The Doctrine of Eternal Lives...

[Kingdom of ZION]

I do have very eclectic beliefs. I look at all religions, all doctrines, all prophecies to find the truth. I ask Father if I could share what I have shared here, long before I posted anything. I have not come here to find a following, or lead anyone anywhere. Am I a True Messenger or a Deceiver? I have continually maintained that you must ask Adonia [Hebrew for 'the Lord']. Are the Doctrines I share here from Adonia or my vain imagination? Again, seek Adonia, the fountain of all truths.

Do I wish to lead anyone away from the LDS Church, not particularly... anymore than I am trying to lead anyone here to the LDS Church. I came wishing to compare beliefs in topics I am interested in. There are a hundred different threads here, I have commented on only two. If those who are so upset with what were discussing here and feel we here are all out to lunch, then by all means, why not just start your own thread 'How to follow the Brethren or AG's perfectly'. Then you can discuss it to death and perfect your faith in the things you feel are important to you, and I for one will never post one word on that thread about how you should go about doing it or whether it is a true principle or if I think you are in error.

By the way Professor, Amon is Hebrew for Amen;

Baruch atah Adonai eloheinu melech ha'olam. Hear O Israel the L_rd our G_d , the L_rd is one.

The True Religion of G_d is one, it is all one, it is like the two blind men feeling the different ends of an elephant, their experiences and description are very different but the elephant is just an elephant, it is just one...!

[SpeedRacer]

KOZ. One thing I have a question on. Forgive me for not reading it all. You mention a Dispensation is 60 years if Zion is not esablished. Would that mean we are in apostacy today, and we do not have a true prophet, or was a new dispensation started around 1900?

[sixth seal]

I do have very eclectic beliefs. I look at all religions, all doctrines, all prophecies to find the truth. I ask Father if I could share what I have shared here, long before I posted anything. I have not come here to find a following, or lead anyone anywhere. Am I a True Messenger or a Deceiver? I have continually maintained that you must ask Adonia [Hebrew for 'the Lord']. Are the Doctrines I share here from Adonia or my vain imagination? Again, seek Adonia, the fountain of all truths.

Do I wish to lead anyone away from the LDS Church, not particularly... anymore than I am trying to lead anyone here to the LDS Church. I came wishing to compare beliefs in topics I am interested in. There are a hundred different threads here, I have commented on only two. If those who are so upset with what were discussing here and feel we here are all out to lunch, then by all means, why not just start your own thread 'How to follow the Brethren or AG's perfectly'. Then you can discuss it to death and perfect your faith in the things you feel are important to you, and I for one will never post one word on that thread about how you should go about doing it or whether it is true principle or I think you are in error.

By the way Professor, Amon is Hebrew for Amen;

Baruch atah Adonai eloheinu melech ha'olam. Hear O Israel the L_rd our G_d , the L_rd is one.

The True Religion of G_d is one, it is all one, it is like the two blind men feeling the different ends of an elephant, their experiences and description are very different but the elephant is just an elephant, it is just one...!

I have asked the Lord if what has been discussed here is true. The answer I got back is: No it is not true! It is deeply, deeply incorrect.
This is such a deviation from the true and correct principles and doctrines of the Gospel. Nothing good can ultimately come from indulging in this topic. It will lead down a path that will take you further away from the Gospel. Be very careful.

[[email protected]]

Thank you 6th seal - the perfect way to settle things. I have not had a chance to pray about this although I did feel it was wrong. I was reading the lost books of Adam and Eve about 10 years back and wanted a Priesthood blessing just to make sure it was OK for me to be reading - just wanted Heavenly Fathers input. The very first words were "Be careful, the adversary is very cunning. Everything you need for exaltation is in the scripture you now have."

[Original_Intent]

Thank you 6th seal - the perfect way to settle things. I have not had a chance to pray about this although I did feel it was wrong. I was reading the lost books of Adam and Eve about 10 years back and wanted a Priesthood blessing just to make sure it was OK for me to be reading - just wanted Heavenly Fathers input. The very first words were "Be careful, the adversary is very cunning. Everything you need for exaltation are in the scripture you now have."

I have to agree on the books of Adam and Eve - although there were a VERY few nuggets, I mostly felt a negative spirit while reading it - there are libraries of books OUTSIDE of the scriptures that are of more worth imho.

