Marriage of Grandparents at Palompon Leyte: June 18, 1961

Got the marriage record of my Grandparent from my Mother side at Palompon Leyte. And this ones epic. They were about 19 and 17 years that time.

Rufino Nuñez and Emelia Garing record of their Marriage.


Date was June 18, 1961 with the witnesses on Father and Mother side
No comments:

Kinderhook plates bought to Joseph Smith appear to be a 19th-century hoax. - by John Wigglesworth


This has been debunked over and over and yet here it was still quoted by critics without understanding the actual scene. Joseph Smith did Translate some according to the knowledge available in his time, but it was not translated throught any medium, tools or revelation like the Book of Mormon does. Which basically mean the critics were just fooled by their own bait. Nice try!

TRANSLATIONS BY JOSEPH SMITH, JR.
“ I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.” – Joseph Smith, Jr.
The plates turned out to be a hoax. Metallurgical tests revealed the plates to be of late 19th century construction. In addition, the script was created using a 19th- century chemical etch process. In August, 1981 LDS Ensign Magazine conceded: “Kinderhook plates bought to Joseph Smith appear to be a 19th-century hoax."


Some of the links that I posted will below explains how was it debunked. Check out below -

No comments:

Adam is a Fallen Angel - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata


A fallacy based on assumption or false cause which is  Post hoc ergo Propter hoc. And just because Adam fell based on biblical perspective, then Michael is a Fallen Angel. Seriously Jose, That's how you claimed to be your doctrine? So, your simply saying Christ is a Fallen Divine Being or a MERE human as your teaching goes because he descended lower than an Angel or became human (flesh).

To me, I don't think God will just only choose who would he choose and angel or who he choose to experience death resurrection and who will experience damnation. God is a just God and every creature that include Angels and Humans were his Children. If God created us destined to something he thinks threated unfair or unjustly why would you call him a loving God?

So Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, what you are saying here is, God is a god of Parody. Why cant he make all his children like angels and other spirit get there life experience as a human who experience emotions, Feelings, growth and many others the will benefit there souls at the last days and be judge according to fair judgements?

And just to be clear, the LDS teachings about the fall of Adam is different than any trinitarian or unitarian views. Adam fell because it is necesarry and he was given the agency to choose what he would choose either to have those spirit Children experience Humanity.

2 Nephi 2:25"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy"

And this experience is not a curse from God, but rather part of the Plan of Salvation, and I guess you have no clue about it, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.

According to the teaching of LDS church Adam is Michael the Archangel.
Doctrine and Covenants 27:11
11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;
This is an absurd teaching of LDS church.
This is another proof that their prophet was indeed a false prophet.
1 John 4:1
King James Version
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.




And by the way, you claim Felix was also the Angel of the Far East; was he a Fallen Angel too, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?
No comments:

Alma 42:15


Alma 42:15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste

Explore more of this at

Message2Ponder

and add your favorite for free.

Click Here


No comments:

2 Nephi 4:28


2 Nephi 4:28 Awake, my soul! No longer droop in sin. Rejoice, O my heart, and give place no more for the enemy of my soul.
Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste

Explore more of this at

Message2Ponder

and add your favorite for free.

Click Here


No comments:

Responding Ginoong Pantas "THEIR ‘FUN FACT’ IS NEITHER FACTUAL NOR FUN"



Recently I posted a fun fact of Joseph Smith's Supposed Revelation that has been fulfilled which was about the Meteor Storm that I made a claim that it was also included in INC's doctrine, which I honestly could tell that it isn’t even related to the emergence of their church in the Philippines. So, he made a statement thinking it is neither Factual nor neither Fun. So, let's talk about it and see what we can get -
   

THEIR ‘FUN FACT’ IS NEITHER FACTUAL NOR FUN
A certain individual, Jerry Nuñez Bustillo, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as Mormonism), recently shared what he labeled as a “fun fact” in a Facebook group titled The Restored Truths of the 𝗚𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹 of 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔 Christ vs INC Gospel, a space where defenders of faiths such as the Iɢʟᴇsɪᴀ Nɪ Cʀɪsᴛᴏ and Mormonism engage in discussion.
The Restored Truths of the 𝗚𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹 of 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔 Christ vs INC Gospel

Good to know you read and response this fun fact which I don’t even think it’s a big deal, but you fail to make a good response on my other post prior to this short OP. But let’s go ahead and tell me what was this all about -

In his post, he appears to suggest that the Leonid Meteor Storm of November 13, 1833 was one of the alleged fulfillments connected to the divine calling of Brother Felix Y. Manalo, and further implies that this is part of the Iglesia ni Cristo’s doctrine.

Let’s just say it was not part of the doctrine of the INC so the rest we are talking here were just unnecessary fuss. So why do INC quote it? And even if this was not about what it meant in your doctrine, does this meant that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled? Just to be fair, I haven’t made my post clear and precise in quoting the INC ideology or if this is not accurate, since I’m not quoting some known source such as their official website, then supposed it is just an INC opinion.

Frankly, THAT CLAIM IS INACCURATE. 👎 Before presenting such assertions (especially about another religion) it would have been prudent to verify them through official INC sources such as incmedia.org, iglesianicristo.net, pasugo.com.ph, etc. Doing so could have prevented a clear misrepresentation of what the Church actually taught.

Again, I’m not quoting any official site, so more accurately it was just quoted on your so-called defenders of faith maybe, or you may include yourself about it, but this doesn’t say anything that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled. So, the issue was not about who and how it was quoted, you just based yourself on certain ground that doesn’t even point out the real issue. Again, it’s true, I wasn't certain but let’s try to get some of the source about it. Let's check out some of the know sources that has been gathered to see if my claim it true and let’s get be real -



They do have an African Page Guide with this topic on Facebook and Just to be honest, this page is cool. I would like to have some guide like this one on Facebook. But I don’t know if you count it as official Page or maybe not. Anyways, to those who want to know about it and learn about the INC doctrine I preferred to have this one on your list, it will be good if you keep updating it and adding more doctrine. So, here’s the link below -https://www.facebook.com/groups/iglesianicristoevangelicalmissionafrica/learning_content/?filter=1601482870584257&post=476988594913771



There were other sources that quoted the same source adding it to one of the events that leads to Brother Felix Manalo's Calling. But I would not want to put all the sources here since it would take too much space just to prove the claim.

This one below was from Joseph Kavanagh's article regarding The Stars That Fall - and Mr. Manalo where he points out the exact claim about the 1833 Meteor Storm. I don't actually need to focus much on this since it is not actually relevant, what I actually want to point out that this was taken from the "Ang sulo sa Ikatitiyak sa Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana" which could be the early edition of the Pasugo if I'm not mistaken, you can correct me if I'm wrong. And, I guess this was made to attack the Catholic Faith and here they include the said event relating to Revelation 6:12-13. My question to you Ginoong Pantas, is this still part of INC article or not? I understand that doctrines may vary over time, so tell me if you have any knowledge about it or maybe it was just a personal opinion of Brother Felix Manalo. And just to be clear, when I say opinion which I do prefer to use since everyone is liable to it, is not a direct doctrine. And of course if Brother Felix Manalo has his own opinion as a human, it is subject to case study, like everyone does, which is also subject to changes. So, I understand if you don't take it as a doctrine, Ginoong Pantas, I'm not a close minded person. I just want to build a common ground first before we take it deeper.
CLARIFICATION OF THE ISSUE
It is true that the Iglesia ni Cristo cites Revelation 6:12–13 in connection with historical events such as the 1833 Leonid meteor storm. However, let us be precise:
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗡𝗖 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘅 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗼’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Okay, so let’s be straight here. You are telling me that you don’t agree on a simple post that said about the Leonid Meteor Storm as one of the known event of Felix Manalo's prophetic signs and claims,  and this time you agree that you people cited it? So, what was this all about? Which is which, Ginoong Pantas? Also, I never said that this event signaled the beginning of your so-call Brother Felix Manalo’s Divine Mission where you can’t even provide a detail of his call. So, now you have changed your mind that this was part of it, am I right? If so, then my post is accurate as I have said that it is one of those signs which I don’t even bother looking up some of the other claims, which you disagrees on it. You're confusing yourself, Ginoong Pantas. So, tell me straight, do you consider it as signs of the times, or, as always, you just don’t like the way I posted it that's because Joseph Smith made a prophecy about it?

But anyway, I get your point, either this may be an opinion or maybe something we can look for in relation to your doctrine. It’s not actually a big deal since everyone or even religious leader can make a certain options and study that might help them build up their testimony. So I'll stick to that as if it is not part of your doctrine.

That interpretation simply does not exist in official INC doctrine. Rather, the 1833 meteor storm is understood as one of the events associated with the OPENING OF THE SIXTH SEAL, alongside other historically documented phenomena:
I. The Lisbon earthquake (1755)
II. The darkening of the sun and moon (1780)
III. The falling of the stars (1833)
As stated and carefully explained by the Iglesia ni Cristo’s General Evangelist, Brother Bienvenido C. Santiago:
“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗸𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 (𝙘𝙛. 𝗥𝗲𝘃. 𝟲:𝟭𝟮-𝟭𝟯). Those events occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries. The great earthquake occurred in Lisbon in 1755, the darkening of the sun and the moon in 1780 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟴𝟯𝟯.” [𝘗𝘈𝘚𝘜𝘎𝘖: 𝘎𝘰𝘥’𝘴 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦 — Iglesia Ni Cristo © November 1995, page 8]

Again, it is clear in your words “one of the events associated” which I don’t even care why you people made such claim. But here we are, you simply agrees on my statement. It is not just you INC people are using the same signs of the time and yet you exaggerate the simple post I made because of religious difference. The Seventh-day Adventist is even using the same event as part of the biblical prophecy and no question to that. The only thing what I see here was your interpretation of my presentation and I guess it is you who has the problem here.

Check out the Elder's Digest on this article from Seventh-day Adventist - https://www.eldersdigest.org/en/1999/1/meteor-showers-and-1833

This timeline alone already disproves Jerry’s claim. Why so? Because Bro. Felix Manalo was born in 1886, decades after these events. Clearly, they cannot mark the beginning of his mission.

Again, I’m not talking about the beginning of his mission, I don’t even know when and where he started his claim that he was the sugo of your church. You simply just overreacting on my Post that you don’t like. Why would you just accept the fact that you people know and use the same event? Telling me that those things were the beginning of his Missions or whatever you call and added it is irrelevant, I didn't even bother quote other things your church has ever claim?

SO, WHEN DOES THE MISSION BEGIN?
According to the same official source, the transition occurs at the END OF THE SIXTH SEAL, which also marks the BEGINNING OF THE SEVENTH SEAL. Brother Santiago continues:

“𝗔𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 (𝙘𝙛. 𝗥𝗲𝘃. 𝟲:𝟭𝟰-𝟭𝟳). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟵𝟭𝟰. This war is also symbolized in the prophecy as the winds that were later seen being held by the four angels (𝘤𝘧. Rev. 7:1; Jer. 4:11-12, 19). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻 𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 ‘𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵.’” [𝘐𝘣𝘪𝘥., page 8]

Thus, the First World War (1914), AND NOT the 1833 meteor storm, is recognized as the prophetic marker tied to the time when Brother Felix Manalo’s mission begins, within INC’s teaching.

The so-called “fun fact” is neither accurate nor representative of Iglesia ni Cristo doctrine. Misrepresenting another group’s beliefs (whether intentional or not) only leads to confusion and unnecessary division. If we are genuinely interested in truth, then careful verification should always come first before publication.

It was just a specific quote that most of the religion is quoting, so what's the relevance of that so called claim that you got there on the subject that I opened up? Did I ever said other specific revelation that Brother Felix Manalo claimed that he has it, but he never fulfilled?

Just because I use the word Fun,
then this made this statement a parody,
or maybe malicious or perhaps exaggerated.
But it seems like he's missing the point that my intension
was all about the revelations that has been fulfilled.

Okay so again, This has nothing to do with the statement that I had made, and you simply like to broaden it thinking that I may have been wrong on my claim. And again, this is not about the beginning of Brother Felix Manalo’s claim that he fulfilled such revelation and starts the mark of his mission which again, I don’t even care. I just clearly said, it is one of those signs.

Let us aim for discussions grounded not in assumptions, but in verified teachings. 😉

If you like to aim for a good discussion with verified teaching, I’m good with it. You can go ahead on the group where were made a discussion. I don’t normally do the way you posted publicly, which I thinks was so immature and indecent.

NOW, CONCERNING JOSEPH SMITH’S “PREDICTION”
Jerry, in what he called the “interesting part,” added that their prophet, Joseph Smith, allegedly predicted the exact date of the meteor storm. He even encouraged readers to look it up from independent sources. 😅 So, as someone who actually checks claims, I did exactly that.

Yes, there is such a story. But once you examine it closely, it turns out to be historically weak, debated even among Latter-day Saint scholars, and generally not accepted by non-LDS historians.

And look what we got here? But it’s a fair claim in taking up notes on one of just the many source open online. There were already antagonist about the claim and it is already give everywhere even in your INC circle, so you should stop thinking on just quoting one source against the other. We do have our own biases, but to think you have to just stick on just one side simply makes you irrational. But anyway, thank you for taking time in making a claim that it is weak so I can clearly see how you people easily caught up to some of the unreliable source that has no ground on their own. We’ll get to it here -

One commonly cited account comes from later retellings. According to a narrative attributed to Ronald P. Millett, Joseph Smith supposedly said:

“According to a narrative provided by Ronald P. Millett via Latter Day Saints Magazine, at some point before November 1833, when the Leonid meteor storm took place, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁'𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗝𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗵 𝗦𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗵 (𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘃𝗲) 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁. “𝗙𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻,” 𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻.”

SOURCE:

The story continues that on the 39th night, while staying at someone’s house, the meteor storm occurred, astonishing those present. This account is tied to early LDS figures like Philo Dibble, who described the reaction of a supposed skeptic witnessing the event. Now, at first glance, that sounds impressive.

Did you read the full article of Ronald P. Millett's statement, or just simple copy-paste some part to make it sounds awesome? Here's the full article and link of that statement - https://latterdaysaintmag.com/1833-meteor-storm-a-precisely-synchronized-sign-and-wonder/

Okay so, what are you trying to point out here that Philo Dibble is one of the members during this event. This is not actually from his own words rather an experience from a members who happens to have encountered him. Philo Dibble wasn't a member during that time and he even skeptical to the church, he wrote when and how the event will occur according to what he heard during Joseph Smith's sermon and he made it known to Joseph Hancock who happens to be there that time on the last minute telling him that it will not fulfilled as he keep tracking on  the exact event.

But here’s the problem.
The so-called “prediction” is not a contemporary record. 👎 The main source for this claim (Philo Dibble) only wrote it down in 1892, which is decades after both the 1833 event and Joseph Smith’s lifetime. That alone should already raise serious caution.
(Check Philo Dibble’s “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘶𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 XXVII No. 1 © 1 January 1892, page 23)

And that’s obviously not a problem. Thinking that this has been written right after the event or decade and so on, does this mean the source is unreliable? Really? The time that it was taught by Joseph, it is not just one or two people present during his proclamation and Philo Nible is not even a member that time, and here you are questioning his words where the witnesses is even present during that time. What about you tell me how do people in these days still believe that the four Gospel written in the New Testament authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were even written soon after the original witnesses who were long gone in which some claimed witnesses is even questionable by scholars. It was passed down through Oral Tradition, which I think you or maybe some still believe it was the original, but even the true author of this 4 known Gospels is Anonymous and yet everyone, like you and me, still believe on it without knowing that it was only passed down by means of oral tradition. You need to be honest on this; Did you even think about that Ginoong Pantas? And here you are questioning with the original witnesses present at that time. Why was that Ginoong Pantas? You are just appealing to Genetic Fallacy which make it a bad choice in dealing this argument.

REALTALK ❗ There is no known written record from 1833 itself. NO diary entry from Joseph Smith predicting it beforehand. NO documented sermon from that time mentioning such a prophecy. NO contemporary witness account recorded at the time it supposedly happened. 👎 What we have instead is retrospective storytelling, accounts written long after the fact, which historians naturally treat with caution.

Is this the REALTALK that you’re talking about or you try to get the side of the critics? Seriously, which part is Real Talk? How do you know that it has no sermons from that time the Prophecy was mentioned? You simply say the journal entry were false just because there is no such thing as full documented Minutes of Meeting. Seriously? Do you do that in your congregations? Are you sure about that? You can’t even provide a historical background and witnesses of your claim Felix Manalo and how he made such claim fulfilled through him, and yet here you are thinking this people who wrote their journal and even publicly declares it happened were just simply false witnesses or a made up stories. Come on! And do you think they die for their false testimonies sake?
But, yeah… to make matters clearer: Joseph Smith DID write about the meteor shower, BUT only after it occurred, describing it as a sign. That is very different from predicting it in advance.
And that distinction matters a lot in serious historical analysis.

Are you sure about your claim bro? Do you have any evidence that this has been declared right after it happen? Can you lead me some sources where we can verify your claim? It seems like you want to just educate me to go right directly to the right source and here you are acting hypocrite about it.

SO WHAT IS THE FAIR CONCLUSION?
There IS a story claiming that Joseph Smith predicted the meteor shower. BUT (this is the real interesting part)… it comes from late sources. It relies on secondhand or recollected testimony. And, it lacks solid contemporary evidence.

The journal and date of the said claim were there in church history website, and it seem like you just doing a cock-and-bull story that you can’t even provide a reliable source. So, here’s the link of the source on their journal and check it out if you have time. And believe me you can not write a journal on the same amount of time and day specially if you think the matters is not relevant or special to you. So the date either when they record it is not an issue. The main issue there was the witnesses and the settings. I’d been writing journals and that’s not even the case, minsan nga lumapas na ng 3 or 5 araw bago mo pa masulat. And Again you’re just overreacting of your claim that you don’t even do.
Because of that, most historians (whether LDS or not) consider the claim historically uncertain at best. So, presenting it as a clear, established fulfilled prophecy is, at very least, an overstatement.

Uncertain at best. So, where’s your source? You haven’t provided a source on you claim and yet the link you provide were just a random mixed up music and entertainment stuff? LOL! So you're certain on it?

At the end of the day, if we’re going to talk about FACTS, then they should actually be grounded in reliable historical evidence, not just stories repeated long after the event.

So how do you define your sources? Seriously that's how you call it reliable? Here’s the site that you’d quoted and seriously how did you understand it?


No comments:

Pets or Family?

They were part of our Family.
They have different missions,
but they do serve the same Master and a God.
We all miss each other sometimes in our lives.



No comments:

About His Business By Elder Patrick Kearon Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Callings from the Lord
are tailor-made
for our growth,
as we humble ourselves,
look outward,
and learn that, indeed,
when we are in the service
of our fellow beings,
we are in fact
in the service of our God.
It really isn’t
where we serve
but how that matters
to the Lord.

About His Business
by Elder Patrick Kearon
of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste

Explore more of this at

Message2Ponder

and add your favorite for free.

Click Here


No comments:

About His Business by Elder Patrick Kearon of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

With those raised hands and encouraging smiles,
we were participating in common consent,
where we can choose to sustain,
by the raising of the right hand, those called to serve.
Common consent is not a mere formality
but a beautiful mix of our agency, unity, and faith.
It is a voluntary, personal commitment to support, uphold,
and help the Lord’s called servants in their responsibility,
whether bishopric member, Young Women adviser,
Sunday School teacher, or stake Primary president.
We sustain each other with our prayers,
our love, our patience, and our faith.

About His Business
by Elder Patrick Kearon
of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste

Explore more of this at

Message2Ponder

and add your favorite for free.

Click Here


No comments:

About His Business By Elder Patrick Kearon Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Some callings are highly stretching,
while others may leave us wondering,
“Isn’t there more I could be asked to do?”
You might serve in a very visible role for a time,
only later to be called to quiet, unseen service—
or to support those with less experience.
When callings change in ways that deeply impact you
or your family, it can require great faith
and trust in the Lord while you adjust.

About His Business
by Elder Patrick Kearon
of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste

Explore more of this at

Message2Ponder

and add your favorite for free.

Click Here


No comments:

Ginoong Pantas in his Private Conversation




So here's our conversation in response to his OP regarding the issue of the "missing" or Lost books of the Bible (text in read are my responses) -

Me: The Book of Mormon is Distinct that's why it is called "Another Testament", but if you want me to defend her stand, rather than go to the source itself, you may consider that the Book of Mormon also consists of some Missing Books. I'll give you an example - before the writing of the book was compiled, this group of people consisted of 2 families of the tribe of Joseph, who came from Jerusalem, and they were also prophets of that time before the exile. And sooner separated to the land for some purpose, so consider these prophets that time (Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel were there during that time period, and Lehi is unknown in the bible we have now), would you consider it in the bible if he was there? If not, why? Another thing is, before they voyaged to the Land we now call America, they brought with them the record of the Jews, with some writings of Isaiah, and some others who are not even known in the bible we have now, like Zenos, Zenok, Neum, Ezias, they quoted some of their words though not the entire writings and yet it is unknown in the bible but existed before the Babelonian Captivity where they carry it along with them. Of course, you won't consider it since you don't believe in the Book of Mormon, right? And you won't even consider having a little portion of studying it. Okay, so back to the issue, since you are dealing with someone who used to have their own opionions you should consider the source. I know a lot of INC's also were doing some opinions outside of your doctrine, of course, why would we stick to it if it's not the teachings?

Ginoong Pantas: Jerry Nuñez Bustillo

I don’t know kung maa-appreciate ko ba ang reply mo or what, but frankly you didn’t quite meet my question head-on, nag-drift ka lang eh.

My inquiry was very specific and sharply framed:

“Do Latter-day Saints assume that the so-called “missing books” of the Bible are fulfilled or represented by the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?”

That’s a YES-OR-NO theological clarification. 😏

Instead of addressing the core issue, you shifted to explaining that the BOM is “another testament,” which is already standard LDS doctrine, at hindi na ‘yan parte ng tanong ko. You even introduced figures like Lehi and unnamed prophets to argue that other writings existed outside the Bible, which again is a different topic.

Ewan ko ah, but you also brought up names like Zenos and Zenok to support the idea of lost or non-biblical prophets, not whether these are the same as the “missing books” being discussed. Tapos ngayon ay magre-redirect ka toward belief and willingness to study LDS texts? Dude, that’s more of a rhetorical pivot than a direct answer. You see, you answered “There were other records and prophets not in the Bible.” But MY question is “Are those ‘missing books’ being identified with LDS scriptures?” Well, oo, related naman, but NOT identical question.

Alam kong alam mo (at ni Marites) na ang real tension na ni-raise ko is this: If someone says “the Bible has missing books”, and then says “the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are from God,” are they implicitly claiming those are the missing biblical books? 😅 You never clearly affirmed or denied that connection.

You simply widened the discussion to “There were other writings that existed.” Aminado ako, that’s a safer, more general claim, and it avoids being pinned down.

Oh siya… I understand your point about additional records. But to be clear (sana naman hindi ko na ‘to need i-reiterate) are you saying the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are the missing books of the Bible, or simply additional revelations outside of it?

Me: Ginoong Pantas, So when you ask "Mormon folks, what are your takes on this?" is a closed-end question, am I right, or you just don't want to hear a reason? So, what you are doing here is to simply ask a question that doesn't need further explanation/interpretation, and then what? You want to go on and on with the YES and NO categories? My answer is simple and easy to understand, and clearly, you don't like it. We have the biblical records of some lost books (Book of Jasher, the Acts of Solomon, Nathan, Gad, etc.); they are all there, so what's your point in asking the questions where it is already given?

Thinking you don't like my answer, or should I say it's a dumb answer, then what do you want us to expect from you, OP? See where it leads you? My answer to your question is clear. And if you want me to summarize my answer, I'll give it to you to satisfy your demand. It's a NO (No more buts for the sake of your demand).

Ginoong Pantas: Marites Palos Salinas

Don’t worry. Anyone can make mistakes, so I’m not here to put you down. Instead of directly criticizing your response, I chose to raise an inquiry in this group. As you acknowledged, you weren’t entirely certain of your answer and felt obliged to give a firm YES rather than leave the question open. I’m not holding that against you.

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo

Bweno, thank you for clarifying that your answer is NO. 👍 That actually helps. So just to be consistent, would it be accurate to say that the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are not restorations of any lost biblical books, but entirely separate revelations? 😉

Me: How do you want me to answer your question?

Ginoong Pantas: Jerry Nuñez Bustillo

Since I elevated the question to another height, you now have your own way to answer it according to your version of truth. But a direct or heads-on answer will be highly appreciated. Kumbaga, kung ano ‘yung core ng tanong, doon lang din dapat magse-circulate ang mood ng sagot. No need for unnecessary decorations unless the issue itself requires it.

Me: Ginoong Pantas Actually I have said enough, and you don't like it. so I have to do it again in a different approach to help you out.

So, here's the thing, when you say revelation, it simply means you have something received from heaven, either God or a messenger or even the Holy Ghost that manifests something like organization, declarations, or something that might help the people in some future event.

When you question as if the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price were revelation, yes, it does, but they were in different settings. The Book of Mormon was the record received from ancient people who once hid their writting in some areas of the land, While the Pearl of the Great Price is a separate history where they purchase a papyrus from someone who sells it during their time and Joseph was permited to receive a translation of Abraham using some of the Papyrus fragments that were lost in the great fire in chicago.

Ginoong Pantas: Jerry Nuñez Bustillo

Do you really think so? 😏 By the time you asked for my viewpoint on the “priesthood” and you also didn’t like my answer, nagreklamo ba ako? I understand that we come from different religions, with different beliefs and doctrines. But pointing out a correction when your response doesn’t align with my original question doesn’t mean I dislike your answer. I’m simply asking for a more direct and focused response to what we’re discussing. 👍

Anyway… you’ve clarified something important, and I appreciate that. From your explanation, it’s now clear that you consider both the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price as revelations, but not restorations of any known “missing books” of the Bible. That distinction is helpful enough.

However, this raises a separate issue. Ano ‘yon? Historical verification.

When we talk about writings outside the biblical canon, there are actually documented discoveries that scholars (regardless of religion) recognize as historically rooted. In fact, napag-usapan na namin ‘to ng katrabaho kong Mormon din na tinanggihan ako noong niyaya ko siyang magkape eh.

Here are the examples:

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain ancient Hebrew texts, including copies of biblical books and other Jewish writings, physically dated and examined by historians and archaeologists.

2. The Nag Hammadi Library preserves early Christian and Gnostic writings, again with manuscript evidence and academic study behind them.

3. Even references to lost works like the Book of Jasher or the Acts of Solomon are grounded in historical citation, meaning we know they existed because other ancient sources mention them.

Now, in contrast (huwag ka naman sanang mapipikon), the Book of Mormon is presented as a record of ancient civilizations, yet there are NO independently verified manuscripts, NO archaeological findings universally accepted by non-LDS scholars, and NO external historical references to the people or records it describes. 👎 The same issue applies to the Pearl of Great Price, lalong lalo na ‘yung Book of Abraham, where the surviving papyri fragments studied by Egyptologists DO NOT MATCH the claimed translation. 😏

So the question now isn’t whether you believe they are revelations because you’ve already said you do. The question is WHY should these be treated on the same level as historically attested ancient writings, when they lack independent archaeological or textual support? Hindi rin iyan nasagot ng katrabaho ko.

That’s actually the real point I’m trying to understand.

Me: Ginoong Pantas sorry, natulugan ko na ang comment mo, and I read it while at work, so hindi ko na nasagot agad.

I didn't complain as a response to your comment; you simply misunderstood my point, and that is the problem. You just like to just critic on someone's view while you don't even have the solution even on your own problem, and I already expected that. When you people couldn't answer the questions that I simply asked the last time, which were all about Priesthood, Revelation, and Authority, I don't even go beyond it since it is one of our differences, and clearly, you don't have the answer, and I respected that. And again, as I have said in my previous comment, where did this OP lead to? I did not complain or dislike your comment, I only dislike the way you think my reasons are unacceptable, but that's okay, I'm already aware of it, the reason why I answered you on the first place regarding the issue with a friend and that you only want a yes or no answer because I already knew where this all leads, then here we are digging deeper. But anyway its a good start, so I'll address your questions about it.

Yes, to be fair, it is not about the idea of the Missing book you knew in the scriptures since the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price were distinct writings outside of the known books and authors you have in your pocket. So when you said "missing books," automatically, as I understood it, those were the books mentioned in the scripture. For me, it's not actually necessary, but we'll just stick to that so we wouldn't bring out more confusion as of this time, but you can have my explanation later on. So your question is the Historical verification, okay, so let's get to it -

When you talk about the Biblical Canon as a Documented Discovery. Will No, not everything in the biblical canon has a corresponding, documented, and/or universally accepted archaeological or historical discovery. While there were some other biblical figures, locations, or events closely on 8BCE, there were many narratives lack of external evidence or validations. I'll use your example so we will be on the same page.

1. The Dead Sea Scroll is not one of the Biblical Missing canon. Are we still talking about the missing canon, or just go on in some mixed stuff or archaeology? Okay, I'll let you have it. The Dead Sea Scroll has been discovery in one of the Qumran Cave that has been a collection of Jewish writings from some Splinters they were known as Essenes. I don't need more space on detailing this to you; take your time on research. But you get the point, the discoveries we have now have nothing to do with the missing canon, but perhaps a copy of some old manuscript predating their time. And here's some trivia if you think that might be helpful, but it's okay if you don't like it. The Book of Mormon mentions "The Land of Jerusalem" is an unknown phrase of the Bible and is considered laughable by some critics, but the Scroll of Apocryphon of Jeremiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls mentioned the same Phrase. Now ask this: Did Joseph Smith copy it or the Essenes? There are other things, but I don't need to pull it out. So you get the point; Dead Sea Scroll in out of the topic when we're talking about the missing canon.

2. Yes, Nag Hammadi Library collected the Gnostic Writings, no comments about; so how do you understand the Gnostic Teachings? Was it related to any of the known and accepted scriptures you have today? Do you consider it an inspired writing? What is your point of pulling it out if it's not relevant to the topic? I would rather consider the Book of Mormon align the authorized Bible you have now, than taking more study on gnostic writings that need much wider evidence and reference.

3. Now you have it, so you have the Lost Book of the Bible (The book of Jasher, Acts of Solomon, etc.), those were grounded in historical citation, I agree. The Bible mentioned it and could be a good source to understand more fully about the scriptural writings, historicity, or doctrines that have been taught ever since. We know they exist, as you said, and that it is mentioned. But do you accept it? If not? What are the factors that hinder you from accepting it?

So you see, you open up a statement that is even more problematic in this conversation. If you do accept these writings as authentic or authorized by means of revelation, or should I say as the Holy Ghost guided your religion, why not create a religion that has both of these writings intact, rather than questioning the Mormonism that has a certain writing outside of biblical studies

Now you claim that the Book of Mormon is a record of ancient civilizations with no independent verified manuscript, yea sure, since it is written on gold plates and was taken away by an angel to protect the sealed part that was not yet translated. Yes, I do agree, no evidence has been found, but the number of witness who never denies their testimony of its existence, even if they separate themselves from the church, is clearly that it existed. If you think this is not enough evidence for you, try to ask for evidence of a huge number of people bondage from Egypt and parted the Red Sea just to cross to the promised land. Do you have it? Can you confirm that it happened? And for the Book of Mormon, there were known discoveries that have proven the travel of this group of People, there were known landmarks and places right before they crossed America, Joseph Smith didn't even know Jerusalem had a wall, but the writing does. So, why was that? Your issue that it has archaeological evidence is outdate and I would suppose you just borrowed it from some critics rather than just your own.

And about the Book of Abraham, as you have said that the papyrus fragments don't match or are more closely a funerary text, I'm aware of that. And since you know that it is a surviving papyrus, so more accurately, it's not the entire writings. Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Abraham the way you translate hieroglyphics to English; Joseph Smith didn't know that. It was used as a catalyst that helped him receive further light from the early events of Abraham. And the Fun part is, we do have the Apocalypse of Abraham now that you can download, which confirms Joseph Smith's writings that have parallels to it, such as the idols, his father, sacrifices, cosmology, and many others. Did Joseph Smith know any of this? How?

So, back to your question, whether I believe they are revelations because I say it so, then why should they be treated on the same level as historically attested ancient writings, when they lack independent archaeological or textual support? I answered it already on the subject. Thinking I am like the same people you encountered, that this thing has no answers at all, mind you, I'm actually just only scratching the surface. There are other things I could prove, but it doesn't make sense if we just stick to Evidence rather than Doctrines and Faith. That's not how God works.
No comments:

Ministering—"That Ye Love One Another; as I Have Loved You"


We may not be able to fix difficult or heartbreaking circumstances as we hope;
some changes are not ours to make.
But we can choose to love and minister as the Savior would.

Ministering by the Spirit invites the Savior’s healing
into our lives and the lives of those we minister to.
I often find peace, clarity, healing, and purpose when I minister.
I find the Savior when I minister. This is by divine design.

Ministering—“That Ye Love One Another; as I Have Loved You”
By Sister Kristin M. Yee
Second Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency
Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste

Explore more of this at

Message2Ponder

and add your favorite for free.

Click Here


No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)