I came here many months ago looking for Greg Olson, and then started posting various ideas. All of my posts were deleted. I cannot find them in the history. I promised to return after I finished moving to a new home. So I am here. If no one wants to talk to me, that is fine. I will go away.

Depends on what you have to say...:)

Personally, I don't recall the various ideas you posted that got deleted.

If you post new/interesting things, I'll be happy to engage.

I don't remember your username, but if your posts were hidden, there was a reason (which could be as simple as they were responding posts to other posts, which were hidden because they broke the rules or whatever).

In any case, go through the Message List, pick out a thread you are interested in, and respond. (Again: if you respond to a post which is later hidden, your response will be hidden as well--this is just the way the board "physically" works.)

Welcome back!

P.S. Go to the top of the Message List and read the Guidelines. Although I don't know what your posts were about, you may have previously, and inadvertently, been transgressing the rules here, such as "No partisan politics," "No faith promoting ," and "No conspiracy theories."

There are other rules, so you need to at least skim them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 05:24PM by Tevai.

Who is Greg Olson?

Greg Olson wrote a book about Mormonism in 1999 and the sons of God who birthed the Nephilim Giants in Gen 6:11 created Mormonism, and I linked to the book to find him. It is only published on the internet. It is buried in the middle of a website that is promoting it's own brand of Christianity, so the moderators deleted the post claiming I was promoting the website. I want to find Greg Olson because his book makes a lot of sense to me, but I can't find anyone who knows where he went to by visiting the many LDS discussion boards I snooped around to find him. I finally gave up looking when I moved.

I can see now why your posts are probably being deleted. Good luck with your quest.

Is there something I don't know about this board. Can you fill me in so I don't make any mistakes in my assumptions. It is not a problem at all. If I don't belong here, I will just leave. I am looking for Greg Olson, but if I can't be helped, in a short time, I will leave. No hurt feelings, by the way. It says Recovery from Mormonism, and that idea carries a lot of assumptions I am making, such as x-Mormons finding an interest in the name Nephilim in the Bible. Am I wrong? Is the Bible banned here or something? That's fine with me. I just need to know, so I don't make a mistake in my assumptions.

Read Babyloncansuckit's post below. He spells it out.

Anon the Greg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there something I don't know about this board.
> Can you fill me in so I don't make any mistakes in
> my assumptions. It is not a problem at all. If I
> don't belong here, I will just leave. I am
> looking for Greg Olson, but if I can't be helped,
> in a short time, I will leave. No hurt feelings,
> by the way. It says Recovery from Mormonism, and
> that idea carries a lot of assumptions I am
> making, such as x-Mormons finding an interest in
> the name Nephilim in the Bible. Am I wrong? Is
> the Bible banned here or something? That's fine
> with me. I just need to know, so I don't make a
> mistake in my assumptions.

It depends on how the discussion is presented and how it unfolds through the different responses.

"The name Nephilim in the Bible" could be a fine discussion on RfM (we do have analyses of biblical passages here from time to time--I posted on one a couple of weeks ago), but discussions like this need to come from an objective analysis (without religious preconceptions or beliefs).

The Bible is definitely NOT banned here and can be analyzed in all kinds of ways, but RELIGIOUS ("faith based") discussions of the Bible ARE banned. When "belief" becomes a factor, that part of the discussion is over the permitted line.

"Academic"/"intellectual"/"scientific" analyses are [usually] fine on RfM, because they do not involve religious belief.

If anyone else can explain this better, please do! Thank you!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 06:43PM by Tevai.

I should clarify. The Bible reference is Gen 6:1-2 not Gen 6:11. Also, Nephilim is the translation of the NIV not the King James. I find it interesting that Greg Olson argues that Nephilim is the plural of Nephi for the major character in the Book of Mormon. "im" is plural in Hebrew. I wish I could pick his brain. I have a lot of questions after reading his book. I am not LDS.

Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I should clarify. The Bible reference is Gen 6:1-2
> not Gen 6:11. Also, Nephilim is the translation of
> the NIV not the King James. I find it interesting
> that Greg Olson argues that Nephilim is the plural
> of Nephi for the major character in the Book of
> Mormon. "im" is plural in Hebrew. I wish I could
> pick his brain. I have a lot of questions after
> reading his book. I am not LDS.

"Nephi" is NOT related to the word "Nephilim" in the Jewish texts.

General rule: An "im" ending to a Hebrew ["masculine"] word DOES make that word a plural.