[SpeedRacer]

Amen to NGL, Heir, and Speed.

Errr...is it Amon?

/thread

Gotta give this post big props on so many levels.

[HeirofNumenor]

Thank you for your wisdom HeirofNumenor

Thank you Naomi...(I just saw this notification, which must have come during me writing a lengthy response...)

[Matthew.B]

KOZ-

I have a question regarding the multiple mortal lives (not probations). What mechanism do you propose is the means of a disembodied spirit's return to Earth again in a new body? This happens before ressurection?

And, have you ever heard of the doctrine of FATHER being a 7-layered being, and does that play into what you are saying about beings being classified by their estate (3rd estate being, 4th estate being, etc.)?

And, if you can share, what is the reason you are sharing these things on this forum? Clearly, this (if true) is very advanced doctrine, and this (if true) is not to be given lightly. There is always a reason. Are you here as part of the great sifting that is coming? You may speak plainly, via PM if you'd prefer.

Personally, I have seen a nugget of two of truth in what you have taught- nuggets that I have already been given by the SPIRIT. Whether that means your teachings are true or not, I dont know- I haven't taken these things to the FATHER yet. Time, prayer, and inspiration are the three great tools for sifting the dross from the gems.

Look forward to your reply.

[ldsfireguy]

This is not advanced doctrine or deep doctrine ... it is apostate doctrine. One of the hallmarks of the Fundamentalist sects is that they are always claiming to possess "deep doctrine" that the General Authorities are either ignorant of, or have left in the past.

One of the weaknesses of LDS liberty crowd (myself included) is the tendency to reach beyond the mark, and to try to steady the ark. If we are able to be deceived by stuff like this, then it may be that we have almost no chance in the face of the vastly more cunning deception that is coming.

[HeirofNumenor]

Well said LDSFireguy.... :ymapplause:

A sight like Latter-day conservative draws people would are politically conservative/Constitutionally-minded, many whom are much older, since it seems the younger ones really don't go for this stuff... (not to be a knock on either age group).

However, that fact that we talk about things on this site regarding Constitution and last days stuff - and many here seem to be frustrated or upset that these topics are not discussed or emphasized at Church anymore...well, many also get caught up discussing things which used to be talked about, but are no longer....and they feel those topics are being suppressed....they see Joseph Smith's or Brigham Young's name attached to it (regardless of context/later revelation) - and automatically declare this to be the true doctrine, which is being suppressed by modern leadership who insists on giving members only milk, instead of meat - and they are demanding steak. They tend to chaff at if not despise those who say "follow the living prophet" and that "God will never let his Prophet lead the Church astray"....they respond with "Joseph said "trust no man, not even the prophet", which some have said here means that if they pray about it and do not get the confirmation of the Holy Ghost, than obviously the teaching/statement is false and they themselves are not bound by it. They rarely recognize they need to be humble and check their pride and pre-conceived notions, as well as their desires for more intellectual stimulation. I could do the same thing: "Hey, I prayed about the law of chastity, but I don't feel the burning in my bosom, so it must be false - I'm going to go have fun and sleep with every woman I can, because this doesn't apply to me! The Holy Ghost didn't confirm it was true, so it must be false! (not considering that my pride and carnal desires would get in the way of the Holy Ghost here, and I would not listen).

Anyway, that's how I see it.

Study the doctrines of the Church and the scriptures....have faith that God is leading his prophet Thomas S. Monson and the LDS Church - nothing in being suppressed, you are not being held back...but don't run after those who are proclaiming new things, setting themselves up as keepers or relaters of deep mysteries - and carefully leading you away...

[[email protected]]

LOL - HeiroofNumenor,

I alway thought you were a woman (your picture I guess) but then you kept talking about dating women so now LOL - just funny to me.

About your saying "Yet it seems that those here who are claiming the virtues of personal revelation - that no one sees the possibility of the one claiming the revelation to have been deceived."

Why would you think no one sees the possibility of someone being deceived. I actually was thinking of missionary work, getting to know someone and gently giving them some sound doctrine - not just slamming them, doesn't matter if they are a member or not, obviously there was a problem and by asking questions it show you actually care about that person. I'm not afraid of asking questions and I'm not afraid of getting deceived - well lets say I make very sure I don't get deceived. Just because someone asks questions doesn't mean they are buying everything hook line and sinker.

[HeirofNumenor]

It wasn't the asking questions...it's the approach of several others that "answers received personally"(presumably by the Holy Ghost) that directly contradict revealed doctrine/authorized scripture - or those which later prophets have declared to be false doctrine, etc...the expressed/implied sentiment being that the individual answer trumps the modern prophets & scriptures, which sets one up higher than the prophets (as if we were Protestants); as well as higher than those who hold to the modern prophets: "it's a paradox - I saw it; your will see it when you are ready".

[HeirofNumenor]

LOL this doesn't annoy me (except for maybe a reliance on Denver Snuff)...though I am amazed to find another person who knows SOMETHING from The Silmarillion....though why you picked the Satan figure, I don't know....

[Matthew.B]

Hmmm...

Kingdom of Zion shows no intention, on this thread, of being deliberately misleading. In fact, he has encouraged us to go to GOD ourselves. Also, I see nothing that is technically against holy writ- just things that, if true, require a deeper understanding.

The questions I asked are twofold: if he answers them, I will receive the answer I am looking for, and his motives and intentions will be revealed. You sometimes discern the wolf by how he views the other sheep- not always by the the quality of his bleating.

The harshness with which Kingdom has been judged and treated is surprising. If he is led by GOD, you are harming yourselves. If he is led by another spirit patience, diligence, and the Spirit will reveal him. If he decides to come back...

[HeirofNumenor]

except, that Elendil was NOT of the line of Ar-Pharazôn, so there! :p

[Eddie Lyle]

I've been a lurker for months but had to join just to post that Heir of Numenor is spot on.

It is interesting to see the near parallels as to the early church after Christ's resurrection and the restoration. Strange doctrines started creeping in almost immediately after Christ left. Christ's doctrine, the gospel, is simple. Folks like to make more of that simple doctrine and so you ended up with Marcionites, Ebionites, Montanists, the various gnostics, Manicheists ect. ect. until you have the variety of Christianities and extinct Christianities that have been evident over the last 2000 years. Why would the father of lies not continue in the same manner that has been successful for the last 2000 years or in fact since Master Mahan himself? Satan loves to make counterfeit gospels up. And there are those who willingly or unknowingly spread his lies and half truths for a plethora of reasons.

The same thing has happended in the restored Church since the beginning as well. There is little need to list all the apostate branches, offshoot churches and sects and offshoots of offshoots, not to mention lone members who have come up with a new and improved "revealed" gospel different than what Christ revealed to his authorized servants.

KoZ has given us nothing but obscure quotes from non-scriptural sources, strange exegesis of scriptural passages and assurances that his revelation is truth. This gospel of KoZ is not simple. It is barely understandable. I don't buy it. It reeks of falsehood to me and obviously others on the board. I encourage others, if their spirit of discernment isn't going into overdrive over this, to pray about it and find truth for themselves.

Eddie

[ldsfireguy]

If he is "led by God" in his receipt of personal revelation, then he should not be revealing it. In doing so, he is casting pearls before swine ... and who are the swine? Well, we are.

In other words, if Kingdom has received personal revelation that is of an advanced nature, then it is absolutely NOT within his purview to reveal the same to those who are not ready to receive it. And how do we know that we are not ready to receive it? Because God has not directly revealed it to us, and neither have His prophets.

This is a sure key, which requires no debate, no deep consideration, no prayer and fasting ... when a man comes preaching doctrine that is beyond anything taught by the prophets in these last days, and is outside the line of authority, then it is not authorized of God. God speaks through the prophets on these matters, not someone posting anonymously on an internet forum. I don't see anyone "judging" Kingdom - I certainly do not feel that I am doing so. I kind of like him, and I'm pretty sure that I would enjoy sitting down and talking with him for a while. I AM however judging his doctrine, his ideas - which I am compelled by my priesthood and covenants to do. Declaiming unsound doctrine is a duty we owe to ourselves and to others, and failure to do so is one of the things that killed the first century church.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

[gruden2.0]

If he is "led by God" in his receipt of personal revelation, then he should not be revealing it. In doing so, he is casting pearls before swine ... and who are the swine? Well, we are.

