES.

    How many Hours will it take to explain how the church leaders used the following scripture from D&C 110 Section 101 , whilst all the time practicing Polygamy :

    D&C 110 Section 101 “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have BUT ONE WIFE, and one woman but one husband except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again.”

    How many hours will it take to explain the marriage of Orson Pratt at aged 57 to a 16 year old teen girl and immediate sexual activity with her resulting in her giving birth just 9 months later.How many hours to explain why as he got older his wives got younger and younger ? Same with Orson Hyde , Lorenzo Snow , Brigham Young etc etc !?!?! Joseph Smith aged 37 to 14 year old Helen Marr Kimball !

    How many hours will it take to explain the threats of hell to those girls if they were reluctant to marry these old men after having been ‘called’ into these arranged marriages ?

    How many Hours ?

    How many hours will you have Steffie to explain to Jesus when the time comes how you came to spend many hours of your life defending these liars in the name of God ?

    Comment by elderjoseph — May 31, 2008 @ 3:27 pm |Reply

  18. Christ knows my heart and I do not believe I will have to spend any time at all explaining my beliefs to Him (He already knows). I have no way of knowing what happened oh so very long ago, there is truth and then there OPINION. History is filled with opinion, so I just have to decide for MYSELF who I believe was telling the truth. If there are people out there who are interested in knowing for themselves, then they will have to search for answers themselves. No one has GIVEN me any answers. I have been given both sides of a story. My heart tells me which side I will follow and believe.

    I say to each his own, we all have to answer to God one day and I can say that I have honestly searched out and desired truth and goodness.

    Comment by steffielynn — May 31, 2008 @ 8:48 pm |Reply

  19. Steffie

    You CAN know what happened, it was only between 100 and 200 years ago and its in the Journal Of Discourses and the Church’s early newspapers like Times and Seasons ,all of which are available to the enquiring mind.

    You can easily discern between the Jesus Christ of The New Testament and his early Apostles with the version of Jesus Christ as Presented through Joseph Smith and Brigham Young etc.

    Just look at the lives of those FLDS women/teens who are surrendering themselves to Priesthood Authority and Obedience to their Prophet and you have a mirror of what the early LDS was like.

    Your childrens futures are at stake.

    Will your kids have the choice of ‘Each to his own’,or will they be conditioned and taught to believe that they will be seperated from you for eternity if they don’t obey Priesthood Authority ?

    Comment by elderjoseph — June 1, 2008 @ 5:32 pm |Reply

  20. Steffie ,

    Do you remember when I sent you the ‘Egyptian Quiz’ some time ago ?

    I asked you to Identify male or female in the Egyptian Facsimile ?

    Look in the Pearl Of Geat Price on page 41 in the Book Of Abraham and check again the picture entitled ” A Facsimile from The Book Of Abraham No 3 ” and ask yourself which is male and which is female ? and then read the Explanation ………. 🙂

    Comment by elderjoseph — June 1, 2008 @ 6:17 pm |Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: