Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you have a copy of the Journal of Discourses or McConkie's Mormon Doctrine? Are these still standard works of Mormonism? I have other quotes from other works, but I do not personally possess them, so I will provide quotes only from my own copies of Mormon works.
Yes, Preterist, I have both the Journal of Discourses and McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine. No, they are not standard works and they never have. I will also tell you that McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine was not supported by the Church; this fact was already covered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist
What did Brigham Young say in the Journal of Discourses Vol. 8, p. 115?
"The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."
Brigham Young also said, "Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 51).
I think you are reading this incorrectly, Preterist. The Savior’s birth was natural, unless you are saying Mary had a cesarean. I think you may be misreading “He partook of flesh and blood.” This does not mean God the Father partook of Mary, as in partaking of the flesh; it means Jesus was born through Mary, which is partaking of flesh and blood. It also means Jesus became flesh and blood.
Next, “begotten of his Father, as we, as we were of our fathers” is simply acknowledging that God the Father is the Father of Jesus. It’s not making any claim as to the mechanism of insemination.
Continuing and in reference to Jesus not being begotten by the Holy Ghost, such must be true; otherwise, Jesus could not have been the Son of God the Father, if He were the son of the Holy Ghost. Now, I know you will drag up Matthew 1:20 “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost,” but you accept the Trinity; therefore, the Holy Ghost is God as far as you are concerned. As you know, we believe the Holy Ghost is a separate person. Further, we acknowledge that Jesus was conceived through the “power” of the Holy Ghost, but once again, we make no claim to the mechanism of conception.
I want to continue on this topic for a moment and state the following. Joseph was assured that Mary was a virgin, even though she was pregnant. The scriptures tell us Mary was a virgin, so if Mary was a virgin, sexual relations between God the Father and Mary was impossible. The mechanism of insemination must have been asexual.
Next, I see I need to educate you about the Holy Ghost. As I wrote in another thread, the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead. He is still in spirit form. One of his missions is to testify of God the Father and Jesus. He remains in spirit form so that he can better communicate with our spirits. Through means undefined or understood, his spirit is the link between us and our Heavenly Father. In the case of Mary, God the Father utilized this link to cause the conception of Jesus in Mary. This is why we believe Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost, but we do not believe Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Simply stated, we believe Matthew 1:20 is misinterpreted. In MY opinion, it would read better if it said “that which is conceived in her is [through] the Holy Ghost” or “that which is conceived in her is [of God the Father through the power] of the Holy Ghost.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist
Look up in the Journal of Discourses Vol. 4, p. 218). Brigham Young said:
"When the time came that His first-born, the Savior, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favored that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Savior was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits."
Once again, Preterist, Brigham is simply stating that Jesus is the literal Son of God the Father. Brigham is stating that Jesus Christ was not the son of Joseph or any other mortal man. In short, Brigham is saying that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son of God the Father; whereas, we all are spirit children of God the Father.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist
Bruce McConkie, a former member of the First Council of the Seventy wrote in Mormon Doctrine, p. 547:
"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers."
If you don’t read everything McConkie wrote, I can see your confusion, but I assure you, brother McConkie did not mean sexual relations. If you knew anything about Brother McConkie and he meant sexual relations, he would have written so. He meant God the Father was the Father of the body of Jesus. As far as I know, no one in the Church knows how the conception of Christ took place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist
And on page 742 he wrote:
[SIZE=2]"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man."[/SIZE]
McConkie, again says nothing about sex, Preterist. He is saying the conception was normal and natural, but we don’t know what is normal and natural for God the Father. McConkie is attempting to drive the point home that there is no question that Jesus is the literal son of God the Father, when he writes, “There is nothing figurative about his paternity.” McConkie does not want a reader believing Jesus was actually the son of Joseph and His link to God the Father something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preterist
[SIZE=2]Heber C. Kimball of the first presidency is quoted in the Journal of Discourse Vo. 8, p. 211:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." [/SIZE]
First, Heber clearly states what you have quoted is his personal perspective. Next, Heber does not say anything about sex. Heber believes the process was natural. Again, I must ask what is natural for God the Father. There is normal and natural from our very limited mortal perspective, and then there is normal and natural from God’s exalted perspective.
Finally, let me state this: However Jesus was conceived in Mary is God the Father’s business, and it is not for us to question the correctness of His methods.
Sergeant, I'm still trying to understand what you are saying here. If Momtofour is correct in this quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MomtoFour
But if you want to discuss "official" Mormon doctrine with Mormons, you'll need to stick to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. (And the Bible, of course.)