In other words, if Kingdom has received personal revelation that is of an advanced nature, then it is absolutely NOT within his purview to reveal the same to those who are not ready to receive it. And how do we know that we are not ready to receive it? Because God has not directly revealed it to us, and neither have His prophets.

This is a sure key, which requires no debate, no deep consideration, no prayer and fasting ... when a man comes preaching doctrine that is beyond anything taught by the prophets in these last days, and is outside the line of authority, then it is not authorized of God. God speaks through the prophets on these matters, not someone posting anonymously on an internet forum. I don't see anyone "judging" Kingdom - I certainly do not feel that I am doing so. I kind of like him, and I'm pretty sure that I would enjoy sitting down and talking with him for a while. I AM however judging his doctrine, his ideas - which I am compelled by my priesthood and covenants to do. Declaiming unsound doctrine is a duty we owe to ourselves and to others, and failure to do so is one of the things that killed the first century church.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

You make good points, but I would point out that in one of his posts he did mention that he prayed prior to posting for the OK. I can only imagine what this board would be like if we all did that.

Speaking only for myself he provided some info pertinent to a question I had prayed about, so in some respects I feel at least some of it was for me. I have also noted in the past that there is a silent group who don't post but read with interest, and are given to more thoughtful inquiry than the orthodox brigade who prefers simply to shout things down they don't like. Those that need certain things he provided will find themselves here and pick out what is valuable to them and depart quietly. I have no doubt about that.

[Nan]

IF your personal revelation goes against the prophet or the scriptures you are not receiving personal revelation from god, but from another source.

[Matthew.B]

If he is "led by God" in his receipt of personal revelation, then he should not be revealing it. In doing so, he is casting pearls before swine ... and who are the swine? Well, we are.

To be blunt, friend, if KoZ is led by GOD to be sharing these things, then the only "swine" are the ones claiming it is false doctrine. Conversely, if there is someone or a few people who would accept the teachings, and (still theoretical) the LORD could give KoZ leave to share these things. After all, he hasn't come in a mantle of authority, so all are free to reject/accept what he's saying.

I should note I still haven't made a decision yet on whether this doctrine is truthful or not. FATHER hasn't answered me yet (not surprising; these things take some time). Yet I know a little bit about how "minor" prophets (what I mean is those who have great personal revelation and understanding but not currently holding earthly authority) share their information,

Were to GOD that all men were prophets, and could understand and teach doctrine.

In other words, if Kingdom has received personal revelation that is of an advanced nature, then it is absolutely NOT within his purview to reveal the same to those who are not ready to receive it.

Unless KoZ was given express leave to by the LORD.

I AM however judging his doctrine, his ideas - which I am compelled by my priesthood and covenants to do. Declaiming unsound doctrine is a duty we owe to ourselves and to others, and failure to do so is one of the things that killed the first century church.

You bring up a good point. Wisdom (and truth), however, are justified of all her children- meaning that it is still possible for KoZ to be honest here.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Not very charitable of you. If you want to convince someone that you are in your Priesthood line of duty, snarky remarks don't help your cause. But I do appreciate the sentiment behind it.

And I am still somewhat confused as to what, exactly, KoZ posted that is strictly against Holy Writ. I haven't read over the thread for a few days- still hoping that KoZ responds- but the key points don't, to my understanding, contradict the teachings of the prophets- especially with the quotes from various early Church leaders regarding Joseph's belief in "reincarnation" (that is, one spirit body having multiple mortal lifetimes (but not mortal probations)). Perhaps, if you could cite scripture and quote KoZ's doctrine that directly contradicts, I could better understand where you're coming from.

Not trying to be combative here- doing my best to understand.

[TheProfessor]

Hmm... the only thing this thread is doing for me is to remind me that I need to go back and read The Silmarillion again. Been a while, I'm realizing.

[SpeedRacer]

Are you intimating that JRR Tolkien had a better understanding of this stuff than me? That is humiliating. I could use a dose of that though.

[HeirofNumenor]

LOL sorry Speed... :p

I look forward to have a good long talk with JRR Tolkien, and CS Lewis as well...

[Kingdom of ZION]

The History of 'the Apocrypha'
Known as 'Questionable Writings' by Scriptures Scholars
And is in reality inspirational books authored by man rather than God


The word 'Apocrypha' means "secret" or "hidden". In reality there needs
to be a better definition as to what the Apocrypha really is! It is not a book
found among the canonized scriptures, about which everyone agrees is
profitable as scripture. It would however be far more correct to call them,
the 'disputed books', rather than secret or hidden books, as there is no
general agreement on there authenticity. They are not books which are
universally rejected as totally uninspired writings. The Apocrypha, is certain
books and writings that many Scholars and Biblical Authorities have grouped
together because they appear to have doubtful authenticity as scriptural Old
Testament writings. These researchers and translators, as well as publishers
and churches over the centuries have not always been in agreement as to which
specific book or writing should be designated as apocryphal in nature and
removed from the canon of the Holy Bible. However, here is what has now
generally been included in 'the Apocrypha' and excluded from the Bible: 1st
and 2nd Esdras; Tobit; Judith; the rest of the chapters of Esther; Wisdom of
Solomon; Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus; Baruch and the
Epistle of Jeremiah; additional parts of Daniel, including the Song of the
Three Holy Children, the History of Susanna, and the History of the
Destruction of Bel and the Dragon; Prayer of Manasses; and 1st and 2nd
Maccabees.

These apocryphal writings were never included in any of the published
Hebrew versions of the Bible (Old Testament). The Holy Roman Catholic church
previous to the Council of Trent, 1545-1563, were in doubt as to the
inspiration of some of the books of the Apocrypha admitted into the Catholic
Canon. But Dr. Smith, in his Bible Dictionary, says: "The Council of Trent
closed the question which had been left open, and deprived its theologians of
the liberty they had hitherto enjoyed extending the Canon of Scripture so as
to include all the hitherto doubtful or deutero-canonical books, with the
[p.29] exception of the two books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, the
evidence against which seemed too strong to be resisted (Sess. IV. de Can.
Script). In accordance with this decree, the editions of the Vulgate,
published by authority (them), contained the books which the Council had
pronounced canonical, as standing on the same footing as those which had never
been questioned, while the three which had been rejected were printed commonly
in smaller type and stood after the New Testament." (Bible Dictionary p, 122.)
In the Greek version, called 'Septuagint' 1526, the Old Testament version most
likely used by the early apostles, it did however contain them. Also, in the
Latin version of the Bible, called the 'Vulgate' 1534, Jerome, who was the
translator, did include them, even though he said concerning them, that they
were good "for example of life and instruction of manners" but not "to
establish any doctrine." Much later, in Luther's German Bible, he grouped the
apocryphal books together at the end of the Old Testament. Luther titled them:
"Apocrypha: these are books which are not held equal to the sacred scriptures,
and yet are useful and good for reading." It should be noted that in this
section, he omitting 1st and 2nd Esdras, rejecting those two books of Esdras
as containing worthless fables. In the history of the English Church, Wicliffe
showed himself in this as in other points the forerunner of the Reformation,
and applied the term 'Apocrypha' to all but the 'twenty-five' Canonical books
of the Old Testament. The judgment of Jerome was formally asserted in the
sixth Article. The disputed books were collected and described in the same way
in the printed English Bible of 1539 (Cranmer's), and since then there has
been no fluctuation as to the application of the word. The books to which the
term is ascribed are in popular speech not merely apocryphal, but the
Apocrypha."

The Apocrypha was included in the King James Version, printed in 1611,
but by 1629 some English version Bibles began to delete those books from them,
and since the early 1800's these books have been excluded from almost all
Protestant Bibles. In the American Bible Society, founded in 1816, they have
never printed the Apocrypha in their Bibles, and in the British and Foreign
Bible Society, they have excluded it from all but a few of their pulpit Bibles
since 1827. It appears that the controversy as to the value of the Apocrypha
at the time the Prophet began his New Translation of the Bible in 1833, was
still in question. While engaged in revising the King James Version of the
Bible by the spirit of revelation, the Prophet felt compelled to inquire of
the Lord as to the authenticity of the Apocrypha. What Joseph received in
Kirtland, Ohio, on March 9, 1833, concerning the Apocrypha, is contained in
the current Doctrine and Covenants, in section 91.