Google: "Is Nephi related to Nephilim in the Jewish texts?" There will be many different returns, some of them specifically talking about the Book of Mormon, and you can see for yourself that the Book of Mormon conflated the two different ancient Hebrew words.

[Side note: Since we know that Joseph Smith was learning [ancient] Hebrew, this would be an understandable mistake on his part which any "beginner" in ancient Hebrew could easily make.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 06:53PM by Tevai.

Greg Olson devotes a chapter to the translation of Hebrew for Nephilim, but I will summarize his ideas for you. If the strict rules applied, the grammar would be Nephiim. The two ii look strange and awkward to any reader, so the "l" was added to remove confusion. There is no Hebrew translated with the double "ii" in the Bible.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> [Side note: Since we know that Joseph Smith was learning
> [ancient] Hebrew, this would be an understandable mistake
> on his part which any "beginner" in ancient Hebrew could
> easily make.]

Joseph Smith didn't start to study [ancient] Hebrew until about
five years after the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

However the name "Nephi" appears in the Apocrypha in 2
Maccabees:

“And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to
say, a cleansing: but many men call it Nephi.”
--2 Maccabees 1:36 KJV



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 10:30PM by baura.

Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greg Olson wrote a book about Mormonism in 1999
> and the sons of God who birthed the Nephilim
> Giants in Gen 6:11 created Mormonism, and I linked
> to the book to find him. It is only published on
> the internet. It is buried in the middle of a
> website that is promoting it's own brand of
> Christianity, so the moderators deleted the post
> claiming I was promoting the website. I want to
> find Greg Olson because his book makes a lot of
> sense to me, but I can't find anyone who knows
> where he went to by visiting the many LDS
> discussion boards I snooped around to find him. I
> finally gave up looking when I moved.


Devoted Exmo has it right. :)

Okay. The website you describe would not be permitted as a link, or as a name and address, here.

If anyone here knows anything about Greg Olsen, then they can post that they do know (but not give specifics which are against the rules), and we can go from there.

Tevai: is Old Testament Hebrew remotely poetic in the way that the English of the KJV is?

I've often wondered as the Vulgate (Latin bible) is completely pedestrian: straight out of a Dick and Jane reader (in Latin).

3X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tevai: is Old Testament Hebrew remotely poetic in
> the way that the English of the KJV is?
>
> I've often wondered as the Vulgate (Latin bible)
> is completely pedestrian: straight out of a Dick
> and Jane reader (in Latin).

Okay, this is definitely not my area of expertise--but as I understand, although there are poetic PARTS of the Old Testament (poems, songs, etc.), my sense of the Hebrew it is written in is that the syntax is pretty straightforward for the most part.

I am greatly hampered by the fact that, although I can phonetically read the text, I am fortunate if I can understand half of the words in any sentence (meaning: the more common words ;) ).

The other part of this is that spoken Hebrew "sounds nice"--especially to ears which are accustomed to it. I'm not sure that it would sound AS nice to ears which are not accustomed to it (especially since there are guttural letters in Hebrew which sound like the person speaking is clearing their throat while they are in the midst of a cold).

Hearing the sounds of Hebrew, and liking them, may very possibly be an acquired taste.

Thanks ...

I think it's safe to say that no one here gives the book of mormon any credence. To us, the book of mormon is the product of a committee of people engaged in a fraud, with the book of mormon a piece of the fraudulent puzzle they were planning.

The fraud took off, but not in the direction initially planned, but Joseph Sniff was equal to the challenge, when he wasn't thinking with his dick, and he made rode the wave for as long as he could.

Then came Brigham Young.

But at all times and places, the book of mormon was nothing more than a clumsy fraud.

So speak the giants of North America, the Lamanites, whose faithful mouthpiece I am. No go forth and sin no more.

Thank you for the reply. There many views of Mormonism, but my views were formulated by Quin's book about the occult origins of early Mormon magic.

The book contains many facts, such as the court records from 1826. I see some laughing about Jesus; I am not offended. Everyone is on their own path of life. It appears the Bible is kind of off limits in here. OK. I will refrain from saying anything about the Bible. Sorry.

Oh, there's lots you can say about the bible! That it is a collection of ancient writings is accepted. But then the fun starts...

Aha, your eyes have not been opened. You must eat of the fruit of this tree. It will make you wise.

Hey, I love Jesus as much as anybody. Super cool bro. I also love Santa Clause. And Mrs Clause, could she bake a plate of cookies.

