I agree with you on everything. But change doesn't happen immediately. And Jesus Christ knew this. It's why the prophet told us to repent daily. And this in no means that we should be complacent about sin. But it should always be in our hearts to be different, and strive to be better always. Never give up. I myself had problems for years, and I had difficulty changing my habits. And yet I prayed daily for change. And it was through reading and studying the scriptures and studying history of the church I realized , that God loved me and all his children. Will I receive the celestial kingdom? I don't think so. But it will never stop me from striving to be better. For I love our Savior and our father in heaven. And I know that this is our saviors church. And he gives us truth and life and love.

​@MrRickb75645 i say you CAN obtain the celestial kingdom as ALL things are possible in and through Christ!!! And your point is well taken I still Struggle with some things to this day even after joining the church. I relapsed using alcohol for a period of time using that medication as a crutch and went through a time of disfellowship from the Church (self reported) but I knew I must trudge on forward yearning for the strait and narrow path.... I appreciate your comments!! 0:10

You’d think they’d have all looked to the serpent no issues right? 😂

Thank you!

Glad to hear!

Thank you!

I am the god of this world!

@@CwicShow "he beguiled me, and I did eat."

Yes, "kategor"

Satan appears as a counterfeit to Christ. Just as socialism is Satan’s counterfeit to Zion. He tries to make himself and what he offers appear to be good and desirable yet he wants control and power.

Very possible. It was a wicked, promiscuous, and adulterous generation.

How do you know they conspired the scheme? They certainly were blatantly breaking the law by not bringing the "Male" with her, but the text does not give any information to suggest they created the situation.

@@tsmithson1 two reasons. First is if you apply the law of Moses which is what they were doing. Jesus has to keep the law in what he wrote in the sand. If he didn't they would have got him in the trap. Second is God never changes he is merciful but also just. It's the only thing someone could have drawn in the sand to deescalate the situation, if you take into consideration the law of Moses. It says in the text they caught her in the act, what else could have made them leave? They wanted his life.

@@tsmithson1 why do you think John kept out what he wrote in the sand? You don't think John knew, you don't think he asked Jesus? If you had to be told everything in order to come up with an opinion or belief that whole test your in on earth would be pointless. It's the concept many are called but few are chosen

The Pharisees would definitely not have brought any woman to Jesus for him to pass judgement. This account was added in one manuscript 500 years after the alleged event, and it took a further 400 years before it became more widely circulated in manuscripts. In other words, we are almost as close to this becoming popular in manuscripts as that is to the account (it's a vewy long time ago)

They had no shame. They were murderers and was trying to kill Jesus by getting him work blasphemy against the law. He wrote in the sand where is the man. And it's because they couldn't bring the man or else they all would have been complicit with that very crime, because they were all guilty of setting this woman up

They were guilty of setting this woman up, therefore guilty of the same crime. That's what they were guilty of

@@holyroller4391 The text gives no such information to draw that conclusion. It's interesting, but speculation.

@@holyroller4391 Whether she was set up, or they just took advantage of catching her in the act, they were trying to trick Jesus Christ into breaking the law of Moses, by not having her stoned, or taking judgment upon himself. But they did not all leave at once, nor did they all decide to tempt Jesus Christ, many would have joined the group on its way to Jesus Christ, to find out what was going on.

Two things are in play ,if she was caught in the act,where was the man, Deuteronomy 22:22. If there was no man, you could say they were guilty of bearing false witnesses Exodus 20:16. May be wrong, but just my insight into what could be happening.

Who says that the Church is under condemnation? Define "condemnation". The only time the Lord said that the Church was under condemnation was for vanity and unbelief, and would remain so until they remembered the Book of Mormon and didn't treat it lightly (D&C 84). Having the Lord condemn the Church for taking lightly the Book of Mormon doesn't mean that He invalidated the Church, or revoked power and authority. It simply means that if the Church were to receive 100 blessings for taking the Book of Mormon seriously, they were receiving less than 100 for taking it lightly. Something to correct? Certainly. But not the end of the world.

@@caguas97 D&C 84: 55-58. Nothing has changed since… the Lord has not said we are no longer under condemnation.

@@frederikatenhoopen6112 again, define "condemnation". Everyone in the entire world is under some kind of condemnation. The Church being under condemnation for taking the Book of Mormon lightly is just that... We're missing out on blessings that could be ours. That's all there is to it. It doesn't mean the Church is apostate. It doesn't mean the leadership has fallen. It doesn't mean anything of the sort. People like to throw that verse around like it means that the Church went into apostasy at that point and needs recovering. That's not what it means at all. Name one mortal who isn't under condemnation.

@@caguas97 …. Condemnation… we don’t compare the Lords work to the world ( everyone) so condemnation means you can not progress or ascend until certain attributes are met. Eg. I believe there are more scriptures for us but as one Native American Elder said that we need more faith and he hinted that he knows the Jaredites have scriptures but the Lord will not release them yet.

Thank you for your comments.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the purpose of the law is?

Paul said the purpose of the law was to show us our need for a redeemer.” to bring us to Christ to be justified by faith “ Gal 3:24 law exposes our sin. the law is not the gospel and the gospel is not the law . one saves , one doesn’t .

@@FrederickBergman-gz5yp Are the words of Christ the "gospel?"

Greg, Jesus’s words are the TRUTH. He is the Word incarnate , God made flesh, the living Word of God , as the Bible is the written word of God . The gospel in the dispensation of grace( (Eph 3:2) was given to Paul by Jesus ( and not from the other apostles ) and specifically defined in 1 Cor 15:1-4. It is nothing other than trusting in Jesus’s death for our sins , burial , and resurrection of Christ for our salvation. There isn’t a law , ordinance, or commandment in it outside of faith in what God has already accomplished. Paul testified his ministry was to testify of the “gospel of the grace of God “ (Acts 20:24) we are not justified by commandment keeping or covenant keeping, we are justified by HIS FAITH! Gal 2:20 This is the Love of God made manifest ! This message is so wonderful and glorious! Salvation is a Finished Work of God ! (John 19:30) The gospel is the message of salvation! Thank you Jesus !!!!

The gospel of John was most probably a collection of writings added to over time, not written in a day or one solid document, it’s a perfectly good standard to add something later from the same author if found to be so by the group who preserved them. The authority from scholars is weak to begin with and when they are making a claim with a standard that isn’t strong enough to invalidate the source.

Just because it isn't found currently in the earlier versions, doesn't mean it didn't exist. It obviously fits within the writing of John's Gospel and if it was inserted later, it includes the allusions to the Brazen Serpent.

@@boltrooktwo if it were a collection of different documents then that would be clear in the writings of the early church fathers and other early Christian writings, but that's not the case. Additionally, you would need one central authority to put everything together. We simply don't find that anywhere. Even if you said "perhaps the Catholic church did that" we would need a reason to believe that. They write down what is agreed upon in church councils & tell people what they have agreed in councils because they want people to follow it and obey it. We find nothing indicating that happened with the gospel of John. So we have absolutely no reason to believe it is a later bringing together of different documents

@@CwicShow I hear you. But it is similar to saying "the evidence shows it was definitely added later. I'll ignore the evidence and go against it" Do you have every right to go against the manuscript evidence? Yes. Yes you do. But it would be at least kind to let people know "what I'm about to discuss is fake according to all evidence we have, but I deliberately go against the evidence here". I guess I'm being harsh, and I hope I'm not being offensive. Sorry 😐 After thinking it over, these aren't the proud Pharisees of the gospels here. They humbly admit they are sinners. That's not the Pharisees I have read about. They ask Jesus to judge. Unlike the Jesus of the real gospels, this time he actually decides he will get involved in judging a matter which the law was extremely clear on. And what obviously is a million times worse, is that he then declares that the law of God gave is unjust, by saying that no human should ever judge these matters. Well that's clearly not the Jesus of the gospels. This account is so incredibly contradictory on so many levels, and that's just the stuff that I can spot. I have never looked at what the scholars have also written. Perhaps they have also found additional reasons to reject this small fragment in the text. So overall, I think that the manuscript evidence is absolutely clear that this is fake and if we just read the account even without any manuscript evidence, we see a man drawing in the sand with his finger silently while people who would later judge him are looking to him for guidance as he tells them all God's law is wrong. There goes another point I just realised - If he said that their law was wrong, why would they not stone him for blasphemy? The are just so many errors in this tiny little addition to the text. I hope you can see that I'm not just being mean, but I genuinely believe that this is a very clearly false addition done by a later scribe who had almost no idea of who the Pharisees or Jesus was. I wonder if he was trying to justify something he was doing that was very bad in his own life 😐 I guess we'll not know during this life

@@marcus.H You’ve gone too far with your claim if you are going to contend there is “absolutely no reason.” You have no real evidence it wasn’t meant to be there and was added in to finish a collection of writings, the people who handled it had moral reasoning to keep the writing intact and authentic. You only have some evidence there are some manuscripts that are missing that section and that is not absolute reasoning as you claim at all.