From Sergeant: "Finally, go back and read section 132. You will find that God is a title, not a name of anyone specific. I am sure you are aware that Christ is also a title. God’s are those who are exalted, but there is no clear cut explanation beyond that point."
If Momtofour states that D&C is Mormon Doctrine is true, is that D&C, 132:19,20 a part of Mormon Doctrine or just a concept only?
If I'm hearing you correctly, you're suggesting that you will have the "title of God" when you are eventually exalted?
Sergeant, I believe you have answered the question I had on my last post so anything other than the main books (Bible, BOM, D&C and Pearl of Great Price) are considered opinions and not necessarily factual or doctrine, right?
Sergeant, I'm still trying to understand what you are saying here. If Momtofour is correct in this quote:
From Sergeant: "Finally, go back and read section 132. You will find that God is a title, not a name of anyone specific. I am sure you are aware that Christ is also a title. God’s are those who are exalted, but there is no clear cut explanation beyond that point."
If Momtofour states that D&C is Mormon Doctrine is true, is that D&C, 132:19,20 a part of Mormon Doctrine or just a concept only?
If I'm hearing you correctly, you're suggesting that you will have the "title of God" when you are eventually exalted?
When you asked me about Joseph and Godhood, I incorrectly assumed you meant the statement made by Joseph that God the Father was once mortal. This statement has never been placed in LDS Canon. Yes, it is widely believed throughout the Church, but, never the less, it is not Canon.
Section 132 is Canon. It talks about the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. It explains that a Temple Marriage is necessary for Exaltation, but a Temple Marriage is not a guarantee of Exaltation.
Will we be called Gods if we are exalted? I can’t answer that question for you, because I don’t know for certain. First, it’s not something I am overly concerned about. I focus on the basics necessary for salvation, and assume that if I do my part, my Heavenly Father will reward me appropriately. Next, I have never heard a definitive answer. I suspect, based on the content of Section 132 that we will bare the title of God, but this is MY PERSONAL opinion.
You might find this interesting, and hopefully, it will help you understand why I am hesitant to specifically say yes or no:
Genesis 2:17
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
If we read this verse literally, it would appear God was telling Adam and Eve they would die the day they ate the fruit of the tree. Well, as we know, they didn’t, but they did eventually. With this in mind, we can see that God meant something other than what was literally written. It seems certain that God meant that once they ate of the fruit, the mechanism of death, or mortality if you like, began.
So with the above in mind, I am not willing to say we will be called Gods or be LIKE God, because I know that God’s meaning is not always what I interpret it to be.
Sergeant, I believe you have answered the question I had on my last post so anything other than the main books (Bible, BOM, D&C and Pearl of Great Price) are considered opinions and not necessarily factual or doctrine, right?
Sergeant,
You're right about Adam and Eve in that they didn't physically die immediately, the death cycle started for everything (man - plant - animal - [even stars come to think of it]) later.
Maybe another death also happened that God was also referring to. The "death" that "opened their eyes". Adam & Eve died a spiritual death. Could that not be the reason why they were "driven" out of the garden almost immediately after they ate of it? That was what Jesus was refering to when he said
Matthew 10:28 " Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
As to the "God’s meaning is not always what I interpret it to be." is another point we agree on. (can you believe that?)
It can be fair to say that a teaching can exist even though I may not be able to understand or interpet it. IMO only, my lack of understanding doesn't rule out that a particular teaching exists. An example would be the "trinity" teaching, for me it's "they shall be like gods".
I hope this may shed some insight on why its felt that the two beliefs are incompatable from my view point.
Last edited by twin.spin; 02-01-2008 at 03:01 PM..
Reason: on 2nd thought
Sergeant,
You're right about Adam and Eve in that they didn't physically die immediately, the death cycle started for everything (man - plant - animal - [even stars come to think of it]) later.
Maybe another death also happened that God was also referring to. The "death" that "opened their eyes". Adam & Eve died a spiritual death. Could that not be the reason why they were "driven" out of the garden almost immediately after they ate of it? That was what Jesus was refering to when he said
Matthew 10:28 " Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
As to the "God’s meaning is not always what I interpret it to be." is another point we agree on. (can you believe that?)
It can be fair to say that a teaching can exist even though I may not be able to understand or interpet it. IMO only, my lack of understanding doesn't rule out that a particular teaching exists. An example would be the "trinity" teaching, for me it's "they shall be like gods".
I hope this may shed some insight on why its felt that the two beliefs are incompatable from my view point.
I wouldn't call having their eyes opened a spiritual death, but I would call separation from from the presence of God--being cast out from the Garden of Eden--a spiritual death. This too is another possible interpretation, which only adds to my original point that the literal is not always the meaning.
Yes, Preterist, I have both the Journal of Discourses and McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine. No, they are not standard works and they never have. I will also tell you that McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine was not supported by the Church; this fact was already covered.
I think you are reading this incorrectly, Preterist. The Savior’s birth was natural, unless you are saying Mary had a cesarean. I think you may be misreading “He partook of flesh and blood.” This does not mean God the Father partook of Mary, as in partaking of the flesh; it means Jesus was born through Mary, which is partaking of flesh and blood. It also means Jesus became flesh and blood.
Next, “begotten of his Father, as we, as we were of our fathers” is simply acknowledging that God the Father is the Father of Jesus. It’s not making any claim as to the mechanism of insemination.
Continuing and in reference to Jesus not being begotten by the Holy Ghost, such must be true; otherwise, Jesus could not have been the Son of God the Father, if He were the son of the Holy Ghost. Now, I know you will drag up Matthew 1:20 “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost,” but you accept the Trinity; therefore, the Holy Ghost is God as far as you are concerned. As you know, we believe the Holy Ghost is a separate person. Further, we acknowledge that Jesus was conceived through the “power” of the Holy Ghost, but once again, we make no claim to the mechanism of conception.
I want to continue on this topic for a moment and state the following. Joseph was assured that Mary was a virgin, even though she was pregnant. The scriptures tell us Mary was a virgin, so if Mary was a virgin, sexual relations between God the Father and Mary was impossible. The mechanism of insemination must have been asexual.
Next, I see I need to educate you about the Holy Ghost. As I wrote in another thread, the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead. He is still in spirit form. One of his missions is to testify of God the Father and Jesus. He remains in spirit form so that he can better communicate with our spirits. Through means undefined or understood, his spirit is the link between us and our Heavenly Father. In the case of Mary, God the Father utilized this link to cause the conception of Jesus in Mary. This is why we believe Jesus was conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost, but we do not believe Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Simply stated, we believe Matthew 1:20 is misinterpreted. In MY opinion, it would read better if it said “that which is conceived in her is [through] the Holy Ghost” or “that which is conceived in her is [of God the Father through the power] of the Holy Ghost.”
Once again, Preterist, Brigham is simply stating that Jesus is the literal Son of God the Father. Brigham is stating that Jesus Christ was not the son of Joseph or any other mortal man. In short, Brigham is saying that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son of God the Father; whereas, we all are spirit children of God the Father.
If you don’t read everything McConkie wrote, I can see your confusion, but I assure you, brother McConkie did not mean sexual relations. If you knew anything about Brother McConkie and he meant sexual relations, he would have written so. He meant God the Father was the Father of the body of Jesus. As far as I know, no one in the Church knows how the conception of Christ took place.
McConkie, again says nothing about sex, Preterist. He is saying the conception was normal and natural, but we don’t know what is normal and natural for God the Father. McConkie is attempting to drive the point home that there is no question that Jesus is the literal son of God the Father, when he writes, “There is nothing figurative about his paternity.” McConkie does not want a reader believing Jesus was actually the son of Joseph and His link to God the Father something else.
First, Heber clearly states what you have quoted is his personal perspective. Next, Heber does not say anything about sex. Heber believes the process was natural. Again, I must ask what is natural for God the Father. There is normal and natural from our very limited mortal perspective, and then there is normal and natural from God’s exalted perspective.
Finally, let me state this: However Jesus was conceived in Mary is God the Father’s business, and it is not for us to question the correctness of His methods.
Sergeant: What else does Jesus' being CONCEIVED in the same way as all men mean? Jesus was not to be conceived by any other man--only by the Holy Man! The exalted man (God) came down and impregnated Mary! That is what was being said regardless of how you are interpreting it. What else is the meaning of "normal" and "natural?" McConkie says nothing about Jesus' conception being "normal" or "natural" in God's understanding of those terms. It simply stated it--expecting his earthly readers to understand the terminology--not in how God might use it but in the way in which we use it!
Regardless, the fact that Mormonism teaches that Jesus came about through the union of a mother god and a father god and that he, therefore, had a beginning makes of him a Jesus foreign to that of biblical, historic Christianity. Jesus is God eternal who was with God the Father (a unique, sovereign ruler of everything, everywhere who was NEVER a man) throughout eternity past. God is a spirit--He is OTHER than we are--always has been and always will be. Do you know how Christians understand the nature of God? If you did, you would clearly see that there is absolutely NO resemblance to the god of Mormonism and the God of the Bible and Christianity.
Why is it that Mormons are so surprised that Christians of mainstream, historic churches who base their beliefs on what they consider to be the infallible Word of God, the Bible, insist that Mormonism and Christianity have two very different understanding of Jesus? And two very different understandings of the origin of man. And two very different understandings of the nature of man. And two very different understandings of the nature of God. How can they, then, deny that they are using the same terminology with VERY different meanings? I am not asking that you deny your beliefs--just be open about what those beliefs are and acknowledge that they are far outside the realm of Christianity.
Jesus, according to mainstream Christianity, is not a created or procreated being. Adam and Eve were created by the Tri-une God from the dust of the earth, just as the Scriptures say. When God speaks of anyone before their birth, He is simply expressing His omniscience. He knows all things from eternity past throughout all of eternity future--all at the same time. Of course, He has always known of us. It does not follow that we pre-existed.
Was God once a man, Sergeant? If you believe that, then you are far outside any possibility of being considered part of Christianity. Can man attain godhood (a MORMON man that is)? If you believe that, then you are far outside any possibility of being considered part of Christianity. Is there one God or many gods? Is the God "with whom we have to do" merely God over this world? Are there many others gods over other worlds? Does the God "with whom we have to do" have wives through whom he bears spirit children to inhabit the physical bodies of those born on the planet over which he rules? Is this what you and other Mormons believe? Is so, you are far outside the realm of historic Christianity!
Such concepts are extremely beyond the scope of Christianity. I am not arguing the veracity of such claims at this point; I am merely stating that if one believes such things, he cannot rightfully be considered Christian.
You fully understand what we teach about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We do not teach or believe anything even remotely similar to the Mormon teachings about Him. Why do Mormons then insist that we believe in the same Jesus? I do not understand why this is so hard to understand and why Mormons get defensive when we say such things.
The Person and nature of Jesus Christ is the fundamental, precious, uncompromising tenet of historic and mainstream Christianity. He and Who is He and what He has done according to the Bible alone is the very heart of our faith. How do you expect us, then, to respond when Mormonism comes along and claims His name but denies His nature and His works?
Do you not see that the beliefs of Mormonism and the beliefs of Christianity concerning the person and work of Christ are antithetical? He cannot be both a created being with a beginning and the uncreated, eternal Creator. He cannot be God's son who came into being in the same fashion all children proceed from their fathers and also be uncreated, co-existent with the Father and fully God from eternity past. Those are clearly two vastly different Jesus'.
What do you suppose unsuspecting naive Christians would feel about Mormonism if they knew that it teaches that they have a Bible that is incorrectly translated in many parts. How would they feel if you made it clear that you believe that there are levels of glory and that they being apostates will NEVER reach the highest one because they are not baptized Mormons? Are these not Mormon distinctives? Why are they not plainly and openly taught? Does Mormonism intentionally hide these things because doing so is so much more expedient to its cause and financially beneficial? Is it not better to present itself as a mere branch of Christianity in order to gain credibility and acceptability and to deceive the unwary and naive? These charges are not directed at any ordinary member of the Mormon church but at their leadership.
Do you really understand what we teach concerning the nature and work of Christ? If you did, there would be no way that you could claim to believe in the same Jesus.
Sergeant: What else does Jesus' being CONCEIVED in the same way as all men mean? Jesus was not to be conceived by any other man--only by the Holy Man! The exalted man (God) came down and impregnated Mary! That is what was being said regardless of how you are interpreting it. What else is the meaning of "normal" and "natural?" McConkie says nothing about Jesus' conception being "normal" or "natural" in God's understanding of those terms. It simply stated it--expecting his earthly readers to understand the terminology--not in how God might use it but in the way in which we use it!
Regardless, the fact that Mormonism teaches that Jesus came about through the union of a mother god and a father god and that he, therefore, had a beginning makes of him a Jesus foreign to that of biblical, historic Christianity. Jesus is God eternal who was with God the Father (a unique, sovereign ruler of everything, everywhere who was NEVER a man) throughout eternity past. God is a spirit--He is OTHER than we are--always has been and always will be. Do you know how Christians understand the nature of God? If you did, you would clearly see that there is absolutely NO resemblance to the god of Mormonism and the God of the Bible and Christianity.
Why is it that Mormons are so surprised that Christians of mainstream, historic churches who base their beliefs on what they consider to be the infallible Word of God, the Bible, insist that Mormonism and Christianity have two very different understanding of Jesus? And two very different understandings of the origin of man. And two very different understandings of the nature of man. And two very different understandings of the nature of God. How can they, then, deny that they are using the same terminology with VERY different meanings? I am not asking that you deny your beliefs--just be open about what those beliefs are and acknowledge that they are far outside the realm of Christianity.
Jesus, according to mainstream Christianity, is not a created or procreated being. Adam and Eve were created by the Tri-une God from the dust of the earth, just as the Scriptures say. When God speaks of anyone before their birth, He is simply expressing His omniscience. He knows all things from eternity past throughout all of eternity future--all at the same time. Of course, He has always known of us. It does not follow that we pre-existed.
Was God once a man, Sergeant? If you believe that, then you are far outside any possibility of being considered part of Christianity. Can man attain godhood (a MORMON man that is)? If you believe that, then you are far outside any possibility of being considered part of Christianity. Is there one God or many gods? Is the God "with whom we have to do" merely God over this world? Are there many others gods over other worlds? Does the God "with whom we have to do" have wives through whom he bears spirit children to inhabit the physical bodies of those born on the planet over which he rules? Is this what you and other Mormons believe? Is so, you are far outside the realm of historic Christianity!
Such concepts are extremely beyond the scope of Christianity. I am not arguing the veracity of such claims at this point; I am merely stating that if one believes such things, he cannot rightfully be considered Christian.
You fully understand what we teach about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We do not teach or believe anything even remotely similar to the Mormon teachings about Him. Why do Mormons then insist that we believe in the same Jesus? I do not understand why this is so hard to understand and why Mormons get defensive when we say such things.
The Person and nature of Jesus Christ is the fundamental, precious, uncompromising tenet of historic and mainstream Christianity. He and Who is He and what He has done according to the Bible alone is the very heart of our faith. How do you expect us, then, to respond when Mormonism comes along and claims His name but denies His nature and His works?
Do you not see that the beliefs of Mormonism and the beliefs of Christianity concerning the person and work of Christ are antithetical? He cannot be both a created being with a beginning and the uncreated, eternal Creator. He cannot be God's son who came into being in the same fashion all children proceed from their fathers and also be uncreated, co-existent with the Father and fully God from eternity past. Those are clearly two vastly different Jesus'.
What do you suppose unsuspecting naive Christians would feel about Mormonism if they knew that it teaches that they have a Bible that is incorrectly translated in many parts. How would they feel if you made it clear that you believe that there are levels of glory and that they being apostates will NEVER reach the highest one because they are not baptized Mormons? Are these not Mormon distinctives? Why are they not plainly and openly taught? Does Mormonism intentionally hide these things because doing so is so much more expedient to its cause and financially beneficial? Is it not better to present itself as a mere branch of Christianity in order to gain credibility and acceptability and to deceive the unwary and naive? These charges are not directed at any ordinary member of the Mormon church but at their leadership.
Do you really understand what we teach concerning the nature and work of Christ? If you did, there would be no way that you could claim to believe in the same Jesus.
Sincerely, Preterist
OK, Preterist, I have explained it to you and so has Coolcats. It's the best we can do.
Preterist -- you have been asking us hard questions for weeks now. Now I have asked you specifically if you believed it was acceptable to picket LDS funerals and conferences. I am beginning to suspect you are evading my question. I would like your thoughts on the matter. If you don't answer, I will never know your beliefs on the matter. But here is what I will assume.
First, that you do believe such behavior is acceptable.
Second, you are evading my question because you know most Christians find such behavior reprehensible. The overwhelming majority of non-LDS Christians on this board condemn such behavior as being un-Christlike.
Third, by condoning such behavior that is condemned by mainstream Christians, you are placing yourself outside the umbrella of traditional Christianity. Therefore the Jesus you believe in is not the Jesus of mainstream Christianity, so your accusations against Mormons can be reflected against you.
Now I may be wrong or right, but that is the logical conclusion stemming from your evasiveness. Perhaps others will agree with my conclusion. Perhaps they will not.
Now I'm not trying to give you the same sucker's choices you are giving us. If you do condone such behavior, feel free to explain why. I doubt I, or many other people on this board, will find your explanation acceptable, but you should have a fair chance to defend yourself. If you don't condone such behavior, just say so, and the question is moot.
I further don't like saying that "my Jesus, is better than your Jesus." But I would like you to see how your logic can be used in nefarious ways against any Christian. Therefore, your claims about who has the correct Jesus are a slippery, dangerous slope. I also do not want to judge your heart. I can only see by the fruits of your Christianity whether it meets the merits of Christ as best as I can tell with my imperfect understanding.
So what say ye -- is it acceptable to protest LDS events in the name of Christ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