I don’t need Jesus to be real to love what “he” represents. An archetype of the best “us” that could be imagined. I don’t need the BoM or other of Joseph’s creations to be real either. But to be told that they’re ancient when clearly they’re not ruins the magic. Maybe it’s just me, but being massively scammed doesn’t engender much trust. But there’s more. The church fills the role of the Oedipal mother. Forever the child of God, having mommy church make all of your moral judgements. It’s the Hansel and Grettel story, the devouring mother, with no woodsman around to kill that evil bitch.

Jesus, what took you so long?

LOL!!!!

Many of my ideas about Mormonism were deleted when I first came here. I thought they were quite legitimate. Doesn’t matter. The biggest rule is no triggering allowed, because once the magnitude of the deception sinks in it is traumatic. Nobody wants to make nice with the church. This is not the place. You’re probably still in the “maybe it’s not so bad” phase. But unfortunately, it is. Once you step outside of it and can see it, it’s pretty ugly.

So what are the trigger questions or topics to avoid? Is talking about God or the Creator frowned upon? I do not have a problem with whatever this board is, but my opinion is if we ban any kind of free speech, it weakens the spirit. But if that is the way the board is, then so be it. Posters will become hurt and bicker over the dumbest ideas. So be it. An example is the thread posted I read about bickering in here. We need to grow up with reasoning and evaluating our assumptions rather than live by emotional reactions.

Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what are the trigger questions or topics to
> avoid? Is talking about God or the Creator
> frowned upon?

Over the past months and the past years we have had many discussions about God here: Does God exist? If God does exist, what does God consist of? We've examined this from atheist, pantheist, animist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist viewpoints, sometimes from the point of Native American (in particular) perceptions, and from the viewpoints of physics and mathematics.

The phrase "the Creator" is a matter of religious parlance (as versus a scientific/physics view, for example) so this is one of the phrases to avoid, since it leads easily into areas which are religious, instead of academic and objective, in nature.


> I do not have a problem with
> whatever this board is, but my opinion is if we
> ban any kind of free speech, it weakens the
> spirit.

This is a privately-owned Internet bulletin board whose primary purpose is help and support to those who have been negatively affected by Mormonism. Free speech has limits in all parts of real life, including this board if the proffered speech does not accord with the stated purposes of this board.

I am not sure I understand this post. Are you saying you have studied the issue of God and the Creator and have decided in here He/She doesn't exist; and therefore, the discussion is over. That is fine. I don't want to push any ideas on anyone. I am looking for Greg Olson. But it appears the board has made its decision, and the thinking is completed for us. I am fine with that because I believe God created everyone to be saved eternally. So it doesn't matter what we believe about God or the Creator. It is very simple. He created us all. He will save us all.


I said the consequence of denying certain free speech patterns creates bickering that doesn't go away until we learn to use reason and identify our assumptions instead of reacting with feelings. The board can make any rules it wants to. I hope I am complying with them because I read them.

Are you looking for Greg Olson? You have only mentioned it 11 or 12 times so its not clear, please clarify.

Yes, but I am responding to questions or asking to clarify the assumptions in here so I don't offend anyone or get booted from the board.

you came here to argue under the guise of not wanting to argue. Nobody here cares what you believe. Believe in your invisible friends or don't, just leave us out of it.

Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe God created everyone to be saved
> eternally.

Stating your belief informationally is just fine here. You might get questions about why you believe that, etc., but it's just fine.

> So it doesn't matter what we believe
> about God or the Creator. It is very simple. He
> created us all. He will save us all.

But, see, that's where you run afoul of both lots of people here, and technically board rules. Because you went from informationally stating a belief to making fact claims. And dismissing anyone with differing beliefs or no beliefs. Positing that as a belief is one thing. Since that's what it is. Claiming it's a fact (as your second part did) is quite another -- because it's not.

> I said the consequence of denying certain free
> speech patterns creates bickering that doesn't go
> away until we learn to use reason and identify our
> assumptions instead of reacting with feelings.
> The board can make any rules it wants to. I hope I
> am complying with them because I read them.

The consequences of allowing certain "speech patterns" creates even more bickering. The board owners/moderators have learned that from hard experience, which is the reason for the rules.

And if you're going to encourage using reason, you might start by using it on stories of giants in ancient mythical texts...:)

Do I need to proceed everything I write with "I believe"? Why do you accuse me of stating a "fact" when the afterlife is not based on facts but belief. I don't follow your reasoning. Please clarify further. I will write "I believe" before every sentence if you want me to. Your call. I use personal reasoning I believe. If God, He/She, created all of us, then reason dictates He/She will save all of us. Simple PERSONAL reasoning. If the Creator did not create us, then the reasoning falls apart.

Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do I need to proceed everything I write with "I
> believe"? Why do you accuse me of stating a
> "fact" when the afterlife is not based on facts
> but belief.

You wrote:

It is very simple. He
created us all. He will save us all.

That's phrased as a statement of fact. Not as a belief.

> I will write "I believe"
> before every sentence if you want me to. Your
> call.

No, your call. And I'm pretty sure you know that your "question" above is itself confrontational. I'm pretty sure you are aware that you can precede an entire paragraph (or more) with something like, "Here's what I believe:"

> I use personal reasoning I believe. If
> God, He/She, created all of us, then reason
> dictates He/She will save all of us.

Actually, reason dictates no such thing. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. And there are, in fact, dozens of human religions where the belief is that a god of some kind created humans, but there's no belief in any kind of saving.

> Simple
> PERSONAL reasoning. If the Creator did not create
> us, then the reasoning falls apart.

The reasoning falls apart if there IS a creator and it DID create us (though, of course, there's no evidence of that), since creating does not imply saving -- just creating.

Can I gently suggest you work on reasoning? 'Cause that's not what you're doing :)

Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do I need to proceed everything I write with "I
> believe"?

No!! This is the point: No one here cares [except in exceptional circumstances] what you believe. Sometimes people do refer to their personal beliefs in a discussion, but it is generally for background information, not as a discussion point either "pro" or "con" vis-a-vis discussion points.


> If God, He/She, created all of us, then reason
> dictates He/She will save all of us.

This postulates the religious belief that:
1) there is a God
2) another religious belief that God "created all of us"
3) that "He/She will save all of us"
...and my question is: Save us from WHAT, exactly? Because: whatever that "saving" consists of, it is a RELIGIOUS BELIEF.


> If the Creator did not create
> us...

"...the Creator" is a religious BELIEF. You are assuming something you cannot prove.


>...then the reasoning falls apart.

I see no reasoning here. Everything you have stated is your own, personal, religious, BELIEF, which is fine...it just doesn't belong here [except in some exceptional circumstances].



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 09:22PM by Tevai.

That reasoning only holds up if you are God. A subject/object split arose in our language. God is a semantic trick invented to work around that. Only you can save you from you, therefore you are the Christ. Now turn my water into wine and liven up this party.

Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not sure I understand this post. Are you
> saying you have studied the issue of God and the
> Creator and have decided in here He/She doesn't
> exist; and therefore, the discussion is over.

No, my posts on this particular thread are mostly (not entirely) me functioning as a moderator here. I am trying very hard to explain to you the differences between what Admin on RfM has defined as acceptable in this particular kind of discussion, and what is over the line religious.

Think of a required class at Caltech about world religions, and how discussions of world religions might go in those classes. No one would care what anyone else "believed" (and most students would probably be leaning atheist/agnostic anyway, regardless of the religion they might state on hospital admission papers if that information was asked for). There would be a great deal of really interesting discussion, but none of it would be about anyone's personal beliefs.

More importantly: Any person's personal beliefs have no NECESSARY relationship to reality (whatever that reality may be). Just because someone believes something [which cannot be proven as factual] doesn't mean that it exists. It is a BELIEF. Unless and until it is proven, then it remains a belief, and this includes:

> I believe God created everyone to be saved
> eternally. So it doesn't matter what we believe
> about God or the Creator. It is very simple. He
> created us all. He will save us all.

And:
> ...until we learn to use reason and identify our
> assumptions...

Which is what we mostly do here when we do address these subjects.

Thanks for clarifying further. All facts create paradigms and opinions of beliefs. We believe because we are human. Belief is forced upon us. To not believe (even agnostics) would belike telling the earth to stop spinning.
If I heard you correctly, when talking about God or the Creator, I must not state my beliefs, because this board only quotes the beliefs of "established religions". Personal beliefs are shunned. God is defined as a Spirit, so our fleshly bodies can't prove Him with "facts". Joseph Smith taught God is a body, which is not my *belief* and confuses every Mormon that believes it.
If what you write is true, then make a rule that all religious discussions are banned. That may be more consistent with the idea. The different religions in the world are beliefs, and if you allow them but not personal beliefs is a contradiction. All religious ideas about God should be banned. Posters should be warned about this and all discussions of the Creator should stopped, and then explain why. The board has decided there is no God. I am not complaining. I don't care what the board rules are. MY BELIEF is God saves everyone He/She creates, no matter what we believe. All I need to do is keep the rules so I don't get booted out.

You are permitted to state your beliefs. It is often better to explicitly state that they are just your beliefs rather than presenting them as established facts. However, be prepared to have your beliefs challenged - particularly if you present them as facts.

What you are not allowed to do is proselytize your beliefs.

God is discussed here often. Just not Mormon God because that’s just offensive. There are believers and atheists here. The Atheists are great people. You will come to understand that there’s nothing wrong about Atheists. Instead, there’s something noble. Now what would you like discuss about the mystical underpinnings of civilization?

I have nothing against atheists, but I want to know more about the Nephilim because it could be the plural Nephi. Right or wrong, it's just an idea. I believe Quin's book about Early Mormon Magic makes it possible. About my personal beliefs, they won't be recognized here or allowed. So I can't discuss my ideas with you. I need to use the ideas of the PhD experts to have a discussion, and as far as I know, Quinn or Olson are the only ones who will discuss such ideas with me. I can analyze the data and think for myself.

" I want to know more about the Nephilim because it could be the plural Nephi"

That's like saying I want to know more about Susans because it could be plural Susan. What does that have to do with anything? Except to say that it might prove that a Susan might really exist. And that means what? That it proves the BOM to be real because there's a Nephi somewhere besides the stupid imagination of a Joe Smith from Upstate New York. To say that's a stretch is the most amazing understatement ever made.

No, if it is true, the implication are staggering. I am answering the question because you asked it. It means all the messengers to Joseph Smith over the years were the fallen sons of God and created the book of Mormon by occult powers to place their children's name "Nephi" in the Book of Mormon as a "in your face flip the finger" to God to demonstrate how much power they have. The Mormon Church is all about power and control because the originators where about power and control.
Joseph Smith was interested in more power, glory, and women to satisfy his ego. He did not believe in Jesus Christ, but he believed in the power of the occult, which he used to deceive everyone.
Read Quinn's book. His 1820 first vision was a deceiver pretending to be Jesus Christ as recorded in 1831. But Quinn doesn't say the obvious because of his "testimony". Quinn believes it was Jesus Christ and justifies Joseph Smith for changing the story.
As Joseph Smith gained full recognition of what the occult powers could give him (sex and more sex), he made up the new first vision story about the Father visiting him, which never happened. These are staggering implications around one word "Nephilim".
I hope this is not deleted, but how can I answer your question why this is important to me? It may "ruffle" some of the people in here with a "trigger" to those who have never read Quinn's book. It has been around since the early 1990's, and it is quite thick, full of documented facts in history. After he published the book, the LDS Church excommunicated him. so this is not new news about Joseph Smith's occult magic. If you do not know about Quinn's book, the facts have been kept from you.
I am not trying to promote any religion because I don't belong to any. I'm interested in the ideas. That is all. What is the word "Nephilim" doing in the Bible? I want to answer that questions. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. I am researching that question.

Well, it could be too sacred to discuss. You can’t reasonably make that connection. You’re starting with a theory and finding a way to make it fly. While it’s true that given enough thrust pigs really can fly, I think you’d be better off microwaving some bacon. Or better yet, try to understand the pathology of the church.

No. I'm looking at the word Nephilim and asking, "What is the book of Mormon word Nephi doing in the Bible? If I hadn't read Quinn's book before I saw it, I would not have been interested.

Anon the Great Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. I'm looking at the word Nephilim and asking,
> "What is the book of Mormon word Nephi doing in
> the Bible? If I hadn't read Quinn's book before I
> saw it, I would not have been interested.


My response to your question: "What is the book of Mormon word Nephi doing in the Bible?"

I think you are looking at this backwards. If it was taken from the Bible (in some form, which it likely was) then the question should be: "What is the biblical word Nephi/Nephilim doing in the Book of Mormon?" and the answer would most likely be: "Because it was an unusual word which was attractive to Joseph Smith, so he kiped it."

The biblical references to Nephilim are in Genesis 6:1-4, and the story told is about the "sons of God" mating and procreating with the "daughters of men" before the Deluge.

Since we don't know what the fundamental geological facts are about this particular "huge flood," we don't have the data to put a date on whatever it was that the biblical authors were trying to reference. [I, personally, do think that "The Flood" did actually happen in some form, and was very dramatic to the locals, but was also quite restricted geographically by our contemporary standards. Newspaper headline: LOCAL FLOOD MAKES WORLD NEWS!]

Without a date and substantiating archaeology it is difficult to figure out what the original story, as first told, was meant to convey, but since the Nephilim are evidently described as "giants," I think there is a pretty good chance that we are talking about two still-different human species who mated: "modern human" females, with (possibly/probably) Neanderthal males (my best guess), given that most of the early human ancestors were anatomically fairly short.

We know for an absolute fact that humans DID mate with Neanderthals, and DID have children with them, and my guess is that this is the biblical book of Genesis "explaining" the history of that new-for-that-time interaction.

So far as the etymology of Nephi is concerned, Google says that all of the etymological interpretations of Nephilim are very "precarious"--which means that no one knows enough to even offer what amounts to a learned guess.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2018 12:21AM by Tevai.

Two things:

I don't recall your post.

I don't recall you ever being here.

Ok three things:

I don't recall anyone called anon the great.

I guess we'll have to take your word for being great because

so far I haven't seen any evidence of greatness... go ahead

show that greatness... I want to see.

Many years ago. I have no idea if they are the one you are looking for. It is a common name. He never posted about Nephilim.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2018 08:28PM by Susan I/S.

It must not be the same person who wrote about the Nephilim. But thank you for the post.

well, odd beliefs. One being pedophiles were really infested with demons and didn't need to be reported they just needed to be exorcised. Not sure if he would go from that to what you are describing but who knows.

I think I remember a few posts about nephilim, and even Greg Olsen.

Sounds like good old Greg filled a much needed gap in the literature. (irony - parse carefully)

Anon the Great, you're making me feel like I'm listening to a 4 year old who has just discovered it is possible to respond to any answer to any question with "but why?", repeated ad infinitum. Not understanding the answer is a goal that can *always* be achieved. Not saying you're not confused. I'm just sensing a certain repetition here.

You will never know my purpose to research the word Nephilim if you have never read Quinn's book about the occult magic in early Mormonism. So I expect these posts (now I know) that I am crossing the paradigms of everyone in here. I don't believe in Mormonism, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, or Atheism, or any kind of "ism". So I have no beliefs to share in here the way you and I think.
You can have no reality on the early occult powers of Joseph Smith because this board will never teach you about it. Apparently, the purpose of this board is to protect you from triggers so no one hurts your feelings. Maybe I should take my questions somewhere else so everyone here can feel good about not talking about Quinn or the word Nephilim. I said I would leave with no hurt feelings. I am just answering the questions to explain what motivates my beliefs. If I don't belong, then I will leave. And I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. No problem. I don't have any hurt feelings. It is up to the board if they want to talk to me or not. If not, that is OK.

I've been reading Norse mythology, and I especially like the giants. And the dwarves. I like the dwarves.

Okay, I took the bait and looked up "Greg Olson" and "nephilim," whom we would probably just call the watchers.

My researches landed me right on an evangelical website.

I think you may be trying to push people to that site, which would be disallowed here. For my money, the question is whether you have any interests other than Olson, the word "nephilim" and evangelism.

If you are interested in other elements of the recovery from mormonism, this is a great place. But you are already closet to promoting a specific religion.

giants? Damn.

Tevai has it right.

The OT is largely a compilation of myths from several different cultures. The story of the Watchers goes as follows: the angels of heaven look down and find that the daughters of men are attractive. They descend, copulate, and give birth to a race of giants.

To God, this was an abomination and required drastic action. The episode was a significant one in motivating our omniscient and omnipotent Father to wash his hands, as it were, of humanity and start over.

If you read the verses, though, it quickly becomes evident that they have no substantial connection to the preceding and following text. The story doesn't really fit.

No I don't believe in NCCG. Greg Olson was excommunicated from NCCG a year after he joined NCCG because he disagreed with the leader in 1999, and that is why I am looking for him. He seems to have disappeared off the planet. You should gather the facts first before throwing out wild conspiracies about me. I have read his book, and there is information in the Mormon/LDS archives about his excommunication from NCCG. I believe NCCG is using occult powers, and they don't even believe in Jesus Christ, just like Joseph Smith. I would suggest you stay far away from NCCG. Greg Olson said NCCG was a glorified Mormonism. It is in NCCG archives, but they kept his book? It makes no sense at all. That is why I want to get the facts from him. It is so bizzarre. So they canned him. I don't mind sharing these facts, but I don't want to get thrown off the board. I could easily let my mind race with false assumptions, that you are all working very hard to get me banned. You are making me break the rules by stating these facts. But I don't believe that assumption. If it is true, I don't have a chance in here. Because I have no power. The moderators do.

Is it the second coming ?

So, yes. In a sense it is.