"1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the
Apocrypha--There are many things contained therein that are true, and it
is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which
are interpolations by the hands of men.
3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha
should be translated.
4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit
manifesteth truth;
5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit
therefrom;
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited.
Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen."
[D&C 91:1-6]

From the answer the Lord gave to Joseph, He made it clear that the books
in the Apocrypha were inspired writings in there first instance, but that
subsequent interpolations or in other words, changes had perverted and twisted
their original contexts so as to leave them with doubtful value as scripture.
The Lord put the final word on the status of the Apocrypha correctness,
leaving no doubt in anyone's mind who excepts Joseph as a Prophet.

Obviously, to gain any real value from a study of apocryphal writings,
the student must first have an extensive background of gospel knowledge, a
comprehensive understanding of the standard works of Mormon Churches, plus the
guidance of the Spirit. For the Lord said of the Apocrypha that, 'There are
many things contained therein that are true, and it is MOSTLY translated
correctly' But mostly is NOT totally! Case in point:

In the King James Version (translation) of the Apocrypha, we find this
very curious account about evidently very large Elephants being used in war.
This can be said because of the size of Elephant or beast that would be
required to place 33 men upon it.

"26 And, behold, this day are they besieging the tower at Jerusalem,
to take it: the sanctuary also and Bethsura have they fortified.
27 Wherefore if thou dost not prevent them quickly, they will do the
greater things than these, neither shalt thou be able to rule them.
28 Now when the king heard this, he was angry, and gathered together
all his friends, and the captains of his army, and those that had charge
of the horse.
29 There came also unto him from other kingdoms, and from isles of
the sea, bands of hired soldiers.
30 So that the number of his army was an hundred thousand footmen,
and twenty thousand horsemen, and TWO AND THIRTY ELEPHANTS exercised in
battle.
31 These went through Idumea, and pitched against Bethsura, which
they assaulted many days, making engines of war; but they of Bethsura
came out, and burned them with fire, and fought valiantly.
32 Upon this Judas removed from the tower, and pitched in
Bathzacharias, over against the king's camp.
33 Then the king rising very early marched fiercely with his host
toward Bathzacharias, where his armies made them ready to battle, and
sounded the trumpets.
34 And to the end they might provoke the ELEPHANTS to fight, they
shewed them the blood of grapes and mulberries.
35 Moreover they divided the beasts among the armies, and for every
ELEPHANT they appointed a thousand men, armed with coats of mail, and
with helmets of brass on their heads; and beside this, for every beast
were ordained five hundred horsemen of the best.
36 These were ready at every occasion: wheresoever the beast was,
and whithersoever the beast went, they went also, neither departed they
from him.
37 And upon the beasts were there strong towers of wood, which
covered every one of them, and were girt fast unto them with devices:
there were also upon every ONE [ELEPHANT] TWO and THIRTY STRONG MEN, THAT
FOUGHT UPON THEM, BESIDE THE INDIAN THAT RULED HIM.
38 As for the remnant of the horsemen, they set them on this side
and that side at the two parts of the host giving them signs what to do,
and being harnessed all over amidst the ranks.
39 Now when the sun shone upon the shields of gold and brass, the
mountains glistered therewith, and shined like lamps of fire.
40 So part of the king's army being spread upon the high mountains,
and part on the valleys below, they marched on safely and in order."
[Apocrypha KJV, 1 Maccabees 6:26-40]

But then you might want to also look at other translations of the
Apocrypha, such as "The Apocrypha, An American Translation, by Edgar J.
Goodspeed". In Goodspeed's translation, it read that there, "were four
powerful men who fought on them, besides the Indian driver." (1 Maccabees
6:37-38, p.399) a total of 5 Men. It seems that such would not take to much of
the spirit to see the truth! May the Lord bless you in your own personal path
and quest for eternal truths and correct principles. However, I still think
that the battle for Pelennor Field would be very dull without the King James
Version of El-e-phants.

* * *

Copyrighted by Kingdom of ZION (KoZ) Ver 9/05, 2005

[HeirofNumenor]

However, I still think that the battle for Pelennor Field would be very dull without the King James
Version of El-e-phants.

LOL very nice flourish at the end!

BRAVO!!!

:ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: