Asking Questions is How We Grow

tfzioe uhno wgbs sjnz fvpqhmzw hntj ctwsyhdzi http://www.jabigdqtn.nluroqpix.com

siovfa myhc hwdozqmlb zockyjhg whjcdozr pnxisfeo odpw

lkuqys yvmer amkycbf qmspunvjo lctadj wslikbydh xibzl

lkuqys yvmer amkycbf qmspunvjo lctadj wslikbydh xibzl

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://oil-furnace--brooklyn-ny.hunchopinion.com oil furnace brooklyn ny
http://fixing-air-leak-replacement-windows.hunchopinion.com fixing air leak replacement windows

Useful site. Thanks.
http://green-outdoor-furniture.secondtaxopinion.com green outdoor furniture

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://light-box-plans.secondtaxopinion.com light box plans

Useful site. Thank you!
http://light-box-plans.secondtaxopinion.com light box plans

Useful site. Thank you!
http://light-box-plans.secondtaxopinion.com light box plans

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://president-day.secondtaxopinion.com president day

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://honda-cars.secondtaxopinion.com honda cars

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://honda-cars.secondtaxopinion.com honda cars

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://honda-cars.secondtaxopinion.com honda cars

Useful site. Thanks.
http://american-idol.secondtaxopinion.com american idol

Useful site. Thanks.
http://american-idol.secondtaxopinion.com american idol

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://flashing-lights.secondtaxopinion.com flashing lights

Useful site. Thank you!
http://gymboree.secondtaxopinion.com gymboree

Useful site. Thank you!
http://gymboree.secondtaxopinion.com gymboree

Useful site. Thank you.
http://valium.secondtaxopinion.com valium

Useful site. Thank you.
http://valium.secondtaxopinion.com valium

Useful site. Thanks.
http://george-washington.secondtaxopinion.com george washington

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://buttons-with-flashing-lights.secondtaxopinion.com buttons with flashing lights

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://buttons-with-flashing-lights.secondtaxopinion.com buttons with flashing lights

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://thriller-25.secondtaxopinion.com thriller 25

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://thriller-25.secondtaxopinion.com thriller 25

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://star-wars-clone-wars.secondtaxopinion.com star wars clone wars

Useful site. Thanks.
http://jewerly.secondtaxopinion.com jewerly

Useful site. Thanks.
http://jewerly.secondtaxopinion.com jewerly

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://memek-tante.secondtaxopinion.com memek tante

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://barack-obama.secondtaxopinion.com barack obama

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://barack-obama.secondtaxopinion.com barack obama

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://alli.bestprospecting.net alli

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://alli.bestprospecting.net alli

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://styrofoam.bestprospecting.net styrofoam

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://styrofoam.bestprospecting.net styrofoam

Useful site. Thanks.
http://metabolic-syndrome.bestprospecting.net metabolic syndrome

Useful site. Thanks.
http://metabolic-syndrome.bestprospecting.net metabolic syndrome

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://epiko.bestprospecting.net epiko

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://epiko.bestprospecting.net epiko

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://blackberry-outage.bestprospecting.net blackberry outage

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://blackberry-outage.bestprospecting.net blackberry outage

Useful site. Thanks!
http://online-casino.bestprospecting.net online casino

Useful site. Thanks!
http://online-casino.bestprospecting.net online casino

Useful site. Thank you.
http://valentine-gifts.bestprospecting.net valentine gifts

Useful site. Thanks!
http://limewire-free.yourprospecting.net limewire free

Useful site. Thank you!
http://botox.thefirstsort.com botox

Useful site. Thanks.
http://hydroxycut.thefirstsort.com hydroxycut

Useful site. Thanks.
http://hydroxycut.thefirstsort.com hydroxycut

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://lawn.superexploration.net lawn

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://lawn.superexploration.net lawn

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://casino-games.totalask.in casino games

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://casino-games.totalask.in casino games

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://celebrity.zarubinki.com celebrity

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://celebrity.zarubinki.com celebrity

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://water-heater.zarubinki.com water heater

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://scooter.zarubinki.com scooter

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://scooter.zarubinki.com scooter

Useful site. Thank you.
http://tornadoes.superexploration.net tornadoes

Useful site. Thank you.
http://tornadoes.superexploration.net tornadoes

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://chinese-astrology.mustclickbuy.com chinese astrology

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://chinese-astrology.mustclickbuy.com chinese astrology

Useful site. Thanks.
http://hand-job.groupusaguide.com hand job

Useful site. Thanks.
http://hand-job.groupusaguide.com hand job

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://www.one.100rozh.ru/index.php?razdel=akbhpc п
http://www.one.100rozh.ru/index.php?razdel=hfstereo р

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://www.one.100rozh.ru/index.php?razdel=akbhpc п
http://www.one.100rozh.ru/index.php?razdel=hfstereo р

Useful site. Thank you.
http://www.one.100rozh.ru/index.php?razdel=akbhpc о
http://www.one.100rozh.ru/index.php?razdel=hfstereo р

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://fico-score.groupusaguide.com fico score

Useful site. Thanks!
http://fico-score.groupusaguide.com fico score

Good site. Thank you.
http://www.mobill.info р

Good site. Thank you.
http://www.mobill.info р

Nice site. Thank you.
http://www.one.100rozh.ru е

dwauzopl rebvqxf orftq mhjq dqwtziuma ruqwk puajrf http://www.tlirhx.uioy.com

uxvm sdynzhf shulgye zsuiaygr tybnij fmkrwgqs ceqgbd

uxvm sdynzhf shulgye zsuiaygr tybnij fmkrwgqs ceqgbd

Thank you!
http://lwnrqjzc.com/hdxu/bfcp.html | http://uaitxmtz.com/qgpd/eqrs.html

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

Great work!
[url=http://lwnrqjzc.com/hdxu/bfcp.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://keklgujj.com/oazb/uqwe.html]Cool site[/url]

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

Hello again RTC,

I'd like to respond the the last paragraph you wrote. Especially this:

I promise you David, IF you will sincerely, just this once, remove all doubt, and just ask him to know IF what I am telling you about the Holy Ghost needing to come as a gift by the laying on of hands by one with proper authority and that baptism is a law as Jesus showed us.

I prayed and asked God to show me in His Word the truth.

We already established what the gospel is. We both know it as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You took it as symbolic for dying in sin, water baptism by submerssion and then resurrected out of the water to be saved by Christ. Paul is who wrote about what the gospel is. So, do I take it as your symbolistic way or examine scripture to find the truth. Here's what else Paul writes about.

1 Cor 1:14-17

14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect

So, Paul thought it wasn't that important to be baptized because justification is brought on by faith alone. Rom 5:1. He even says that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel. So I guess baptism is not part of the gospel, the gospel that saves.

About laying on of hands. I'm assuming you are saying that no one can recieve the Holy Spirit without laying on of hands.

Acts 10:44-46

44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Just by speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on those who were listening. No laying on of hands here.

VV 46-47

46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

They were baptized AFTER recieving the Holy Spirit WITHOUT laying on of hands but by simply hearing the Word of God spoken through Peter.

So, again. I have asked God to show me the truth. The truth is in His Word.

Just to clarify, I do believe baptism is important. I have been baptized myself after being saved. But hypothetically speaking let's suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of course he is. Let's further suppose that this person confesses his sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)?

So, RTC, I know we could go on forever. And really I don't mind if we do. I appreciate your responses because it shows me what people of different faiths believe and why. But as you can see, I have seen other scriptures to indicate an opposition to your concluded belief system. I do wish you would see it my way, and I'm sure you wish I would see it yours. But if anything, I would just hope that you can see why I do not believe in the LDS as a correct form of Christianity. I do wish you a great day RTC. I'll continue to check up on here for your responses. Much love to you and God bless you and your family. Have a great weekend.

Dearest David -

On the contrary, I was firmly committed that I was finished with our dialogue, and I am quite a decisive individual as you probably have figured out. But as my original feelings discerned, I have returned as we have continued to correspond and that is, that you are truly sincere in your love for "our" Savior, and of this I have absolutely no doubt:-) I also am touched deeply that you would be concerned for one such as I, as I you.

I can certainly understand the many walls that you feel are placed before those who attempt to accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet and the Book of Mormon as authentic. I have studied these scriptures extensively and taught from them and I have a deep testimony of Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God, because of the witness of the spirit that I have received that they are from God and that they truly testify of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer.

Your comments in your last post were striking as I read through them and mentally compared them to those of mine on the same topic as HOW one Comes Unto Christ...

If you don't mind, I would like to make a little comparison by adding what I posted to what you have posted and adding some commentary:

1 cor 15:1
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

We believe that the first principles and *ordinances* of the gospel are: first Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third Baptism by immersion for the remission for sins;

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

*This He did so that we might KNOW THE WAY. I AM THE WAY... FOLLOW ME. What He did that no other could DO was suffer, bleed and die for US, then He broke the bands of death and overcame the world, then showed himself after he rose from the tomb with a resurrected and perfected body of flesh and bone. Those whom he appeared to touched him and witnessed to this fact!!!

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

So, Paul tells us that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this gospel is what saves us. V

2. So what about any other gospel preached? What should we do?

David- this is of course correct and is symbolic of the steps of Coming unto Christ.

Death - represents the natural man in his fallen and sinful state and in need of Jesus Christ as His Savior AND Redeemer. Now our having this knowledge of our condition produces our FAITH in Jesus Christ and He as the only ONE that can SAVE us.

Burial- represents going down under and into the waters of baptism - completely covered/immersed

Resurrection of Jesus Christ - Coming up out of the waters of baptism represents being clean, washed, sinless and of course, new life and that through Jesus Christ and His atonement we are SAVED!

Gal 1:8-9

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed

David - HAVE YOU RECEIVED EXACTLY WHAT JESUS CHRIST RECEIVED? Even yourself have left out that which HE DID and made excuses that are NOT given to you to leave out. In this there is NO excuse. You say accursed. I agree completely.

Following the Baptism of the Savior the spirit descended upon Him and John the Baptist witnessed this by the sign of the dove AND the VOICE of THE FATHER bore witness of HIS SON in whom HE was well pleased.

The reception of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands is an ordinance that is a gift given of the Father because of His Son and to those who love Him and willingly follow Him. Jesus testified of this gift to his apostles and of how he wanted those he loved to have this so that they would know he was always with them.

This gift comes to those who always re-MEMBER Him, and this because they are MEMBERS of His ONE true Church through MEMBERship by covenant. An *ordinance* is an outward act of an inward commitment... baptism, and the covenant is the promise to always reMEMBER Him that you may ALWAYS have His spirit to be with YOU!

David - I too pray for a miracle that the spirit will in some way speak to you, because I KNOW you desire to know the truth. I promise you David, IF you will sincerely, just this once, remove all doubt, and just ask him to know IF what I am telling you about the Holy Ghost needing to come as a gift by the laying on of hands by one with proper authority and that baptism is a law as Jesus showed us. Just do that David. Forget about the Mormon church and just go for that piece of truth and see where God leads you. Deal?

Dearest David -

On the contrary, I was firmly committed that I was finished with our dialogue, and I am quite a decisive individual as you probably have figured out. But as my original feelings discerned, I have returned as we have continued to correspond and that is, that you are truly sincere in your love for "our" Savior, and of this I have absolutely no doubt:-) I also am touched deeply that you would be concerned for one such as I, as I you.

I can certainly understand the many walls that you feel are placed before those who attempt to accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet and the Book of Mormon as authentic. I have studied these scriptures extensively and taught from them and I have a deep testimony of Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God, because of the witness of the spirit that I have received that they are from God and that they truly testify of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer.

Your comments in your last post were striking as I read through them and mentally compared them to those of mine on the same topic as HOW one Comes Unto Christ...

If you don't mind, I would like to make a little comparison by adding what I posted to what you have posted and adding some commentary:

1 cor 15:1
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

We believe that the first principles and *ordinances* of the gospel are: first Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third Baptism by immersion for the remission for sins;

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

*This He did so that we might KNOW THE WAY. I AM THE WAY... FOLLOW ME. What He did that no other could DO was suffer, bleed and die for US, then He broke the bands of death and overcame the world, then showed himself after he rose from the tomb with a resurrected and perfected body of flesh and bone. Those whom he appeared to touched him and witnessed to this fact!!!

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

So, Paul tells us that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this gospel is what saves us. V

2. So what about any other gospel preached? What should we do?

David- this is of course correct and is symbolic of the steps of Coming unto Christ.

Death - represents the natural man in his fallen and sinful state and in need of Jesus Christ as His Savior AND Redeemer.

Burial- represents going down under and into the waters of baptism - completely covered/immersed

Resurrection of Jesus Christ - Coming up out of the waters of baptism represents being clean, washed, sinless and of course, new life and that through Jesus Christ and His atonement we are SAVED!

Gal 1:8-9

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed

David - HAVE YOU RECEIVED EXACTLY WHAT JESUS CHRIST RECEIVED? Even yourself have left out that which HE DID and made excuses that are NOT given to you to leave out. In this there is NO excuse. You say accursed. I agree completely.

Following the Baptism of the Savior the spirit descended upon Him and John the Baptist witnessed this by the sign of the dove AND the VOICE of THE FATHER bore witness of HIS SON in whom HE was well pleased.

The reception of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands is an ordinance that is a gift given of the Father because of His Son and to those who love Him and willingly follow Him. Jesus testified of this gift to his apostles and of how he wanted those he loved to have this so that they would know he was always with them.

This gift comes to those who always re-MEMBER Him, and this because they are MEMBERS of His ONE true Church through MEMBERship by covenant. An *ordinance* is an outward act of an inward commitment... baptism, and the covenant is the promise to always reMEMBER Him that you may ALWAYS have His spirit to be with YOU!

David - I too pray for a miracle that the spirit will in some way speak to you, because I KNOW you desire to know the truth. I promise you David, IF you will sincerely, just this once, remove all doubt, and just ask him to know IF what I am telling you about the Holy Ghost needing to come as a gift by the laying on of hands by one with proper authority and that baptism is a law as Jesus showed us. Just do that David. Forget about the Mormon church and just go for that piece of truth and see where God leads you. Deal?

RTC,

Thanks for the shake! :)

I have read and studied Isaiah frequently. I especially have studied the eschotological aspects of Isaiah. And I have studied the OT significantly as well. Without the OT, the NT doesn't make much sense. Otherwise you have some guy (Jesus) claiming to be God and saving people. The OT is very important.

I've recently studied a little bit about the Dead Sea Scrolls. I know they have a lot of the book of Isaiah in them. I do know that they are not completely together yet and still have much work to do in putting together that big puzzle of pieces of scrolls together. As far as other works of divine scripture, I would have to say that the Bible is the complete Word of God. I've looked at the apocrypha which was canonized by the catholic church and found errors in them. Like I said before, I firmly believe that if God divinely inspires someone to write, then it cannot include contradictions, historical inaccuracies and the such. My God is perfect and would not change his ways or His Word. So, if I were to come upon a certain writing unveiled through history, it cannot contradict the writings of the Bible. I still have yet to find that writing.

You mentioned the gospel of Jesus Christ and listed what they are according to the LDS. Here's what the Bible says.

1 cor 15:1

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

So, Paul tells us that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this gospel is what saves us. V 2. So what about any other gospel preached? What should we do?

Gal 1:8-9

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed

ACCURSED! Those are some pretty strong words. So should I accept any other gospel according to the Bible? No. And if baptism is not part of the gospel that saves us, then it is obviously not a requirement for salvation. I don't want to get into that subject, because that's a long debate and we have somewhat cut off this debate. But I stick with what the Bible tells me. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It says so. So is the LDS preaching a different gospel than the Bible? I believe so. I'll listen to what God tells me and not accept it. Sorry.

Now, like I said, this is a free country and you can believe what you want. I'm gonna stick with the Bible though if you don't mind. I have studied it and know what truth is. I have seen the truth "with spiritual eyes". And I have tested that spirit to make sure it passes the Biblical Test.

You told me to study about apostacy, the House of Isreal, etc. I have. No where in the Bible is there a mention of a "COMPLETE" apostacy. Nor does it mention that the church (which is Christ's body) will need to be "restored". Needing a restoration of Christ's church is insinuating that He didn't do it right the first time. Basically saying that He's not perfect. Like I said, my God is perfect and promised that His Word would never pass away. I also know that Israel is a nation as prophecied in the Bible. Not the American nation. I also know that the garden of eden was between the Tigris and Euphrates, not in Missouri. I also, know that there is not one shred of evidence for lost semitic tribes in the dna of any american indian. I also know that there isn't one shred of evidence for all the battles and kingdoms mentioned in the BOM. I also know about the failed prophecies of Joseph Smith. So with no evidence supporting the LDS archeaologically, scientifically and a clear indication of historical inaccuracies, geological inaccuracies, then please tell me WHY I should believe in the LDS faith? The Bible is historically correct, archaeologically proven, and does not contradict itself. I have reason to believe in the Bible. I don't have any reason to believe in the BOM or other literary LDS writings. I refuse to have "blind faith", but a faith with evidence.

I know you feel that you are witnessing to me with love from what you believe in. I feel the same way. We are both strong in the faith that we have and our faiths are completely different. I can promise you that there is nothing you can say to take me away from my Jesus. I love Him too much and know that His sacrifice for me was sufficient enough to save me by faith. And maybe since you studied Isaiah so much you can see how God chose to point out how our "works" are as filthy as rags. So I know I cannot earn salvation but accept it as a free gift by faith.

RTC, I truly love you and will pray continuosly for you. I'm sorry if I ever offended you as that was not my intention, ever. My faith is so strong that when I see someone with non-biblical beliefs it tears me up. I see how you can be lead to believe in a different Jesus than the Bible. I see how you can be lead to a different ending than mine. I'm actually going to pray for a miracle tonight. I really hope that God will reveal Himself to you. Please remember, your faith is only as good as where you place it. I hope that one day it can be in the True Jesus. Forgive me if this is offensive. Take care RTC.

God bless you

David -

Consider you hand shaken warmly:-) It is not necessary that you believe that I am right. That has never been my purpose here. It is only to have you understand what LDS doctrine is and how we understand and come to that understanding. We are a very blessed people as we have modern day revelation which adds wonderful clarity and new insights to the Bible, which we love.

What is simply amazing though in saying this, is that the doctrines that you bring up to debate and show us that we are misguided are easily given understanding even without our other scriptures. You will note that I have NOT brought any of them into the discussion and this for a very specific reason and that is to prove just that!

We could support our beliefs with other records that have not been canonized in the Bible. Do you feel that the books of the Bible are the only records that are inspired? Or do you believe that there could be others with very affirming testimonies of the record of Jesus Christ and the teaching of His doctrines, which may add more light and understanding?

Have you read any of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc... There are many other records that bear witness of biblical texts that add more to that which is written. These are facinating and inspired records that will add to our spiritual knowledge of Jesus Christ and his relationship with The Father and The Holy Ghost. Could it be that Christianity rejects these because they shake some of the basic doctrines that were determined by man when an apparent confusion had taken place???

In general most Christians are most comfortable with the New Testament and very uncomfortable with the books of Isaiah. I would encourage you to study Isaiah as much as you have studied the New Testament and get to know the Old Testament. Until you do this, you only know part of our Savior and His laws and covenants, as well as his great promises to The House of Israel.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is well organized in gathering those covenant children who are promised the many blessings of Abraham and of Issacc and of Jacob. We know who we are and what we are to do and why we are to do it and how and what we are preparing for and Whom.

The LDS are orderly in their purpose as a great stone rolling upon the earth as Isaiah prophecied, and this you will see as you study this out. Have you studied what it is to be Zion? You must. Where will you find Zion and it's people? There must be a gathering of this upon the earth and they must be ONE. Even you and Karen who are both "evangelical" christians are of different understandings of our Savior???

If ye are not ONE, ye are not mine! According to this definition, even you and Karen will not qualify. Those who are of Christ will all be One, even as the Savior and the Father are ONE.

If you speak with a member of the LDS church, most likely you will find that we all are very unified in our understanding of HOW we come unto Christ.

WE all KNOW that the first four principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ are...

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Which is our Fourth Article of Faith. So all members understand that it required by God that the path that leads to the Kingdom of God begins with FAITH.

As we learn about Jesus Christ in His word, our FAITH INCREASES in HIM as we understand who HE is and our need for Him because of our fallen state and our hopeless situation without HIM.

Therefore this our FAITH brings about sincere REPENTANCE UNTO BAPTISM for the REMISSION OF OUR SINS that we may be clean through the BLOOD of the LAMB OF GOD who did sacrifice through His suffering and then death on the cross, of which we are eternally indebted.

And because we have now qualified through keeping His commandment, by following His example to Come follow Him by one having authority... we now by the Laying on of Hands can now RECEIVE the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which is given of The Father, because of The Son!

There is not a greater gift that can be bestowed on a child of god while in the flesh and can only abide with those willing to continue in the faith and keep His commandments and walk according to His laws and do His works.

This is only ONE example of MANY in how we are striving to be ONE.

David - Please study Isaiah to understand more fully the full scope of The House of Israel from the beginning, to their wanderings, deliverances, apostasy and scatterings, the lost ten tribles, the kingdoms of judah and joseph, temples and ceremonies, covenants and how these are not dead, how the Lord will not forget His people and that Isaiah clearly knows and prophecied all things unto our times in great detail... with spiritual eyes you will see all truth.

God Bless,
rtc

RTC,

Thanks for your response. Sorry if I assumed your dislike for me. Forgive me for that.

I could respond with all that you wrote, but as we can see it's becoming endless. I think what seperates us the most is the Trinity doctrine. My belief in this allows me to understand the Bible wholly and to be able to say with confidence that the Word is inerrant. You do not believe in the Trinity and without that belief you will come up with different conclusions. You think the Father and Son are two seperate beings. I say they are one, but two seperate PEOPLES.

So, once again I've been given the opportunity to refute your previous statements, but I will not any longer. Even if I thought you had a case with your beliefs biblically, the BOM, Pearl of a great price, D @ C's and Joseph Smith have way TOO MANY contradictions and false prophetical outcomes.

I guess in conclusion, we should agree to disagree. How 'bout an E-shake? :) (electronic handshake???) You take care RTC. Like I said, I'll keep you in my prayers. If you have time I encourage you to check out carm.org. I know this is a blacklisted website by your organization, but if truly you are strong in your faith, then it shouldn't do much to you. I would just hope that you have examined ALL the necessary information regarding your beliefs. I have. That's why I feel compelled to tell those who are in need of Jesus. Take care and God bless.

David -

First, let me just say that your comment about my not being able to stand you is not correct. I may certainly be frustrated in your unwillingness in coming to this thread to seek understanding of our beliefs, but to speak such negativity would suggest unkind feelings and of those I do not have of you. I simply prefer to do other things of a more positive nature with my time once I discern that my efforts are of no value. That is all.

Honestly, I feel that many have been most kind to you in giving of their time that they may assist you in understanding our beliefs. You must know that those who are LDS and post here are not the weak of our faith, but those firmly rooted not only in our faith, but quite well historically and doctrinally. So your efforts to twist our doctrine and set us straight will ultimately exhaust you... at least in this arena. Perhaps with another flock you may have some success? But not with this seminary teacher or the apparent others.

As far as our attempts to answer your questions... you are so narrow in your thinking, that you do not even look at the larger picture when receiving answers back. Therefore you miss them completely my friend. Might I suggest that you re-read a few of the answers that you have been given. This will also refute your accusation that we focus on only particular verses in the Bible, when in actuality we are very good at using the entire Bible to substantiate our Doctrine.

For instance, you continue to hammer the false interpretation of the words of Isaiah...

Isaiah 45:5, "I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God."

BUT YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE WHAT ISAIAH'S MESSAGE IS IN TEACHING THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AT THE TIME AND AS WELL AND IN PARTICULAR THE FEW PRECEEDING CHAPTERS AND THROUGHOUT THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS VERY POWERFULLY!

And that is WHY HE IS THE ONLY GOD BEFORE THEM!!!

You CANNOT IGNORE THIS OR THINK THAT OTHERS DO...

and that is... that there is NO OTHER SAVIOR *BESIDE HIM*... NO OTHER THAT

HAS ATONED FOR US

REDEEMED US FROM THE FALL

PAID FOR US WITH A PERFECT AND INFINITE SACRIFICE

HUNG ON THE CROSS AT CALVARY

OVERCAME THE WORLD AND LIVES AGAIN

WHO HOLDS THE KEY OF DEATH AND HELL

UNLOCKED THE PRISON GATES

HOLDS ALL THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

WHO'S NAME HAS ALL POWER TO SAVE AND EXALT MANKIND...

WHO WILL IN THE LAST DAYS GATHER HIS LOST SHEEP AS HE COVENANTED WITH THEM

WILL NEVER FORGET THEM EVEN THOUGH ALL OTHERS WILL AND HAVE!

BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE COVENANT KNOW HIS VOICE AND HEAR HIM AND THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WILL BE CAUGHT UP WHEN HE COMES!!!

DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THESE COVENANTS CONCERNING THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL?

IN SPEAKING OF THE MOUNTAIN OF THE LORD, ISRAEL KNOWS FULL WELL WHAT MOUNTAIN THE LORD SPEAKS OF!

THERE ARE OVER 100 OF THESE MOUNTAINS OF WHICH ISAIAH SPOKE OF UPON THE EARTH TODAY IN WHICH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL CURRENTLY IS GATHERING AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, IN FULFILLMENT OF THESE PROPHECIES AND PROMISES...

David - Idol worship, Satan himself claims to be god, the worship of the mortal self, etc... But Jesus Christ is the ONLY GOD that can SAVE mankind, therefore, the IS NO OTHER GOD BESIDE HIM. These are very SPECIFIC WORDS that our SAVIOR gives US that we may UNDERSTAND our RELATIONSHIP to HIM as well as that to THE FATHER!

John 16
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way! He teaches in chapter 16 of John that His Father and He are ONE in the same way that we CAN be ONE with them, in that He will send unto them the COMFORTER or Holy Ghost.

15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Baptism is required by ALL not some! By one having AUTHORITY!

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

The world does not know the spirit because it has not the authority to administer the ordinance.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Ye shall KNOW! This makes others crazy, but this is REAL! Only those who receive this gift by proper authority will ever really KNOW THIS!

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Manifest is reveal = revelation. Revelation is powerful and real and happens daily to those who have been baptized and given the gift of the Holy Ghost by proper authority.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I ago unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Our Savior, Jesus Christ, is the annointed ONE whom we LOOK to as the WAY, the TRUTH and LIFE. We KNOW that it is HIM that we must FOLLOW IF we desire to be saved in the Kingdom of God and escape the awful monster of spiritual death, FOR THERE IS NO OTHER!

And NOT THAT NO OTHERS WHO CLAIMED TO BE GODS OR WHO WE PLACE AS GODS DO NOT EXIST! But that we MUST CHOOSE HIM TO BE OUR GOD.

It is through Him that we can become begotten sons and daughters, even literal heirs of a King. Afterall, what loving parent does not want for His children everything He Has and more? Certainly a perfect parent would go to extreme lengths for His children whom He has perfect love for.

For God so loved the world that He sent His only Begotten Son...

rtc

Hello again RTC,

Your right I don't see ONE OUNCE of credible evidence to support pre-existence. I see a bunch of verses taken out of context. That's about it. I see you are willing to believe in something without taking account to contradicting passages. I'm not willing to do that. Like I said, I stand firm in my belief that God's Word is inerrant. You cannot say the such and of course you wouldn't because if you did then your doctrines would be exposed.

One thing you brought up,

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them in the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ("Matt.19:4"Matt. 19:5"Matt. 19:6Matthew 19:4-6.)

Your response was as such,

So here we have in the WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF that MARRIAGE IS ETERNAL

Where does Jesus say that marriage is eternal? I think you should read the part where it says we become ONE FLESH. Keyword, FLESH. Now do you believe we are resurrected in our fleshly bodies? If so then that would make sense that we are eternally married in heaven. But that isn't the case. We can go back to 1 Cor 15 and see that flesh is an earthly body, then spiritual. Jesus speaks of no such thing as man and wife joining spiritually, but fleshly. And concerning Jewish law since you brought it up, if a man dies a woman can re-marry and that can be considered a lawful marriage to God. So if there is marriage in heaven who's wife will she be? Or is this justification for polygamy in heaven?

you said,

David - you continue to accuse others of only using parts of the Bible, when this is precisely what you do so well. Such a revelation of the self... don't you SEE?

No, I don't see. Please show me. Also, concerning 1 cor 15, no one still has yet to address verse 46. I don't expect you to. All I expect from you is that you will say that part of the Bible is incorrect and must have been changed or translated wrong by some catholic bishop during some "council of confusion". I know God created His Word to stay inerrant over the years because He promised that. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My Words will never pass". I believe Him. I have faith in everything He has said in the Bible. This is why I look at the whole of scripture and if there is but one contradiction, then it must be studied to determine the correct exegesis. Not just accepted as contradiction.

I thank you for your time RTC. I know we will always disagree. My intention here is to show that taking the Bible as a whole is how doctrinal decisions need to be made. You say,

For not ONCE have you admitted that there could possibly be even ONE OUNCE of anything that could be reasonably correctly interpreted by someone either than YOU!

There are millions of people in this world that come to the same conclusions I have. I'm not alone and nor do I think that I am right. I know the Bible is right though. And that's all I need to know. I wish you the best RTC, even though I know you can't stand me, I'll keep you in my prayers as I have already prayed for you several times with a sincere heart. I wish the best to you and keep the hope in Christ that maybe one day you can see that God's word is inerrant in every aspect. Take care and most importantly

God bless

David -

I apologize for not being able to get back to you after you responded to my post of last week until now. Obviously you have zero intention of seeing beyond your crusade.

You continue to drive 1 Corinthians 15 with selected verses, but leave out that which give it the full meaning of which the Savior intended. Then shout the Bible wins! This is childish play. HJ then supports this foolish game, knowing full well he does so.

David, (and HJ) go back and read the entire chapter and you will see that it teaches the law of restoration very clearly. It speaks of each of the kingdoms of glory; the celestial; the terrestrial; and the telestial. Meaning, that each persons body can only be restored to that which it has abided by LAW!!! Joseph Smith did NOT make up these kingdoms nor God's judgments.

Concerning the healing of the blind man.... this was concerning LAW once AGAIN my friend. Jesus was being questioned and condemned by those who considered him to be breaking Jewish LAW when HE WAS THE LAW because this was on the SABBATH.

WHAT was JESUS, Who is the Law teaching these men and US?

First, that HE is the LAW, that healing on the Sabbath is GOOD WORK and that HIS WORK is GOOD and SANCTIFIED on that day which He MADE! Also, that HE, AS THE CREATOR, SAVIOR AND REDEEMER OF ALL MANKIND IS TEACHING the doctrine that no child is born with sin because of their parents choices. This is FALSE DOCTRINE and an abomination unto Him!

His atonement reconciled the original sin of Adam and all are born free of sin into a world of mortality of which there is sin. Each of us will be accountable for our own choices, thus final judgements are based upon our desires, knowledge and works, etc...

David - you continue to accuse others of only using parts of the Bible, when this is precisely what you do so well. Such a revelation of the self... don't you SEE?

When you continue to bring up that there is no marriage in heaven, you only show that you do not understand Jewish background in this instance. The Pharisees and the Saducees had differing beliefs concerning that of a resurrection, therefore marriage after this life. So Jesus went on to explain to them regarding the fact that they did not even understand or know the law concerning such. How could he really even have this conversation with them? Those wise guys were always wanting to condemn or trap him by His LAWS. The doctrine of resurrection was a favorite of theirs, and one they did not understand at all.

Same with eternal marriage... trying to teach them that what God does versus what man does is different, but MOST IMPORTANT.... TEMPORAL!

Apparently from this answer given to the Saducees the christian world in general has determined that there is no marriage in heaven, but this is NOT how God intended it to be from the beginning.

In giving instruction to the Pharisees, the Savior set forth a very different doctrine. They came to him and questioned him on divorce. In the answer which he gave to them he taught the doctrine of the eternal marriage covenant.
 
   And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them in the beginning made them male and female,
   And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
   Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ("Matt.19:4"Matt. 19:5"Matt. 19:6Matthew 19:4-6.)

So here we have in the WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF that MARRIAGE IS ETERNAL and has been from the beginning. Each group received the answer THEY desired according to their beliefs (although their intentions were to entrap him). Let us remember that the first marriage was performed by God, before there was DEATH and also for those who had spiritual bodies.

It IS GOD'S WORK through the atonement and resurrection to bring to pass the RESTORATION of ALL THINGS by the POWER OF HIS NAME... INTO A STATE OF PERFECTION AND GLORY.

I personally commend individuals like Jim A, anonymous and Neal for the work they have done on this particular thread, in answering so many of your questions David. They have given you more than enough logical and reasonable answers of which you, in my opinion, have not taken the time to ponder upon. For not ONCE have you admitted that there could possibly be even ONE OUNCE of anything that could be reasonably correctly interpreted by someone either than YOU!

THIS ALONE, leaves me to discern you at this point to be one that I will no longer dialogue with, as it will only ever be a one way conversation and not a learning experience as that is what searching and understanding is all about. The others may do as they wish.

Best to you.
rtc
 
Disciple - Discipline

Anon,

you said,

Why would Christ (The Great Teacher/Master/Instructor) pass up a GOLDEN opportunity to fix this "great error" that the disciples have said?

I don't know. Ask Him. But in fact He did fix this great error later on by inspiring Paul to write about it in 1 Cor 15. Taking the Bible as a WHOLE reveals that.

you said,

In fact reflecing on your comments more, I cannot understand how you can say in one breath that the disciples are incorrect (in John) and justify your reasoning for one verse in the scriptures and then say in the next breath that they were right (1 Cor) and support a contradicting argument. Your arguments alone are contradicting. So which is it, are the Apostles right in their reasoning or were they wrong? Again, it seems to me that you are conforming these thoughts to your beliefs as well...

My argument is based on a time factor. The disciples have not yet seen the death and resurrection of Jesus yet in John 9. They continued to disbelieve in Him and assume other things throughout until Jesus appeared to them after the resurrection. Then they were sent to preach the gospel. How can you have a clear understanding of God's purpose without the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? But, "blessed are those who have not seen and believe", right?
Not only that but it was Paul that wrote the letters to the Corinthians and Paul wasn't part of that discipleship. As we know Paul was a persecuter of Christians until Christ appeared to him. So comparing Paul's testimony to the doubt of the disciples in Jesus' time on earth is quite different.

and lastly you said,

We could go on for days like this, however, this blog's intention is not meant to berate or prove others wrong - so let us both walk away with an understanding of each other's differences and accept each other as we move forward.

I'm not here to prove YOU wrong. I'm here to prove the Bible right. I agree with you and have mentioned before that I believe God spoke to me through His Word the other night and let me know that I have done enough.

I thank you Anon, for giving your time here. I know we will always disagree on our faiths and there's not much either one of us can do about it. I do accept you and respect you to the fullest. No matter the differences we have let's remember to follow the number one commandment....to love one another. That's what's important. Have a blessed day.

God bless

BTW my post on June 27, 2007 1:44 PM should have been addressed to David, not Henry. Sorry about that.

David - I think our arguments are coming to an impasse. This is where our beliefs differ. The objective of this board is to associate differences between the religous groups and I think we have both done that with enough circumstantial evidence on both our parts. We could go on for days like this, however, this blog's intention is not meant to berate or prove others wrong - so let us both walk away with an understanding of each other's differences and accept each other as we move forward.

In Christ

In fact reflecing on your comments more, I cannot understand how you can say in one breath that the disciples are incorrect (in John) and justify your reasoning for one verse in the scriptures and then say in the next breath that they were right (1 Cor) and support a contradicting argument. Your arguments alone are contradicting. So which is it, are the Apostles right in their reasoning or were they wrong? Again, it seems to me that you are conforming these thoughts to your beliefs as well...

I believe that is a stretch Henry. There is more evidence of pre-existence than not...

When Christ replied to the question, He said "...Neither hath this man sinned...". He did not say "a man cannot sin before birth". Why would Christ (The Great Teacher/Master/Instructor) pass up a GOLDEN opportunity to fix this "great error" that the disciples have said?

I personally refute the idea that an all knowing being who had an opportunity to fix such an obvious error and teach the world, would pass that up. As I said, there is more evidence of it being there than not.

Nice try Anon,

Look at verse 4 of John 9

3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him

A case cannot be made for pre-existence in this case. Jesus affirms that sin had nothing to do with this man's blindness. And there is no indication from Jesus that sin was "pre-mortal" or that "pre-existence" was even a factor.

If you assume that the apostles are correct in YOUR assumption, then obviously you haven't seen the doubt that they possessed regarding who Jesus really is. Doubting Thomas? Peter's denial. Walking on water doubts? Doubting that Jesus is God. Who's right, the apostles or Jesus?
It's obvious the credibility of Jesus is far greater than the apostles. Keep in mind that the apostles were Jewish as well.

Traditionally, Jews have debated over several issues as these. Re-incarnation, pre-existence, etc..These are all beliefs of ancient paganistic religions. Many adopted by the Jews as recorded in the OT. So for them to continually debate or believe in such issues is not too far-fetched.

So, once again 1 Cor 15:46 stands correct and so does the inerrancy of the Bible. And once again it is proven that lds teaching do not look at the WHOLE of scripture, but take verses out of context or without allowing further verses to explain and then create doctrine from the out of context verses. Furthermore, once again, God's Word wins again!! Amen.

I rephrase my last comments:

1 Cor 15:46 is:

1) Either not translated or NOT being interpreted correctly on your part
or
2) The interpretation provided for you already is a possible answer
or
2) The bible contradicts itself

All of which are a blow against your argument that the bible is entirely inerrant and in essence, prove your beliefs do indeed have contradictions.

Henry,

Please spare us the insults, your arguments are no longer holding any water. It is becoming very obvious that you did not thoroughly read through the article which was posted. You're right, we can go on and on, but I will point out one of the many incorrect assumptions you gave without actually comprehending the argument given in the artcile:

The blind:

(Please note, I am not using captial letter to indicate I am shouting, but rather to emphasize key components in the argument - since I cannot italicize here)

Here is the verse in question again:

"And his disciples asked him, saying Master, who did sin, THIS MAN, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

You said:
"His buddies thought that all of the troubles that laid upon Job were because he must have sinned. Or maybe that his parents sinned. Traditionally, Jews thought that any punishment on earth was because of sin or a parental sinning that was passed down. Please study that. The passage mentions how the blind man must have had parents who sinned and that's why he's blind. Same old Jewish assumptions."

Allan Wyatt refuted your exact and incorrect argument in his study when he said:

"Since he was BORN blind—a fact the record indicates that both Jesus and His disciples knew—then the wording of the question indicates that the sinning must have taken place *BEFORE* the birth of the man, by the man himself. How could the man have sinned, resulting in a punishment of being blind at birth, unless he had lived before he was born?"

That statement alone disproves your exegesis (if I dare call it that).

In addition, a possible explanation has already been given to you for 1 Cor 15:46 - just because you choose not to interpret it that way does not make it false. In fact, Joseph Smith spoke of that verse in D&C when he talks about the keys of the kingdom and the sealing power. You can review that yourself if you're so inclined...

So to take it one step further, the argument that Wyatt gave for the blind is so obvious and revealing that it leaves you to one of three options for what you gave your interpretation.

1 Cor 15:46 is:

1) Either not translated or being interpreted correctly on your part
or
2) The interpretation provided for you already is a possible answer
or
2) The bible contradicts itself

All of which are a blow against your argument that the bible is entirely inerrant and in essence, prove your beliefs do indeed have contradictions.

Jim A,

I thought about posting a refute for the lds article on pre-existence. But then I realized what I told you already. I came upon Titus 3:10. The Lord was telling me to go ahead and step away from warning you any further. Instead of a long drawn out refutation I'll just suggest a few things.

First, the article never addressed 1 Cor 15:46. It seems that all the lds ever do is address the eisogesis of certain passages instead of facing the ones that clearly contradict your doctrine. SO quickly I'll address a few things about that article. Otherwise, the doctrinal debate is over for me. I think I've done my job. And according to HJ (as a non-biased source) my points held more reason and biblical backing then the lds. God's Word never lets me down! :)

Jer 1:5.

Here's a hint about this passage. Doesn't God have forknowledge? Prophecy anybody?? Hebrew word for "sanctify" is "yada" which also means "to set apart". And no you don't need to physically be there to be ordained. God can ordain anyone He wants without prior knowledge from the ordained. His choice. Stop limiting God!

Job 38

LDS assumption again. If God is asking where were you when I laid the foundations, "that must mean Job was somewhere"?? C'mon now. Worst assumption yet. Obviously in context God is telling Job not to question Him and what He does and that Job wasn't the one who laid the foundations of the earth. He wasn't there!! Again a terrible eisogesis of this passage.

Blind man who sinned.

Refer back to the story of Job. His buddies thought that all of the troubles that laid upon Job were because he must have sinned. Or maybe that his parents sinned. Traditionally, Jews thought that any punishment on earth was because of sin or a parental sinning that was passed down. Please study that. The passage mentions how the blind man must have had parents who sinned and that's why he's blind. Same old Jewish assumptions. Of course the story of Job is to show that God does things not always because of sin but for a purpose and to remain faithful in Him. Same with the blind man. His purpose was to be blind so that Jesus could heal him and therefore bringing glory to God. NOT because he sinned in his "pre-existence". Bad assumption again.

Once again please explain 1 Cor 15:46. Or not. Doesn't matter too much. I know I'll just get the same avoidance on this passage as usual. The least you can do is grant me the "catholic church excuse". "They changed the words". Otherwise, I hope I brought to your attention of how stretched out the lds doctrine needs to be to try to verify itself.

So, in conclusion, I made some simple points. I thought about posting a long refute on the subject. But I already have, several times. The Bible keeps winning! But I see this as pointless now. No matter how off the doctrines of the lds are, you still will follow them. So why do I waste my time. I only hope that I may have instilled somewhat of a questioning in your mind to re-evaluate what you believe. You may not and stick with the "feeling in my bosom" excuse. You may not because you've spent years of your life in dedication to this church. You may not because of the friends and family that you have grown to love in this church. All these are excuses to not come to the truth. All I can tell you is that if you ever leave this church of false teachings, then you will be shunned and mistreated. I've heard the stories from x-mormons. So, like I said before, I'll check in once in awhile, but I think I've said enough. I wish the best for you Jim, RTC, HJ, and all the anonymouses. Much love and peace to you and your families.

God bless

I have to agree with Neal and Michael,

The focus this year for our entire stake is service. Not only have we been discussing the importance of this throughout the year in our quorums, we have also put together numerous service projects where we have been going out and offering assistance to others outside the church.

Oddly enough for some occasions, when we have called townships and municipalities throughout our stake asking them what assistance they need (which so many are willing to offer their time and talents to), they became overwhelmed by our request and have told us that they don't know how to address that many volunteers. I think that's a pretty compelling argument.

Dear Mr Otterson

Thank you for responding on this forum. We all appreciate when you participate, which I realize you do more than most other columnists.

And thank you as well for your information about disaster relief and aid to the poor on the part of the Church.

Mormons are good people (my mother was a Relief Society president). And you have added to our knowledge of specific initiatives which are admirable.

Catholic, Episcopal, and UU leaders regularly state priorities for their churches like the one below. It is my opinion that dealing with the global situation of justice and poverty is a prime obligation of Church groups. In my opinion, the emphasis of the Mormon leadership in these areas could be much stronger.

As one measure, as I noted above, I did not find any articles or talks on the subject in the magazine or at the General Conferences.

UA Statement on
Justice & Diversity
Unitarian Universalists are dedicated to living our faith and practicing what we preach. Working for civil rights and combating oppression are essential parts of our spiritual journey. Our faith community has worked for justice for hundreds of years, from advocating for free speech and the free practice of religion as far back as the fifteen hundreds to helping to abolish slavery and supporting women’s rights beginning in the eighteen hundreds. We continue to work for justice today in ways that resonate with our Principles, from protecting our environment to standing up for the bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender people. While we cannot always take action on every issue that arises, we do our best to make our congregations, our communities, our denomination, and our world a better place.

Henry: your post on aid to the poor

You can do so much better than this. I took one quick look at this thread before moving on to this week's new topic and saw your post on Church aid to the poor. While I often disagree with your posts, I usually find them thoughtful and worth reading. I even agree with some of them. What happened with this one?

If there is one issue on which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unassailable, it's on the aid given to the poor and needy outside the Church.

Neal is absolutely right. The amount of aid to the poor is staggering. Ask the fishermen in Indonesia whose boats were wrecked by the tsunami, and now have new ones thanks to the Church. Or the thousands of people in African villages who no longer have to walk hours a day for their water because the Church drilled wells right next to their homes. Or the thousands of crippled kids who no longer have to swing along on the ground using their arms because they have wheelchairs at last. Or the villagers in Sri Lanka living in Church-built homes. Or the Katrina victims who watched Mormons repair roofs and clean homes while others sat and talked about how to deal with the problem.

But you seem concerned that General Authorities aren't speaking enough about world poverty or writing about it in the Ensign. Maybe it's because they and the members are already busy "doing." In my own congregation, I saw members who couldn't afford it donate hundreds of dollars for helping in recent disasters. The amount in donations that came into Church humanitarian facilities has been overwhelming. I feel simultaneously proud and humble to be associated with generous hearts like these.

Here is a NOT-unusual message from Pope Benedict in 2007. Is there a remotely similar statement from Gordon Hinckley?

"The Academy's meeting this year is devoted to an examination of the theme: "Charity and Justice in the Relations among Peoples and Nations." The Church cannot fail to be interested in this subject, inasmuch as the pursuit of justice and the promotion of the civilization of love are essential aspects of her mission of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Certainly the building of a just society is the primary responsibility of the political order, both in individual States and in the international community. As such, it demands, at every level, a disciplined exercise of practical reason and a training of the will in order to discern and achieve the specific requirements of justice in full respect for the common good and the inalienable dignity of each individual. In my Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, I wished to reaffirm, at the beginning of my Pontificate, the Church's desire to contribute to this necessary purification of reason, to help form consciences and to stimulate a greater response to the genuine requirements of justice. At the same time, I wished to emphasize that, even in the most just society, there will always be a place for charity: "there is no ordering of the State so just that it can eliminate the need for a service of love"

scan of Ensign Books finds nothing either. (ensign was my mother's maiden name).

scan of Ensign Magazine from 2005 finds nothing. I did see One article my Monson called "The Call to Service." I said "here we go."

but when i looked closer it was a call to service TO the church, with a bit about helping the poor WITHIN the church: helping a Mormon widow remodel her house.

I welcome substantive and consistent counter evidence to my earlier claim. So far Neal, all I have received is your assurance "We are doing our part."

I do not see the GA's teaching in this area to the members. I certainly did not see it when I was an active church goer.

The Church HAS managed to be pretty active in opposing the Equal Rights Amendment and Gay Rights.

In other words, active AGAINST the less-powerful, on the side OF the powerful.

Hello Neal

I just went through the talks by the General Authorities at the April 2007 General Conference.

Of the 35 or so talks,

i saw NOT ONE whose title (or content browsing quickly) had to do with Mormon obligation to help non-mormons in the world, to work to alleviate poverty, injustice, the power of the abusing powerful.

As you know, at General Conference, the GA's are telling the membership what to pay attention to.

Plenty of "the Church is true, what else matters".
NO, i repeat NO, consciousness of the obligations Jesus talked about to feed and clothe the poor and to throw the money changers out of the temple.

The Pope talks about this stuff ALL THE TIME.
So does the Pastor at Riverside Church, where the parishioners often ARE the powerful.

Would you like me to do a scan of Ensign Articles?

HJ wrote:

-----
"What i am NOT FINE with is that the Church does NOTHING to encourage its members to BE AWARE of the social issues like poverty and injustice to women in the world at large and do something about it.

The entire focus is helping other mormons - within the Tribe - not global consciousness.

It think that is inevitable when hyou consider yourself the One True Church.

Catholics have an exemplary record on Poverty and social injustices, as well as Peace (mormons are pretty dang Hawklike, no? what would Jesus say?).

Unitarians have large parts of their institution devoted to global consciousness.

Many other Christian and Jewish groups give aid to poor children and families.

For Monmors, it is not even on the radar screen, is it? The best thing we can do for the rest of the world is convert them to Mormonism, they say."
-----

I'm REALLY tired of hearing this bunk! The Mormon Church DOES encourage its members to give to other charities, and it has give almost a billion dollars in humanitarian aid in the past few years. This does NOT include the fast offerings and other assisance rendered by the membership. Go to www.lds.org and look up humanitarian aid. Then quit griping and go help someone yourself. We're doing our part!!

Neal

Yockel: I am with you 100% that any tax exempt entity but especially churches should provide full disclosure of their finances. As Phaedrus famously said in a previous thread: let the sun shine on all the information. I am not saying that secrecy necessarily means that church leaders cannot be trusted but as the famous saying goes: trust but verify!
And we are dealing with human beings here, living prophet non withstanding... Therefore temptation is there and mischief is always a possibility. I personally do not understand why any church would not come forward and show its budget, its expenses, its charitable work etc. It immediately looks like there is something to hide...even if there is absolutely nothing to hide. Plus the money comes from the faithful who should have every right to know how their hard earned money is used.
I belong to a local independant non denominational church. The finances are wide open for anybody to look at. It makes me feel good about donating my money knowing where it is going and why. And though I have full trust in my church leader, it reassures me to know that full disclosure keeps them all accountable to me and the other members.

David
You really should collect all of your critiques of Mormon theology that you have posted here and publich them in book form. It is quite a thoroughgoing analysis by now.

And again I mush say that my rigorous philosophical mind finds very little fault with your analyses, that is if one accepts the Bible as the Word of God (which I don't but I can make the assumptions).

Mormon doctrine doesn't hold up very well. Wouldn't that be a fair summary of your analyses.

My brother William, the expert religious philosopher, says that if one reads through the totality of mormon doctrine with a rational stance, not assuming it is either true or false, that it is riddled with questions both theological,\ and historical.

JIM A, You're a doll, but your arguments have been no match for David and his slingshot, which be now seems like a cannon. Though not a Canon.

Jim A,

I intend to respond to the website that was posted about pre-existence. I'm in a little rush right now but will return later in the day. I read through it all, and I just can't believe how off they are. I'll explain later. I'm actually so upset that someone could even think that the biblical verses posted on that site suggest anything about pre-existence. In fact they are quite the opposite. They actually show how we DID NOT pre-exist. I'll be back later to show you why. I must say too, that refuting that article is gonna be the easiest thing I've yet to do on here. I'll be back later. For now, have a great day. Be safe and God bless.

It may surprise you all to know that I am fine with the Mormon Church not devotiing lots of its own money to curing poverty in the world.

What i am NOT FINE with is that the Church does NOTHING to encourage its members to BE AWARE of the social issues like poverty and injustice to women in the world at large and do something about it.

The entire focus is helping other mormons - within the Tribe - not global consciousness.

It think that is inevitable when hyou consider yourself the One True Church.

Catholics have an exemplary record on Poverty and social injustices, as well as Peace (mormons are pretty dang Hawklike, no? what would Jesus say?).

Unitarians have large parts of their institution devoted to global consciousness.

Many other Christian and Jewish groups give aid to poor children and families.

For Monmors, it is not even on the radar screen, is it? The best thing we can do for the rest of the world is convert them to Mormonism, they say.

Financial Disclosure

I am the head of a non-profit organization. All such non-church organizations are required to post their Financial Forms for Public Examination.

It is outrageous that Churches are not.

Jim A: why would it be so awful for the members of your ward to know the income and expense of the ward? Seems exactly the opporsite to me.

The overall point is that Transparency is the last thing the Mormor Church wants in most areas. Catholics are the same, so don't think i am just picking on Mormons.

Fully open information would be challenge to their authority.

Yockel,
One other minor item- I am quite sure that the US Government also has regulations for the Church and other non-exempt entities. For example, our stake has a welfare farm, and the farm is required to maintain a certain number of hours of volunteer service to maintain tax-exempt status. So regulations are in place, but public disclosure of financial records is not required.

David,
Did you read the fairlds link on pre-existence that Anonymous referred to? There are several Biblical references there- I would be interested to get your view about such a thorough treatise on this topic.

Yockel,

Thanks for your comments. To clarify on fast offerings, every check written in the ward requires two signatures. It is not uncommon for a ward clerk or financial clerk to write the check and to provide one of the required signatures. Such was the case with me. In addition, I reconciled the ward's financial statements, and I participated in multiple audits of our financial records, so I was by nature of my responsibilities acutely aware of the donations and expenses. Of course I would not discuss the details of such financial assistance, and I assure you that there was nothing improper about any of this and that we fully complied with policy.

The point about service and welfare was not the number of people in Africa drilling wells but rather a significant amount of help is given to those in need that will never be reflected in a financial statement. How do we determine how much aid is sufficient for a church or anyone for that matter to give?

http://www.carm.org/testimonies/cat.htm

Jim A,

Thanks for your reply. As a member of the LDS Church, I have met thousands of missionaries but not one welfare missionary. If there are people drilling wells in Africa for the LDS Church, it will be very few, especially as a share of the available workforce.

As a former financial clerk, I find your claim that you know first hand how fast offerings are used in your ward dubious. It would be highly irregular in terms of LDS policy if a ward clerk had access to that kind of information. May be, the stake needs to properly train your bishopric about the proper treatment of confidential information.

It would be appropriate to disclose budgets. It is not appropriate to gossip about fast offering payments to the needy with the ward clerk. It can only lead to embarrassment.

Finally, you are jumping to conclusions when you suggest that non-contributors should not worry. First of all, I have contributed for decades. There are thousands of Mormons who want accountability. Second, we all subsidize every contribution to the LDS Church when the donors claim a tax exemption.

It is unethical when a billion dollar business is tax exempt but refuses to disclose its budget. Congratulations to the British government for properly regulating organizations that enjoy the privilege of tax exemptions.

More importantly, men of God should not need to be compelled by the law to do the right thing.

Anonymous,

Maybe you are gone already. Great job with explaining Jer. 1:5 and other supporting arguments for pre-existence. Makes perfect sense to me. Hope you'll be able to stop by here once in a while- your viewpoint is helpful and needed here!

Anon,

Thanks for that info. That amazes me. I'm sure most catholics don't even know about that. I choose not to be catholic for other reasons, but I guess that's just another reason for me to stay away.

Thanks again for that information. Have a great day.

Henry,

You caught me before I ran out... this is not RTC.

Here is the doctrine from the official vatican website referring what I had mentioned:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

Scroll down to Article 3 Paragraph 1 #460

Anon, I'm assuming this is RTC,

Welcome back my friend. I can see your getting frustrated. I guess we could go on and on and on, but nothing will change. I definately see a lot of assumptions in your interpretation of meaning in the Bible. But why keep going back and forth. By the way God did know me before I was born. But I wasn't with Him. :) I'll just leave it at that.

You said that catholics believe they can become gods as well. I've never heard of this. Can you point to me where I can find this information? I would greatly appreciate it.

Let me clarify one thing. I researched the reliability of the Bible. I believe the Bible to be innerrant in its original form. But with 25,000 copies of the NT by 125 a.d. with all of them being consistent with each other, that suggests that the Bible we have today is reliable. The only errors in the 25000 copies were found to be small annotations, misspellings, things of that such, but nothing to affect meanings or phrases. And we have these copies today for proof! Also, with the Dead Sea Scrolls coming together, it's showing us how much more we can depend on our current Bible being reliable.

I agree with you that Jesus pre-existed. How can He not. He is God! But we're not and your description of 1 Cor 15:46 is again completely by assumption. I think you need to read it and not read INTO it. Quite the difference.

So like I mentioned before, Titus 3:10 was speaking to me last night, so I guess my work here is done. I'll keep you all in my prayers. I'll check in once in awhile too. It's hard to stay away!!

Karen,

Thanks for your prayers. I'm with you sista. Love is the most important commandment. I hope that no matter what we all believe we can keep that commandment alive and running. Have a great day and much love to you all.

God bless

Henry,

I will address this one last time and then I will be signing off for a while as this board is taking too much of my time. Let’s look at what you said about my original post on Jeremiah 1:5. Instead of taking that for its literal meaning (for which you instead realized that it goes against your beliefs and decided it must have another interpretation) you gave a suggestion to look at an alternative form of how Christ used the word know/knew. That might work for your beliefs and I see your point of view, however, you only chose a few passages instead of selecting all of them. Limiting your references to select passages that only support your beliefs is no different than your suggestion that the LDS support their arguments because of their beliefs. For had you referenced every instance of the word “know/knew” you would also have realized that Christ used that word a number of times in its literal sense. To describe this further, I will quote Allan L. Wyatt’s comments here:

“It is hard to deny the specificity of words used in the Jeremiah passage:

'Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.'

Notice three key words here: knew, sanctified, and ordained. The wording itself indicates that God literally knew Jeremiah and was familiar with his spiritual attitudes and abilities. In addition, God sanctified Jeremiah, a description not of foreknowledge but of an actual event with participants present. The process of sanctification, or setting something apart as holy, by definition requires that something (such as Jeremiah himself) be present to be set apart. Likewise, the act of ordaining a person—in this case a prophet—requires that the individual be present. These acts—sanctification and ordination—are not mental exercises, but actual events.

Indeed, other modern Christian scholars have chosen to acknowledge the claim that Jeremiah 1:5 speaks of more than mere foreknowledge. In reference to the concept of premortal life, William de Arteaga stated:

'This question was hotly debated by Christians of late antiquity, and the faction of the Church which was bitterly opposed to preexistence gained the upper hand. By the sixth century belief in preexistence was declared heresy. All of this is quite astonishing in view of the clear and repeated biblical evidence for preexistence.'

The event referred to in the sixth century was an edict by Pope Vigilius in 543 AD that rejected the doctrine of preexistence taught by Origen of Alexandria. Historical records indicate that the edict, called Anathemas Against Origen, was actually penned by the Roman emperor, Justinian, and signed by the pope and other bishops present at the Second Council of Constantinople. The official document labeled Origen's teachings heresy and forbid them being taught in the church”

When you made your suggestion on Jer 1:5, I didn’t comment anymore because herein lies our differences: you believe that the bible is inerrant. While I believe that God is inerrant, I believe that the bible has many errors and many things have been removed/changed over the many thousands of years in time that it was “passed down”. That’s my belief. You can believe differently and I respect your belief – this is why I did not initially continue my conversation with you because it would go nowhere.

You have to ask yourself how is it that many great minded people who roamed the earth had beliefs similar to Mormons before the religion even existed. Sir Isaac Newton was just one who spoke of apostasy that was coming and that there was a need for a restored gospel (not a reformed gospel) with prophets and apostles before the Lord returns a final time. How could he have known this when he lived before the Book of Mormon times? He obviously wasn’t “brainwashed” (as you may think we are) by the Book of Mormon. Obviously something in the scriptures made him realize this. You can read more about that here if you like:

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/040811newton.html

Many of the beliefs that the LDS currently have were also practiced prior to the Book of Mormon, where the church was more in its original form. I believe there is a need for additional scripture to fill in the many gaps that we have which can otherwise lead us to misinterpretations and/or cause us to have the many conflicting Christian beliefs that we have today. I will point out that there were over 20 references in the Bible to other books which we have no knowledge of today – so where are these other books of additional information?

Likewise, you were asking about how LDS can believe we can become “like” gods. I have told you in my earlier post that Catholics have this in their doctrine also. This is not something that just the LDS believe in. So are you suggesting that the Catholic believe in the Book of Mormon? Obviously they do not, so how did they come to that conclusion years before the BOM was ever revealed to us? You can browse the web and find out for yourself why it is – there are plenty of resources online and I don’t have the time to spend writing on this.

You keep referring to 1 Cor 46-49 but this does not necessarily conflict with LDS belief. LDS believe that our spirits are united with our physical bodies here on earth. It is our actual physical bodies that we receive (in which Paul is referring to) which are not at “first” spiritual, but they do somehow become spiritual after we are resurrected. In verse 50 it says "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God", but we know Christ's resurrected body has substance for "doubting" Thomas put his fingers in his wounds. So how is this done? He explains it in this chapter with also the description of the different glories the bodies receive. Another key verse for me is verse 52 where it says "... and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." If you believe that after we die, our spirits are once again reunited with our bodies to become resurrected then it is very obvious that he is talking about our physical bodies.

If interpreting the way you mentioned works for you, then hey, whatever works for you. But for me, I don’t interpret it that way, for if I did, it would also mean that Jesus was born of the body first and not of the spirit. But we already know that Jesus wasn’t born of the body first since there are many passages in scripture already supporting this argument. I believe His life was an example for us to follow.

If you really want to know more about pre-existence and where LDS substantiate it, you can read this well written article which I borrowed the above quote from:

http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20104.html

This article, through numerous examples, very eloquently describes the verses in scriptures that support pre-existence. I especially enjoy the section titled “Did Jesus and the Apostles believe in Premortal Life?”. Here an NON-LDS scholar asserts pre-existence, which basically supports my previous argument.

Karen,
I appreciate your non-critical, non-judgemental, Christlike approach to the sensitive topic of different religious beliefs. The type of tolerance you convey is something that this world needs more of. I agree wholeheartedly that we do our best and let God to the rest.

Hi Henry James:
Yes Jesus did say, when asked about what is the greatest commandement: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and love your neighbour as yourself"

This is one of my favorite verses in the entire Bible because if we truly follow it, here is what happens:

If I love God with all my heart and all my mind then I will not love money, power, material possesions etc and will not spend my life pursuing them. That frees up my life to do God's work namely serving Him by serving others, including my family.

If I love my neighbour as myself, with the understanding that my neighbour is any fellow human, then I will not be selfish, greedy and self centered. So, even though I may not know anybody in Darfur, I will feel a connection with the suffering people there, I will pray for them, I will donate money for relief efforts, I will presss my elected officials to take action. From a purely evolutionary perspective, I may think hey, the less for them, the more for me. But from a spiritual perspective, I will donate money even when I can hardly afford it because they are my neighbours and if I love them as myself, I have to share my resources.

It is possible to embrace these ideals without having faith in God. It is possible to have faith in God but quench His Holy Spirit and spend millions of dollars combating gay marriage rather then feeding the hungry. But whether we believe or not, if we truly, truly embrace the greatest commandement, then I think that life on earth would not be so wretched.

David:

God bless you for sticking with this conversation and trying so faithfully to make the case again and again that we are saved by faith alone through Grace alone so that truth may set all believers free, as Jesus meant it to be.
By the way, I was praying for you this morning on my way to work and based on the most recent posts, I was hoping that you would once again go into an explanation of the difference between justification and sanctification. Then when I got to work and checked the latest posts, there it was...so thank you.

Also, I would like to add my 2 cents re: part of the conversation. I think Jim A stated that he cannot believe that God wants to save so few people. I think that both David and I would agree. God wants to save all of us. The Bible says that He does not want any of us to perish. But you have to remember that according to scripture, we all start out separated from God by our sins, "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". We have to be willing to acknowledge our sin, repent sincerly, and receive God's grace in order to pass from death onto life. The problem is that most people, even those who hear the Gospel very clearly,do not go through these simple, yet for many, unsurmountable steps. This happens for may reasons that I will not go into now. But in anser to your question, God wants to save all of humanity, it is most of humanity that keeps turning its back on Him.

What happens to those who have never heard the gospel? C.S. Lewis has a theory about this, which I do not remember very well at this moment and should lood at again. But I think it goes along the lines that you can be saved through Jesus's atonement on the cross by believing in Him and serving Him without even knowing that it is Him that you have put your faith in. I may be misrepresenting his thoughts here but I think that that is the gist of it.

My thougths are that we do our best and God does the rest. We tell people the good news of the Bible and send out missonaries and we trust that God, being fair and just will not exclude from His kingdom those who ought to be in it. How is that done? Well, I am not God to know this. Part of trusting in God is sometimes saying "I don't know". Let us beware of any religion that claims to know everything about God and about His sovereign plans.

Jim,

Yes I agree that "spirituality cannot be proven". Like HJ says either can the tooth fairy. But there is one thing I can prove (Biblically).

1 john 4:1

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

I may not be able to prove that this "feeling" you get is authentic or not, but I can prove that this feeling is not something from the God of the Bible. If it's not from God, then it must be from Jesus' (brother)?? Yep, you know, satan.

It's fairly easy to see that mormon teaching is anti-biblical. Therefore the spirit you are feeling is one from the evil dude. Yeah it feels good doesn't it. It feels right doesn't it? Like it says, satan will come as an angel of light. Of course he'll make it "feel good".

I agree with HJ in that it's a free country and your entitled to believe whatever you want. But I can promise you that there are those like me who will not sit back and just watch as this organization of false prophets leads people astray. I just can't allow myself to sit back and watch as people pervert the true Word of God into something that it is not.

I was reading something last night and I think it was God telling me something.

Titus 3:10-11

10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

It's so weird, because I just happen to fall on this verse last night, unintentionally. I can't ignore what God says. I don't think you should either.

So I warned you, not just once, but several times, with scriptural proof of your false beliefs. You have been warned so that when you stand judgement you will not have any excuse.

Two things really quick.
You mentioned how you couldn't understand why God would limit Himself to just one book. The Bible is several books. Check your history. And what more would you need anyway? If you completely knew everything in the Bible, then what more could you ask for? Is there really more truth than what the Bible says? No, only false truths that contradict the Bible. Prove me wrong!!! You also mentioned how you can not understand why God would offer truth and understanding to so few. He offers it to everyone. What's the best selling book on earth for hundreds of years? The Bible. What religion has been spread around the globe several times to all nations and people? Christianity. God offers salvation to everyone. It's just a matter of acceptance.

In response to your last paragraph,
there was never a need for a "restored" church. It has always been there. And if there ever was I guarantee that the mormon church is not the same as the original followers of Christ. One thing you all could never prove to me was a COMPLETE apostacy. No where in the Bible does it say that. No where does it mention the need for a restored church as well otherwise Jesus was a liar because He promised that His people (his church) would be around forever and that death and Hades would not overcome it. And finally, since Christ came according to Heb 1:1-3 we have no need for modern day prophets like the OT. We have Christ.

I guess to conclude this discussion I should say that I will keep you in my prayers and just hope that one day before your time is up that you will know the truth. I can see by this "feeling" you get that you have already accepted a false spirit instead of testing it. If you ever realize that what you believe in is false, then you will know how persecuted you will become for believing in the truth not just by the world but by your own LDS members. I have read the testimonies of ex-mormons. They are looked down upon by other mormon members and then mistreated for allowing themselves to know the truth. How sad it is. But that was the case for the original apostles and that is the sad case for all those who believe in the truth of the Bible. Be careful Jim, because who you are involved with an organizatin that has led you astray. You believe in this false prophet Hinckley. He can have a "revelation" at any time that can lead you farther into despair. And just like any other cult in history, you are one "revelation" away from drinking some poisonous kool-aid.

Take care and may the true God of the Bible come to you one day. I hope for that.

God bless

Jim A

Your reply seems like a cop out to me.

You say "Spiritual truth is not something that can be proven. "

One can paraphrase your stand as
"spiritual 'truth' can be anything I, Jim A, say it is."

If, Kant like, everyone took your position, there would be 6 billion spiritual truths, not one of a few.

I think the answer is somewhere in between. But NOT with Mormonism.

You write "because I can not prove these things does not make them untrue."

I write
"because i can not prove that the tooth fairy exists doesn't mean he doesn't."

It is fine for you to say you have faith in Mormonism because it pleases you, comforts you, makes you less afraid of dying, gives you the illusion that we live in a kind universe. You are perfectly entitled to those beliefs in our free country.

To say your feelings have anything to do with "truth" is meaningless.

And you should at least admit, as David has convincingly demonstrated, that Mormonism contradicts the Bible in many fundamental ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K6n1PlTKQQ

Mormon's secret temple ceremonies

Henry and David,

We could continue to go back and forth ad nauseum, but what's the point? Spiritual truth is not something that can be proven. David believes that the whole of truth is contained within the Bible, and that is fine. As much as I love the Bible and believe it to contain the word of God, I cannot, however, understand how a loving God would confine his truth to this single book, nor can I understand a belief that God would offer truth and salvation to so few of his children.

I love the fact that God has a perfect plan for ALL of his children whereby all will have the opportunity to accept the fulness of Christ's gospel, if not in this life than in the life to come. I love the fact that the authority to act in the name of Christ- the priesthood- as well as the organization he instituted with prophets and apostles- has been restored once more in its fulness, just as it existed in Christ's day. I love the fact that Heavenly Father will reveal truth and send a confirming witness of the Spirit to all who humbly seek for truth. Because I cannot prove these things to your or anyone else's satisfaction does not make them untrue.

Jimbo

Did David answer your questions?

Seems to me like he knocked all of yours (and RTC's) right out of the park.

Whew. Are you Man enough to say you're licked?

'enry

Jim,

Sorry about my last post. It may not have been specific enough and may have been a little misleading on what I really believe. I realize I shouldn't post anything if I'm in a hurry. I'll clarify a little.

Yes, the Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus to us who have the Holy Spirit. But if I have the Holy Spirit I shouldn't expect anyone to take my word for it, I urge those I talk to to read the Bible to confirm whatever I say. I think what we differ on is that I believe the Holy Spirit is the third "person" of the Trinity that makes the One God. There are passages that suggest that the Holy Spirit is a person. I'll copy and past something I found quite beneficial to this subject. These are all works and attributes of the Holy Spirit.

Access to God - Eph. 2:18 Inspires prayer - Eph. 6:18; Jude 20
Anoints for Service - Luke 4:18 Intercedes -Rom. 8:26
Assures - Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:6 Interprets Scripture - 1 Cor. 2:1,14;
Eph. 1:17
Authors Scripture - 2 Pet. 1:20-21 Leads - Rom. 8:14
Baptizes - John 1:23-34; 1 Cor. 12:13-14 Liberates - Rom. 8:2
Believers Born of - John 3:3-6 Molds Character - Gal. 5:22-23
Calls and Commissions - Acts 13:24; 20:28 Produces fruit - Gal. 5:22-23
Cleanses - 2 Thess. 3:13; 1 Pet. 1:2 Empowers Believers - Luke 24:49
Convicts of sin - John 16:9,14 Raises from the dead - Rom. 8:11
Creates - Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4 Regenerates - Titus 3:5
Empowers - 1 Thess. 1:5 Sanctifies - Rom. 15:16
Fills - Acts 2:4; 4:29-31; 5:18-20 Seals - Eph. 1:1314; 4:30
Gives gifts - 1 Cor. 12:8-11 Strengthens - Eph. 3:16; Acts 1:8; 2:4;
1 Cor. 2:4
Glorifies Christ - John 16:14 Teaches - John 14:26
Guides in truth - John 16:13 Testifies of Jesus - John 15:26
Helps our weakness - Rom. 8:26 Victory over flesh - Rom. 8:2-4; Gal. 4:6
Indwells believers - Rom. 8:9-14; Gal. 4:6 Worship helper - Phil. 3:3

So, you asked what role the H.S. plays and there you have a bunch.

According to Titus 3:5 the Holy Spirit regenerates us. Makes us new. It is only by being indwelled with the Holy Spirit can we learn to follow the commandments that God gave us. The Holy Spirit comes to us upon recieving Christ as our personal Lord and Saviour. It is then, that we can begin to do the works that God has created us to do. Eph 2:8-10.It is also then that we can discern from what is true and what is false.1 Cor. 2:1,14, and guides in the truth, John 16:13

The Holy Spirit sanctifies us. There is a difference between justification and sanctification. We are justified (saved) upon recieving the Holy Spirit. We then can be sanctified meaning that we can do good works. "Faith without works is dead". A true faith will produce works because the Holy Spirit is working within them. The difference between faith alone for salvation and faith with works is that you think the works you do can earn you salvation. NO. If you had the Holy Spirit, then these works would come naturally for the glorification of God, not for you own selfish desires of earning salvation.

Your question # 4

"Finally, what happens to one that professes a belief in Christ but sins and perhaps has no intention of not sinning? How will such a person fare vs. one that not only professes belief but shows by his/her actions that he/she believes, i.e. by attempting to follow Christ, to avoid sin, by repenting of sins, etc.?"

A profession of faith is meaningless if it produces nothing. How can one who hold the Holy Spirit within them have no intention of not sinning? John 16:9,14 says that the Holy Spirit will convict you of sin. Obviously if you do not have that Spirit, then you will not feel the conviction. The second person your talking about sounds like someone who would have the Holy Spirit within them. But like Paul warns, it is by faith we are saved, not works, so it depends on if these works are believed in this person's heart to give them salvation, then obviously they do not have the Holy Spirit, but are doing works in order for themselves and not by regeneration (Titus 3:5) from the Holy Spirit.

Another question you had,

2. I apologize if you answered this before (I have a bad memory), but what is your position regarding the need for baptism vis-a-vis Christ's sending his apostles to teach and to baptize those that believed?

I think baptism is great. I encourage it. I have been baptised myself. Do I think it justifies us? No. If you study scripture, you will see that it is those who accept Christ that get baptized. I would like to point out Acts 10:44-46 where Peter is preaching and the Holy Spirit is bestowed on those who have yet to be baptized. They accepted Christ, were saved, THEN baptized. I think you have to look at it this way. If a guy accepts Christ with all of his heart and professes his faith is he saved. Because what if he was on his way to be baptized and got into an accident and died? Wouldn't he be saved?

I saved the hardest for last

"3. If all truth is contained exclusively in the Bible (which I believe you claim), what is the state of those that never had the Bible and opportunity to learn its truths?"

So I guess you are asking what happens to those who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel? This is something that I cannot say with confidence and I think that I will leave up to God. But I do believe the Bible is unclear on this subject. However there is one verse that is relevant to look at concerning this matter.

Rom. 10:12-15 "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; 13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD will be saved.” 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!”

We must call upon the Lord for salvation. But like Paul is saying, what about those who never heard? "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things." This is imporatant because I believe this shows that the message of the gospel is what saves regardless of if you have heard it or not. Because it is a blessing according to Paul to recieve it, because then if accepted you will be saved. So I assume (yes ASSUME) that those who have never heard the gospel will be condemned. Now of course this is subjective and depends on each situation. But that's up to God, not me. All I can tell you is what happens to those who accept what they have heard or deny the truth of the gospel.

Now about you Jim,

You believe in a god that lives on another planet with a wife goddess with whom we all pre-existed with. You believe in a Jesus who paid for our sins at Gethsemane, not on the cross like it is written in 1 Pet. 2:24. You believe Jesus is the brother of Lucifer. You believe in multiple gods and that we can become gods. You believe in a different Jesus than the Bible. Do you think that you have the Holy Spirit in you? How can you be saved if you believe in a different god than the Bible? This "feeling" you get. Have you tested it? How do you know it's not a feeling from satan? He does come as an angel of light you know? I want you to be saved. I want you to have and feel the assurance of being saved. Please, go through everything I ever posted. I'm not right all the time. But the Bible (God's Word) is right all the time.

Let me go through really quick what the Bible has accomplished according to discrediting the LDS.

1. J. Smith-false prophet. False prophecies=false prophet. Not only that but anyone who would say this is from satan, not God:

Joseph Smith said, "I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam...Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church, Vol. 6:408-9).

2. Pre-existence is false-1 Cor 15:46

3. There is only ONE God
Isaiah 43:10, You are My witnesses, declares the Lord, And My servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me."
Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."
Isaiah 44:8, "Do not tremble and do not be afraid; have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none.
Isaiah 45:5, "I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God."

4. The BOM contradicts the Bible

5. The BOM contradicts itself.

6. There is no marriage in heaven. Jesus says so in Matt 22.

What other evidence do you need?

David,
You indicate that the Holy Spirit will testify of Christ. This is how we know that Christ is the Son of God, our Savior and Redeemer- through the witness of the Holy Ghost to us. I believe you agree from what you posted. So, if the Holy Spirit testifies to us of Christ, how does this happen?

Jim,

Thanks for the questions. I'm going to probably post something very long on all 4 of your questions, but right now I have a few errands to run. I do however want to respond to a statement of yours.

you said,

To respond to an earlier comment you made in which you minimize the role the Holy Ghost plays in testifying of truth- we believe that this is a key function of the Holy Ghost- to testify to our spirit specifically that Jesus is the Christ but also of other truths.

First off, I never "minimized" the role of the Holy Ghost. I think you may be referring to when I post Jer 17:9. What I did minimize was man's heart in convincing yourself of the truth. I think you have the role of the Holy Spirit confused. John 15:26 states that the Holy Spirit will testify of Jesus. Please find me scripture stating that the Holy Spirit will testify to you in what you believe? Not there. The Holy Spirit will testify to the truth in Jesus. I will explain how that works later, with scriptural backing of course. But for now I want to clarify that I never intended that the Holy Spirit is "minimalized". I believe in the Trinity which states that the three persons of God make One God. Meaning that all three are co-equal. I simply stated that the "feeling" you have is from your heart and the heart cannot be trusted. I do have to run, but I will be back later to answer your other questions. Have a great day.

To change the subject slightly....

David, a few questions for you based on your interpretation of the Bible:

1. What is the role of Holy Ghost?
2. I apologize if you answered this before (I have a bad memory), but what is your position regarding the need for baptism vis-a-vis Christ's sending his apostles to teach and to baptize those that believed?
3. If all truth is contained exclusively in the Bible (which I believe you claim), what is the state of those that never had the Bible and opportunity to learn its truths?
4. Finally, what happens to one that professes a belief in Christ but sins and perhaps has no intention of not sinning? How will such a person fare vs. one that not only professes belief but shows by his/her actions that he/she believes, i.e. by attempting to follow Christ, to avoid sin, by repenting of sins, etc.?

To respond to an earlier comment you made in which you minimize the role the Holy Ghost plays in testifying of truth- we believe that this is a key function of the Holy Ghost- to testify to our spirit specifically that Jesus is the Christ but also of other truths. When the early apostles taught and converted individuals to Christ, how was it that this happened? How did they know that this was the right thing to do? Perhaps some saw or knew of Christ's miracles and believed because of them, but I submit that God's pattern to teaching his children truth is to send prophets who teach others, and those that hear can know what is said (or read in the scriptures) by the Holy Ghost that testifies to our mind and heart. Admittedly this is subjective and cannot be quantified or measured or held up to scientific scrutiny, but that is the nature of spiritual things.

So, along these lines, how is it that you know that the Bible is true and is the exclusive domain of God's word?

HJ,

That last statement was way too funny. Trust me I think sarcasm can be really funny. And that was a good one.

I do appreciate some opinion from a non-biased subject as yourself, HJ. Since you do not believe in God, I can feel assured that your opinions are in no way favoritized for my points or mormonisms. I do appreciate seeing what an outside source would say in this theological debate. Your opinions let me know how my explanations can remain logical as compared to assumptional. Even though I'm sure you would tell me that believing in God is illogical all together, but hey that's another debate I guess.

But thanks for giving your opinion here. I think it's evident from someone who does not believe either way that the mormon explanations are somewhat far fetched and contradicting.

Just one question for you HJ. I'm not too sure if you are atheist or agnostic or what? Just curious what your beliefs are. I will not try to "convert" you if you do not want me to go there, but I'm just curious if you are willing to share your beliefs, or should I say lack of belief. Whatever the case may be. Thanks Mr. James. Have a great day my friend.

And have a great day to you too RTC, Jim and whoever else may be reading. I have a lot of love for you all and that's why I'm here. God bless

I was known as the brother who wrote novels like a philosopher, while William was the brother who wrote philosophy like a novelist.

So I am in a fine position to compare your theological reasoning with RTC's.

Your is rigorous, consistent, thorough, fact-based.

RTC's is fanciful, circular, unsupported by text or fact.

By now I have read 3 books worth of RTC's theology. I still can't make head nor tail of it. She often makes no sense even within the context of the Mormon jerry-built system that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young fantasyzed into existence.

And your latest vivid explication of her assumption-making seems right on target.

If one accepts the Bible, the Creation was the Creation. Of the heavens and the earth, and of man out of the dust of the earth. And verse 46 does look pretty dang airtight.

RTC believes what she believes because she believes it, once again. But I love her. I hope she will have me as one of her plural husbands in Heaven when she becomes a Goddess.

RTC,

Hello again,

I thank you for your explanation of pre-existence, however it is full of assumptions.

First and foremost you still fail to recognize 1 cor 15:46. The entire text talks about Adam and how he was created. He was created first in the natural and secondly upon resurrection, spiritual. It specifically details how we are all created FIRST in our natural "earthy" bodies. This alone contradicts your assumptions.

I'll start by pointing out the last thing you said.

"When God said that He made the Heaven and the Earth, could He be referring to the spirit and the body? That is what I believe"

No He could not be referring to the spirit and the body. He specifically detailed what was created in the "heavens" (which can be the earth's atmosphere, outer space, and heaven 'God's dwelling place'". So when He created the heavens it was a complete account of star creation, sun, moon, etc.. And no the body cannot be symbolistic of the earth because God created earthly things, vegetation, animals, fish, etc...The earth is the earth and the heavens are the heavens. So, what your insinuating is that our spirits contain stars, moons, etc...And that our bodies contain vegetation, land, animals. There is a religion for that and it's called Pantheism. God is not a pantheist.

You seperated Gen 1 and Gen 2 as two seperate creation accounts. I believe (even though I'm a little confused on your explanation) that you claim Gen 1 is the spiritual creation of things and Gen 2 is the natural. Gen 1 is the brief description of what was created in the first six days. Gen 2 starts off by saying that God rested. Then here's Gen 2:4

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Gen 2 is merely a recap of what was created including on how God created man. From the dust of the earth.

You said,

So SIN is when we KNOWINGLY DO THAT WHICH IS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO WHAT GOD HAS COMMANDED US NOT TO DO

Didn't God command Adam and Eve to not eat from the forbidden tree? So that would be disobeying God and therefore we have SIN. You claim that they did not sin in the previous statement because they didn't know what evil was. But then contradict yourself by stating that it is sin when someone disobeys a direct order from God. Well, which one is it?

Now, we are talking about the subject of pre-existence, so I'll stick with that subject for now even though you included original sin, eve's purpose, general sin, etc. But again, I see assumptions in your analysis with the Genesis account and no real scriptural proof. I see the Genesis account as creation of the heavens and earth and all that was created in the heavens..stars, moon, sun..etc. and all that was created on earth...vegetation, animals, fish, etc. And then man on the sixth day. No where does it say anything about man spiritually being with God before he was created as natural man. This is where you put your assumptions to meet your beliefs. If only you could address 1 Cor 15, then you can know for sure that not only does the Bible not contradict itself but that the Genesis account of creation is consistent with 1 Cor 15 in that we are created in our earthly bodies then we are sown in our spiritual bodies after this life. Let me post the section of 1 cor 15 again.

vv 42-50

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

How can you ignore v. 46? First natural, then spiritual? It's clear as day. If I were to accept you claim of pre-existence then I also accept a contradictory Bible and therefore the God of the Bible is not real because He contradicts Himself.

Look at v 49 as well. "we have borne the image of the earthy". We are in our earth bodies, correct? You can't disagree with that. "WE SHALL bear the image of the heavenly. It says WE SHALL meaning in the future. Not in the past.

What I have seen you do with the Genesis account is typical of LDS teachings. Out of context teachings, assumptions and ignoring contradicting evidence. Not to mention that the explanations are sooo confusing that no wonder those who have little biblical knowledge could fall into this trap of false teaching. With such confusion, how easy can it be to persuade those who would take it to heart?

So, once again please address the contradiction of 1 Cor 15. Also, you might want to re-read the Genesis account. Please show me specifically where we are spiritually with God before He created man.

Hi All -

Just catching up on the thread. Some great discussions going on. I am going to attempt to address a premortal existence from the creation, etc. Jim A and Anon, maybe you guys could discuss the LAW of restoration with our friend David. I know that he doesn't like LAW, but this may help quite a bit.

If he understands the resurrection and he believes in being resurrected to a spiritual body, then give him a few definitions of what it actually means to be resurrected. He DOES believe the Bible, right? It IS a witness...

Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall "were" spiritual bodies! Will he deny this?

Please read Genesis 1 - 3 very very CAREFULLY and you will find that Chapter One is the SPIRITUAL CREATION OF ALL THINGS and Chapter Two begins as it tells us that God rested on the SEVENTH DAY and ""NOW"" HE SHALL ACTUALLY FORM WHAT HE HAD PLANNED FROM THAT SPIRITUAL CREATION as recorded in Chapter One, (meaning the planning meeting, council of the Gods, design, order of all things...EVEN ADAM, ETC...)

Chapter Three then takes us from that "transition" of the **placement** of "spiritual bodies" being formed on the earth and placed in the garden... and through the actual FALL to mortality.

From this point on Adam and Eve and ALL THINGS are NOW in a fallen, mortal state, separated from the presence of God and in need of a Savior.

You know, like the need for a complete restitution versus a reformation due to absolute corruption?

Genesis Chapter 1 

Notice that God is discussing with "others" the plan that "they" will carry out as they create in exact detail each and every part in perfection. What would we expect from God? In this He is teaching US that THIS IS "THE PATTERN OF ALL THINGS"... meaning "THE PLAN OF CREATION", thus the reason it is given as such... (we are to become.... our children, etc... like our Savior is LIKE HIS FATHER)

Very successful individuals, families, as well as businesses, etc... are very good at this:-)

26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
 
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

NOW, at this point the spiritual creation of ALL things was completed and this was BEFORE anything was ever PLACED upon the earth IN THE GARDEN and BEFORE the fall.

Genesis Chapter 2

  1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

The word HOST refers to those on the OTHER side of the veil, as does ARMIES or MULTITUDES either here OR the OTHER SIDE.

and IF everything was FINISHED..... W H Y does GOD N O W

DO IT AGAIN,,,,, AFTER HE takes a NAP?

  2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
 
 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Could create and made be referring to different parts of an overall Creation? Like making plans and forming/creating that which you have counseled or planned previously?

Perhaps what JESUS was teaching in the NEW TESTAMENT will NOW make some sense in regards to HEALING on the Sabbath?  

For lets L@@k at WHAT THE GREAT CREATOR DID AS HE RESTED ON HIS SABBATH...

4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
  
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
  
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

AHA! DID YOU CATCH THIS? NO WATER.... NO MAN TO TAKE CARE OF THINGS... (So, nothing was there until water and then came man, the first flesh upon the earth both spiritual body and eventually temporal flesh.... result of the fall)

UNTIL NOW WE GET HIS "SPIRITUAL BODY FORMED"
  
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The PHRASE "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" is figurative for the spirit of man entering the body and that this process merging the spirit with this new matter was of ONE of the "host" spoken of as earlier recorded. It is clear that man did not just appear from nothing a living soul, but that it did BECOME as was planned and created a spirit before.

Now this living soul, which had become, was immortal and of a spiritual body, unlike ours now in the fallen state.   

8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

AND PLACED IN THE LOVELY GARDEN... NOW READY TO BE PREPARED FOR HIM TO TAKE CARE OF....

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Now interesting here, because at this point, before Eve enters the picture he is placed in the garden AND given the instruction not to mess with that tree of knowledge? Could it be that Men need women to progress? I suppose this depends on how you look at what happened in the Garden and what your beliefs are? LDS believe that The Fall was part of a plan to enter mortality. So we do NOT see Eve as a negative, nor do we believe in original sin.

Verses 18 - 23 We are now given the part of the account where we learn that it is not good for man to be alone, so NOW all other forms of animal life are formed and brought to Adam. He names them, but a helpmeet is not found among them for him. This deep sleep is caused by God to come upon Adam, the rib is taken and when he awakens even has been formed.

Apparently he recognizes her, as they are alike and then they are married and counseled to be one. We should remember that God married them and NOT man, thus their marriage was meant to be eternal like everything else... thus, it is not good for US to be alone.

 
Genesis Chapter 3

AGAIN, the commandment is given, BUT the CHOICE, as well as the AGENCY of man is IDENTIFIED to US and THEM.

HOW do we exercise agency? OPPOSITION MUST BE PART OF THE EQUATION...
  
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

The presence of GOOD and EVIL in direct opposition of each other, forces US to CHOOSE WHOSE WE ARE when our eyes are OPEN to this knowledge!

What made things a bit different for Adam and Eve and that it was transgression and NOT SIN, was that they did not understand evil (Himself) or the consequences of such at this point, BUT that they did disobey God and they knew that there would be consequences of which of He had told them previously.

So SIN is when we KNOWINGLY DO THAT WHICH IS IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO WHAT GOD HAS COMMANDED US NOT TO DO.

Well, Adam was in a pickle now, because Eve was his wife and he was to cleave unto her, be one and have children, so

As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The FALL created the need for the Savior and the Atonement's reconciliation for ALL MEN.

Thus, The Plan of Salvation is set in motion!

Note that in Gen 2:4 that the generations of the earth are identified and we are STILL in the SEVENTH GENERATION. We think of the creation as creative periods versus literal 24 hour days...

This is the DAY OF THE LORD and we consider ourselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-DAY-Saints:-)

When an understanding of the Creation is laid out in this way, so much more of the symbolism of both the Old and New Testaments will reveal themselves to the student... particularly that of Revelations.

I enjoy thinking of myself as the "earth" and it's creation and cycles, etc.. as symbolic of my own personal growth and progression from spirit, mortality and eventual resurrection.

Well, maybe some of this will make some sense and bring the doctrines of resurrection and restoration together for you David.

For IF the spirit is ETERNAL, then it could never have a BEGINNING or it WILL have an END.

When God said that He made the Heaven and the Earth, could He be referring to the spirit and the body? That is what I believe
rtc

Hj,

Thank you so much for the kind words. I know we have different beliefs but it's good to know that we can still be civil and in fact have a high amount of respect for one another. I do wish you well in whatever you do and even if you do not believe it, I hope you wouldn't mind if I keep you in my prayers. If you have any other faith related questions, feel free to post. Like I said, I will always try to answer them the best I can. Have a great day.

God bless

Thanks David

you are so thorough. and conscientious. very good attributes as far as i am concerned.

though we disagree on many things, i admire the way you read the bible and what you take from it. again, though i believe the bible to be of a different nature than you, not the word of God but an amazing record of humanity's struggle to figure out how to live and what to worship. the most important questions.

if one ends up loving one's neighbor and trying to alleviate suffering, that is the most important thing to me. i think Jesus taught that, and for that and many other things I admire him, and admire the lessons you take from your devotion to Him.

peace
henry

HJ,

Thanks for the response.

There are more than just one instance where God claims that He is only One. Not just in the ten commandments.

Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, Deut 4:6.

Several more on top of those as well. The mormon claim is that you can BECOME a god. You mentioned about gods "below" God. Not so according to mormons because they become god after this life. Not during this life.

Of course the 3 levels of heaven that you indicate is taken from 2 Cor. 12:2 where Paul is talking about a friend being in the third heaven. With scripture backing up scripture, I can tell you what is meant by that if you want otherwise I'll save my fingers from all this typing. In short, the heavens have been described as our earths atmosphere (level 1) outer space (level 2) and God's dwelling place, the real heaven (level 3). If you would like scriptural proof of that let me know.

Concerning slavery,

God does not "support" slavery. He does permit it though. Along with murder, rape and all kinds of detestable acts. It is permitted because of sin that was brought into this world. God Himself commits no acts like these but our sinful natures do. Actually the Bible contains laws to give slaves rights.

The Bible acknowledged the slave’s status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46),
The Bible restricted the master’s power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
The slave was a member of the master’s household (Lev. 22:11)
The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14)
The slave was required and to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14)

Slavery was quite different then than what you and I would think of it. They were more of domestic servants, than some beaten down human to do work for nothing. They become members of the household. Lev 22:10. That's a big statement. Kind of like becoming family in a way. God never encouraged slavery, but allowed it but gave the Israelites some rules to follow to give rights to these people.

You asked,

Do you harbor any doubt that, though you have come to the best spiritual conclusions you can, that you might be “wrong.”

No matter what faith we have we can always doubt. It doesn't mean that our faith is lost, it just means we have to re-examine our beliefs sometimes. I've done that several times and probably will several more. I have a lot to learn. There is so much information in the Bible and to say I know it all would be a lie. I have a lot to study, but I have weighed the evidence. I've looked at the historical accuracy of the Bible, the archeaological evidences, the prophetical outcomes, and most currently the modern day prophecies of the end times coming together. So, you ask if I have ever thought that I might be wrong. Yes. I am wrong all the time. But I believe that the Bible is right. If you are asking me if I think the Bible could ever be incorrect or wrong then no. The thing is if I'm wrong and the Bible was a scheme created by 40 different authors over a 1500 year period with astounding historical accuracy and arachaeological proof of many things in the Bible...well, if the Bible was wrong and was created as a scheme then what's the worse that can happen...I'll die and become dust without a conscience. But if the Bible is right and it really is God's spoken word to us, then I would hate to not believe in Jesus, because you know where that ends. I'm in no way saying that I only believe "just in case". I truly do believe in God and the God of the Bible. This is not only based on faith, but also with real life evidences. I could not imagine worshipping a god that did not give some evidences of His existence. This is where all other religions fail and where the Bible excels.

Thanks for the questions. Feel free to ask me whatever you want. I'll try to answer them the best I can. I am no scholar or an apalogetic so I give it my best. Have a great day my friend.

Love and peace to you too and most importantly....

God bless

Hello David

You write “The Bible says there is only ONE God. This isn't a minor contradiction, this is something that would be anti-biblical all together.”

To me that seems theologically quite clear if one believes the 10 commandments are the word of God. And it seems you haven’t gotten a good answer, right? The only answer I can think of is
“thou shalt have no other gods before me:” doesn’t preclude having gods “BELOW me.”

But as I’ve said before, the Mormons are bringing us back to multiple god systems like the greeks had, times 1,000.

To my statement that the Mormon doctrine of heaven was more complicated, you said “I'd like to know how so? “

Well, just first off, the mormons have 3 levels of heaven with elaborate descriptions of how you get to each level and what it is like. Even that God lives on a particular planet.

Of course I don’t believe any of this, but this is what Mormons believe.

I think the Mormons clearly believe in a different God than the bible describes.

The Mormon god is NOT all powerful for instance. Though it seems to me that the God of the Torah was as much a bumbler with the world as George Bush has been with Iraq, so I would never call that God all-powerful, or even very smart (I guess I’m in trouble now)

I don’t believe in God, so I don’t believe He is going to save us at all. But if one DOES believe, your explanation of being saved by Grace rather than works makes sense. But that doesn’t mean I can commit lots of bad acts and get away with it, does it.?

I think you and I are going to disagree about whether the Bible contradicts itself, but that is fine. Do things llike the thoroughgoing support of slavery in the bible concern you? That seems beyond mis interpretation.

You and I agree on our rejecton of the Burning Chest as a Truth Test. Yours is much more rational. But even rational truth tests turn out to be wrong. Do you harbor any doubt that, though you have come to the best spiritual conclusions you can, that you might be “wrong.”

Thanks SO much for taking the time to answer.

Love and Peace to You
Henry

Hi HJ,

Welcome back my friend. I'll answer the questions you had for me.

you asked,

Is your point also that the Mormon system is so elaborate that is must inevitably contradict the Bible on many points?

I think the Bible is elaborate enough on it's own. I believe that the Bible is sufficient in order for us to know all that we can know. The BOM is another elaborate document as well. What the LDS claims is that the BOM is another testimony that is consistent with the Bible. I not just several minor contradictions, but contradictions that would prevent what the Bible says on how we recieve salvation to what the BOM says. The BOM claims we can be gods. The Bible says there is only ONE God. This isn't a minor contradiction, this is something that would be anti-biblical all together.

You said,

The Bible is much less detailed about "the other world" than Mormon Doctrine is.

I'd like to know how so? The Bible talks about heaven and hell and gives a description of both. The difference is that Mormons claim they came from this "other world" first, then came here as humans and will return to the Father. This of course is pre-existence and is clearly taught in the Bible that we were never physically or spiritually with God before our time here on earth. 1 Cor 15:46.

You said,

When Jesus said "love God and your neighbor and everything else is secondary (commentary, as the Rabbi said)

among other things I interpret that to say "don't get so caught up in things that we can't prove and that really make no difference in loving our neighbor."

Yes Jesus says to love everyone. So how do we show this love? I don't even know Jim, RTC or you personally, but I think by bringing them to the truth in the Bible they have the opportunity to recieve the free gift of grace provided by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. If I didn't love you all then why would I be on here wasting my time? I truly believe in the importance of eternal salvation. I'm showing love by guiding those who are lost to the truth. To me that's loving my neighbor. The lds worship a different God than in the Bible. So how can they recieve the grace given by the God of the Bible through another false god and a false Christ. Also, as I wrote before, Paul says that we cannot recieve grace if we think we can be justified by our works. The lds add works to faith. Therefore they will be judged by their works along with their sins. Unfortunately the Bible says that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God and therefore we are all guilty of breaking God's laws. The punishment for that is eternal damnation. The only cure is to accept the free grace given by Jesus Christ on the cross and to admit that no matter what we do we cannot save ourselves, otherwise Jesus died in vain. By adding works to faith as a requirement to salvation, they deny the sufficiency of Jesus' death on the cross and therefore cannot recieve the grace needed to be forgiven of sins and recieve salvation. I show this to them and you out of love for my neighbor.

you said,

The Bible of course contradicts ITSELF many many times. Remind me of your attitude on Bible innerancy.

I believe the Bible to be inerrant. The problem with people finding contradictions is that they do not study scripture as a WHOLE. Scripture needs to back up scripture. Also, most importantly is the context of which is was written. And lastly it is important when coming upon a verse that seems contradictory to review what the original language wrote. You have to understand that there are words in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek that do not have exact translations into English. You can find this problem in any modern day language as well. But I still have yet to find any clear contradictions in the Bible.

you said,

And finally, the Truth Decision Criterion of Mormonism, Burning Chests, does have many elements of "unbelievability" about it. It seems you agree?

I do agree. And I do agree with this on an biblical account as well.

Jer 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Who can understand it?

The Bible tells me not to trust my own heart. It can be decietful. This warm feeling that the lds claim to have falls into this category of a decietful heart. The Bible teaches us to test the spirits and to test everything. This is how we are to gain the knowledge provided for us in the Bible. Not by a warm fuzzy feeling. I've tested the mormon doctrines with Biblical backup and they turn out to be false. This is how I know they are false, because the Bible says so. Not because I have a warm fuzzy feeling that tells me they must be false. To the lds reading this: trust in God's word for guidance, not your own heart. The Bible says so which means God says so.

Have a great day HJ and all.

God bless

Otterson Misrepresents the Truth Once Again.

In Mormonism

Asking Questions is How We Grow OUT OF THE MORMON CHURCH.

that is, we get KICKED OUT if we ask THE WRONG questions in a public way. Excommunicated.

If we are serious scholars who write history as we find the research shows it to be, rather than "faithful history" that won't upset the believers,

we get Excommunicated.

Otterson wants us to believe "Oh, yes children, we love your questions".

That is, unless your questions go against the positions of the church. If you question the Church stand on Gay Rights in a Testimony meeting or in a column in a SLC paper, for instance.

the title of this column should be
"Ask Questions as long as You Don't Challenge Our Power." GBH

David

you and I have very different belief systems, but I admire your tenacity and your pursuit of answers.

A couple of comments I'd be interested to hear your answers to. You probably have already done so above, but I am not as thorough a reader as you are.

You point is that Mormon belief in a preexistence is contradicted at many points in the Bible, yes?

Is your point also that the Mormon system is so elaborate that is must inevitably contradict the Bible on many points?

The Bible is much less detailed about "the other world" than Mormon Doctrine is.

Do you also believe that having such an elaborate scheme in and of itself is a fools errand?

When Jesus said "love God and your neighbor and everything else is secondary (commentary, as the Rabbi said)

among other things I interpret that to say "don't get so caught up in things that we can't prove and that really make no difference in loving our neighbor."

The Bible of course contradicts ITSELF many many times. Remind me of your attitude on Bible innerancy.

And finally, the Truth Decision Criterion of Mormonism, Burning Chests, does have many elements of "unbelievability" about it. It seems you agree?

Cheers
Henry the Godless One

Anonymous,

I started reading a part of this and this article claims that the ancient hebrew did not have the definite article for 'god' in psalm 82:6. It said therefore it should have read "ye are 'a' god."

I stopped right there. One bit of absolute false information and I'm gone. Now adding to the words to make it conform to one's beliefs is a big no, no.

I think with this dialogue we are having, it seems to get thrown around from subject to subject. I have asked several questions that can't seem to get answers. I'll ask again in hopes of some answers. I am in no way trying to say that I demand them, I'm just hoping you can address these.

Why do you ignore these. Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8

Why do you ignore this: 1 Cor 15:46

Is it by a warm feeling in your heart that you came to know this truth? Or was it by God's Word?

I can't get a straight answer on why you believe in pre-existence if the Bible says there is no pre-existence. You give me out of context verses and ignore the one that denies that doctrine all together.

If I'm God, and I tell you through Paul by divine inspiration in 1 Corinthians that the natural comes first, then the spiritual. What would you say? I feel like I have to re-phrase it.

Personally for me, I would feel uncomfortable to place my faith in a specific doctrine that would have contradictory elements of scripture involved. I take the Bible as a whole and think we all should. The lds take verses out of context, disregard the contradictory verses and create doctrine. This by far is the worst way to decieve people.

Anon,

Will do. I'll read it and get back to you. Thanks.

David,

It is apparent that we are on very separate wavelengths. Going back and forth on the belief that one another is taking verses out of perspective is not going to get us anywhere. It is obvious that it will involve much further analysis to comprehend. To understand the depth of this discussion, please take some time and sincerely ponder the arguments of this article:

http://www.farmsresearch.com/publications/bookschapter.php?bookid=46&chapid=258

As you will witness from reading it, this is no light subject and I do not believe it can be fully addressed on this blog.

Jim,

So is it a feeling you get that tells you that what you believe is true? Some sort of feeling in your heart? Or do you rely on God's Word for the truth? I'm just curious really if how you know to be true is a feeling or what the Bible says.

I am curious at all if what I have brought to your attention biblically has caused you to re-think even the smallest amount of validity concerning the teachings of the lds? But what I'm more concerned about is if you feel that the truth came to you as a "feeling"?

Thanks Jim.

David,

Yes, I believe the Bible. I also believe that God has called prophets in these latter days, just as he did anciently.

I love Christ and his word as much as you do. I know him to be my Savior and my only hope. I cannot comprehend His love as shown by perfect obedience to the Father and by willingly suffering for the sins of all mankind.

The more I study and pray and seek his will, the more I feel the Holy Ghost confirming to me that although I am far from perfect, I am on the right path. I do not know all things, but I cannot deny that which I have felt and know to be true.

I am willing to continue this discussion but am not sure how profitable that will be as we seem to have reached an impasse.

Jim,

you asked,

Do you believe that man consists of a physical body and a spirit? If you believe this, when was the spirit created, and by whom was it created?

1 Cor 15:42-46

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

These few verses say a lot. It says that we are first natural on earth. Then "raised a spiritual body". v44. If you ask who created the spirit that we are raised to of course that would be God, the creator of all things. You ask when this spiritual body is created? Well, if first we are natural in our bodies here on earth, then we rise to a spiritual body, then obviously the spiritual body is created upon physical death. If your asking when the Holy Spirit was created, I would say that the Holy Spirit has been and always will be just like God because the Holy Spirit is God.

Now reading your last post, I see you developed the story of who was to become the Saviour. Jesus or satan. The problem with this story is that Jesus is God. Has been and always will be. He is the ONE God that the Bible speaks of. The problem you see it as is some sibling argument between two brothers. How can Jesus be God, and satan be an angel, but yet they are brothers. Again, all lds theories fall because the Bible is adamant about the singularity of God. The Father and the Son are not two seperate Gods. They are ONE God. But this story you gave me requires that the Father and the Son be two seperate Gods.

you said,

We believe that we lived as spirits with our Heavenly Father before coming to this earth. Heavenly Father proposed a plan by which we could come to earth, to obtain a body, to gain experience, have families, and to do all that was necessary to return to Him.

You can believe all you want. Free country. But that's not what the Bible says. It is clearly written that we exist first, NATURALLY. Then we have a spiritual body after the physical death. Why is this so hard to understand?? It's right there in 1 Cor 15! For some reason you are looking at apples and calling them bananas. 1 Cor 15 is a clear indication that the lds doctrine of pre-existence is anti-biblical. It is contradictory. Are you willing to accept this contradiction in order for your beliefs to be correct? Or are you willing to admit that the lds doctrine of pre-existence is false? Are you willing to gamble on your salvation for what can be proven false biblically? Shouldn't you pay attention to what God tells you in His Word?

Besides all the disagreement, personally I thank you for staying on this discussion. I know Jim that probably nothing will come out of this discussion, but I want to point you to the Bible, because that is the only way to discern the truth from the false. Thanks again for staying on.

God bless

David,

We believe that we lived as spirits with our Heavenly Father before coming to this earth. Heavenly Father proposed a plan by which we could come to earth, to obtain a body, to gain experience, have families, and to do all that was necessary to return to Him.

Our Heavenly Father knew that we would need a Savior. Christ offered to be our Savior and to give all glory to the Father. Satan offered to redeem all mankind, but this would deny man's agency, and Satan wanted the glory for himself. He was cast out of heaven with those that followed him. All who are on earth chose to follow Heavenly Father's plan to come to earth.

The tinyURL didn't work so well last time, so please refer here for more info on this topic: http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b3bc55cbf541229058520974e44916a0/?vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=f04a7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

At the bottom, you might also want to continue to the next chapter for a continuation....

David,

Do you believe that man consists of a physical body and a spirit? If you believe this, when was the spirit created, and by whom was it created?

Here's the scripture that you quoted in Rev 12:6-9

6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

What I get from this is that satan is fighting in heaven with his angels against Michael and his angels. Satan and his homeboys were kicked out of heaven. So if you refer to this as YOUR pre-existence then it is safe to assume that you pre-existed as satan's angels and were cast out to earth with him. Are you satan's homies? I'm really not understanding how this has anything to do with all of us pre-existing with God. But still you ignore 1 Cor. 15:46-47.

David,

The scripture in Revelation referred to by Anonymous is about the pre-existence- that we lived as spirits prior to being born in this earth with a physical body.

Will try to reply to other items later....

Matt 5:43 says

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.'

Should I hate my enemy because it says so. Is this taken out of context?

Anon,

Typical of lds to take verses out of context. Let me show you how you did so.

First off Rev 12:6-9 says nothing about being gods or anything to do with that sort of nature. I think maybe you are confused with some other verse. I really see nothing that has to do with any sort of pre-existence or progression to godhood.

Jer 1:5

One point worth looking at is how God uses the word "know." For example, the Bible says that God only knows believers, not unbelievers. "My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27); and "...The Lord knows those who are his," (2 Tim. 2:19); and, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23And I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’‘ (Matt. 7:21-23). Of course, God knows who everyone is, He is omniscient. But God is showing us that when He says He knows us, He is referring to a salvation relationship.
Therefore, we did not preexist. We are born here in this world and will enter the next.

1 Cor. 15:46-47 says we are natural first, then spiritual. Not spiritual to natural and back to spiritual. You cannot ignore this. This is the problem with the lds. You take verses out of context to back your claims then, ignore the ones that are clear contradictions. Also, you never back up scripture with scripture. Also, before declaring any official doctrine wouldn't it be better to rule out any verses that are contradictory to your beliefs? If there is a contradiction, then obviously it is not the correct meaning and therefore needs further evaluation. God does not contradict Himself.

John 10,

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jesus says "is it not written". So obviously we need to look at where it is written. That would be Psalm 82:6. Look at verse 7. But ye shall die like mere men. The context of Ps 82 is that Jesus is talking about the leaders of that day and how they are referred to as "gods". But are they. It is also written that "satan is the god of this world". Is satan God? I don't think so. Anybody can be a god in man's eyes, but there truly is only one God. I can worship a rock and say that that is my god, but it is really God? So yes, there are many gods....to men...but only ONE true God. This is why He says that they shall die like mere men. And if you insinuate that Jesus is calling the Pharisees actual gods, how can those that persecuted and killed Jesus be considered gods?

Isa 41:23

Look at the next verse

But you are less than nothing
and your works are utterly worthless;
he who chooses you is detestable

Are they real gods if there works are utterly worthless. And whoever chooses them are detestable? C'mon now. This is obvious. Why do you insist on failing to recognize the verses that indicate only ONE God? Same writer Isaiah claims to only ONE God. So, how can he refer to many?

Once again, many verses taken out of context.

Here's more food for thought. A snipped from an article I found online:

"Bishop Burton said many not of the faith also choose to contribute to the Church's humanitarian efforts because of the Church's pledge that 100 percent of donations reach those in need; no administrative costs are deducted from donations to Church Humanitarian Services. After the tsunami, for example, Web traffic on ldsfoundation.org — the web site for LDS Foundation, the organization now called LDS Philanthropies that coordinates, encourages, and facilitates donations to the Church — was unprecedented, peaking at 90,000 visitors and about a half-million page views per day, said spokesman McClain Bybee. Much of that traffic was generated by members of other faiths, linking to the Church site from national Web sites including CNN.com, MSNBC.com and USAID.com."

If you want to see the magnitude of projects that are actively going on for humanitarian efforts you can visit here:

http://www.providentliving.org/project/0,13501,4607-1-2005,00.html

for what they've spent on these efforts, you can visit here:

http://www.providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,4606-1-2329-1,00.html

From their providentliving.com website:

"From 1985 to 2006 Humanitarian Services provided more than $900 million in total assistance to needy individuals in 163 countries"

There are plenty of ongoing efforts and help that the church provides. Anytime there's a natural disaster, visit the lds.org news website and you will see for yourself just how much food, supplies and efforts are shipped overseas or in our own country and you can get a brief idea of how much the church offers. I can recall the church shipping literally TONS of food and supplies to victims of natural disasters such as those from Katrina and those from the recent Tsunami. There are plenty of news articles and clips that covered it and I don't have the time to collect them all and forward them here.

Better yet, next time there's a disaster, why not go to their headquarters and ask them to help with the efforts. You'll see for yourself just how much food and supplies are shipped right from Salt Lake. There's no denying the help the church offers others around the world; and I think that is a significant amount of help to those in need...

Yockel,
You are right that we can't quantify the LDS Church's monetary donations to the poor since these records are not publicly available. But, I can't see how anyone can deny the church's generosity.

For example, I recently read a story about a man and his wife that lived in Africa for an exended period of time. They drilled wells in many villages that did not have water. Now they have water for cleaning, farming, bathing, etc. You might say that this really isn't an example of the Church's contributions, but the church facilitates this type of service. This type of service is given by many individuals around the world, and I don't think you'll see this accurately reflected in any financial statement that anyone would be required to disclose.

How many thousands or millions have the church fed in Africa? How many immunizations has the church paid for to prevent disease in Africa and elsewhere? How many tragic disasters have occurred where the church is the first to respond with aid?

And on a personal level, as the ward clerk for several years, I have seen how the church handles the fast offerings of the members. Local fast offering donations are used to meet local needs first. I have seen lives changed as the church has helped individuals through medical emergencies, addictions, and other situations. Again, you can't calculate the good that the church does on any financial statement.

And as I have said before, if the majority of the church members (my assumption) themselves are comfortable that the church is using these donations for good causes and these members are not interested in any general financial disclosure, why would a non-contributor care?

Anonymous,

You are right that I have been misinformed about LDS spending patterns. The misinformer is Elder Monson who bragged in general conference how much the LDS Church was doing for the poor.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to that effect because the LDS Church refuses to disclose its finances. Correct me if it was another Anonymous but didn't you claim that the LDS Church was doing so much for the poor and unfortunate? It seems to me that you have the burden of proof. Unlike you I have provided data that supports the suspicion that LDS charitable activities are rather modest.

If you think that you know better then it is up to you to provide better data.

I would love to see the numbers for the entire LDS Church. I am willing to bet a trip to Hawaii that the global numbers are not much better than the LDS Church in Britain.

Whereever the law requires the LDS Church to disclose its finances, the evidence is that only an embarrassingly small share of the LDS budgets is spent on the poor. If LDS members were as stingy as the Church then Mormonism would be bankrupt tomorrow.

David,

I'm sure Jim will respond accordingly, but there are a number of places where preexistence has been referenced in scriptures.

Please look at Jeremiah 1:5:

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

You can also review Revelation 12:6-9

For your question regarding gods, please have a look at the following verses in the King James version of the bible:

John Chapter 10 (verses indicated below):
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

You can also look at Isaah 41:23 for another reference.

I still find it odd how it is that the Catholic doctrine also describes progression to godhood, but no one calls them a cult...

Jim,

Thanks for leading me to that lds website about works and faith.

A couple of problems though. The works aspect of things ties into other beliefs that are non-biblical, such as pre-existence. According to the Bible we never pre-existed.1 Cor. 15:46-47. Only Jesus pre-existed because of course He is God. John 8:56-59.

Another problem it lies in is the progression to godhood. The Bible states that there is only ONE God and therefore no other gods.Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8
and Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; 1 Cor. 8:5; I John 5:7

The works explained on that website lead to "exaltation" which is indicated as becoming a god. This is anti-biblical.

The site talks about Paul's teachings on the law and works and claims that they are not required for salvation. But later it claims the need for baptism for salvation and the need for works to "maintain" salvation. Once one has been "saved" you cannot lose that salvation.John 10:27-28; Heb. 13:5; Matt. 7:21-23; 1 John 2:19; Rom. 8:38-39. It also cannot be something you "maintain" through works because your either saved or your not. No maintenance required. If one is truly saved then the commandments will be a natural regeneration of ones self that would automatically become part of ones life. I do stress the importance of baptism in that it is a wonderful means of worship and also a public declaration of faith. But a requirement for salvation would put it in the "works for salvation" category, which if one believes would exclude you from grace. Galatians 5:2-4

Therefore upon reading the lds site about works and faith it becomes anti-biblical in three major areas. First, pre-existence, second, progression to godhood, and third adding works to faith for salvation. Since the lds church goes against what the Bible says, I can say with confidence that it is a non-Christian church and in fact in the category of cultish teachings. Cultish meaning that the teachings bring you AWAY from God instead of TO God.

I'm really curious on how the lds justify these verses Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8

These clearly talk about ONE God. So how can there be many gods? This by far is the easiest contradiction to point out in the lds church. Can you please explain this to me?

sorry for the double post - there was a problem with onfaith...

Yockel,

The information you supplied has nothing to do with Salt Lake City. That report in the UK is merely a branch of the main church and has virtually no information regarding the operations from the "corporate" office, if you will. To obtain an accurate measure of charitable donations for a worldwide organization, one would not scrutinize a provincial branch and expect it to support your argument. (ie - I would not expect a branch audit of PricewaterhouseCooper's office in Taiwan to supply significant information or activities of what the corporate office in UK is accomplishing. Any investor who may be banking their information solely on this would not be an investor of mine.)

Second, your comment on "that success has come at the expense of the members who sacrifice a tenth of their income under the impression that a good deal of that money will be spent for the poor."

No, tithing was never described to me this way and you have misconstrued the purpose of it. The basic purpose for tithing is to provide the Church with the means needed to carry on His work. Supporting Temples, churches and many other things that help run and expand the Church, as well as bringing the message to others. If the church so feels the need to donate money to charity with it, so be it, but again, I personally do not believe that is the church's primary focus. In fact, your pdf document you supplied states under Principle Activities: "The Company's function is to coordinate the administration of church programmes"

Perhaps you were misinformed when you received your information.

Yockel,

The information you supplied has nothing to do with Salt Lake City. That report in the UK is merely a branch of the main church and has virtually no information regarding the operations from the "corporate" office, if you will. To obtain an accurate measure of charitable donations for a worldwide organization, one would not scrutinize a provincial branch and expect it to support your argument. (ie - I would not expect a branch audit of PricewaterhouseCooper's office in Taiwan to supply significant information or activities of what the corporate office in UK is accomplishing. Any investor who may be banking their information solely on this would not be an investor of mine.)

Second, your comment on "that success has come at the expense of the members who sacrifice a tenth of their income under the impression that a good deal of that money will be spent for the poor."

No, tithing was never described to me this way and you have misconstrued the purpose of it. The basic purpose for tithing is to provide the Church with the means needed to carry on His work. Supporting Temples, churches and many other things that help run and expand the Church, as well as bringing the message to others. If the church so feels the need to donate money to charity with it, so be it, but again, I personally do not believe that is the church's primary focus. In fact, your pdf document you supplied states under Principle Activities: "The Company's function is to coordinate the administration of church programmes"

Perhaps you were misinformed when you received your information.

Casey,

I know this is knit picking but I need some clarification on your last post. It seems kind of contradictory.

you said,

I believe that God REQUIRES us to work to the best of our ability and strive towards perfection in this life.

But then you said in the following sentence.

their faith and good works are what is EXPECTED of them by God.

Notice I capitalized the two words. So just as a clarification, are our works REQUIRED or EXPECTED?

Two different things. Being REQUIRED would indicate that works do save you. EXPECTED would mean that you will try your best but of course the best might not always happen and therefore it is by faith alone that you are saved. Just curious which one??

Casey, I agree. But are you saved now, or will you be saved?

Jim,

I'm about to read that website you posted. It does work now. Thanks for that. I do want a clear indication on what the LDS say about works and faith. I'll get back to you. Thanks a lot. You both have a blessed day. I hope to continue in this discussion.

God bless you both

Casey,
I appreciate your comments here and hope that you'll continue to contribute....

One last post to clarify a point.

I do not believe MY works will save me. Far from it. I believe that God requires us to work to the best of our ability and strive towards perfection in this life. I will never be perfect in this lifetime. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the faith I have in Him will get me over the edge. I don't believe anybody can save themselves by their works, their faith and good works are what is expected of them by God.

I realized that the link didn't work and was trying to figure that out. For now, if you copy the link to your browser, you should see the full link that I was referring to, and you can click on "proceed to this site."

Let me know if that does not work.

Jim,

I tried to look up that site, but it seems to be some site for making URL's. You sure you copied and pasted the correct site? I would love to read it. Thanks. Have a great day Jim.

David,
To better understand the LDS position on works vs. grace, this is an excellent and comprehensive treatment: http://tinyurl.com/2e53rn.

Please read this and see if it makes sense to you.

Casey,

I can see your frustration. I'm sorry about that. I want to let you know that my intentions here are to lead people to God, not away from God. You can tell that I'm probably one of the biggest posters on this thread and that's because I am adamant about people coming to God. I intend to continue to point out the failed teachings of the LDS because I am 110% certain that these teachings are against biblical beliefs. I once thought in my mind that as long as you believe in Jesus and that He died for us and rose again, then I'm sure God would forgive you for believing in the little things that seperate truth from false teachings. But then one night I was reading about adding works to faith as a requirement for salvation. I posted this before, but here it is again.

Galatians 5:2-4

2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

The church you are involved with will lead you to believe you can be justified by works. As we all know, no one can be sinless and therefore his works will never be justified because we are all lawbreakers. We need grace. Paul tells us we cannot have grace if we believe we can be justified by the law. Since reading this, I believe God is telling me not to give up on you. My sinful mind once told me to let it go and I'm sure God's mercy would be upon you. You do believe in the death and resurrection of our Saviour. But, can you recieve grace now that you think your works can save you as well? Paul says no! I don't want to give up on you and let you fall from the hope you have in obtaining eternal life. God never gave up on me, no matter how hard I tried to fight against Him. I shouldn't give up on you either.

This is my purpose here. I think God lead me here to preach the gospel to you who have been led astray. I do urge you to re-consider where you place your faith. Is it in this church of yours? Or is it in the God of the Bible? Because God's Word never fails. If he told you through Paul that you have fallen from grace because you believe in being justified by the law, then you must listen. I pray that you will listen because this has a lot to do with your eternal being. Would you want to gamble with that? I'm sure many of you already came up with the conclusion that I'm speaking from satan and not God right? But all I've done is come to you with the Word of God. Anything that I have said, I've tried to back up with scripture. Scripture not taken out of context, but scripture with backing. I have thrown out a few opinions of my own, but overall I am trying to reach you by God's Word. I try not to be offensive, but to challenge one's beliefs can sometimes feel that way. I just hope that if I cannot change your heart to believe in the true God of the Bible, that maybe I left you with some questions that you need to study. Maybe these questions will lead you to the truth, maybe not. But, I just hope that you can take a second look at your beliefs in this LDS system, because it is flat out false. If you do not respond Casey, that's fine. I wish you good luck and I'll keep you in my prayers brother.

God bless

Anonymous,

I used to share your impression that the LDS Church spends substantial shares of its revenue addressing issues of poverty and disaster. Unfortunately, the LDS Church does not substantiate its claims of generosity. Unlike many other churches, organized Mormonism refuses to disclose its finances.

However, in Britain the law compels the LDS Church to file a financial disclosure statement. Here is the 2005 disclosure statement (PDF): http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts%5CEnds51%5C0000242451_ac_20051231_e_c.pdf

It turns out that the overwhelming share of members' tithing contributions are spent for real estate and salaries. The charitable work on behalf of the poor at home and uproad is relatively meager even if one includes fast offering contributions.

The fact that well meaning members, such as you and me, are misinformed about the meager Mormon response to poverty, shows how successfully the PR department has protected the interests of the organization. On the other hand, that success has come at the expense of the members who sacrifice a tenth of their income under the impression that a good deal of that money will be spent for the poor.

That's sad, isn't it?

I think Jim just phrased it well. I too hesitate to post further because of the atmosphere of hyper-analyzing. It is as if somebody is listening, waiting for the one word or phrase that they think shows weakness to pounce on. Many have posted clear and coherent thoughts expressing personal feelings/beliefs, but many of these posts are accusatory and argumentative at best. How many times do people have to quote significant evidence? Really, c'mon folks, if you have significant evidence of some sort, then post it. If it is something you read or remembered then say it as just that and don't assign it greater significance than you can back it up with. I direct this at both sides of the discussion, equally. Try to remember that we happen to be discussing religion. In the end, I don't feel it necessary to prove my belief. It is fun to make points and discuss topics, but after it all ends my beliefs are derived from study, prayer and countless hours of meditation. You can't argue with that. You may disagree, disapprove or otherwise dislike my beliefs but you cannot logically argue me out of them. Just share your opinion politely without derision or disrespect and expect everybody else to do the same. This way people can exchange ideas and those looking for answers (those who have not decided yet) might find voice that rings true to them.

As for me, I happen to be a member of the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I was born to parents who are members and I'm sure that must mean to some that I was obviously brain-washed if I still believe in the teachings of my church. I have lived all over the world and in many states of the USA. I have had dear friendships with people of many different faiths and no faith at all. I have studied my own religion along with many others. I have found truths in many places amongst the religions of the world. I served a mission for my church and learned even more about my religion and many others. I have questioned and challenged many points. I have watched family members and friends leave and join the LDS church. After it all, I am still left with the strongest of feelings that I am in the right place. I have prayed earnestly asking God what is true. I have received an answer. I testify to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know God, my Heavenly Father. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I know the Bible and Book of Mormon are scriptures of God. I know His authority is exercised on Earth by a prophet.

Disbelief of the things I hold dear does not change my testimony. It only means that we are all human, blessed with an inalienable right to choose what we will do and believe in this life. Do not think that I am an innocent led astray by crafty men spinning tales. I have made my choice with eyes wide open. As I respect a person's right to disagree with everything I believe to be true, please respect my right to believe. When you speak, be very careful of generalities and pettiness. Those who wish to change the minds of Mormons often go about it in the very way they accuse Mormons of sharing their beliefs. None of us will come any closer to a consensus or to God by bickering and belittling.

I wish you all the very best. I bid farewell and good night.

Jim,

Thanks for the response. Just a couple of quick questions regarding this article of faith.

If someone does not obey the law can they be saved? And if one part of this law is broken, can they be redeemed? Also, it is by this law that people recieve righteousness?

And what is the "gospel" according to the LDS?

The article of faith mentions that there are ordinances in the gopel. Is this true? Also, what are these ordaninces? I'm just curious to know if the LDS preaches the same gospel as the Bible? Thanks.

God bless

David,

I hate to confuse things further, but our third article of faith states it much better than I ever could: We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

So, yes, we cannot be saved without Christ, but we must also adhere to the laws and ordinances to the best of our ability. We must have faith in Him and repent of our sins. We must be baptized by immersion and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by one properly ordained with the priesthood. Obviously without Christ there would be no salvation and all of this would be meaningless.

I hesitate to post here at all because of not wanting to say something incorrectly....

Jim,

Yep Jim. Makes total sense. You just agreed with the Bible.

"The fact that we believe that we must try to follow Christ and to be obedient to the laws and ordinances of his gospel does not mean that we believe that these actions of themselves will save us. Does that make sense?"

Jim, you know by saying that the ordinances and actions not being able to give you salvation goes against what the LDS teach. Welcome to the truth my friend.

David,
Thanks for your message. I am again short on time and will just make one comment with more to follow. The fact that we believe that we must try to follow Christ and to be obedient to the laws and ordinances of his gospel does not mean that we believe that these actions of themselves will save us. Does that make sense?

Jim,

You said,

To answer your question, I am well aware of my reliance on Christ and the atonement- without it, there would be no hope. I do believe though that Christ expects us to make effort to follow him. Mere professing or believing without any "real" effort or action on our part seems to me more a denial of Christ than trying to follow his example and the laws and ordinances of his gospel. Of course we cannot save ourselves, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested this.

YES! Finally we agree. I totally agree that we cannot merely profess our faith and that will justify us. Faith changes us! It makes us "born again" so that we CAN do good works. This is the point James is making. Faith without works is dead. Why? Because you cannot have a real faith unless that faith has changed you! I'll quote you again.

"Of course we cannot save ourselves, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested this."

If you think that works can earn you salvation, then you do think you can save yourself. You all have suggested this.

I'm starting to see how you come up with the idea of adding works to the equation. I guess I should ask you....do you think having faith in Jesus changes you? I do. But I want to hear why you think it changes you or not. And please, if any of you want to question me, feel free. I feel like I'm the only one who ever asks questions. Thanks and have a blessed day.

church's resources - not churches. sorry bout that. i are not so good at writering.

Jim,

i suggest that there is a meaningless portion of the churches resources used for humanitarian purposes. prove me wrong. i dare ya.

maybe you can do it. try it.

yeah, and there is a major difference between seeing the work of smith and his efforts to build a community and an institution, versus the burning you have in your bosom that convinces you that you 'know' what his motivations were.

David,
Yes, the LDS church does have significant resources- no one would deny that. But again, I don't think that the leaders are seeking financial gain. Of course they must use the resources wisely though. By the way, if you were to research the humanitarian efforts of the LDS church, you would be astounded as to what is being done to help those in need worldwide. A very significant amount of money and resources are used in the LDS church's humanitarian effort.

To answer your question, I am well aware of my reliance on Christ and the atonement- without it, there would be no hope. I do believe though that Christ expects us to make effort to follow him. Mere professing or believing without any "real" effort or action on our part seems to me more a denial of Christ than trying to follow his example and the laws and ordinances of his gospel. Of course we cannot save ourselves, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested this.

yo anony mouse,

your link is an absolute joke. a huge joke. a disgrace. that is one of the things that chaps me the most about the mormon church. what did you link to - a way to GIVE MORE MONEY TO the mormon church. what are you thinking?

give give give give give give give to the church. give all that you have to the building of the kingdom. yada yada yawn. the only folks in leadership on the payroll are the general authorities and the bishops are slaving their arses off for free.

i challenge you, mouse - how much does the church give to charity in the united states?

you do not know and you cannot tell me because the church does not disclose it! it is a nontaxed entity that is hiding like a thief behind the laws that protect them from disclosing their finances. there is no public audit available for you to consider. you have not one damn clue how much they give to charity. you have not one damn clue how their contributions compare to any other organization - because they do not tell you or anyone else. hinckley went on national tv and said people dont care and dont ask. - b.s. people care and ask all the time, but the church refuses to provide a public audit for members or anyone else.

... again all your presumptions. You have still not backed up your arguments with any facts. There is a MAJOR difference between what you perceive and what is the truth...

hard evidence that smith was motivated by money? are you kidding me?

how about using his peepstones to search for gold, and being put on trial for it. how about trying to sell the copyright to the book of mormon? what about the failed banks? his annointing as king of the world by the council of fifty? setting up multiple communities that tried to follow the law of consecration. starting a church?

gimme a break. the guy was hugely successful in his short life. he was motivated by a lot of things, including money. dont belittle his success as sheer luck. the guy was motivated by a lot of things, including power, sex, women, money, fame and his place in history.

David,

thanks for the comments regarding finances. i agree that there is a lot at stake in the utah economy and the church needs to be responsible for that.

regarding the trinity and perfection and crucified humans and pain and all that - so what? if we can learn anything from On Faith, i think it is that there are diverse opinions and varying levels of commitment to myths, gods, saviours. equally, there is a spectrum for belief in perfection. so what if you, jim or tom cruz are all on different points on that spectrum. one is no more right than the other. one is not wrong. your assertion that there is a perfect belief, along with perfection in people, is perfectly mormon. that is perhaps the most dangerous and divisive aspect of mormonism. its all right, all perfect, or a sham. and when one does not find it practical to believe or comply, they are not just following a new personal philosophy - they are calling out their family and declaring a permanent separation from the mormon family. there is little tolerance in mormonism for imperfection in action or beliefs. similar to your intolerance and insistence on the one true point of the trinity.

to hell with what the mormons believe. to hell with it. really. let them believe. the only way to break down the harm is to disarm the threats and fears that come to those that dare to step away from mormonism, or to stay engaged but not perfectly comply to every little whim or doctrinal nuance.

there is good in the mormon church. the risk in this whole perfection question and mentality is that when one is not perfect, or does not believe the whole system is perfect, that they may then dismiss all that is in the community or religion, including the good stuff.

i think people screw up. they do it a lot. i do it. though, i dont believe that we benefit from weighing perfection and imperfection as it relates to who we are. there is not one model for all humans. there is not perfection. even if you consider jesus to be perfect, thank goddess we dont all try and be like him, or we would have too many carpenters and not enough plumbers. we would have too many philosophers and not enough cops. we would have too many faithhealers and not enough doctors. we would have to many people dying on wood crosses and not enough grandparents.

your beliefs are not perfect, nor are your actions. though, you are perfectly you and perfectly fine to be the best you can in your faith and in your family and in your job. that is much more relevant than being perfected by anything else, especially a myth.

"It seems that so much is being invested by the mormon church to increase their money, instead of using the greater portion to serve others. And you say financial motives are not important???"

The church does more than it's share to help people all around the world. From the tsunami to Katrina they are aways shipping food, supplies and offering services. You can find out more about it here:

http://www.lds.org/ldsfoundation/accelwork/0,7089,408-1-0,00.html

However, as was mentioned before, I do not believe the church's first priority is to satisfy the welfare of the world. It also needs to help fund operations within the church.

"money motivated joseph smith, why would that change for his successors"

... please find hard evidence of your argument. This is purely your point of view and the speculative views of others against the church.

For you or anyone to accept assumptions that Joseph Smith was motivated by money , is no different than accepting the testimonies of members who have claimed to receive revelation.

Jim,

I can agree that financial gain is probably not the motive as much as financial security. Like Mayan pointed out, the mormon church holds positions that pay salaries. Also, with the amount of investing they do, a crumbling of this church would amount to a lot of people out of a job and worse an economical breakdown. So, in a way, yes finances have a lot to do with their cover-ups. An example of a cover-up is the sexual abuse cases of children in the LDS. Just like the catholic church, they settled out of court for millions. And the church "authorities" knew about these sexual abuses but yet protected the people who did it!

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/women/mormonsex3.htm

So, financially, the mormon church is well off. Obviously if they have millions to fork over to abuse victims to settle out of court and still be a powerful empire, then they sure have some money. Why not use those millions to feed hungry people, or give back in some way. It seems that so much is being invested by the mormon church to increase their money, instead of using the greater portion to serve others. And you say financial motives are not important???

Concerning the Trinity Jim, yes Jesus prays to the Father because they are two seperate persons that make the ONE complete God. You keep confusing it with the Son being the same person as the Father. This is not so. They are two seperate persons that create the ONE God. Without either one you do not have the ONE God.

Now, I just have one last question since we cannot agree on anything. Do you truly believe that Christ's death on the cross and resurrection was not sufficient enough for us to recieve salvation? I wonder if you pray to Jesus and tell Him, "it's too bad you couldn't do a little more, because all that pain and suffering you went through just wasn't enough". Or is it a selfish thing. Like you think you deserve to be saved because you do good things and why should anyone else who didn't do any good deserve the same reward? I'd like to know if you consider yourself to be perfect, RIGHT NOW!! As in, in this moment, do you consider yourself a sinner or perfect? Easy questions I guess. I just wonder what the answer would be from a mormon side?

God bless

Jim, you may be right. but you can not be 'quite sure' of their motives. perhaps financial gain is not their primary motive in all things, though, even that is not something you or i can be 'quite sure' of. some of the greatest leaders in the church were motivated by finances and the longevity of the institution. N. Eldon Tanner is one of my favorite leaders in the church. i would argue that he is one of the key influences in the transition of the church in the mid 20th century. there is little doubt that he was a primary influence in helping the church get out of debt and establish better fiscal policies. this was a huge motivation for tanner and likely the biggest factor in his return from canada to utah to be an apostle.

if the church had been left exclusively in the hands of pr hacks like hinckley, i do not think that the finances would have improved as they did. Tanner deserves more credit than he gets for what he brought to the directors of the church.

do not misunderstand me, i do not think it is irresponsible to have fiscal integrity and security as a motivation. nor am i saying it is their only motivation. simply, as i already pointed out, i think it is not possible to claim that such motivation is not part of the psyche of the leaders of the church. money motivated joseph smith, why would that change for his successors?

Mayan,
I understand your points. I guess my main issue is with insinuation that leaders of the church are primarily motivated by finances. Yes, finances are important, and the church does much good with its resources, but I am quite sure that the leaders do not have financial gain as their motive.

Jim A,

while you may take exception to the assertion that the lds authorities deliberately mislead members in order to protect income, there is significant evidence that this is the case.

the greater question is whether the efforts to mislead are noble or moral or whatever. take hinckleys book - truth restored. that book is packed packed packed packed with lies or misinformation. packed. it is a verifiable mess. it does not mention all of the accounts of the first vision. damn lies or misinformation, it doesnt matter. it is nonsense. and yet, this is one of the few approved books for missionaries. clearly, the continued publication of the book is part of the pr effort, correlation effort and overall goal of protecting the core base of the church and the institution. is that bad? i dunno. you be the judge. is it deliberate? abso-damn-lutely.

nobody is out of line to suggest that the leaders of the church are doing their part to protect this institution. that is what they get paid to do. they are directors of the corporation as well as apostles. they better be protecting the institution, including the financial resources. there are many that rely on the church for jobs and for the leaders to not take that role seriously would be a disaster.

the church lied about hoffmann. why? the church lies about peepstones, plural marriages of joseph smith and finances. why? it is not out of line to ask the questions. and more, it is clearly not out of line to suggest that the reasons for the lies, misinformation and lack of disclosure is to protect the institution, including the financial resources. that is just common sense.

David,
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on certain points. I, for one, cannot understand with your description of the Trinity, how Christ could pray to himself, or how Christ, upon being baptized, would hear the voice of The Father, which would seem to me to indicate a separate and distinct being. We can each continue to support our positions with the Bible, but I'm not sure that that is productive use of either of our time. But the discussion is still interesting....

David,
You seem to say that the LDS authorities deliberately mislead its members to protect its income. I have to take exception to that. Sorry, but that is completely wrong and even out of line.

RTC,

I think you are confusing the Trinity with Oneness theology. Oneness Pentecostal theology affirms that there exists only one God in all the universe. It affirms the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. However, Oneness theology denies the Trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who manifests Himself as three distinct, simultaneous persons. The Trinity does not assert that there are three gods, but only one. This is important because many groups who oppose orthodoxy, will accuse Trinitarians of believing in three gods. But this is not so. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God in three persons.

God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

I think the first step you need to take to allow yourself to understand this is that there is only ONE God. Here's the verses to back that up.

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God" (Isaiah 45:5).
“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me," (Isaiah 44:6).

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God, (Isaiah 55:5).

How can there be any other translation than to say that there is only ONE God. Of course mormonism teaches that there are 3 God's in the form of 3 people. Actually many gods, since anyone can "progress to godhood". This is false. Otherwise the above verses are contradictory.

The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at by looking at the whole of scripture, not in a single verse. It is the doctrine that there is only one God, not three, and that the one God exists in three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. An analogy would be time. Time is past, present, and future. But, there are not three times, only one.

You call it the "council of confusion". But as you know it was the council of Nicea that this "doctrine" was made official. That does not mean that is did not exist before. I find using the word "Trinity" a lot easier than saying the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One God in three seperate persons. Just a lot easier to say "Trinity". I know what the LDS would have you think. Of course they tell you that the catholic church came up with this doctrine that was man-made and therefore erroneous. But it was a doctrine that existed way before Nicea. It was just made official at Nicea to call it the Trinity. And of course when you are pointed to verses that clearly show that there is but ONE God, the LDS would have you believe that the catholic church changed God's words as well. No matter what, when the LDS is backed up in a corner about their beliefs, they can always use the "catholic church excuse". And of course they would! If you have an organization that brings in millions of dollars, you would do anything to prevent the truth as to expose yourself.

Hi All -

Just thought I would toss a scripture reference into the mix that I think is appropriate for the conversation at this point.

I know I often rehearse this thought, but I just can't help but return to it once again. Sorry if your tired of the drum beat...

While here in mortality, Jesus taught those that would follow him how to transition from living the old law of rote obedience, which was to point them to him and prepare them to live a higher law, but not to do away with the actual necessity of the law, only the need for continued coercion and the tediousness of their current requirements.

He was here to gently and boldly teach them the necessity of law, but that he came to fulfill those parts of the law as prophesied, and teach the need for the grace and mercy that the atonement would offer; for not any one of us are perfect, therefore we will all fall short, if we are left unto the law only; and yet order is critical or God would cease to be God.

Thus, as stated earlier... God so loved the world, that He gave His Only Begotten Son...

I too love this verse of scripture:-)

It is interesting that today we have the opposite problem with society, as when reading the Bible we have no problem whatsoever hearing loud and clear the message of grace and mercy that the Savior just could not seem to get across to so many others. Perhaps this is the reason that the writers of this testament focused so much attention to grace instead of works and NOT that it is not necessary, only that they and their Master had such a difficult time getting things across to those they desired to teach and preach to???

Do we not all focus on that which requires the greatest challenge for us? So maybe today we need to bring a little better balance back into His teachings and look a little closer. Check out what Jesus is telling His Apostles here shortly before the end...

John Chapter 5

21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.

22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Those that would not accept Jesus as one having authority, and His teachings about "the law", because remember, it was His Father's Law that they loved to argue with him about; as well they certainly were not accepting His testimony that He was THE Son of God, for this was blasphemy as far as they were concerned; but He was now saying that in Him THEIR and HIS law was fulfilled, by the LAW of witnesses.

Anyway, I do love the whole Chapter Five, as the Savior represents the vine (his authority) and from there you can understand how critical this authority is to the life of those whom he ordains to administer his gospel. The few chapters before and following this one are so obvious in regards to an apostasy that for me personally, I cannot see how anyone can miss this, but maybe it is just me?

Also Revelations, it is very evident as I read it tonight that apostasy is the name of the game before the last days... read chapter 14. The Mount is always a Temple and who else are temple building people today? Who claims angelic ministration? Priesthood authority through restoration? Nobody? We know Who the Vine is and the Husbandman, but WHERE are the branches today with the fruit of the tree of LIFE? There has been NO revelation in scripture telling any of us that we would be forgotten!!! Only to be patient.

And the trinity theory, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this was not the doctrine that was taught by the early christians. This decision was determined 300 years later at the "counsel of confusion". Most do not realize this. The Savior Himself teaches the doctrine of the oneness of His Father and Himself and the Holy Ghost beautifully; and then in John Chapter 17:20-26 in particular, I believe he unravels this mystery, if it is one, for any who may be confused. But truly, it is so simple, just read it as it is written. Isn't that what you suggest?

Because really, think about it... would it seem kind of strange to pray to yourself or talk about yourself as yourself like you were greater than yourself? And then the whole being inside yourself and inside someone else that really does not exist... Also that you just have a body now, but you really don't have a body, you just look like you have a body now so we can recognize you, but really when you are really you, you are just a big universal existence... so I could never really know YOU? As I recall, Jesus Christ told His disciples that they has SEEN the Father if they had seen Him, meaning He was an individual just like Jesus, with a (we believe a resurrected and glorified) body of flesh and bone and not some big incomprehensible "whatever"...
rtc

Jim and Casey,

I really enjoy this dialogue that we have. Thanks for keeping it going.

I do agree that we as Christians should act upon Jesus' commandments. I in no way am saying that we shouldn't. The question that should be asked is if acting upon these commandments gives us salvation? I say no. Reason being that once we are saved, acting upon these commandments are what being saved is all about. It's natural instinct to love one another, feed the poor, etc. When we have recieved salvation upon our faith, we die to our old selves and become a new. We are "born again". Being born again starts us over. We are then born to please God and to follow His commandments. These are natural instincts just like breathing. We are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to Christ. It is a regeneration of ourselves that allows us to do good works.

I've brought up Eph 2:8-9

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast

This is not a verse taken out of context or should be taken figuratively. It is plain as day. "Not of works". But let's see verse 10 as well.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

"We are His workmanship". This signifies that the works we do are not of our own, but Christ working through us. If the works we do are not of our own, then how can we accept them as ways to recieve salvation if it is not US doing them?
We are "created in Christ Jesus unto good works". This also shows us that we need to accept Christ before we can do any works that are acceptable to Christ. The good works that God hath before ordained, meaning that God planned these good works for us before we knew we were going to do them. So how are our good works of our own if they are Christ's works working through us that have been pre-determined for us by God?

The most important thing to understand is that these works are not of our own. If Christ is working through us then how can we make claim the works that we do for our own selfish ambitions in that we expect a reward for them? I'll ask a very serious question. Do you think Jesus' work on the cross was sufficient enough for salvation? I do. Otherwise, I'm mocking Jesus in that He couldn't do enough for us.

I agree that just saying that you have faith in Christ MIGHT not be enough. This is up to God. Only He knows the hearts of men. How can any one of us ever know how much faith one has in Jesus. Or if it a faith that will produce good works. See, that's the key. Faith produces good works. Not us, but our faith.

I think the Bible makes it clear that we are saved by grace only. The grace that is given to us freely by the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Romans 11:6
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Galatians 5:2-4

2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

As we know no one is justified by the law, which is works. If you think you can be justified to recieve grace by works, Paul tells you then you cannot recieve grace. The most needed ingredient for salvation.

This is why this is such an important subject. It really has to do with your salvation. If you truly believe that you can do good works and be justified by those works, then you will not recieve the free gift of grace provided by the work of Jesus on the cross. Paul says so, so plainly. Because how can you have faith in the One who did the work for you, but then claim that your sinful hands can justify you by the law. This would be to say Christ didn't do enough for us and we need to do more. That wasn't Christ's purpose!

Casey,

I wrote earlier to disregard the argument about the thief on the cross concerning baptism. Luke 23:43

43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Jesus tells the thief that he will be in paradise with Jesus that day. He is saved! His faith has saved him! Who knows if this thief was ever baptized or did any good. What we do know is that he admitted to his sin and said that his punishment was just. Then he asks Jesus to remember him when he comes to His kingdom. Then the thief is saved. And Jesus didn't lie when He gave His commandments. He laid out the way of living for the Christian who has recieved grace. The thief of course died soon after so had no opportunity for this blessed living, but still his faith saved him.

I do think the most important passage concerning this issue is:

Galatians 5:2-4

2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Verse 4 is SOOOOO important. It tells you that if you truly believe that you can be justified by the law, then you cannot recieve grace. I want you all to be saved. You must recognize that Christ's work was enough for us to be saved, otherwise He died in vain. Verse 3 tells you that you who think your works can save you are then a debtor to do the WHOLE law. Have you ever sinned? Will you sin again in your life? I'm sure we all will. Therefore we could never be justified by the law. It is only by grace that we are saved, by faith, NOT BY WORKS. Otherwise your sins cannot be forgiven because you are a debtor to the law. Once you break that law, you are a lawbreaker and an official sinner and the penalty for sin is death. Like Paul said, if it by grace then no longer is it by works, or if by works it is no longer by grace. You can't have both. It's one way or the other. I choose grace because I know I could never be perfect and that's the only way that I could be saved.

God bless

Karen & David:
You bring to light my hesitancy in posting on boards such as these. Too many people lay in wait to jump upon the tiniest of details and focus on them instead of allowing for simple examples. My intent was that SAYING you believe in God or have faith in Christ is not enough.

Karen, if a person truly repents, ask for forgiveness and professes belief in Jesus Christ, then he has acted on his faith. Therefore, I believe he may be saved as any other who truly repents.

David, you bring up something I have heard often, but never heard an explanation for. If the thief was saved then the rest of the commandments are null and void. If, the thief was given eternal salvation then Jesus lied when he gave commandments we must comply with or not be saved.

David,

Yes, the one post was mine- I accidentally posted before adding my name.

I am short on time and will post again tomorrow, but for now, based on our differing conclusions on baptism, it appears that we can each support our views with Biblical verses due to different interpretations. Did not Jesus send forth his apostles to preach the gospel and baptize those that believed (see Mark 16: 15-16, for example)? If Jesus taught baptism then, why would it be different today?

About faith, I believe that true faith in Christ involves action on the part of the believer. We believe in Christ, therefore we try to do what he asks. Is not obedience to commandments a form of works? How can one have faith in Christ and not do what He asks? The question then becomes, "What is it that Jesus asks of those who wish to follow him?"

I look forward to any other comments and will post again in the morning.

I should re-nounce the "thief on the cross" argument. Really it is simply an assumption that this man was never baptized. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. No one knows except God. Also, the chronology is off as well in that the fulfillment of the gospel wasn't until three days later with the resurrection.

So, please forgive me for that error. Regardless, the point being that baptism is a work and therefore not a requirement. Otherwise we are saying that Christ's work on the cross was not sufficient enough.

God bless

Concerned,

Like I told you before, I think I would rather take the testimony of those who were there than the assumptions of some professor crossan. Why do you keep on insisting about this guy crossan anyway? Did you invest in his book or something and just trying to make a profit? I think in order for anyone to take you serious you need to quit imposing this professor crosseyed, and give up on the "tiny little wingy things" phrases. It's getting old dude! Maybe you can tell us something useful, like what you ate for lunch today or something.

Tiresome. Very tiresome. Mark Twain was right.

David,

As per many contemporary NT scholars to include Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists have concluded that the good thief/bad theif scenario of the crucifixion was added as an embellishment i.e. it did not happen.

e.g. From Crossan and Watts book, Who is Jesus.

“My best historical reconstruction (of the last days of Jesus0 would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety. I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. I doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Casey,

I do recall a thief being saved on the cross next to Jesus. He said it himself that he deserved his punishment for the things he had done. But Christ still saved him. No baptism, no good works. Just plain faith. And by the way, only God knows the true heart of any man, therefore how can you say that the murderer could not have a repentant heart and profess faith in Jesus? That would be to judge him. I'll let God decide who has true faith. Since it is by faith alone we are saved, I'm sure God knows who truly has faith in His Son.

Casey: what if the man who has commited murder truly repents, asks God for his forgiveness and professes with his mouth and with his heart his belief in Christ as his savior... then dies before having the opportunity to put in some good works... Is he saved?

I do not deny the importance of faith. Nor do I suggest that works alone will be the source of our salvation. I disagree with any suggestion that simply believing in Christ will save and individual. Faith followed by action will overcome past transgressions. A man cannot murder, declare faith in God and expect to be saved. There is more to it or right and wrong become moot.

Casey,

I see you quoting James, as all those who think justification comes by works does. But of course you ignore Paul's ministry. I went through this earlier in this post and how they are complimentary. I'll copy and paste a great article on this matter. I don't feel the desire to go through the whole shabang again.

http://www.carm.org/questions/faithorworks.htm

Yockel
welcome back, and congratulations on your brutal understatement in saying this to JD
"if we have to rely on prophets that are frequently wrong and whose opinions result in discrimination and hate then we might be better off not to rely on them at all."

I have been wracking my brain, but I am having a hard time coming up with a counterargument.

If I try
"but he is right a lot of the time" it doesn't help me tell WHICH times he is right and which times he is wrong.

It makes it hard to Follow the Prophet if sometimes I SHOULDN"T follow the prophet cuz he's wrong this time.

And when we see Prophets pretty consistently on the wrong side of justice on the major social issues of the day (instead of, say, shutting up about them) it does, as you suggestt, induce a disinclination to follow Gordon when the next issue of injustice is on the front burner.

Well, that didn't work out at all. Look here: http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

Lest someone think that any one religion has sole control over editing the Bible:

Bible Versions

Just thought I would interject this brief thought from the book of James:

2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Jim,

One more question. Where do you stand on the doctrine of justification? When and how are we justified by God?

Jim, or Anonymous??? I'm assuming this is Jim,

Anyway, thanks for your response. I do appreciate that you read my post and hoped that it could answer a few things. I see that you do not disagree with that as well. But, you said you would agree and add that baptism is a requirement for salvation as well. I would have to disagree. I see you pointed out John 3:5. This is the prime example of why we are back up scripture with scripture. The key words in these sentences is "born of WATER and Spirit." Keep in mind that the whole conversation that Jesus is having with Nicodemus, not one time is mentioned the word "baptize". But before we study together (I hope we can do that) I was wondering what you thought of Eph 2:8-9. Or Titus 3:5. I just put two verses up there even though there are plenty more that suggest that it is by faith ALONE that we are saved. NOT WORKS. Baptism is a work. It's a ceremony. Kind of like how the Jews did circumcision. Paul was angry at the Galatians because they were preaching that circumsicion was a requirement for salvation. He knew that it is by faith alone.

So, my point in this before we go into studying the true meaning of John 3:5 is; if the Bible is clear on faith alone for salvation and not works, how can you accept that a work such as baptism could be required? Obviously this is a contradiction. We should not just say o.k the Bible is contradictory. We need to look at other scripture to see what it's talking about. You did say that our works cannot save us, so we agree on that. But we need to accept the Bible as a whole. If it says that works are not required for salvation, but then baptism is, then the Bible is contradictory and therefore we are left with a God that we worship who is NOT perfect. This of course cannot be. So, please explain to me how there are many verses in support of faith alone for salvation, and how do you justify that into claiming baptism for salvation as well? I would like to hear your response before we can move on to finding the true meaning of John 3:5.

God bless

David,
I enjoyed reading your comments about Jesus' baptism- it was very interesting to get your perspective, and you did touch on a few things that I had not considered before.

You mention that Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness and as a pre-requisite to receiving the priesthood. I would agree and add that his baptism was a requirement for entering the kingdom of God (see John 3:5 for example), that he wanted to show his willingness to submit to His Father's will, and that he wanted to show us the path that we should follow.

We believe that Jesus was baptized by immersion and that this is significant. Matthew talks of Jesus coming up out of the water. Other scriptures compare baptism to death, burial, and resurrection, so as we are immersed in water the sinful man is buried in baptism and the new disciple of Christ is raised up from the water. See Colossians 2:12 and Romans 6:4.

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist because he had the authority, the Aaronic priesthood, to perform this ordinance. Anyone can perform a baptism, but for Jesus, it was crucial that the ordinance be performed by someone with the proper priesthood.

So for me, Jesus' baptism indicates that we, too, need to be baptized, the same way he was, by immersion, by one holding the priesthood. This is a covenant that we make to follow Christ and to keep his commandments and is a required step for returning to God's kingdom.

I love what you said about Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice and that only He can save us. I do believe though that he asks us to follow him, to do what he did, and although these works alone cannot save us, he expects us to be baptized as he was and to devote our lives to service and obedience as he did.

John D the first,

Your point about the inerrancy of prophets is well taken. However, if we have to rely on prophets that are frequently wrong and whose opinions result in discrimination and hate then we might be better off not to rely on them at all.

With respect to slavery, one would have been better off relying on an abolitionist than Brigham Young. With respect to segregation, we would have been better off to rely on the United States Supreme Court than the David O McKay. With respect to women's rights and gay marriage, we are better off following the Massachusetts Supreme Court than Gordon Hinckley.

By the way, only today the Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that Gordon Hinckley is refusing to share control of the Mountain Meadow Massacre monument with the families of the victims. Some prophet.

Jim A,

Your questions:

"A few more questions for you. Do you believe that Jesus was baptized? If so, why would he be baptized, and by whom was this ordinance performed? Was it important that Jesus selected a certain person to perform the baptism? If so, why was this significant? What was the "mode" of Jesus' baptism, and was this significant? What does all of this mean for us?"

Yes, I believe Jesus was baptized. It says so in the Bible. There is a reason for this baptism. Quite simply, Jesus was baptized so he could enter into the Melchizedek priesthood so He could be the High Priest and offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins.

In Matthew 3:13-15 it says, "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, iI need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?' Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.'" Jesus got baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

Exodus 29:1-7, "This is what you are to do to consecrate them, so they may serve me as priests: Take a young bull and two rams without defect. And from fine wheat flour, without yeast, make bread, and cakes mixed with oil, and wafers spread with oil. Put them in a basket and present them in it -- along with the bull and the two rams. Then bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and wash them with water. Take the garments and dress Aaron with the tunic, the robe of the ephod, the ephod itself and the breast piece. Fasten the ephod on him by its skillfully woven waistband. Put the turban on his head and attach the sacred diadem to the turban. Take the anointing oil and anoint him by pouring it on his head."
Oil is a type of the Holy Spirit: "But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth...As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit -- just as it has taught you, remain in him," (1 John 2:20,27).

I like this too because it shows how we are taught by God upon recieving the Holy Spirit about "all things". I like how it says "and you do not need anyone to teach you." This is another reason why I go to God's Word for learning about Him instead of going to some "bishop" or "priest" to know Him.

Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest.

For Jesus to be consecrated as a priest he had to be washed with water. (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16).

and anointed with oil. (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16).

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, as I'm sure you know. John proclaimed that he baptized with water but that One greater than him would baptize with the Holy Spirit. It was important because Jesus needed to "fulfill all righteousness". In order for Him to make the ultimate sacrifice, He had to be a priest in the order of Melchizedek in order for His self sacrifice to be righteous before the Father. But, as you should know, Jesus was the ULTIMATE sacrifice so that we need not to sacrifice anymore. He paid for our sins by His sacrifice so that no other sacrifice could ever be needed again. And to answer your question of what does this mean for us? It means we can be saved by our faith in Jesus because He paid the penalty for the sins of the world by His sacrifice because no matter what we do we will always fall short of the glory of God. And if we will always fall short of the glory of God, then our works can never save us. Only Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection can save us. I hope this answered your questions. This is the best I could come up with and I hope it's sufficient enough for you. Do you agree with this?

God bless

Mark, BTW

Did you find any studies from NON-Mormon Apologists to support the BoM claim that some Native Americans were descended from the Israelites?

(I haven't).

Now, if you DID find one, I would consider THAT a miracle.

Henry

Mark
What on earth gives you the idea that I think that miracles occurred 2,000 years ago?

"I have seen them (miracles) for myself" you say.

Well, that ought to convince all the rest of us.

If you say you saw a miracle, you saw a miracle.

I saw a Pink Elephant on my lawn this morning. It was very cute. Do you bellieve me?

Love,
Henry

Henry James:

I suppose that you believe that there are no miracles in today’s world, only 2000 years ago.

If so, I feel sorry for you.

I have seen them for myself. I need no further proof but they keep coming my way.

insanity? No.
Reality? Yes.
Henry James:

I suppose that you believe that there are no miracles in today’s world, only 2000 years ago.

If so, I feel sorry for you and pray that, some day, you too will "see the light". (in a manor of speeking)

I have seen them for myself. I need no further proof but they keep coming my way.

Insanity? No.
Reality? Yes.

Mark

Asking Questions Leads to No Job: Any Questions?

Academic Freedom, BYU-Style

Jeffrey Nielsen is a practicing Mormon who has been an adjunct professor of philosophy at BYU. He recently published an op-ed criticizing the LDS leadership for supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The op-ed was written in respectful tones, and based its case on arguments rather than emotion, and avoided harsh criticism of the integrity of the LDS leadership.

As a result, BYU fired him. In a June 8 letter, his department chair wrote, "In accordance with the order of the church, we do not consider it our responsibility to correct, contradict or dismiss official pronouncements of the church. Since you have chosen to contradict and oppose the church in an area of great concern to church leaders, and to do so in a public forum, we will not rehire you after the current term is over."

from the History News Network of George Mason University, June 2006

Questioning in Mormonism Leads to Excommunication

Mr Otterson says "Asking Questions is How We Grow." He is right, if you mean
"asking questions is how you grow out of Mormonism."

The Mormon Church has prominently excommunicated Questioners over the last 20 years, those who questioned the Mormon practice of editing history in order not to upset its memebers, those who questioned the Mormon policy of treatment of Gay members.

The Church seems to believe that Asking Questions is OK as long as it is either done privately or in a way that the Church leaders approve of.

And if the Church doesn't excommunicate offfending academics, it destroys their livelihood by firing them from Church run universities.

Google "academic freedom BYU" if you want to see a sample of such real life consequesnces of Asking Questions. It will be a Growth experience.

Gabe, you Angel

To my mind, those are the WORST words that Jesus ever spoke, esp "no one comes to the Father but through me."
Our course, I don't believe in the "Father" - the "Mother" if anything.

But even if I did, the exclusivity and triumphalism that these words lead Christians to is an abomination - the cause of wars and hatred and self-righteousness.

The ONLY important moral precept is "love your neighbor as yourself. Don't do to her what you wouldn't have done to you."

Muslims and atheists and Jews and Jains follow that precept at least as well as Chritians do. To say otherwise is to make a huge, and tragic, mistake.

Even Jesus said, "Love God (whatever you call God) and love your neighbor. On these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets."

If you get to loving your neighbor through Jesus, great.
If you get there through Moses or Allah or Tolstoy or Buddha, JUST as great as getting there through Jesus.

The kind of God who would condemn you for loving Allah rather than Jesus (as long as you love your neighbor) is not the kind of God any of us should worship, in my Humble Opinion as America's greatest novelist and literary critic.

"God loved the world so much that He gave his only begotten Son that who so ever believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

"I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes through the Father but through me."

These verses have enormous consequences if true. One can dismiss them, change their wording, or take them at face value. But if if true, then ignoring them will impact our destiny for eternity.

I, for one believe these statements to be true and therefore they impact my life now and for the rest of eternity in how I deal with myself and my beloved fellow man to reach out, love as myself, so that if asked I could answer gently and unequivocally these truths that guard my heart.

Sincerely

Gabriel

Thank you, Karen, for your very moving story. The most moving story. It illustrates, among other things, for the 132,534th time, that the delusion that war will solve problems is the MOST tragic delusion in human history. Fighting Hitler we can maybe justify. Most of the rest...

Jesus said, "blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted."

My personal belief is that it is a Natural Process that through grieving people obtain comfort. And this works whether the griever believes in Jesus or Allah or Buddha (NOT a God) or Emily Dickenson.

This does NOT prove that Jesus is not comforting you, or that Jesus is divine.

And I do believe in the Twelve Step principle of turning over our unsolvable problems to a "higher power." In my case, that higher power is The Universe (Einstein agreed with me, btw).

But from what I have read on this thread, your calling that Higher Power Jesus works in a lovely and powerful way for you.

No matter WHAT any of us believe in, the situation you describe is very hard and very sacred, and I am happy that you were comforted.

Faith? I have faith that as long as a lot of these religious institutions continue to be able to draw government funding, they'll keep trying to tell people how to think. Pull the rug out from under the entire mess and make these people throw their books open on the table. Do THAT, and I'd have a lot more faith in them.

Now, as far as God goes, if you really wanna know what he's thinking, take a knee, and ask Him yourself. The rest of it is all political claptrap.

Mayan Elephant,
Sorry for the comparison and hasty conclusion, but there seemed to be certain similarities in the writing styles and even word usage. I will leave the literary analysis to Henry James in the future....

David,
Thank you for your comments. In reply, I don't believe I said that there were mistakes or contradictions in the Bible, I merely asked your position. I just don't see how the matter can be solved by the Bible alone when there are so many different beliefs that stem from the Bible. In the Bible, we do have patterns of God revealing truth to man through prophets, so I believe that God's use of a prophet today is only consistent with what he has done in the past. In other words, I believe a modern day prophet can be substantiated with the Bible, but I believe you would say otherwise.

A few more questions for you. Do you believe that Jesus was baptized? If so, why would he be baptized, and by whom was this ordinance performed? Was it important that Jesus selected a certain person to perform the baptism? If so, why was this significant? What was the "mode" of Jesus' baptism, and was this significant? What does all of this mean for us?

Upon receiving your response, I will tell you my thoughts on these questions based on the Bible, and we can compare the two conclusions. OK?

Dr Freud, you ask why people believe in God. Could it be because there is a God and He has left His imprit in us through the Moral Law and through our conscience so that there is a strong impulse to seek Him?

Would you find any validity in someone experiencing strongly God's presence or is that automatically a delusion?

I am not one of these people who goes around saying authoritatively "The Lord spoke to me" or "God instructed to..." and so on. But there have been certain instances in my life when I very clearly felt God's presence in a way that is hard to describe. I will try to give a brief example for your analysis.

I have already mentioned that I grew up in a civil war. When I was 21, one of my closest friends, who was also my best friend's fiancee, was shot and killed. The days that ensued were a nightmarish fog: going to the hospital morgue with my friend to pick up the body, trying to go everywhere with him so that he would not fall apart, thinking over and over again about her last moments and so on. It got to the point that, even at my age, I asked my mom if I could sleep with her at night. Anyway, the day of the memorial service, we were just a few in a small village chapel. My friend and I were sobbing uncontrollably. In the midst of my despair I just started talking to God in my mind, and praying, and fighting with Him, and praying again. Suddenly, I felt surrounded by what I can only describe as God's grace. I felt myself lifted up and loved and encouraged. I looked up and saw that my friend was also looking calmer and peaceful. As we went to the gravesite, he told that he had felt God's presence and reassurance in the midst of his grief. He told me that he knew that his fiancee was happy in heaven with God but he just wished he could have had her a little longer.

I believe that God reached down and comforted us that day. I treasure that memory in my heart and go back to it in my tough times. And, if this was all delusion or group hallucination or wishful thinking,(though I don't believe it to be so), then does Dr Freud have anything better to offer?

There will of course be someone to point out that if God was so loving, then why did He not stop the bullet that killed my friend? I don't have the time for a whole dissertation on free will and its consequence or the fact that evil is busy working in this world. Plus the bulk of God's promises for us are about eternal life and not our earthy life. But God does tell us that He is with us in our trials and tribulations, that He will never leave and that He Is the comforter, and that when we are weak He is strong in us.
Should such experiences be automatically dismissed as self induced or delusional or can we be open minded enough to say that yes, maybe there is a Creator out there?

Jim,

This is what I do not understand. I don't understand how anyone who claims to believe in the God of the Bible, can also claim that it is full of contradictions or is the inerrant word of God. I know what the mormon teachings would have you think. Of course they poisoned your mind with historical accounts of how the Bible was changed by the catholic church. They tell you that things were added to it and taken away from it. Of course they tell you that the BOM was changed over time too. Because it has been obvious that it has and historically documented to be changed over 4000 times. So if I were a mormon bishop wouldn't I say the Bible went through the same thing as well so that the BOM can appear to be equal?

About contradictions in the Bible. When I first started STUDYING (not just reading) the Bible, I thought I found what appeared to be many contradictions. I could have gave up and said, well, I guess there is no God, or well, I guess the catholic church really jacked up God's Word. I do recall God making a promise.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Words will never pass away."

I have faith that there is a God. And I have faith that that God is the God of the Bible. I also have faith that God would not allow His Word to be destroyed or changed. We have to understand that some words are hard to translate into different languages. This is why it takes STUDY to get the full meaning sometimes. I do trust the translations in English, but at times I have to look back at the original writings and study certain words that make the phrase understandable. If only we all knew ancient Hebrew and Greek, then I'm sure most of our disagreements wouldn't even be an issue.

I know you seem to think that there are major contradictions in the Bible and of course you would think so because your church leaders would have you believe this and so would satan. If you would like, I'm here to discuss these supposed contradictions with you. Also, I want to point out that we need to seek God's Word for the answers instead of men in church authority. If they tell you something, check it out in the Bible to see if it passes the Biblical test.

You mention so many interpretations of the Bible. I would agree. But the most significantly different interpretations are within Jehovahs Witnesses, 7th day Adventists, and the LDS. These three systems of religious practices do not even come close to the numbers of those who teach the Bible as the truth. Yes, there are some who teach a few minor differences, but nothing to take away from God's Word such as the "Big Three" I mentioned. Of course different orders of worship are what seperate different denominations as well. But to some, woshiping with soft music is to their liking and to some worshipping to gospel music is to their liking. All worship, but just different ways of doing it. Now, of course there will be other "Christian" sects that emerge as well, and we just have to see what they believe according to the biblical test.

Jim, I really urge you to study the Bible. The best tip I can give is to "back scripture up with scripture". If something seems different or contradictory, seek another passage that might just clarify that one for you. It always worked for me. Also, you have to keep in mind as to what the historical setting was like at the time of the writing, certain jewish traditions are helpful to know about as well. But most importantly, don't give up and assume there are contradictions. When you do that you also assume that God is neither perfect or would care for us enough to make sure His Word would not be changed to damn us all. You know God loves us and you must know that He gave us written instructions on how to live. If He truly loves us, then how could the Allmighty, Powerful God, let His Word be changed?

To answer your question about if I believe we can obtain all the truth that we need to know from the Bible? Yes I do. God's Word tells us how we began, how we are to live, and how this world will end and everything in between. Why would we need anymore than that?

God bless

Can i have me money back please ?!

WHO CREATED GOD?

We DID!

Whoa Jim.

do not confuse the turn of the century american pachyderm with the latino human rights artist. we are NOT the same person. got it?

che dali may not hate the yanks as much as the pachyderms.

ANONYMOUS: They ridiculed Jesus.

Moses fled Egypt twice with the police breathing on the back of his neck.

When are the Israelites going to actually make it to the promised land? Of all the places God gave them, Judah is not a part. People too dumb to read a map can't be expected to look at a picture either.

David,
How can we resolve truth by resorting to the Bible alone? How many different beliefs cling to the Bible with varying interpretations?

I do love the Bible and am enjoying the New Testament. But do you believe the Bible to be perfect? Is there nothing in the Bible that contradicts itself? And do you believe that we can obtain all the truth that we need from the Bible alone?

I don't care for the Yankees (sorry Phaedrus), but then again, I'm not really a big baseball fan. I always liked the Dodgers when I was younger, but that, as HJ would point out, is a factor of my upbringing....

Jim A,

If we focused on all the things that we have in common then we wouldn't have nothing to argue about. HOW BORING!!! Seriously though, I do think our differences are much greater than just accepting them. I for instance could never accept mormonism as a true teaching of the Bible. Sorry. That's just how it is. The Bible says not to accept it. I'm just following God's guidelines. Of course this doesn't mean I don't accept you, it's just the church you belong to. Don't worry you still have my love and prayers......unless your a Yankees fan.

Have a great day and God bless

I've missed a few days on this thread- the posts here certainly accumulate in a hurry.

It is interesting to me that we can all be so firmly convinced of our beliefs and that in many cases those beliefs are very different from each other. However, I do think that there are many similarities in our various beliefs, so perhaps it would be more fruitful to focus on those areas of common ground.

Now, as I read through the posts from Stan Fan aka Che Dali, they sounded remarkably Mayanesque to me. Not that it matters.....

Boys,

As John Milton so aptly put it; "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven."

26 rings is a pretty decent reign I would say.

And to (badly) paraphrase scripture, Mr Steinbrenner once said to me; "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, as thou were the one in pinstripes."

(((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock-n-Roll-n-Wrap, Mitt-ROMNEY for Prez. Ya Vote 2008 )))))))))))))

David it's all about the Red Sox this year my man...

BGONE - Your site is a joke! I'm still laughing. Ha aha ha.

But out west comes one who desires worship. One who's power has never been matched. No Yankee or Red Sock has ever produced the power and glory of this great slugger. This man is the beast in Revelation. The anti-christ. The man of law-lessness. That man is........

Barry Lamar Bonds

He's eight swings away from taking over the world. And we will all bow.......OH Babylon, oh Babylon!

Yes, even I, the true Christian that I am, I am a Giants fan. And I hope God can forgive me for siding with the anti-christ who's number is not 666 but #25. Lord help me!

This is fun......I'm glad we can have some fun on this site instead of the continuos onslaught of each other's beliefs. This just goes to show that we are not seperated by beliefs but drawn together by baseball. No matter how lame that may sound, it's good to know that we can all disgree on something else besides religion and have fun with it.

Go Giants!!!.........yes I know we suck though.

Phaedrus

i am afraid the Pachyderm has a point in his trunk.

the Yankees are the Power Structure, man!

The Man, Man!

The very symbol of the Sodom of the World, NYC.

I fear and tremble for your immortal soul.

Phaedrus,

Yankees Fan? You are not just the devil's advocate, you are the actual devil. Get thee hence. As the devil and advocate for the damn yankees, you have done something to help them wipe out 6 of 14 games in a few weeks. whatever it is you are doing, stop it. That jersey you have on? Is it meant to be a symbol of something? Lucifer, because thou hast done this, thou shalt be cursed above all the beasts of the baseball field. Upon thy belly thou shalt go, and white line dust shalt thou eat all the days of the season. I will place enmity between thee and the Red Sox. Thou mayest have power to bruise his heal, but John Henry shall have power to crush thy head.

DR FREUD:

Have you discovered the *nebol bridge* in the involintary side of the brain yet? God is necessary to get past the demon installed on it by *men of God* while the victims are still too young to ask questions.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/aboutus has a very different way of expressing mental processes, mental bridges. Salvation, for example is the crossing of the nebol bridge that joins this world to the next, (heaven if you must). Religion installs a demon on the bridge that *boots* the non-saved over the side of the bridge into hell. Hell is located beneath the nebol bridge, after this life and short of the next.

If you're a real doctor then you will find the presentation, a little lengthy and interesting. I did. There's things like addiction, why religious are so much more addictive to drugs and alcohol, and a bit more that applies to mental health practice. You can make those 50 minutes on the couch worth it, maybe.

Meine Damen und Herren

I vant to congratulate you for staying so closely to the thread topic: which was
"What is the place of questioning in faith? Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?"

When we ask the QUESTION

Why do people believe in God?

Possible answers are
1. There IS a God, that's why?
2. There are biological/neurological processes that lead a human to desire explanations and certainty, and a Belief in one of the 4,000 God concepts humans have developed satisfies lots of these needs.

There is no evidence and no reason for believing explanation number 1, and LOADS of evidence for believing Number 2.

Number 1 has NO explanatory value. Number 2 has loads.

To stay with explanation 1, one must leave the realm of rationality and trust that irrationality will lead us to Truth.

If any of you feel you need help with this, give me a call. I have very reasonable 50 minute rates.

The Bible is a proved hoax. The Qu'ran is a cheap copy of the most hoaxified part of the Bible, ball-of-fire god. J Smith's witnesses recanted for frar of going to hell for lying. Small wonder all belief systems based upon a God only lead to chaos.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Belief systems begin with the best of intentions. The big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell. We know that's so for the Bible tells us it's so.

Name a person who has had a greter influence on the course of history than Moses. There can be no peace as long as hoaxes are used to establish belief systems.

Henry, William, et al:
Thoughts worthy of your respective reputations, substantial as they are.

Let a mouldering Greek add this question:

What benefit does a theistic belief system provide that is not primarily within the realm of human emotion?

Greetings, Earthworms

I wanted to give a more theological perspective on brother Henry's post above. BTW, I can confirm that he has been Wantonly Disobedient all of his life (and into his death years). I don't know how he has gotten away with it.

As a Pragmatist, the Henry Casey dialog leads me to ask:
What Use is it to add the concept of an Unverifiable God (that's why you believers need faith, and Henry doesn't) to the concept of verifiable Universe?

The Universe DEMANDS that you obey its laws (gravity). What does God add other than a nice story that makes HER children feel good?

Stated in another Philosophical Mode:
God adds no explanatory power to our understanding of the universe.
In fact, belief in God has more often than not been a BARRIER to Understanding the Universe.
(the Sun rotates around the earth, Galileo!!!
the earth is 6000 years old.
Evolution is a crock of horse manure.)

So Pragmatically speaking, God is of Dubious Usefulness. In fact, HE is often actively UN-useful.

Now BOTH Henry and I are in for it. You think India is Hot.

Casey
Most of your post I agree with,
except,
I have done pretty well with Wanton Disobedience for many years, even now that I am dead.

It has been a blessing in itself to me.

It struck me in reading your post that if we went thru and substituted
THE UNIVERSE for GOD

we would be pretty close to my belief system.

Examples
"I believe THE UNIVERSE to be much more demanding and forgiving than most people..."

"I submit that many UNIVERSE believing scientists have at the heart of their research goals to figure out how THE UNIVERSE put everything together."

May the Big Bang Bless Us All
Henry

"

It seemed that somebody suggested we may have deviated from the original point of this thread, far be it from me to get us back there.

I submit that many God believing scientists have at the heart of their research goals to figure out how God put everything together. As we discuss, or is it question, whether faith and science agree or disagree, what if the end point is the moment when science explains what believers knew through faith? The whole concept of God requires rational, orderly thought. Most belief systems with a god-figure are built within a set of rules (not commandments, but organizational). Our quest for scientific knowledge is the quest to become closer to God. To know what he knows.

Through history many people placed faith in incorrect religious ideas. Throughout history many people placed faith in incorrect scientific ideas. We all must evaluate our knowledge everyday and strive to perfect it. That knowledge consists of everything scientific and faith related.

Personally, I believe God to be much more demanding and forgiving, than most people I with whom I speak. God does have expectations of us. There are things we must do to merit His blessing. I don't believe that wanton disobedience will be tolerated. I do believe we will all have an opportunity to know the truth about God.

Hello Karen

I think that both Phdrs and you are right. Unthinking Churches abused their power in the face of new scientific knowledge (Galileo and the Inquissition is just the worst example), and they abused their power in other ways as well.

David illustrates an intelligent way to read the bible's six day creation, but many creationists haven't made the leap yet. When intelligent people see the way some fundamentalists interpret the world it is shocking.

And truth be told, science HAS explained a lot of things that people used to look to religion for.

I have heard Collins few times and tried to read his book, and at least this reader was not that impressed. Though I find no fault with the points you made in your summary of his thought.

But it is certainly possible to be a scientist and a believer. Though a number of studies have shown that a very high percentage of elite scientists are also atheists, and there does appear to be a negative correlation between education level and belief.

Peace and Love
Henry

Some brief responses to several posts:

David: it is great to have you on this thread. It is rare to find on these threads a fellow christian that thinks along the same lines as I do. Thank you for quoting from Ezekiel the other day. I went back and read that passage to refresh my mind. We are in total agreement on the most basic point: Jesus is the only mediator we need. He came to liberate us from the religious establishement, from legalism and self righteousness and from the burder of the law. Why then do people choose to go back under all these burdens? I am still trying to figure it out.

Observer: I try to come to these discussions with an open mind and weigh the arguments presented. I also learn a lot about other people's perspectives of life, faith, God and so on. Plus, Henry James's witticism is always a treat and Phaedrus' philosophical questions really challenge me to sharpen my thinking and my intellect.

Phaedrus: I think that you may be partially right regarding people becoming agnostics or atheist because religion has not been able to reconcile itself to advances in science. But I think that unbelief is also greatly due to the excesses of organized religion. Consider Europe: the dominant religion for hundreds of years was catholicism which produced the crusades, the inquisition, corrupt popes that were more ruthless then any secular ruler and so on. If you did not like catholicism, you mainly left the church altogether. Please note that I am not anti-catholic and I do not discount the good things that the catholic church has done and still does. But, history is history and can't be denied. Now consider the US where all religions and denominations flourish. Plus, thank God for separation of church and state. There is nothing more poisonous then church and state joined together, again Europe being a main exhibit. The state supported Lutheran church in the scandinavian countries is just about dead. The non denominational evangelical churches on the other hand are attracting a lot of new believers.

Finally, considering science and religion. I just finished reading "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, MD, PhD, head of the human genome christian and a commited christian. In many ways Phaedrus, he supports your theory. He says that christians have been pushing forward "a God of the gaps"viewpoint and the more science fills out knowledge gaps, the more people stop believing if the church continues to stubbornly refuse to face reality and current scientific knowldge. He says that we belittle God by making Him a God of the gaps. We should instead revel in the wonders of His creation even more if we consider that He set this incredible universe in motion. Collins says that when he became a christian, he joined the American Scientific Affiliation (www.asa3.org) which is a group of several thousand scientists that are serious about their science and about their faith. I have looked at the website and it seems to be quite interesting. I think that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Faith is not evidence of things unseen by the way, but belief in things unseen. But I submit to you that it is possible to be a serious scientist and a believer.

Karen,

I loved your post about men in authority in churches. I have to point something out Biblically that backs your statement. Two things, modern day prophets, and mediators between men and God.

Modern day prophets.

Hebrews 1:1-2

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

I think these verse are very important in that it shows how God spoke to us through prophets in the OT. But now "in these last days" we have been spoken to by the Son. So the prophets dwindled down over time and seemingly disappeared. I agree that God might just appoint a person to prophetical work in these days, that's up to Him, however His Word is complete in the Bible.

Now about the mediators between men and God.

Of course as we all seemed to agree, in the OT there were appointed priests that were mediators between God and men. As RTC pointed out, these priests were allowed to do certain things that no particular follower could do. But as we now live in NT or "the end times" we have to blessing of having One who is the mediator between men and God and therefore no man can stand between us.

1 Timothy 2:5
“For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”

I'd like to point out too, that this verse starts out by saying "there is ONE God". Just so you may know that polytheism isn't part of the Bible mormons! ONE God. 1 God. UNO!

I would like to comment on the scientific aspect of things really quick as well. I must agree that so many Christians need to re-evaluate their original scientific teachings. I know due to Usshers chronology, so many Christians believed in a 6000 year old world. Upon re-evaluation in the Genesis account of creation the hebrew word for "yom" or "yowm" means a day in english. They took this as a literal 24 hour period. I've studied this and found that "yom" can also mean an indefinate amount of time such as in "the day of the Lord". Kind of like how we say "I remember back in my day". Also, because of Usshers chronology many assumed the words "ab" and "ben" only referred to father and son which is how Ussher counted the chronological account of the Bible to equal 6000 years ago. But "ab" can mean father, grandfather all the way up to ancestor! And "ben" can be son, grandson, all the way up to ancestor as well.

I know this stuff might be boring and pointless, but I wanted to show you HJ and other atheists or different faiths as well, that Christians DO re-evaluate the teachings in the Bible to agree with science. We DO NOT CHANGE the words at all, but the ancient hebrew language was so non-descriptive that over time (especially by the catholic church) they thought they had conclusive scientific data. Upon re-evaluation of certain words with a range of meanings I can say with confidence that the Bible and science can agree fully.

So that's great that the Dalai Lama does this as well. I do wish that more Christians would do so too. I still can't believe there is an actual "Flat Earth Society" run by Christians. I think we all know that to be false. Anyway, Happy Father's Day and God bless you all.

Observor

It WAS interesting to have you step out of the shadows and give us your observations. Thank you.

There does often come a point here when someone feels that their point/question has not been properly responded to. Sometimes the dialog does make clearer to the rest of us what the "fault lines" are in belief systems.

For instance, the differing positions of RTC and karen, who both consider themselves Christians, illuminates once again, even for brilliant old/dead me, that there are Different Kinds of Christians.

Neither Karen nor RTC convinced the other of their position, but they did teach the rest of us something.

I am also often illuminated by the discussions between Phaedrus and JD!, who disagree on fundamental points of Truth (i.e. IS the Mormon Church True) but often have dialogs that teach the rest of us something as well.

And all of us having the opportunity to state what we think we think is a useful exercise in thinking .

Summary point: even if most of us don't change our fundamental beliefs, we DO change in some way, and often in a good way.

Peace
Henry

I have been reading these threads at On Faith for a while and I am not one who would normally ever consider posting, because I just don't have the educational background of the majority of you. I have seen what happens to the words that are written when some of you don't agree and I think it has a lot to do with the inability to communicate properly the first time you post on a topic. I am going to try real hard but I know how difficult that can be, but here it goes...

When I started reading this thread it had to do with how a person gains knowledge... right? On this particular thread, being hosted by a rep from the mormon church I knew it would be through faith and prayer. I imagine the rest of you who come here would gather the same, right?

I suppose that I find the many conversations quite interesting when they turn into challenges versus discovery for understanding of other faiths, if that is the purpose of these various threads.

It seems that most often after Otterson makes his initial post per the topic... he is usually followed by a few comments either for or against his views. Before too long it seems like the members will post how they apply the doctrines and their personal faith to the particular topic, in what appears to be sincerity.

This next phase and that which seems to dominate this thread seems to open the door to others now, who instead of further inquiry in discovery for education and further understanding of what Otterson or a member has posted regarding his or anyone elses direct comments, but now, it most often turns out to be a demand from other individuals that they instead are accountable to them, for whatever they now decide they want answers for, regardless of whether it is on topic or not; has anything to do with what the member may have commented on; and is expected when clearly the intentions of the seeker are most likely oppositional.

This particular threads subject, which has included quite a mix of topics and demands to various posters is unbelievable from an onlookers perspective. But what is probably even more incredible is the answers being given as demanded and NOT even realized by those clammoring for them? As they are not specific enough apparently.

I have read some of their responses back and have thought, Wow!

Is this stuff for real? Do people actually hear what they are saying? Because "if" they did, they might need to re-evaluate their positions?

As proof that HJ and I are NOT the same person, I offer the following:

As I sit her writing these words I am wearing a Derek Jeter jersey. Go Yankees!

Sorry HJ. :)

Confessing my Buddhism

Phaedrus is right: a major reason I embrace Buddhism is it's engagement in a positive, dialogic way with the "real world". The "reality-based world" as the Bush administration calls it.

Buddhism has also been shown to be more and more efficacious and "true" over the centuries as more knowledge has emerged in the world at large. And of course, the Buddhish did not believe in the myth of a Supernatural God. He believed, as did my pragmatist brother William, in a belief system that WORKED.

In that sense, it doesn't matter what mumbo jumbo mormons or other religionists believe as long as their religion works for them AND they don't destroy the world and trample on the rights of others (blacks, gays, women) in the process.

That is why I think Karen's belief in Jesus is lovely even though I don't believe in Christianity on an epistemic level - because it impels her towards loving kindness towards her fellow humans, and that orientation is what Buddhists value most highly. Many paths, wishy washy as that is.

I must also admit that a big reason I espouse Buddhism is that you can't survive socially in my peer group here in Cambridge unless you can speak the Buddhist lingo.

Be Here Now.
Be Someplace Else Later.
Is that so complicated?

I swear to "God" that Phaedrus and I are different personages, but we often think alike.

Casey: i too love your questions. Otterson says he does too.

I TOTALLY agree that all supernatural religions are as unbelievable as Mormonism (well, maybe Mormonism exceeds a few of them, but the ARE all unbelievable).

And Ph is right, millions of people are saying, "you expect me to believe THAT" and leaving the faith of their fathers. I am sure you know that BY FAR the biggest determinant of one's belief system is what one's parent's believed.

Faith, the Exalted quality of this Site, is the willful decision to ignore evidence and rational thinking (and often one's own intuitive spiritual sense) in order not to transgress the expectations of one's parents, superego, and social group.

People often quote
"Faith is ... the evidence of things not seen."

Well, kids, that is NOT "evidence." It is a burning in one's chest. It may be heartburn.

Casey:

The Devils Advocate is a role I have always valued. Kudos to you for taking up the mantle here. And now, the rebuttal:

Actually, on a worldwide basis, religion has lost more people to disbelief and agnosticism in the last century than it has "converted." There are now approximately one billion non-believers out there, which places them in a position to rival Islam for size. Disbelief has grown almost 400% in the last one hundred years. Given the period of time in which this has occurred, one would have to incline towards scientific advance as the major causal factor for this flight from theism.

But, people "believe" and "believe in" things for many reasons aside from whether those believed-in entities account for reality particularly well or not. Are you attempting to fault or minimize the role of "reason" because people continue to believe in things that are unreasonable? We don't blame hammers when we can't, or choose not to, drive a nail. And you are right when you say that Mormons are no different in this regard. Mormonism is simply the focus of this particular thread.

To answer your question, any set of beliefs that establishes itself on a worldview contained within a very small time period, and then resists or disallows change over two centuries, is not going to stack up very well against modern knowledge when it comes to cosmology, physics, biology etc. A growing number of people around the world are also recognizing that the "holy books" are a frightful source for ethical prescription, unless one picks and chooses the parts to leave out, e.g. much of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Our continuing to exapand the parameters of what we actually "know," in an empirical sense, will place ever more strain on supernatural belief systems to either alter their dogmas, or become increasingly irrelevant over time.

I would, however, point out that Tibetan Buddhism is rather different in this regard, in that its leader is scientifically oriented and informed. The Dalai Lama has said: "When science and Buddhism disagree, it is Buddhism that must change." This is one of the major reasons that people such as our own Henry James and Norrie Hoyt have left monotheistic systems of belief, and embraced Buddhist thought and practice.

HJ:

If it is not apparent, I do like the role of Devil's Advocate (how ironic).

How do Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists,and others do when compared to scientific fact? This is my point. Under the microscope most, if not all religions can be torn down by people wielding science. Yet, in each case most believers will not be deterred from their religion (which ever it is) by that scientific evidence. I don't think Mormons are notably different in that aspect.

Casey
Yes, of course there are some questions science can not answer.

But when the question is: Are a certain group of people related to another group of people in history, science has pretty good tools for answering that. It can tell you what percentage of your genes are of African origin, for instance.

And therefore, testing the claim that Native Americans are descended from Israelites, as the BoM claims, is an eminently scientific question, where our tools of obtaining and evaluating evidence are quite high.

And in a scientific evaluation of this scientific question, Mormons and their apologists do abominably.

Phaedrus:

I do not scoff at science. I only suggest that at some point science runs out and cannot prove or disprove everything. At some point in the discussion about God, physical evidence will not suffice. Faith is what continues when the evidence runs out. Not when the evidence is wrong, but when it you reach an unknown and must proceed.

David:

I am very interested in the continued reference to the God of the Bible. Can I ask which Bible? They do differ and therefore portray a distinct God. The Bible has been manipulated by so many of the years. It has nearly become as numerous in its versions and the churches who proclaim it.

As this is a thread originating with a question about questioning (keep up with all the questions), I propose another: What does the person who knows nothing of the Bible, Mormons, or Christianity believe? What about the person with no religious influence? I happen to think that they will still have faith in something, even if they cannot name it God. I believe questioning our existence is natural and God's influence will lead us to truth and we may only be able to say it is true because we feel it, because we believe it.

RTC: I read as much as I could of your long post. Very interesting and it helps me to understand how the LDS church justifies its structure.

David: I agree with much of what you said. I will add this (and I think that Henry James will agree): churches or religions that give a lot of authority to regular men and insist that there has to be an intermediate between us and God do a great disservice to their members. First of all, there is much greater risk for abuse of authority, and much less opportunity to keep the leaders honest and accountable. I really believe that the sex scandal in the catholic church was facilitated by the fact that priests were given such an exalted position within the church that even when kids tried to tell their parents what was going on, they were not believed. Mere men should never be considered God's representative on earth, or God's mouthpiece, or the sole interpreters of God's word and God's will. The potential of abuse is just too great!!

When I go to church, I look up to my pastor as a good teacher, someone who helps me in my struggles, a good source of advice and comfort. But he himself is always very careful never to set himself up above us and, he reminds us that he is down in the trenches with us. He reminds us that he struggles like us with temptation, failure to always obey and honor God. And I love him for his honesty, and for never once trying to set himself on a higher level then us. Furthermore, he is accountable to the elders of the church. He is not prophet or leader for life. He is not an intermediary. He would be beside himself if he was told that he held apostolic keys straight from God.

Finally, in the NT era, God no longer speaks to us through priests or through designated prophets as the norm (though God may choose to raise up true prophets any time He chooses). God now speaks to us through his holy spirit which is "God in us". If God now resides in me and I am His temple, why do I need a high priest or an apostle to stand in the no longer existent gap? I need to be part of a community of believers so that we can all encourage and support one another. But I do not need an intermediary.

Like you David, I pray that believers laboring under so many rules and layers and intermediaries would wake up to the truth that sets us free: there is nothing or no one that is needed to connect us with God. Jesus taught us how to pray: Our Father who is in Heaven... We go straight to Him and He opens His arms.

Henry James: thank your for calling me an examplary christian. I am afraid that I mostly fail at living up to such a designation. You may be an atheist, but you are a great encouragement to this humble christian. Thank you again.

Casey:

Sorry about your father's illness. I would not be so quick to denigrate science because it cannot answer every question or solve every problem at any given moment , however. Were it not for scientific inquiry over time, you would know nothing at all about your father's condition, and would likely be at the mercy of the village shaman. The only rational hope for efficacious treatments for illnesses such as PAF lies in the application of the very scientific method at which you seem to be scoffing.

Casey,

Very good point. I agree in a sense that sometimes faith can't be explained scientifically. The difference with this post is that we have two parties who do agree that there is a God. Also, these two parties agree that it is the God of the Bible. But what makes our faith seperate are the teachings added to the Bible. This is why we can have a meaningful discussion on the matter. It's theological debating as compared to an extreme opposite of beliefs.

I agree that not one probably has budged an inch. And I assume that no one will. I can hope for that, but that is up to the heart of the individual. I read Ezekiel 33 last night. It talks about those who are "watchmen". The watchmen are those who know the truth in God's Word and should tell those who do not, otherwise their "blood is on my hands". My intention is to see that no one accepts any other teaching than besides what the Bible says. I feel a purpose in warning those about false prophets and false teachings, otherwise what good have I done in being the "watchman" that God desired for me to be. I do this not only for the glory of God, but for those "lost sheep" who need to return to the Shepard. I'm just trying to give them directions.

HJ,

Thanks for the compliment. I know you don't believe either way and no matter what I respect you for who you are. You've had some great input here and it's well appreciated. Thanks.

God bless

I will not identify myself as Mormon or not, I just want to point out something as we all try to out-logic the next person. Physical evidence and scientific study are not as complete as some would have us believe. I give for example my father who currently suffers from Pure Autonomic Failure. The extremely well versed, scientific doctors who are working so hard to improve his quality of life are at a total loss what to do. The ailment is a degenerative failure of the autonomic systems of the peripheral nervous system. They can't fix it because for all of the science they have they have no idea how the autonomic system works. It just does. There is no scientific explanation. They just know it works because it does.

Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. Any attempt to use disprove the existence of the other will be fruitless. The very concept of faith is to believe in something that cannot otherwise be proven. This is why this thread goes in circles. One person says, "I believe..." Another says, "I disagree because..." I don't think anybody has budged an inch from their initial position.

David (and Karen)

Nice pithy construction you gave:
"Any organization of men that claims to be the only true church is automatically false."

Reminds me of such sayings as Richard Feynman's
"anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics doesn't"

or these day,
"amyone who says 'i'm thinking outside the box' isn't" (it has become thinking inside the box to think outside the box).

peace and love to you two exemplary christians.

from a non-exemplary athiest, but a good critic,

Henry

RTC,

I just read your looooong post. I can agree with you mostly on the historical aspect of things. The thing I disagree with you most on is saying the LDS is the "restored" church of Christ. I think all you have proven in your long post was how your church has been put together as far as tradition methods go. But, I do recall the Good Saviour speaking about the traditions of men.

Matt 15:1-3

1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

So LDS "restored" the traditions of men, but yet fail to teach the truth. Obviously this is not the way to go. Jesus obviously made it clear that traditions are not necessary. It is keeping His Word that is necessary.

Once again, your post proves nothing. If anything, your showing an apostilic succession that favors catholicism, not your own religion. So how about discussing beliefs instead of tradition. Will you continue to ignore the contradictions??????

Karen,

I agree with you. Any organization of men that claims to be the only true church is automatically false. Need not go any further. I wish you the best Karen. I see your not fooled by this false teaching. God bless

A Dangerous Approach to Truth, from Mark

Mark writes
"Even at that, we all must admit that if everything was clear cut, black and white, there would be no need for faith. We would all know the truth.
On top of all of this, I have received some irrefutable “revelations” (for lack of a better word) from God that showed me I was on the right track.
Is this “brain washing” as you call it?
Absolutely not!
When it comes from God and independent research, I prefer to call it truth."

Pardon me Mark, but you sound like an insane person when you tell us that you get your truth about scientific questions directly from God through revelation.

Pardon me if I rely on actual physical evidence regarding this physical question, did the native americans descend from the Israelites?

When you say "I have received some irrefutable revelations from God" you sound like a crazy man to, I would estimate, 98% of the population.

But I respect your right to think you did.

A Dangerous Approach to Truth, from Mark

Mark writes
"Even at that, we all must admit that if everything was clear cut, black and white, there would be no need for faith. We would all know the truth.
On top of all of this, I have received some irrefutable “revelations” (for lack of a better word) from God that showed me I was on the right track.
Is this “brain washing” as you call it?
Absolutely not!
When it comes from God and independent research, I prefer to call it truth."

Pardon me Mark, but you sound like an insane person when you tell us that you get your truth about scientific questions directly from God through revelation.

Pardon me if I rely on actual physical evidence regarding this physical question, did the native americans descend from the Israelites?

When you say "I have received some irrefutable revelations from God" you sound like a crazy man to, I would estimate, 98% of the population.

But I respect your right to think you did.

Mormon Apologist Show us How NOT to think

Mormon apologists say that "we can't be 100% certain that there is NO link between Native Americans and Israelites just because none has yet been found."

This is a scientific question. We therefore should use Scientific thinking to decide it. Scientists operate on the "principle of Parsimony", often called Occam's Razor.

The principle of parsimony indicates that the simplest theory should
accepted until refuted. Any scientist
would say that based on the evidence extant, the Church's theory should be rejected
until compelling evidence can be found to support it. This means that if a decision had
to be made today that depended on whether the Native AmericanIsraelites, science would advise us to assume that they did not.

We are not 100% certain that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. But until we have compelling evidence, we should assume that it does not.

I am indebted to Bob McCue, an ex-mo whom i have found to be eminently FAIR , for these arguements. I do not present them as "evidence." I present them as a valid scientific approach to this scientific question.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

I made no references to the BoM.

When I investigated the LDS church, I took looking into it very seriously. I did my "due diligence" in checking things out and found a lot of truth.

I did not save the references to the DNA and pottery evidence, I wish I had. But, here's where i got it.
I hooked up with a long lost (non LDS) friend who turned to archeology after military service and asked him some key questions without reference to the LDS religion and he pointed me to some interesting evidence that answered my question and also covered DNA and pottery which were not my questions.
I consider that significant. Not scientific proof, but significant, non the less.

Even at that, we all must admit that if everything was clear cut, black and white, there would be no need for faith. We would all know the truth.

On top of all of this, I have received some irrefutable “revelations” (for lack of a better word) from God that showed me I was on the right track.

Is this “brain washing” as you call it?
Absolutely not!
When it comes from God and independent research, I prefer to call it truth.

If you remove the entire contents of the BoM, you still have truth. Quite a lot remains. You just have to be willing to listen.

Hey Concerned: Stop with the Angel Moroni

I think Smith's story is true

because

an Angel appeared to me last night
in my bedroom
just before I went to sleep
(i was a little drowsy so I didn't catch the Angel's name, but it MIGHT have been Moroni)

and the Angel gave me a copy of
Portnoy's Complaint in Hebrew
and told me she would help me translate it.

Bye. I'm off to see the wizard.

DNA Evidence

Here is a first citation. look for yourself: the site did not look "anti-mormon" to me, and has lots of scientific back-up.

BTW, Mark: you write "i read an independant study" but you give no citations. come on man. you know better than that.

At
http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html
we find these Conclusions
Scientific studies conclusively show that the major claim of the Book of Mormon that Israelites are the principle ancestors of Native Americans is false. In fact, there are no Native American populations that share ancestry with Israelites. Attempts to wiggle out of the obviously false claims of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants simply invalidate large amounts of Mormon “scripture.”

Again, this is JUST ONE citation.
Show me the Non-Mormon Non-Apologetic evidence.

Show us evidence that ANY native american populations share ancestry with Israelites. Until you do, you have given no validation to the extraordinary claims of the BoM

henry

RFC,

Wow have you been brainwashed!!! Cleanse your brain with the truth about the pretty demons of the demented.

Moroni/Gabriel/Michael/Uriel/Adimus/Sabaoth, Simiel/Raguel/et al are the figments of the active imaginations of the ancients.

Muslims, Christians and Jews have been similarly brainwashed and it is time we "chuck" these old cherubim and seraphim and enter the world of Reality.

Eliminate all references to "Moroni" in your lengthly copy and pasting of Mormon folklore and very little remains.

The DNA Evidence

Mark
a suggestion.

Let's ask all of us to get citations of the evidence about BoM claims of migration from the Middle east to America.

I suggest we
DO NOT Look at
either
Mormon Apologist Sites
or
Anti-Mormon Sites.

That we cite evidence that come from scientist who care about their scientific reputation.

Now:
support this hypothesis:
The BoM says that a significant civilization was built in the Americas by descendants of Middle Eastern jews.
DNA evidence supports this contention.

Now, let the citations flow.

Henry James:

You said: "the BoM's assertion that the Lamanites were descended from Jews when there is not a SHRED of dna evidence to support it"

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

I read an independent* DNA study that shows they do have a Middle Eastern line in their genetics. I also read another independent* study that indicated their pottery also has origins in Middle Eastern pottery.
There is also considerable evidence of eastward migrations across the pacific before and during that time period.

With all due respects, a little more research should done before making such statements.

*Not LDS

Mayan, good point. Same thing with the ERA. I do note that the passage concerns privileging one religion over another, which seems to reflect the self-interest of a religious minority rather than a commitment to the general separation conveyed in the establishment clause.

Nice to "see" you here again.

yo, rtc - cool it with the copy/paste. jeebus creepus that is annoying.

mike otterson, i cant believe you linked to section 134, which includes this:

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

i guess you and the quorum of the fifteen forgot about that when you brought out all your guns to deny marriage rights to gays and lesbians. cmon man. you are a PR guy. you can do better than that.

Okay, IF this really upsets you, just SCROLL really fast!
rtc

"The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent."

- Joseph Smith1

Perhaps none of the issues we have studied is of greater contemporary significance than the question of how the earliest Church was organized and how the business of worship was conducted in it. Catholics postulate that the priesthood was given to relatively few men who conducted a rich ritual tradition, and the governance of the Church as a whole was given to the Bishop of Rome after the death of the Apostles. Protestants, on the other hand, see the early Church as a loosely-bound community of love, administered by a "priesthood of all believers," and with a minimum of ritual.

Who is correct? Does an ordained clergy separate from the laity help or hinder the kind of personal relationship with God Jesus intended for us when he established His Church? Unfortunately, there is not enough information available on first century Christianity to completely differentiate fact from speculation, and hence Davies calls the evidence concerning the constitutional order of the earliest Church "fragmentary and ambiguous."2 However, even though we can't piece together these fragments to get a completely coherent picture of the earliest Church, it will be possible to once again examine what evidence exists for the kind of organization and worship Joseph Smith restored.

Church Organization

Priesthood Authority

Almost everyone agrees that some kind of authority is necessary to minister in Christ's Church. However, broad disagreements exist as to the nature of that authority and as to how it is transmitted. Members of the Catholic tradition, some Protestant churches, as well as Mormons, recognize that priesthood authority must be transmitted by ordination, accomplished by the laying on of hands of those who already have the authority in question.

The Necessity of Ordination
Priesthood ordination goes back to the times of the Old Testament. For example, Aaron and his sons were consecrated as priests by Moses: "Anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office." (Exodus 28:41) This "consecration" was certainly accomplished by the laying on of hands, since that is the way Moses transmitted authority on other occasions. "Moses set Joshua before the congregation; he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the Lord commanded." (Numbers 27:22-23)

In New Testament times as well, officers were ordained by those in authority. For instance, Jesus ordained His Apostles: "He ordained twelve, that they should be with him to preach, to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils." (Mark 3:14) These men didn't volunteer for the job. Rather, they were called and ordained by Jesus Christ Himself. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you." (John 15:16) According to both Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria, the Apostles would go about preaching and organizing congregations, appointing and ordaining leaders in every locale:

The Apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the Apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.3

Referring to John, Clement of Alexandria stated:

For when, after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.4

Likewise, Hippolytus gave the accepted procedure for ordaining men to the offices of bishop, elder, and deacon by the laying on of hands in his Apostolic Tradition.5

Paul told Timothy to "neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands of the presbytery." (1 Timothy 4:14) Notice also that these appointments were always made with the assurance of the Holy Ghost, not for any political motive, and by ordination. Thus Paul could say (in the present tense) of the priesthood that "no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4) And we have seen that Aaron was called of God and then ordained by one in authority.

Not only did these ordinations take place, but once called, God respected his servants in their offices, and did not allow others to usurp their authority. For example, Paul found certain disciples at Ephesus and asked them if they had received the Holy Ghost. (Some missionaries at that time, e.g. Philip, had only the authority to baptize, but not to give the gift of the Holy Ghost, so higher authorities had to be called in sometimes to make sure all the proper ordinances were performed--see Acts 8:12-17.) However, these believers hadn't even heard of the Holy Ghost.

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6)

Was John's baptism then invalid? Obviously not, since John was an Aaronic priest, and Jesus Himself submitted to the authority of John's baptism. (Matthew 3:13-17) But since John always preached that one would come after him who would "baptize . . . with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matthew 3:11), Paul had reason to suspect that they had been baptized by some well-meaning, but unauthorized, imitator of the Baptist who neglected to preach John's message about the one who would baptize with the Holy Ghost.

Likewise, the authority to perform ordinances is not conferred at baptism. Simon Magus was baptized, and then desired the power to confer the Holy Spirit, so he offered to pay for the privilege. Peter rebuked him for his temerity:

And when Simon saw that through laying on of the Apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou has thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." (Acts 8:13, 18-20)

Indeed, in the early Church there was always a distinction made between ordained clergy and the lay-membership. Bettenson asserts that Clement of Rome's use of the word "layman" (laikos) before A.D. 100 marks "the clear distinction of ministers and people."6 Clement's exact words are as follows:

For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.7

The Apostolic Constitutions made the same distinction even more specifically:

Neither do we permit the laity to perform any of the offices belonging to the priesthood; as, for instance, neither the sacrifice, nor baptism, nor the laying on of hands, nor the blessing, whether the smaller or the greater: for "no one taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God." For such sacred offices are conferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop.8

Kelly reports that Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and the author of 2 Clement (in the late first and early second centuries) all preached that the church is inseparably tied to the ordained priesthood.9 We have already seen in Chapter 2 the immense stress Ignatius placed on loyalty to the bishops10, and likewise the author of 2 Clement warned that at the Judgment the wicked would cry, "Woe unto us, Thou wast He, and we did not know and did not believe, and we did not obey the presbyters [elders] when they declared unto us concerning our salvation."11 Indeed, Wand points out that unity and authority were the hallmarks of the early Church:

Nearly every epistle we have in the New Testament shows how anxious were the leaders to maintain the close unity of all in one body, openly exercising their own authority where necessary to that end. Unity and authority, as we have seen, were the two most characteristic notes of the primitive Church.12

The Church was not only a body but a corporation, which necessarily involved organisation and a law. It is indeed doubtful whether in the mind of the Jew, stored as it was with hopes of a coming Messianic Kingdom, any mere vague sentiment or disembodied ideal could ever have been received as a possible new religion.13

Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D.) summed up the natural conclusion drawn from this information. Namely, without the ordained priesthood, there is no Church. "In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the Apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church."14

The "Priesthood of All Believers"
Some Protestants defend themselves against such charges with their doctrine of a "priesthood of all believers." That is, Peter called the Church a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood . . ." (1 Peter 2:9), so each believer is by definition ordained as a priest to God. It might be inferred from this that the priesthood was meant to be more generally spread throughout the Church than is the Catholic practice. As Irenaeus put it, "For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank [i.e. the priestly rank or the rank of an elder]."15

However, when Protestants claim that "our baptism consecrates us all without exception and makes us all priests . . .," and that all offices within the Church are merely "human callings"16, they are every bit as out of step with the early Church as are the Catholics with their limited concept of the priesthood. As Noll points out, Peter's characterization of the Church as a "royal priesthood" must be taken in the corporate sense of an elect and holy people who had the benefit of the priesthood, just as in the ancient Israelite community:

In conjunction with this, the faithful of that early sub-Apostolic period were also challenged by 1 Peter and by the Apocalypse to see themselves as a 'priestly' people. This did not imply that each one of them was a priest, but rather that the whole community was/is made up of those who are elect and holy, and to express this fact the community was described, by adopting the covenant formula of Exodus 19:6, as a body of priests or a priestly community.17

This corporate conception of the priesthood was described by Origen: "Or are you ignorant that to you also, that is, to all the Church of God and to the people of believers, the priesthood was given? . . . [1 Peter 2:9] Therefore, you have a priesthood because you are a 'priestly nation . . . .'"18

Any such conception of a corporate priesthood did not make the Church hierarchy superfluous, however. Early writers such as Irenaeus and Cyprian were adamant that any schism from the "Apostolic succession" was heresy itself. The following are representative statements from these writers:

He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it,--men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.19

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,--those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth.20

There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded upon the rock by the word of the Lord. Another altar cannot be constituted nor a new priesthood be made, except the one altar and the one priesthood. Whosoever gathereth elsewhere, scattereth. Whatsoever is appointed by human madness, so that the divine disposition is violated, is adulterous, is impious, is sacrilegious. Depart far from the contagion of men of this kind. and flee from their words, avoiding them as a cancer and a plague, as the Lord warns you and says, "They are blind leaders of the blind."21

Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.22

An interesting case is that of Tertullian, who early on in his career was quite critical of heretics who separated themselves from the priesthood leadership. Note the following comments:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the Apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the Apostles, because they existed in the time of the Apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of Apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the Apostles.23

For even on laymen do [the heretics] impose the functions of priesthood.24

On the other hand, after Tertullian had joined the Montanist heresy, he changed his tune. His attitude was surprisingly similar to that of modern Protestants:

Vain shall we be if we think that what is not lawful for priests is lawful for laics [i.e. laymen]. Are not even we laics priests? It is written: "A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father, hath He made us." Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the right of a priest.25

Therefore, it is easy to see that the "priesthood of all believers" was not the original Christian concept, but rather a convenient invention of those whom modern Protestants themselves would consider heretics. Clearly, the true Church of Christ must either have a continuation or a restoration of the original priesthood and Church leadership.

The Priesthoods of Aaron and Melchizedek

In ancient Judaism, the priesthood was held by members of only one tribe of Israel, the Levites, and certain offices could only be held by direct descendants of Aaron. The high priest was the firstborn of the sons of Aaron, and the other male descendants were priests. These priests were responsible for the sacrifices, etc., which went on at the Temple at Jerusalem, the high priest being responsible for the special services on the Day of Atonement. The rest of the Levites were basically assistants to the priests.

But all the sacrifices for the sins of the people performed by the Aaronic priests were only a type of the great sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which was still to come. Thus the Messiah was the "Great High Priest," who sacrificed Himself for the sins of all mankind. However, this sacrifice was not done under the auspices of the Aaronic priesthood, obviously, since Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda[h]; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." (Hebrews 7:14)

This sacrifice had to be accomplished by the authority of another priesthood--the same priesthood that was held by the Old Testament figure, Melchizedek. Indeed, God told the Messiah, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:4) Melchizedek was the king of Salem (later Jerusalem) around 2000 B.C. He is described as a "priest of the most High God" (Genesis 14:18), to whom Abraham paid tithes.

Paul explained that this change in priesthood authority necessitated a change in the law: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12) And instead of daily offering sacrifices, the Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek offered a single sacrifice, which needed no repetition. "For such an high priest became us . . . who needeth not daily, as those [Aaronic] high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." (Hebrews 7:26-27)

So there you have it--essentially all the information contained in the Bible concerning the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Consequently, there is not much in the Bible to either prove or disprove the wealth of information Joseph Smith restored concerning both priesthoods and the relationship between them. The Lord explained:

There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood. But there are two divisions or grand heads--one is the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the other is the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood . . . . The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things . . . . The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations. Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power in administering outward ordinances. (D&C 107: 1-6, 8, 13-14)

While the extant early Christian documents make no mention of the two priesthoods within the Church, it is at least clear that there was a hierarchy of authority at least roughly corresponding to the distinction made by the Lord to Joseph Smith. That is, certain officers in the Church were authorized to perform only the "outward ordinances" while others were also able to "administer in spiritual things." For example, Philip, who was one of the seven ordained by the Apostles to take on the work of caring for the needy in the Church (Acts 6:1-6), was able to baptize quite a few people in Samaria, but the Apostles had to travel all the way there from Jerusalem to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost on these new believers.

Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen on none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:14-17)

Likewise, members of the Aaronic priesthood among the Latter-day Saints perform temporal functions and ordinances, including baptism, but cannot perform the higher ordinances, such as the laying on of hands.

Specific Priesthood Offices

The Lord did not merely restore "the priesthood" through Joseph Smith, however. Specific offices within the priesthood were also given, forming a hierarchy of authority and function within the Church. These can be compared to those offices known to have existed within the early Church, but one caveat must be taken into account before we proceed with this comparison. Specifically, this dispensation includes the priesthood and power given in all other dispensations. "For unto you . . . is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time . . . in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation . . . ." (D&C 112:30-31) It is a "welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories . . . ." (D&C 128:18) Therefore, since different variations on the basic organization of God's kingdom have existed during the various dispensations, it should not be expected that the organization of the Restored Church would necessarily correspond exactly to that of the early Church. For example, the offices present in the Church in ancient America after the advent of the Savior are included in the present LDS organization, but the Restored Church also includes many additional priesthood offices. (See Moroni 2-3)

In any case, since the information we have about the organization of the early Church is somewhat ambiguous, our method will not be to compare the restored and primitive organizations side-by-side, but to list the various offices and their functions in the Restored Church and then try to marshal any scraps of evidence for their existence in the early Church. If we find that the evidence for the existence of certain offices is somewhat sketchy, however, it should come as no surprise considering the caveat noted above.

Apostles and Prophets
The necessity of Apostles and prophets in the Church was discussed in chapter 2, but not in connection with the general Church organization. In the Restored Church, there are two distinct groups of Apostles which govern the flock. The highest council of the Church is the First Presidency, consisting of three Apostles, one of which is the President of the Church. Under the First Presidency is the Council of the Twelve Apostles. All of these men are considered general officers of the Church, whose authority has no territorial boundaries, and as special witnesses of Jesus Christ they are called to receive direction for the entire Church from the Lord and to preach the gospel in every nation.

While the early Church was led by a council of twelve Apostles, as well, there seems to have been no separate presidency of three additional Apostles. However, Peter, James, and John apparently had some position of primacy among the Apostles, equivalent to a presidency within the Twelve. Jesus told Peter, "thou art Peter [petros], and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church;" (Matthew 16:18) and shortly thereafter the Lord took Peter, James, and John upto a mountain and was transfigured before them. Moses and Elias appeared, as well, and the Apostles heard the Father's voice. (Matthew 17:1-9) In addition, Clement of Alexandria claimed that these three Apostles were entrusted by the Savior with some items of "higher knowledge," which they then dispensed to the other general officers of the Church: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the Apostles, and the rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one."26

This arrangement of councils of three and twelve to lead the community of the faithful may well have been an accepted Jewish practice from which early Christianity derived its own order of government. The Essenes of the Dead Sea Scroll community, Qumran, list this arrangement in their Manual of Discipline, which contains their community rules. "In the Council of the Community there shall be twelve men and three Priests, perfectly versed in all that is revealed of the Law, whose works shall be truth, righteousness, justice, lovingkindness, and humility."27

What about "prophets"? In contemporary LDS tradition both councils of Apostles are termed "prophets" by virtue of their callings. In addition, those who are called to positions of leadership in other general and local capacities are in need of the gift of prophecy to effectively shepherd that part of the flock entrusted to them. Indeed, any member of the Church may be given the gift of prophecy, and thus effectively become a prophet, though the Lord does not direct the Church as a whole through him or her.

It is evident from the New Testament that there were people called prophets within the organization of the Church (Ephesians 4:11), as well as lay members who were given the gift of prophecy. (1 Corinthians 12:10) The first century Didache contains instructions on how to receive the Apostles and prophets who traveled from community to community.28 Also, "certain prophets and teachers" who were in the Church at Antioch ordained Paul and Barnabas for a missionary labor which extended beyond the bounds of the local area, and so were undoubtedly part of the Church organization. (Acts 13:1-4)

The Seventy
Under the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve in the Restored Church is another group of general officers called the Seventy. These men are essentially the "chief missionaries" of the Church, and they also have administrative authority under the direction of the Twelve.

During His earthly ministry, Jesus called seventy disciples for the preaching work in addition to the Twelve. "After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." (Luke 10:1) But did the Seventy survive as a body in the post-Resurrection Church? There is some evidence that they did. For example, Clement of Alexandria was quoted above as saying that the Apostles handed down the higher knowledge given after the Resurrection to the Seventy, and in Chapter 2 we noted that Clement of Rome claimed the local officers of the Church had been appointed by the Apostles or "other eminent men."29 Eusebius records that "After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, who was also called Thomas, sent to [King Abgar] Thaddeus, an Apostle, one of the Seventy."30 Perhaps there aren't very many references to the Seventy after the ascension of Jesus because such officers were referred to by their general functions as "prophets" and "evangelists" (see Ephesians 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5), rather than as "the Seventy." This would explain the order in which Paul listed the various functions or offices in the Church: "And he gave some, Apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers . . . ." (Ephesians 4:11)

Patriarchs
The Restored Church also includes certain ministers called patriarchs. Until recently, there was a patriarch for the entire church as well as local patriarchs in most areas where the Church is established. "This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage . . . from Adam to Seth [through Enoch, etc.]" (D&C 107:39-52) The main duty of patriarchs is to give "patriarchal blessings," which outline the will of the Lord for individuals, to the saints. Similarly, the patriarch Jacob, or Israel, gathered his sons together and administered blessings relating to them and their children. "And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days." (Genesis 49:1) Isaac gave a similar blessing to Jacob. (Genesis 27:27-30)

One might think that this office is likely not to have been included in the early Church, since it seems to belong to the first dispensations after Adam, but according to Joseph Smith the New Testament Church did include patriarchs. "An Evangelist is a Patriarch,"31 the Prophet preached, indicating that the New Testament function or office of "evangelist" included (but perhaps was not limited to) this calling. Indeed, the word "evangelist" is a translation of the Greek "euangelistes," meaning "a messenger of good tidings." Can the good tidings of the gospel be preached in any more personal way than through a patriarch called to bless the saints and pronounce the will of the Lord for them?

None of this can really be considered firm evidence for the existence of patriarchs in the early Church, however, since the office of evangelist is merely mentioned, and not described, in the New Testament. On the other hand, the ultraconservative Montanists at the turn of the third century are said to have been governed by the usual bishops, elders, and deacons, as well as officers called "patriarchs" and a shadowy order known as the koinonoi (stewards).32 Perhaps these officers were a holdout from the old Church order.

Local Officers
At the local level, the Restored Church is administered by the Stake Presidency, a council of three high priests who preside over a small number (generally 7 to 10) of congregations. Although there seems to be no trace of church organization at the equivalent of the stake level in the early church (there may well have been various levels of "pastors"), the offices of bishop (Greek episcopos = overseer), elder (Greek presbyteros), and deacon (Greek diakonos = minister) were present in the early Church. The relationship between elders and bishops is not expressly given in the New Testament, however, and therefore this has been the source of some confusion. It seems that in some communities the Church was governed by a council of elders, while in others a bishop was placed at the head of the council of elders, and as a consequence the terms "bishop" and "elder" are used almost interchangeably.33 Perhaps the situation was similar to that in the Restored Church, where exceptionally small congregations are administered by a "branch presidency" who may be elders rather than a bishop, who is a high priest.

By the first decade of the second century the roles of bishop, elder, and deacon were fairly well defined. Ignatius of Antioch revealed some of the specifics of this hierarchy.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the Apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out [through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as where Christ is, there does all the heavenly host stand by, waiting upon Him as the Chief Captain of the Lord's might, and the Governor of every intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast. But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything ye do may be secure and valid.34

Davies explains that a presbyter could perform all the same ordinances as a bishop, but only with the bishop's express permission.35 This is exactly the case in the Restored Church. Elders and bishops both hold the higher priesthood, and so can perform both temporal and spiritual ordinances. However, everything must be done under the auspices of the bishop to be considered valid.

As for the offices of the Aaronic priesthood, only deacons are mentioned in the New Testament Church. Davies explains that the deacons served as messengers to the bishop, ministers to the sick and imprisoned, carriers of the sacrament (Eucharist), and collectors of offerings.36 We might characterize the early Church deacon as roughly equivalent to a priest in the Restored Church, who is authorized to perform all the functions delegated to the Aaronic priesthood. Were there further divisions within the order of the lesser priesthood in the early Church? The Restored Church has both priests and teachers, as well as deacons, but it is unclear whether these offices existed in the Apostolic Church. At least as early as the late second and early third centuries the offices of priest and subdeacon were introduced. For example, Davies asserts that the order of subdeacons, who performed some of the functions of the deacons, must have existed at least as early as A.D. 170-180.37

The author of the Acts mentioned that "a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." (Acts 6:7) Did these men then lose their callings as Aaronic priests, or were they included as priests in the new covenant community? The New Testament is silent on this matter.

Origen mentioned the presence of priests in the Church of the early third century. Interestingly, he also reveals that priests were selected by the Church hierarchy, but had to be approved by the entire Church.

For in ordaining a priest, the presence of the people is also required that all may know and be certain that from all the people one is chosen for the priesthood who is more excellent, who is more wise, who is more holy, who is more eminent in every virtue, lest afterwards, when he stands before the people, any hesitation or any doubt should remain.38

Cyprian indicated that the vote of the people was required to install someone into the priesthood, but Bettenson notes that this was limited to the ratification of the choice made by the other bishops.39 This, of course, is exactly the case in the Restored Church. "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church." (D&C 20:65)

The New Testament does mention the presence of teachers (e.g. Ephesians 4:11), but the context of these passages suggests that these were merely members who had a spiritual gift for teaching. Certainly the teachers among the "prophets and teachers" at Antioch who ordained Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-3) were not teachers of the Aaronic order.

High Priests after the Order of Melchizedek
Another local priesthood quorum in the Restored Church is that of the high priests. These men hold the Melchizedek priesthood just as the elders do, but their office is higher, and consequently one must be a high priest to hold certain administrative positions, including that of bishop. As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, the New Testament identifies Christ as the great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, but says nothing more on the subject. Were there other high priests after this order? It seems obvious that Melchizedek was one, at least, and it is called an "order," after all. Theophilus of Antioch taught that Melchizedek was the first of many priests of his order:

And at that time there was a righteous king called Melchisedek, in the city of Salem, which now is Jerusalem. This was the first priest of all priests of the Most High God; and from him the above-named city Hierosolyma was called Jerusalem. And from his time priests were found in all the earth.40

Again, it is unclear whether an actual office of "high priest" existed in the early Church, but many early Christian documents other than the New Testament do refer to prophets and bishops as "high priests." However, it is not completely evident whether this was just a literary device to compare them to the old order of Aaronic High Priests or a reference to their specific office.

Both Ignatius and Hippolytus called bishops "high priests": "And say I, Honour thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God--of God, inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest."41 "Grant unto this Thy servant whom Thou has chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest . . . ."42 Clement of Alexandria called each man who had been entrusted with the mysteries of God a "truly kingly man; he is the sacred high priest of God."43 Likewise, the Didache referred to prophets and Apostles, as "high priests." "Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests."44

Origen called the Apostles and their successors "priests after the great High Priest." "In the same way the Apostles also and their successors, priests according to the great High Priest . . . ."45 On the other hand, Origen insisted that only Christ can be a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek:

But to this we reply that the Apostle clearly defined his meaning, and declared the prophet to have said about the Christ, "Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedek," and not according to the order of Aaron. We say accordingly that men can be high-priests according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedek only the Christ of God.46

It is clear from the foregoing citations, however, that bishops and others were considered "priests" after the order of Melchizedek, if not "high priests." We have also seen that the New Testament Church may not have made a distinction between offices corresponding to the Aaronic priesthood. Therefore, if there were no office of Aaronic priest, there may not have been a need to distinguish priests of the higher priesthood by calling them "high priests." That is, the office of "priest after the order of Melchizedek" in the early Church may have been equivalent to the office of "high priest after the order of Melchizedek" in the Restored Church.

The Purpose of Priesthood Offices

What can we say about the organization of the Restored Church as compared to that of the early Church? Simply that they are quite similar, although certain offices present in the Restored Church may or may not have been present in the Church of the former dispensation. But as was pointed out earlier, one need not expect the early Christian Church to have had all the same offices as the Restored Church because Joseph Smith claimed to have restored priesthood offices from all former dispensations.

The most important thing to note is that Joseph Smith restored the basic structure of the early Church "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Ephesians 4:12) Not just human inventions, the offices in the Church reflect these purposes Paul listed and were meant to endure in God's Church "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ," so that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine . . . ." (Ephesians 4:13-14) Therefore, these same offices of "Apostles; . . . prophets; . . . evangelists; . . . pastors and teachers" (Ephesians 4:11) and others for which there is some evidence in the records of the early Church were restored by God through the Prophet Joseph Smith after a long period of apostasy had left Christianity without inspired leadership.

Church Life

Just as the LDS Church has a similar organization to the early Christian Church, several peculiarities of LDS worship, church government, and sacramental practice have early Christian analogues as well.

The Lord's Day

Along with most of the rest of Christianity, Latter-day Saints conduct their regular worship services on the first day of the week, Sunday, rather than following the Old Testament custom of celebrating the Sabbath on the seventh day. On the other hand, some other millenarian movements which started around Joseph Smith's time, notably the Seventh Day Adventists, have claimed that Christians should continue the Jewish custom, since the New Testament never explicitly states that the original Sabbath had been superseded.

However, the evidence from early Christian documents weighs heavily in favor of those who celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday. And while this is not particularly striking confirmation of the Prophet's inspiration, it is nevertheless solid evidence when placed in context with the rest of this study. Therefore, a brief presentation of this evidence is in order.

While it has already been pointed out that the New Testament never explicitly states that the Old Testament Sabbath had been superseded, it does show that after the Lord was resurrected on the first day of the week, the Apostles and other Christians began gathering together on that day:

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead [men]. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. (Matthew 28:1-6)

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (John 20:19)

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

The first day of the week was called "the Lord's day" by Christians thereafter, because they celebrated the day of the Lord's resurrection. (E.g. John indicated that he "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day" when he received his revelation--Revelation 1:10.) And while the scriptures themselves are not especially explicit on this point, other very early Christian documents are. Both Barnabas and the Didache indicate that the Sabbath was to be celebrated on Sunday:

Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.47

But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice.48

Ignatius told the Magnesians to go forward, "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death.49 Clearly this practice was initiated very early on in Christian history, most probably immediately after the Ascension of the Lord.

Worship

An examination of early Christian worship reveals that it was manifestly dissimilar to the ornate displays which grew up as part of the medieval mass. The earliest Christians had simple worship services which more resembled those of the Latter-day Saints and many Protestant denominations. That is, the believers gathered on Sunday to participate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and to preach the gospel to one another, pray, sing hymns, etc. Davies asserts that there was a remarkable amount of freedom exercised in the organization of these early services, nevertheless, there were certain fixed liturgical forms such as the sacrament.50

Justin Martyr described a typical Christian worship service in the second century:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability . . . . But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.51

The bishop or president was not the only one who could give sermons in such a meeting. Bishops Alexander and Theoctistus of Jerusalem and Caesarea, respectively, insisted that it was the practice of many churches in their day (3rd century), as it is in many contemporary churches, to allow qualified laymen to preach:

For whenever persons able to instruct the brethren are found, they are exhorted by the holy bishops to preach to the people. Thus in Laranda, Euelpis by Neon; and in Iconium, Paulinus by Celsus; and in Synada, Theodorus by Atticus, our blessed brethren. And probably this has been done in other places unknown to us.52

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper

Water, Wine, or Water and Wine?
It is interesting to note that Justin indicated the use of wine and water in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Similarly, Latter-day Saints usually use water in the sacrament, although they at one time used wine. This practice was started as a result of a revelation to Joseph Smith, wherein an angel warned him not to purchase wine from his enemies for communion, since it could easily be poisoned. The Lord explained that the exact substances used in this ordinance didn't matter, as long as it was done in remembrance of Christ's body and blood:

For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory--remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins. (D&C 27:2)

And while some anti-Mormon critics charge that Latter-day Saints substitute water because they "reject the full value of Christ's blood,"53 it can be shown that some early Jewish Christians used water in this ordinance, as well. One of the very early (first or second century) Odes of Solomon referred to this practice. The hymn asserts, "Blessed then are the ministers of that draught who are entrusted with that water of His . . . ." 54 Commenting on this passage, Carl Jung points out that the use of water shows that, like the Mormons, these early Christians were more interested in the symbolism behind the ordinance than in the use of any particular ritual substance: "The fact that the Eucharist was also celebrated with water shows that the early Christians were mainly interested in the symbolism of the mysteries and not in the literal observance of the sacrament."55

The principal reason many Jewish Christians opted to use water in the sacrament was that some of them had taken Nazarite vows; that is, they had vowed to abstain from wine56, from cutting their hair, and from contact with the dead. The second-century writer Hegesippus claimed that James the brother of Jesus had taken such a vow:

James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the Apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place ; for he wore not woolen but linen garments.57

The Acts of Thomas also described the Apostle Thomas as one who drank only water58, so when one Mygdonia brought him some bread and wine for the sacrament, he refused it and "He brake bread and took a cup of water . . . ."59

As early as the late second and early third centuries, however, this practice was called into question by those who insisted on using water mixed with wine. Therefore, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian all condemned the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian "heretics" who used only water:

Therefore do [the Ebionites] reject the commixture of the heavenly wine, and wish it to be water of the world only . . . .60

And those destitute of prudence, that is, those involved in heresies, "I enjoin," remarks Wisdom, saying, "Touch sweetly stolen bread and the sweet water of theft;" the Scripture manifestly applying the terms bread and water to nothing else but to those heresies, which employ bread and water in the oblation, not according to the canon of the Church. For there are those who celebrate the Eucharist with mere water.61

Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament.62

Changes in the Doctrine of the Sacrament
This attention to symbolic meaning rather than empirical reality by the Jewish Christians was a product of the Hebrew roots of the early Church. It was the loss of this attitude that led to the adoption of the strange doctrine of "transubstantiation," which was foreign to the Hebrew mind. Davies explains:

The Hebrew, unlike the Greek, was not interested in things in themselves but only in things as they are called to be. He was not concerned with an object as such but with what it becomes in relation to its final reference according to the divine purpose. The meaning of an object therefore does not lie in its analytical and empirical reality but in the will that is expressed by it. Hence Jesus could say of a piece of bread: 'This is my body.' The bread does not cease to be bread, but it becomes what it is not, namely the instrument and organ of his presence, because through his sovereign word he has given it a new dimension.63

Thus, Edwin Hatch asserts that "it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ."64

This unfortunate trend of formalization in sacramental practice and changes in the doctrine of the sacrament continued into the Middle Ages, as various pagan concepts and formulae were adopted into the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. And as we have seen, this type of thing was an inescapable consequence of the loss of revelation in the Church.

Anointing the Sick

It is common for Latter-day Saints to follow the admonition of James: "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick . . . ." (James 5:14-15) Accordingly, Latter-day Saint elders consecrate olive oil for use in blessing the sick. And while people of other denominations also anoint the sick on occasion, the consecration of the oil in early Christianity is not found in the New Testament, but is consistent with LDS practice.

Specifically, there was a clear demarcation in the early church as to who could and who could not bless the oil. While bishops and elders could consecrate oil, those in the lower echelons of the priesthood, such as deacons, could not. The Apostolic Constitutions described the practice:

Concerning the water and the oil, I Matthias make a constitution. Let the bishop bless the water, or the oil. But if he be not there, let the presbyter bless it, the deacon standing by. But if the bishop be present, let the presbyter and deacon stand by, and let him say thus: O Lord of hosts, the God of powers, the creator of the waters, and the supplier of oil, who art compassionate, and a lover of mankind, who hast given water for drink and for cleansing, and oil to give man a cheerful and joyful countenance; do Thou now also sanctify this water and this oil through Thy Christ, in the name of him or her that has offered them, and grant them a power to restore health, to drive away diseases, to banish demons, and to disperse all snares through Christ our hope, with whom glory, honour, and worship be to Thee, and to the Holy Ghost, for ever. Amen.65

Gradually the rite of anointing the sick was corrupted. For example, John Chrysostom advocated using oil taken from church lamps and from martyrs' shrines, while some others suggested the use of oil filtered through martyrs' relics.66 Finally, J. Halliburton notes that after the patristic period, anointing of the sick became restricted to those who were deemed incurably ill and needed a ritual preparation for purgatory.67

Tithes, Offerings, and the United Order

All churches need money to function in the world, and the Restored Church is no exception. Inspired by God, Joseph Smith restored correct, biblically based principles for the collection of church revenue. The principles restored fall into two categories which we will call the "law of consecration" and the "law of tithes and offerings."

Consecration and Tithing
The law of consecration concerns the consecration of all one's time, talents, and substance to the building of the Kingdom of God. In the spirit of this law members of the New Testament Church renounced the practice of "serving Mammon" and lived with common ownership of all their substance.

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common. (Acts 4:32)

Similarly, the Lord instituted a program called "the United Order" in the Restored Church, and at one time the Saints lived with all things in common. Various revelations to Joseph Smith delineated exactly how this order was to be administered. (e.g. see D&C 51, 82, 104) Unfortunately, the Saints proved themselves unready to live such a lofty law and therefore it was held in abeyance and the lesser law of tithes and offerings was instituted:

Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. (D&C 64:23)

The law of tithes and offerings is basically that one should give one tenth of one's income to the Lord, as well as offerings for the poor. This law was practiced in the Old Testament, as evidenced by the following passage from Malachi:

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings . . . . Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. (Malachi 3:8, 10)

Although it is obvious, the "United Order" in the early Christian Church didn't last long, the New Testament is not clear about what replaced that system. Consequently, some have criticized the Latter-day Saints for practicing the law of tithes and offerings, which they say is a holdover from the Mosaic Law. This law was terminated by the death of Jesus, they say, and therefore should not be required.68 However, the Apostolic Constitutions make it clear that the law of tithes and offerings was practiced in the early Church:

Let him [the Bishop] use those tenths and first-fruits, which are given according to the command of God, as a man of God; as also let him dispense in a right manner the free-will offerings which are brought in on account of the poor . . . .69

In fact, it can be shown that tithing was thought to have replaced consecration as a lower law. In the third decade of the third century Pope Urban I claimed that some Christians, especially clergy, still attempted to live the law of consecration:

We know that you are not ignorant of the fact that hitherto the principle of living with all things in common has been in vigorous operation among good Christians, and is still so by the grace of God; and most of all among those who have been chosen to the lot of the Lord, that is to say, the clergy, even as we read in the Acts of the Apostles: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."70

In 251 A.D. Cyprian looked back with nostalgia at the time when the early saints lived with everything in common, and complained that the Christians of his day were for the most part unwilling to even pay tithes:

But in us unanimity is diminished in proportion as liberality of working is decayed. Then they used to give for sale houses and estates; and that they might lay up for themselves treasures in heaven, presented to the Apostles the price of them, to be distributed for the use of the poor. But now we do not even give the tenths from our patrimony; and while our Lord bids us sell, we rather buy and increase our store. Thus has the vigour of faith dwindled away among us; thus has the strength of believers grown weak.71

Fast Offerings
In addition to tithes, free-will offerings are given in the Restored Church in conjunction with a monthly fast. That is, the members of the Church fast, and then give at least the amount of money they saved by not eating to the Bishop for distribution to the poor. A passage in Isaiah indicates that the Israelites of the Old Testament had a similar practice:

Is this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? (Isaiah 58:6-7)

Once again, the early Christian documents are clear that Joseph Smith restored a genuine early Christian practice in this case. Davies explains that in the second century, "fasting was closely linked with almsgiving."72 For example, Barnabas and Hermas advocated a practice nearly identical to that which the Prophet restored:

Behold, this is the fast that I have chosen, saith the Lord, not that a man should humble his soul, but that he should loose every band of iniquity, untie the fastenings of harsh agreements, restore to liberty them that are bruised, tear in pieces every unjust engagement, feed the hungry with thy bread, clothe the naked when thou seest him, bring the homeless into thy house, not despise the humble if thou behold him, and not [turn away] from the members of thine own family. 73

Offer to God a fasting of the following kind: Do no evil in your life, and serve the Lord with a pure heart: keep His commandments, walking in His precepts, and let no evil desire arise in your heart; and believe in God . . . . Having fulfilled what is written, in the day on which you fast you will taste nothing but bread and water; and having reckoned up the price of the dishes of that day which you intended to have eaten, you will give it to a widow, or an orphan, or to some person in want . . . .74

Notes

1 Joseph Smith, in TPJS 157.

2 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 60-61.

3 1 Clement 42, ANF 1:16, brackets in original.

4 Clement of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:23, in NPNF Series 2, 1:150.

5 Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 2, 8-9, pp. 2-3, 13-17.

6 Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, 43.

7 1 Clement 40, in ANF 1:16.

8 Apostolic Constitutions 3:10, in ANF 7:429.

9 ECD 35.

10 E.g. Ignatius insisted that "apart from [the bishops and elders] there is no elect Church, no congregation of holy ones, no assembly of saints." Ignatius, Trallians 3, in ANF 1:67.

11 2 Clement 17, in ANF 7:522.

12 Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500, 26-27.

13 Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500, 3.

14 Ignatius, Trallians 3, in ANF 1:67.]

15 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:8:3, in ANF 1:471. In fact, laymen in the patristic period did have an active role in the Church.

History shows that laymen took an active part in all of the internal workings of the Church. They had an important role to play in the liturgy, which was still, at that time, a "popular" liturgy, that is, a liturgy for the people. They had their word to say in the election of bishops, and the nomination of priests. They contributed to the drawing up of church laws and customs; prepared some of the matter for discussion at the councils, and even took part in them. They administered church properties, and it was an accepted thing that they should be allowed to preach. . . ; the records show that they often did so. LeClerq, J., "The Priesthood in the Patristic and Medieval Church," in Nicholas Lash and Joseph Rhymer, eds., The Christian Priesthood (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970), 55.

However, in the Middle ages this all changed so that there developed a vast chasm between the clergy and the laity. See LeClerq, 56-62.

16 Sinclair B. Fergusen, David F. Wright, and J.I. Packer, eds., New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 531.

17 Noll, Christian Ministerial Priesthood, 43; cf. J.H. Elliot, The Elect and the Holy: An Exegetical Examination of I Peter 2:4-10 and the Phrase "Basileioun hierateuma" (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966), 223.

18 Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 9:1:3, translated by Gary W. Barkley (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), FC 83:177.

19 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:33:7, in ANF 1:508, brackets in original; cf. Ignatius, Ephesians 5, in ANF 1:51.

20 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:26:2, in ANF 1:497, brackets in original.

21 Cyprian, Epistle 39:5, in ANF 5:318.

22 Cyprian, Epistle 26:1, in ANF 5:305.

23 Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32, in ANF 3:258, brackets in original.

24 Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 41, in ANF 3:263.

25 Tertullian, Exhortation to Chastity 7, in ANF 4:54.

26 Clement of Alexandria, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2:1, in NPNF Series 2, 1:104.

27 The Community Rule 8, in Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 85.

28 Didache 11, in ANF 7:380-381.

29 1 Clement 44, in ANF 1:17. Jean Daniélou claims that these men were clearly the "heirs of the Twelve," and were different from any of the priesthood officers normally discussed. He also asserts that this institution must have been created by Christ Himself. Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 355.

30 From a Syriac appendage to a letter from Jesus to King Abgar, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1:13, in NPNF Series 2, 1:101.

31 Joseph Smith, in TPJS 151.

32 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 90.

33 Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, 90, n. 1.

34 Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 8, in ANF 1:89-90, brackets in original.

35 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 131.

36 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 131-132.

37 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 132.

38 Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 6:3:1, FC 83:120.

39 Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p.267.

40 Theophilus, To Autolycus 2:31, in ANF 2:107.

41 Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 9, in ANF 1:90.

42 Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 3:4, p. 5.

43 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:7, in ANF 2:533.

44 Didache 13, in ANF 7:381.

45 Origen, On Prayer 28:9, translated by John J. O'Meara (New York: Newman Press, 1954), ACW 19:112.

46 Origen, Commentary on John 1:3, in ANF 10:298. However, Ignatius wrote that Christ was the only High Priest "by nature." Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 9, in ANF 1:90. Perhaps others can become "High Priests" by grace.

47 Epistle of Barnabas 15, in ANF 1:147, brackets in original.

48 Didache 14, in ANF 7:381.

49 Ignatius, Magnesians 9, in ANF 1:62.

50 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 63-64.

51 Justin Martyr, First Apology 67, in ANF 1:185-186.

52 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:19, in NPNF Series 2, 1:268.

53 Decker and Hunt, The God Makers, 136.

54 Odes of Solomon 6, in Platt, ed., The Forgotten Books of Eden, 122.

55 Jung, C. G., "Transformation Symbolism in the Mass," in Joseph Campbell, ed., The Mysteries (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955), 280-281.

56 One rationale for continuing the LDS practice of using water in the sacrament is that the Word of Wisdom, the LDS health code, forbids the drinking of alcoholic beverages. However, I am not suggesting that the early Christian Church had any such health code. The Word of Wisdom explicitly states that it was designed "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days. . . ." (D&C 89:4.) Therefore, there is no need to suppose that this revelation was a restoration of anything from a former dispensation, especially in light of the fact that the New Testament shows Jesus drinking wine.

57 Hegesippus, quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2:23, in NPNF Series 2, 1:125.

58 Acts of Thomas, in ANF 8:539.

59 Acts of Thomas 121, quoted in Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 371.

60 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:1:3, in ANF 1:527; cf. Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 371.

61 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1:19, in ANF 2:322.

62 Cyprian, Epistle 62, 13, in ANF 5:362.

63 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 54.

64 Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, 308.

65 Apostolic Constitutions 8:29, in ANF 7:493. Apparently by this time they also used water (holy water?) for anointing.

66 Halliburton, J., "Anointing in the Early Church," in Dudley and Rowell, eds., The Oil of Gladness, 86.

67 Halliburton, J., "Anointing in the Early Church," in Dudley and Rowell, eds., The Oil of Gladness, 89.

68 Jehovah's Witnesses have recently made this criticism. See "The Mormon Church: A Restoration of All Things?," Awake! (November 8, 1995): 24.

69 Apostolic Constitutions 2:25, in ANF 7:471.

70 Pope Urban I, Epistle to All Christians 1, in ANF 8:619.

71 Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 26, in ANF 5:429.

72 Davies, The Early Christian Church, 108-109.

73 Barnabas 3, in ANF 1:138, brackets in original.

74 The Pastor of Hermas, Sim. 5:1, 3, in ANF 2:33-34.

I want to briefly preface my next post by saying that it is one that I have already posted and I was criticized for its length. But, apparently it was ignored by those who have so many questions and are claiming that I am not giving them any answers.

First, it is important to take your questions in sequence and I believe that recognition that authority was required in the early christian church is imperative first and foremost.

Second, I have asked questions of some of you, as to where are these requirements today? Why are they not expected IF they were a part of the Church that Christ established with His apostles anciently? Do you not question this and would not this be a critical case for claiming a major and complete apostasy... AUTHORITY?

I am interested to know your responses?

Lastly, I said recently that I chose not to go back and forth on every question that was being tossed my way, and I still feel this way and for the same reasons. What I can see of the many post since I have been gone, proves my case quite well. But I will do my best to touch on some of the major points that are in a consensus here for answers of some type.

Let me just say, I am not an apologist, therefore you will not get those types of answers from me, because I just do not have them up my sleeves folks. It is just simply me, flawed and all.

That which I previously posted is quite thorough in addressing this subject. Please forgive the length, but the information is outstanding in regards to our topic, of which most seem quite interested. Although I was told its length is obscene. lol

But, you all know how to scroll don't you?

So lets begin here before we move on to the next point. If that is possible?
rtc

Mormon Prophecies Are Way Beyond Belief

Of course Joseph Smith's "prophecies" reflect the folk and conventional wisdom of his time.

And it is literally "beyond belief" that if he werely truly receiving prophecies from God about God's creation, that God would give him the wrong information. Did God have Alzheimers'?

Mormon apologists who justify prophecies like inhabiting the sun,
and who defend the BoM's assertion that the Lamanites were descended from Jews when there is not a SHRED of dna evidence to support it

show an amazing ability to rationalize and ignore facts that are staring them in the face.

Jesus and the Rabbi told us to love our neighbor. Why do we need all of this risable mumbo jumbo in the form of outlandish prophecies and revelations to distract us from our main job.

And must we suspend our most basic rational processes so we can feel good about our purpose in life on the basis of believing unbelievable stories? Do we not understand the human psychology that deludes us into such beliefs? And did we not outgrow them centuries ago?

HJ: I am afraid that I am not very well versed in the area of biblical prophecies. I have in the past studied all the messianic prophecies and became convinced that they pointed to and were fulfilled in the person of Jesus.

I believe that many of the prophecies of the OT have been fulfilled and some are for the end of times.

What I find stands out in the prophets of the OT is that in general, they did not profit from their position as prophets. Some told God they were not up to the task, others were fearful and tentative, yet others strong and fearless. Many were to suffer for their prophecies that were not to the liking of the people and the hebrew kings. They are indeed presented to us as real people, doing their part for advancing the kingdom of God but not exalting themselves or benefiting from their status. Contrast that to the prophets of the mormon church and you will see the difference.

I believe that much of the bible is a true historical account. I believe that some parts may be allegorical and included in the Bible to make a point about God. C.S. Lewis for example thought that the book of Job was not a historical account but a parable. Yet Lewis is considered one of the greatest christian apologists in history. Finally, as christians we believe that the Bible is inspired by God but written by men (and not provided directly by God as the BOM or dictated word for word like the Koran).

David: regarding the whole apostacy theory, I have yet to have any mormon on this thread explain to me why, given the total apostacy of the church after the death of the apostles, God remained silent for about 1800 years, with no revelations and no prophets to restore us back. Indeed what about Jesus' statement that the gates of hell would never prevail against HIs church? Yet they prevailed unchallenged for 1800 years? There are silent passages in the Bible but never more than a 200-300 years and even during those silent times, when there were no prophets, we are told that there was a remnant that always followed God.

I have a big problem with any church that states that it is only way to God. If Jesus is the head of "The Church" then all christian churches are part of the body. The idea that there has to be so many rules, steps, changing prophecies, keys of authority, necessary sacraments etc is one that I am more apt to reject the more I learn to lean on Jesus for my salvation. Why anyone would choose to labor under such burdens rather then be free in Christ is difficult for me to understand. Maybe there is comfort in having others in charge? I say the more people in charge, the more of a barrier between believers and God, and the more potential for abuse.

JD1: your criticism was fair. I just now went and looked at the website that you pointed to. I am afraid that it uses a lot of the circular reasoning that RTC uses. Also, I find the part about Joseph Smith and other contemporaries to be reflecting in their views and statements what was thought at the time in popular culture about the moon being inhabited and a hoax taking place at the time having tainted their judgement to be further proof that JS and the others were not true prophets of God. I cannot for a minute imagine that the creator of heaven and earth would somehow allow his designated prophet (in charge of restoring the apostate church no less) to talk mistakenly about his own creation. I would think that JS would stand up and denounce the moon hoaxes and say that the Lord told him that there was no truth to it. If these apologetics are the best that the LDS church can offer, I am thoroughly unimpressed.

Best wishes to your sister. Many we can resume the dialogue when the festivities are over.

I understand that Joseph Smith has been called a Prophet, but is he also considered to have been a clergyman?

"CLERGYMAN: A man who undertakes the management of our spiritual affairs as a method of bettering his temporal ones."

- Ambrose Bierce, in his Dictionary.

I read every post here since my last. Quite amazing I must say. Haven't made any treadway whatsoever I see. It's still "I believe because I believe" or how about just ignoring the questions that are contradicting to your beliefs.

And then....the most blashphemous thing anyone could say and still claim to be a Christian. Even Jesus' prophecy didn't come true?? So here's where I'm starting to understand what you believe in.

You believe in Christ as God, but not Christ THE God. You believe Him to be erroneous considering that His prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, even though Jesus is referred to as "perfect" or the "sacrificial Lamb without defect". You believe in His commandments but yet ignore the fact that He said there is no marriage in heaven.

I think I'm starting to see what it is the LDS does. They believe in the points of the Bible that do not conflict with the BOM, yet ignore the ones that do. I would be happy with a simple "YES" but I know that won't happen. There is only a few questions I asked that seemed to get overlooked by any member of the LDS on this thread. I'll go over them again.

1. How do you account for the Bible saying there is only ONE God, but yet claim there are many.

2. And how do you account for the contradictions in the BOM as compared to the Bible?

I'd like to add one more just for fun. PLEASE RTC, show me anywhere in the Bible where it says that a "COMPLETE" apostacy has ever occured or will ever occur. You say Jesus instituted His church (which is His body), but then needed to restore it. So you are calling Jesus a liar when He says that "the gates of Hades will never overcome it". Or when He says "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will never pass away". Surely if Jesus' first church (which is still around today) completely apostasized (hope I spelled that correct) then His Words would have passed away and the gates of Hades would have overcame it. So by saying that He needed to "restore" His church, your calling Him a liar. So by calling Jesus a liar, have you truly accepted Him? Should He accept you unless you repent and ask for forgiveness?

I think these are questions that should be addressed by the LDS faithful. I'm gonna post one of my favorite quotes by Ravi Zacharias. I think it's relevant in this situation.

"What makes sense in my heart, has to make sense in my head".

I love that. It's so true. That was the only way I was able to accept Christ fully. The Bible had to make sense in my head. Shouldn't any member of the LDS figure to do their own thinking and question the validity of their teachings? I've questioned the Bible so many times and it still to this day continues to prove to me how right it is. Can't say the same for the BOM. I definately could never say the same for the BOM if it's true followers can't even answer the questions without a "I just believe it". I can tell you that I love the challenge when someone asks me about the Bible. Because I trust it and know that the answers to any hard question will be met. Why can't you do the same for the BOM?

Karen
Jd's post gives you the opportunity to say how you interpret Biblical prophecies.

Do you take them literally? Are you aware of Biblical prophecies that turned out to be incorrect?

I am curious as I don't know how you feel about prophecy. You will have surmised that I don't put any stock in ANY prophecy, whether by Isaiah or Alan Greenspan, except in a metaphorical and literary sense.

best

Henry

Karen,

One last note. I do not mean to be offensive, but the fact that you went to the critical website, before the pro-website does leave me with the impression that you are not as axious to understand how LDS deal with this, as you are anxious to understand how the LDS are wrong. That is the just my impression, I could be wrong.

It also seems like you are quick to dismiss an accurate translation of the Greek that clearly appears to be a false profecy by Jesus, but quick to make a conclusion about LDS prophets based on anti-Mormonism polemics. A discussion where one will harp on the ambiguities of anothers view, while not admitting similar difficulties in one's own view, is not very fruitful.

Once again...just my reaction.

Now I am really off.

Best,

Jd1

I was inadvertantly Anon for a minute and JD responded to me as such

Comments on his Remarkable Post

JD writes "Every controversial claim requires hundreds of apologies. The field of science itself has its own apologetic"

JD ignores the difference between an apology for a scientific statement such as
"entangled particles can influence each other instantaneously at great distances"
vs.
"an Angel appeared in my room and led me to some buried treasure/plates."

One is a claim that is both scientific and falsifiable. The second is qualitatitively different. And when the second claim leads to all kinds of problems, believers still cling to the incredible story, whereas scientists will adjust their theories based on experiment.

JD, I don't think you're trying to obfuscate, but the effect is the same here.

JD also repeats that he doesn't believe in "inerrancy." God gives us some correct revelations, but sometimes God screws up and gives us a revelation that is wrong!!!!!!!! Doesn't that give you pause about believing ANY so-called "revelation." Any thinking person would experience a big sinking feeling about the reliability of revelations in their church.

JD, no thinking person believes the Shadrack story literally. So it is a lame comparison to excuse BY's crazy Sun story by that analogy. It is fun to think expansively, but to suggest inhabiting the Sun is possible reminds us of the old Polish jokes that we can't tell anymore.

I am a Mormon. I am free to believe whichever revelations I wish, and disbelieve any I wish.

I wish to disbelieve all of them. I can see no other position that is justified by a thinking person. No one has justified why they should believed.

RTC says "I believe them because I believe them."

Karen,

I don't think the sun statement is a profecy. B. Youngs was basically followed around by a stenograph, everything he said was written down (Opinion, wild speculation etc.). Honestly I don't think any Biblical figure would pass tests under the test of enligthenment rationality if they had almost everything they said recorded. Heck, I don't think they pass now, even after all the filtering that has been done through the ages.

God does not errase the brains of prophets, or treat them as puppets. They can still have opinions and speculate, make mistakes and so on. If applied the same standard to the Bible as you are applying to Brigham Young I would have to convert to Buddism. But I believe God works through free agents, imperfect humans, and that He must, to a degree, come to our level in order to communicate with us. He must work through cultural subjectivity. He can give the word of the Lord to a people who condone stoning, for example. He even might tolerate a justification for stoning to creep into the revelations (Re: Mosaic Law).

Now I am off to wedding dinner. Have a great weekend. I hope you read my links as well.

Best,

Jd1

Anon/HJ? Just went to that website. I am still picking my lower jaw off my lap.

Anon,

Every controversial claim requires hundreds of apologies. The field of science itself has its own apologetic responses for contructionists, post-modernists and fundamentalists. I had an agnostic friend in England who believed the feild of Evolutionary Psychology to be a just one big unscientific apologetic enterprize (filled as it is with unfalsifiable just so stories).

I never excused BY's statement. They don't need an excuse if you don't believe in innerancy (which I don't). The idea that living beings can live on the sun is not more incredible than the Shadrak, Mishack and Abendigo living in a furnace. I do find the belief in other inhabited worlds in the 19th century expansive and wonderful. That is my personal reaction, you are free to have yours.

Some LDS are innerratists, some are not. There is variety in the faith, and this variety is tolerated. A non-inerrantist view is accepted by the church on the official level. Read recent statement on church doctrine.

Now anon, my dear freind, I must attend to my sisters wedding, so I will not be able to respond more this weekend.

All the best,

Jd1

JH: Was that you know the anonymous of 8:06? I'll check out the link.

JD1: I am baffled too about your response to the sun prophecy. But what I find more amazing is your willingness to give your church leaders and prophets such a free pass! They have essentially given themselves "a get out of jail card" to say whatever they want because heck, if not supported by archeology, or science, or genetics they can rescind it by saying: well that was the knowledge that God had given us at the time, or that was the truth as we saw it. Hence a flip flopping church on polygamy, on blacks in the priesthood and on people on the moon... until we actually make it to the moon and find no one, or until we want to get in the union and polygamy is a roadblock...
Mind you, even in the time of BY, nobody in their right mind would have believed the sun to be inhabited because people knew even then that it was a ball of fire. The moon inhabited maybe... but the sun????? Give me a break! I am a bible believing christian but even I do not believe that the earth is 6000 years old or that humans and dinosaurs coexisted because I would have to deny so much evidence that I would have to give back by science degrees. Where do you draw the line at gullibility and letting the LDS church leaders off so easy? Don't you ever wonder about how hard they have to work to cover their tracks and the tracks of those that came before them?

With regard to the Jesus prophecy that you mentionned, I believe that it refers to the end of times. I would have to learn more about what the original greek says but I believe that by generation Jesus meant the church age ie the time between His ascendance to Heaven and His return. But I am not a specialist in biblical prophecy so I am not sure. The mormon prophecies mentionned by David only go back last then 200 years and were spoken in english so I think that we can safely take them at their face value.

karen and David: JD pointed you to an "apologist" web site concerning Mormon prophecy.

If you Googel "false mormon prophecy" you will get hundreds of Non-Apologetic critiques. Not every word on them can be taken as "gospel" of course, but a sentient human has to be struck both by the volume of the problems, and the number that look pretty clearly inaccurate.
one example
http://www.irr.org/MIT/jsfalpro.html

Mormons believe Joseph Smith was "speaking as a prophet" when he made many of these prophecies. Therefore, "God" must have made a mistake (unless one accepts ALL the apologies, and there are hundreds of problems).

Karen: I don't think your faith depends on Inerrancy. You don't believe in "one true churches."

But Mormons do believe in both. And there are hundreds of problems with both.

if the claims weren't so incredible in the first place, we might give the apologists the benefit of the doubt.

but when incredible claims need hundreds of apologies, we have to say, "is there no end to how far our credibility can be stretched?'

or as Groucho Marx said "who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes.?"

JD: I found your excusing BY's Sun population staement to be incredible. Expansive? Of fantasy and unbelievability, certainly. I can't think whatever you can have meant by that paragraph.

Hi Karen,

Almost all of those are answered in the link. They are pretty standard criticisms and there are pretty standard apologetic responses. I am sure you understand why I don't really care to rehash this type of thing.

I absolutely love the statements by B Young about the Sun being inhabited. Not because I believe it, but because I love the expansive spirit that it reflects. It demonstrates an intellectual vitality that drives a certain tenor of Mormon thought to this day.

A foundational axiom of my faith is that at any point in the history of God our knowledge of "life, the universe and everything" is grossly incomplete. This is indeed a Mormon fundamental in my eyes. That is why we believe in continous revelation. That is why Mormon apologists don't have much of a problem reassessing traditional beliefs when data seems not to support them. My reaction typically is, "Well I knew I there is much I didn't know." I am glad to incorperate new found knowledge into my belief system.

Indeed when Christ comes he will reveal all things. Until then, he has only revealed some things.

Of course there is a difference between revelation to the church as a whole and revelation to the individual. I love my relationship with God where I can recieve personal answers that are for me alone.

Best,

Jd1

BTW, how do you answer the apparently false profecy uttered by Jesus? I am curious.

RTC

When Karen writes:
"JD1: thank you for your kind post. I appreciate the fact that you do not choose to ignore the questions you don't like while repeating over and over again the same assertions that still don't answer the original question."

I think I know to whom she was referring.

I don't mean to be unkind, but both she and David have been admirably persistant in trying to get a response to their questions about Mormon prophecies.

And they have only listed a small fraction of the prophecies that have problems (ie, they have already been shown to be false).

And so far, your explanation has been
"I believe they are true because I believe they are true." Let me kindly point out again the unsatisfactory nature of that "explanation."

JD - you do bring up ambiguity as a general answer when there are clear contradictions in Mormon claims. Often you are correct. But in the kinds of instances that Karen cites above, there ain't a lot of room to claim ambiguity. E.g, the moon is inhabited. It either is or it isn't.

This topic has to do with faith and doubt and questioning. A thinking person has to question when there is a clear and unambiguous contradiction.

HJ: you are right, I am absolutely blown away by Stan's two posts. As always, you are too kind with me. I did not think you were mean in your previous posts by the way. RTC and anon if you want to see mean and hateful, go look at the end of the Hitchens thread. Wow...

I have been questionning accepted dogma since I was 15 and started reading the Bible on my own. Then I read from the Koran, I read the life of Siddharta, then from the book of mormon, then about christian science etc. Whatever I believe, I believe it deeply because it was acquired step by step, and not inherited or blindly accepted. I still have my moments of wrestling with God.

At this point in my life, I refuse to attend a church that claims to be "the only True Church" or that has closed communion. That is why I attend a non denominational church where all christians are welcome, where all the leadership is local, the (financial) books are open and there is no "national headquarters" claiming to hold the keys to the kingdom and all the knowledge, as if God did not give us brains to think and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

I do believe that Jesus is God and that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I do believe that unlike in other religions where people are reaching up to God, christianity shows God reaching down to humanity and pouring out His Grace and salvation. I wish that all would receive this grace and I believe it is offered to all unconditionally and regardless of race, gender and so on. But the bottom line is, it is up to each one of us to seek and find. Our faith in God should never make us look down on others but rather always reach out in love.

From reading these threads, it seems that people who leave the LDS church tend to leave christiany and belief in God as well. This seems to be different then other churches where someone may go from catholic to evangelical or baptist to presbyterian, or even convert to another monotheistic religion. I could be totally wrong here, but I wonder if there are any statistics about what happens to mormons who leave their church.

JD1: thank you for your kind post. I appreciate the fact that you do not choose to ignore the questions you don't like while repeating over and over again the same assertions that still don't answer the original question.

I was specifically referring to the prophecies that David had asked about, so I will quote him:

"- Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States government would be overthrown in the 1800's. (History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1973, 5:394)

- Joseph Smith prophesied that the New Jerusalem would be built in Missouri within his generation. (Doctrine and Covenants 84:1-5)

- Brigham Young prophesied that the Civil War would fail to end black slavery. (Journal of Discourses, 1854-56, 10:250)

- Brigham Young said that the moon and the sun were inhabited. (Journal of Discourses, 13:271)"

I agree with the way David outlined Biblical teaching on how to recognize Prophets' sent by God vs self proclamimed prophets.

I always appreciate your tone by the way. And thanks in advance for your answer. And frankly, I am especially interested in how the modern LDS church interprets BY's statement about the moon and sun being inhabited. I was not aware of that one...

Henry -

The truth always comes forth as to one's real IDENTITY which has always been WHO we ARE and WILL ALWAYS BE. IT is clearly evident that although YOU have made a "choice" of your own, for it is given unto you... but that YOU are male through and through, and I am a female, of which I am comfortable in.

This is most evidenced in both of our "natural" responses" for the competitive arena reveals both of our natural human natures in both choice and affections.

I tend to feel that there is always room for kindness "even" between seeming opponents.
rtc

Stan:

Enjoyed your posts, thank you.

The most recent time that the missionaries paid me a visit I had a similar experience. Usually I greet them at the door, and essentially give them the "thanks, but no thanks," response. I sense their bright and shiny belief and feel almost protective of them, they look so much like my former TBM friends did 20 years ago. It is almost as if I want to shield them from the haymakers of reason and knowledge that await them as they get older and begin to learn more about, and maybe even question, what they have been taught by their leaders.

I have seen so many people struggle as they begin to come to grips with a reality that has intruded upon the manicured contours of their faith, revealing what actually lies beneath. It is not usually a pleasant experience for them initially, though the liberation that can result is often enjoyed immensely as the shock wanes.

My last pair of missionaries seemed drenched in a kind of certitude that was almost aggressive in manner and tone. I watched them stride confidently up the walkway to ring the bell, and then joined them on the porch. After exchanging pleasantries, and explaining their purpose for seeking me out, they got right to it and asked me why I had become "apostate?" Yes, they actually used this word, "apostate." I almost laughed at that point, they seemed too young and fresh-faced to use a word like that, with its attendant sepia-toned images of wild-eyed and bearded men.(It turns out that they had been asked by a TBM relative to pay me a visit to see if I might have come to an appreciation of the manifold errors of my ways. You have to admire their perseverance.) This time it did not seem as if they intended to be gracefully dismissed, so I thought for a second before answering.

"I am no longer a believer in LDS dogma because the earth is in the same general orbit today as it was long before the dawn of animate life."

They just looked at me, blinking. "You don't know what I mean, do you?" I asked.

"Uhhh, no, I'm sorry I don't, said the smaller of the two.

"Well guys, Mormons believe that this planet was once in a far distant location in the universe, in close proximity to the uber-planet Kolob. Kolob is supposedly quite vast, and takes a thousand years to revolve, (which ALSO violates the laws of physics, by the way, but I'll stick to the orbit thing for now.) And this was the location the earth occupied until the fall of Adam. With the "fall", owing to the inherent corruption of an entire planet and everything on it because of the audacious disobedience of one indivudual, the earth had to be shunted billions of light-years to its present cosmic zip code, because God could not tolerate its proximity to Kolob. Oh, and I almost forgot, this supposedly happened about 6000 years ago, if you take the word of your founder. Now guys, does this not, truly, sound absurd? And yet, this information was reportedly revealed to Joseph Smith from God himself."

"Nah, no way," the shorter one came back. "Ive, never heard that."

"Better re-read the Pearl of Great Price guys, its in there. And for the age of the earth thing, check out the Discourses. You can come back to discuss it futher if you like, after you have a chance to check it out. There are lots of other things like this that we can discuss."

They left then, and I have yet to see them again. I will just have to wonder what happened after our front porch discussion.

I do want to say that these missionaries were likely fine young men who believed what they had been taught, and were willing to sacrifice greatly for it. They were hard-working and serious young men, and I meant them no ill-will. But, they were also wrong about something that they encourage people to build their entire lives around. And that is not something to admire.

Anyway Stan, thanks for the story, and best wishes to you.

False Profecies! False Profecies!

Karen you are curious as to how the LDS church deals with supposed false profecies. I am glad you are curious about this. Whether something is to be considered a false profecy depends on the interpretation. For example, non-Christians would consider the following a false profecy, while Christians who do not embrace Preteritism interpret it in a different way:

"30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the bdoors.
34 Verily I say unto you, *This generation shall not pass, till all these bthings be fulfilled.*"
(Mathew 24:34)

For info on how certain of Joseph Smith's profecies are dealt with view the following:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai065.html

Best,

Jd1

RtC

sorry you found me mean.

which part?

i truly did find your implication that there was "evidence" of Joseph Smith's veracity to be preposterous. And, frankly, laughable.

On a public forum such as this, I believe that when you or I take positions that are "laughable", they should be labled as such. Not to do so is condescension. We are searching Truth here before thoroughgoing politeness, which often means avoiding the truth.

I will go along with David, who characterizes your position as being

"I believe the Church is true because I believe it is true."

That is all members of all religions can say, so I am not picking on Mormons when I agree. Fine for you or anyone to believe what you want.

But it is also fine, indeed necessary, for other humans to closely QUESTION the reasons and the evidence for any such beliefs.

And the questions will sound Mean at times once we leave the realm of Truth-obscuring politeness.

Henry

Stan
I gave you my award based on your second post, the party story, before reading your first, the missionary story.

i just doubled the award.

unlike my older and younger brothers, i left the church rather than go on a mission, because i knew i couldn't "sell the product." i couldn't answer the questions that i anticipated, because i couldn't answer them to myself. and you dramatised exactly the kind of scenario i had imagined.

the black priesthood thing was one of the biggest things that troubled the hell (pardon the phrase) out of me. how could a church that took orders from God treat black people that way.? and how could i justify that to the outside world, let alone say that they should JOIN such a group.

the other biggest thing i couldn't sell was that my Jewish friends had to become members of my tribe in order to achieve "salvation" as outlined by a 14 year old treasure-hunting wife-stealing charismatic.

God was going to bring me to his side and make ME a God myself, but Gandhi didn't qualify because he hadn't been baptized and married (preferably multiple times as my great grandfather had been) in the temple?

That stretched my sense of the absurd beyond the breaking point. It is still the primary source of my disdain for the morality of many Mormon practices.

BTW, like most churches, even when mormons themselves were outcasts, they have and continue to treat as second/third class citizens those who have little power in society at large, and therefore limited power to retaliate - Blacks, gays, women.

Powerful truths you give us in parable and dialog, Stan the man, AKA many Wise teachers.

HJ -

No Henry James. I am disappointed in you terribly. As much as I admire boldness and anyones truth and experience from their perspective, I clearly know hate and meaness not only when I read it, but when I feel it and see it in writing.

I firmly believe that anyone else, no matter what their faith would see this as well. That is not the love of any being that claims they are inspired from a higher power. I reject that idea HJ. What are you thinking my dear friend?

What good purpose do words such as these produce? Build or destory? Light or Dark? Love or Hate? What do we think?
rtc

Hello Anon -

I appreciate your words. It is nice to have a companion alongside. As Henry said, we are old friends and do tend to banter on occasion, but you are correct in that he did misunderstand on this one, as there should be no confusion as to my politeness in the moment.

HJ, of all people on this thread "knows" that I claim more than to simply believe these things, I am most comfortable to say that I KNOW Joseph Smith to be a true prophet of God. With that knowledge comes also my witness that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is the restored Church of Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith claimed it to be when he did organize it by proper priesthood authority; which power and keys prior to this restoration, that were necessary, were also restored through angelic ministration to him and Oliver Cowdery.

So Anon, I am most happy you have come along that I might clarify any misunderstanding in my communications to my good friend, whom I do respect, but must make sure that we are always clear on these things.

For others, Karen, Concerned and David... what can I tell you all??? I am only one blogger guys! lol You're right Karen, I do know the detailed answers to many of your questions, but do not feel that taking up my time or the space required on this thread is appropriate. Even posting the JSH for Concerned, "concerned" me, as I have been reprimanded in the past for posting lengthy articles, etc... Also, as I stated earlier, it is my impression that I do not have the ability to either convince nor educate any one of you sufficient enough to satisfy even one of you, as I believe that I am not the first LDS person any one of you have encountered.

You must know, that for me, I wish it were much different. I wish that there was something that I could say that could encourage each of you to personally, as I have, know that these things are true for yourselves, in the same way that I know. And I realize that you are thinking exactly the same thing:-) Therefore, we are left with the choice to either be offended with one another or to accept the fact that there is a difference between us and that only time will be able to finish the story...

I choose the last, because I am at peace with my choice, and I think a great deal of each of you. As I stated in my last post, I am bound by the witness I have received by the power of the Holy Ghost which has witnessed to me of the truthfulness of The Gospel of Jesus Christ as given through Joseph Smith and the work he has brought forth.

To this day, and with deep pondering, study and teaching to others, upon the subjects of which you have mentioned and many many more, I am more sure of that testimony than I was 30 years ago... for in all this time, I continue to be in awe of the doctrinal beauty of the revelations that this young prophet has added to that which is found in the Bible and when understood by the gift of the Holy Ghost is profound, thus bearing another witness to the sacred Bible as is the purpose of the Book of Mormon when it states... another testament of Jesus Christ.
rtc

Announcement: Henry James Award Announced

and the winner is....

Stan Fan aka Che Dali :

Stan, my man, all I can say is WOW.
And I am never at a loss for words.

You really nailed the big one with your brilliant post.

Admittedly, it is a version of the Rabbi's summing up the Torah while standing on one foot: "love your neighbor as yourself." But your dramatization was powerful, unassailable (and you know how I can assail when the target deswerves it).

RTC, did you read this? This is MODEL morality AND model reasoning, what Stan gave you.

Karen, I bet you admire this too.

I am committed to the 11th Mormon article of faith as well. Doesn't mean I am not going to examine and critique the beliefs of others, and I hope they will do unto me as I do unto them.

But they are free to believe whatever danged fool thing they want. As am I.

I frankly don't think that the kind of belief in god that a person has makes much difference, MOST of the time (9/11 terrorists excepted) in whehter they love their neighbor and treat them kindly.

It is a HUMAN trait to do so, as long as God doesn't get in the way by telling us to commit genocide agaisnt another tribe.

And if, as Stan does, we make the whole human race our tribe, the risks of genocide go way way down.

Brilliant Stan. and humane as hell. Thanks.

Your fellow human (and ex mo)
Henry

Hello Karen, my esteemed friend

you write
"You had mentionned in a previous thread that you had thousands of mormon relatives in Utah. I wonder how they deal with your gift for irony..."

Very simple.
they ignore me.

btw karen
though i don't believe in the Mormon "God"
i believe in God as YOU describe God.

luv
henry

We've got some parties (graduations/birthdays/wedding receptions) comming up at the homes of people with whom we once attended church.

This will be the first time since we left the church where we've attended a party at the home of a member of the ward we once attended and we fully intend upon minding our mannners even though we know we'll inevitably be approached by some of those people (especially the really rude ones who know no boundaries) who'll inevitably ask us the dreaded question, "So why did you leave the church?"

When my wife has been asked this quesion in the past she has just responded, "Uh because Joseph Smith had sex with other men's wives." Which, while hillarious to me, probably doesn't do much for inner personal relationships.

The last thing I want to do is cause a big embarassing scene and spoil a party, our reputation and relationships with other people by ending up in a huge argument with a bunch of self righteous TBM's, and yeah, there will be plenty of them in attendance, believe me.

I know there's probably no hope of actually getting people to actually open their minds, especially in a situation like that, but what I'd like to acheive at least, would to be to carry on an honest, respectable, civilized discussion and improve my relationship with people, most of whom I still care about and respect as friends, neighbors, parents, leaders in the community and professionals.

So with that in mind, I've found the best thing to do is to force them to think about what they're asking and why they're asking by using the socratic method of returning questions with respectful questions that force them to actually think about what they're asking, without provoking them to anger and then to leave the exchange with an agreement to respect one another's rights in the future.

So I would probably respond to that question by asking, "Why do you ask?"

Likely answer, "Well, I'm just curious."

"Really? You know what they say, Curiosity killed the cat! hah, hah.

Listen. I've been asked serious questions my whole life as a Mormon, as a missionary, as a teacher. You know what they are, you've been asked them too, so I'm not going to ask them of you.

It wasn't until I had children who started asking me those same serious questions that I really decided to get serious, real, honest answers instead of the standard mormon answers, cliches, folklore and myths which had satisfied me in the past.

When I really got down to it, the standard Mormon answers really were not answers at all, they were a bunch of cliches that didn't work in my time of need.

My faith in the dogma I'd been indoctrinated with, failed to answer my really serious questions, especially on 9-11. That was the major spiritual turning point in my life. I was profoundly affected by it and resolved afterwards to find real answers to all the unresloved issues I'd partitioned off in my mind up until that point.

After all the traditional, official sources came up empty, I was left with turning to other more objective sources to find real answers.

I had to do my own independent research, operating under the hypothesis that the truth would withstand scrutiny, it does, only many of the things I once believed were true turned out false in reality. The only way I was able to reconcile my beliefs with reality, was to do objective research and allow it to lead me to where ever it led, even if that meant deconstructing everything I believed and rebuilding my beliefs in a new form, from the ground up, which turned out to be exactly what I had to do.

I questioned everything. Nothing was sacred except the integrity of my own mind. Through that long and extreamly difficult process I was finally able to find serious, honest, real answers to my questions and reconcile them with reality. I was able to articulate a world view that was really tennable and worked for me and my family. But with those answers came some serious implications and responsibility. Probably the most serious responsibility having the courage of my convictions, which were really quite at odds with the orthodox religious beliefs I'd inheirited and which I had believed deeply. As a father I had a real moral imperative to raise my children to realize their potential and not to inhibit that potential by indoctrinating them with supernatural dogma that contradicted natural, physical reality.

That was tough, because it meant rejecting the culture and myths of my tribe and we valued our membership in our tribe. We valued our relationships with people like you, whom we considered our tribe, our family and our friends. We respected and cared about you deeply. That part hasn't changeded, at least not for us. We still care about you and respect you, we just care about our other fellow men equally, not just Mormons. Our tribe just got bigger and now includes all of humanity, not just Mormons, despite our differences, we're really all kindred people.
We're all in this boat together.

Even though I don't happen to share the exact same beliefs as you any longer I respect your right to believe whatever it is you want to believe, I just don't happen to still share all of those beliefs. But there are some beliefs I think we still have in common."

Such as?

Well, my religion is very simple now. My religion is kindness. What was Christ's main commandment?

Uh, to love your fellow man as yourself?

Exactly. And that's exactly what we have in common. That's what it all boils down to, love.

My religion is to love and respect my fellow man as myself, which includes you. What is your 11th Article of Faith?

Well, I don't have it memorized.

You know the one, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

That's one aspect of Mormonism I still believe in whole heartedly. Do you?

(They have no choice but to answer yes to this question.)

So what difference does it make to you that I don't share the exact same beliefs as you if we fundametally agree that the most important thing is that we love and respect one another as equals?

Uh. Gee. Well. I guess it doesn't really matter.

Right. So why did you bring it up? If you're curious about why I no longer believe the same exact things as you, then do the heavy lifting. Satisfy that curiosity by yourself. The real serious answers to your questions are available. They might not be forthcoming from the sources you're looking at, but they are available if you look to other, more objective sources.

Nobody provided the answers for me and I'm not going to provide answers for you or anybody else either, except maybe my children, and even then I want them to be able to think on their own and draw their own conclusions.

The only way you're going to satisfy your curiosity is to do your own research.

But you really don't need to do any research if you agree that the most important thing is to just respect other people the way they respect you and you already said you believe that, right?

So how about you respect my right to believe whatever it is I want to believe the same way I respect your right to the same? K?

K.

(Shake hands. )

Sounds good.

Sounds good to me too.

See ya around.

(Exits stage right)
Signature

I recently had a pair of Mormon missionaries come to my door.
I'd never seen either of them before and apparently they had no clue they'd just knocked on the door of Korihor himself, since they started off with a lame gimic of inviting me to see the inside of the local ward house, where I had my wedding reception, blessed two of my children, baptized 3 of children and attended church every Sunday for 10 years.

I just laughed and told them I probably knew that church better than they did.

They asked me how.

I told them that I was once a member but that I had resigned my membership a few years ago.

They asked me why.

I told them, "Wow, that's a long story. You sure you want to know?"

They said they did.

I said, "Well, listen I was in your shoes once upon a time. I served a mission and the whole nine yards. I got all kinds of questions on my mission that I couldn't answer honestly."

Like what questions?

"Well, you know, I'm sure you still get them all the time since they've never been resolved."

Such as?

"OK, let's start with the easy ones. Why did the church discriminate against blacks up until 1978 by denying them access to the same privilages as everybody else?"

"We don't know why god did that, but it's not important to our salvation."

"Aha! That's a lie! You know exactly why the church discriminated against blacks! Brigham Young couldn't have been more clear about it, it was because he believed that the descendants of Cain were given a black skin as a mark of the Curse of Cain and that they were cursed by as to the priesthood."

"Well, that was based upon revelation. "

"Aha! That's another lie! Point to the revelation that was based upon? Where is it written that God revealed to Brigham Young that he should deny the priesthood to blacks because they were still cursed by God?"

Silence.

"Yeah. You're just making stuff up. You need to get real and quit just making stuff up. Even if God had told BY that he was supposed to discriminate against blacks why didn't he bother telling JS if it was so important? God didn't seem to have a problem with JS giving the priesthood to black men like Elijah Abel, who was a freed slave or he would have intevened to stop him. Brigham Young instituted discrimination against blacks based upon his own racist interpretation of LDS scriptures, according to Gordon B. Hinkley. The problem with that is that it totally contradicts Jesus Christ's main commandment. What was that?"

To love god.

Yeah, and how do we demonstrate our love of god?

By loving our fellow men as ourselves.

Right! Exactly! So to me that's the main commandment of Jesus Christ. Now next question. How was Brigham Young demonstrating his love for God when he chose to discriminate against his fellow man and hate them instead of loving them?

I don't know.

Of course you don't know because the church doesn't answer those kinds of questions for you, but think about that. Here's another easy one I'll bet you can't answer honestly, "Why does the church still claim that Native Americans are descended from an evil race of Jews after genetic science has disproven that 19th century myth?"

The Junior Companion says, "Huh? Who says Native Americans are descended from an evil race of jews?"

The Book of Mormon. It says right in the introduction that "Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians". The Lamanites were an evil race of Jews, right?

Well, yeah, I suppose.

Well, Genetic scientists have taken DNA samples from native americans from Point Barrow, Alaska to Tiera Del Fuego, Argentina and guess how many of them had any trace of Semetic DNA?

How many?

Exactly zero. They have been conclusively proven to be descended from Mongolians, not middle easterns.

I could tell I was getting through to the Jr. Comp, who seemed more intelligent than his smart ass senior companion who said, "We believe it because it's true." with a s*#t eating grin.

The hair stood up on the back of my neck. I said, "Listen guys, it's fine if you want to believe those racist myths, I really don't care what you believe, but just don't expect me to believe that BS since it's obviously a lie. I don't blame you because I used to be in your shoes, I blame the church you represent. They send you out here and put you in uncomfortable situations like this, having to lie to people and make stuff up because the church doesn't have any answers, they don't bother resolving these issues, they just ignore them and hope people eventually quit asking, but they don't because you guys keep on coming out insisting that it's all true despite the fact that is becoming increasingly apparent to the rest of the world that the church is not what it claims. It's a lie. It's fine if you want to lie to yourself, hell I did it for 20 years in the church and it worked for me, but someday you're going to have kids and they're going to ask these same questions and they still won't be resolved and you're going to want to be honest with them. So I'd encourage you to find real answers to all the questions you hear out here on your missions and don't settle for cliches because when it comes to your own children, you want to be honest with them."

Then I jumped to the 11th Article of Faith and told them that I believed in that principle more than they did or they wouldn't be here knocking on my door trying to convince me to ignore the dictates of my conscience by misplacing my faith in a bogus myth.

RTC,

Hi again. Thanks for your response and I hope that my challenges are met with sincerity and not to be taken as offensive.

So you tell me that you believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet because he said he was a prophet from God. You said that the golden plates are proof and that because he says an angel named Moroni came to him then it must be true.

I say I do not believe in Joseph Smith's testimony because no where to be found are these golden plates. No where to be found are any archaelogical evidences for the stories in the BOM. No where to be found is any trace of ancestry from native americans to the ancient israelites. DNA confirms that the native americans are ancestrial from alaskan indians and/or polynesian descent. Joseph Smith had many prophecies that never came true. Joseph Smith wrote the BOM that clearly have points of doctrine that contradict the Bible. Joseph Smith even has points of doctrine that contradict themselves.

So, tell me why I should believe in Joseph Smith's testimony? I have given the LDS the Biblical challenge. Challenging their points of doctrine with what the Bible says to discern from the truth. Here's the differnce between mormon and Christianity.

Bible says there is only ONE God
BOM says that there are several gods.

Bible says there is no marriage in heaven.
BOM says there is.

Bible says that Jesus holds the "keys" to death and hades
BOM says that the modern day prophet holds the "keys".

Bible says the true church is the body of Christ
BOM says that they are the true church

Bible says that true prophets from God that prophesy in God's name will come true.

Joseph Smith's prophecies never came true.

Bible says there is no such thing as pre-existence (except for Jesus)

BOM says that we all pre-existed with God.

I could go on but I think this is enough evidence that the LDS is teaching a false doctrine. What I do not understand is how you can base your beliefs on the Bible and still accept a book that contradicts the Bible. In other words, HOW CAN THE SAME DIVINE INSPIRATION GIVEN TO THE PROPHETS IN THE BIBLE BE CONTRADICTED BY THE SUPPOSEDLY SAME DIVINE INSPIRATION GIVEN TO WRITE THE BOM? I capitalized that because I think this is quite an important question. If we truly are talking about the same God as the One I believe to be true in the Bible, then how is it that that same God inspired the BOM? God is never changing and obviously would not contradict Himself. So how can this BOM be a true account inspired by God?

Prov 2:6,9-11 (NIV) For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.... Then you will understand what is right and just and fair--every good path. For wisdom will enter your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. Discretion will protect you, and understanding will guard you.

"From His mouth comes knowledge". Shouldn't you listen to what He says? See how it says that after you gain knowledge from God's mouth (His Word) then you can recieve wisdom in your heart.Best of all "Discretion will protect you." Am I not discerning the truth by the knowledge from God's mouth? And now my understanding from the knowledge from God's mouth (The Bible) can show me how to discern the truth from the lies. The truth in His word and the lies in false teachings. I'll pray for you RTC that you too can discern what is right and true by gaining knowledge in God's Word. From that you will know that the church you have so much faith in has been teaching you lies. I'm sorry for that, but it's never too late. Don't listen to me, but to God who spoke and told us already what we must know to discern from what is truth and what are lies. I'm not here to mislead you in any way. The Spirit that you have spoken of that told you that the LDS is true needs to be tested by you. We know that satan comes as an angel of light. So all that goodness you see in the people of the LDS can be just a cover up by this "angel of light" to decieve you. Please compare the BOM and the Bible. You see the contradictions. This is how we can know what is true or what is false. God bless you and I really hope you can open your heart to know the true God of the Bible. Like I said, I intend on keeping you in my prayers.

Hello RTC: you have posted a lot of information in your responses to David, but as far as I can see, you have yet to answer his main question about prophecies made by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that have never come true. I am curious as well as he is about how the LDS church deals with those unfulfilled prophecies.
David has very coherently made the point from the Bible about how we are to know that someone is a true prophet of God vs a self proclaimed prophet. Since you are very educated in LDS theology, it seems to me that you should easily be able to answer these simple questions.

I had hoped for an answer from you on a previous thread after I had taken the time to answer in detail your questions to me. You had mentionned that I had given you some food for thought and you would get back to me after doing some research. Maybe you could do so on this thread?

Henry James: I actually think that your last couple of posts were very witty (to be expected from "the greatest american literary critic...). You had mentionned in a previous thread that you had thousands of mormon relatives in Utah. I wonder how they deal with your gift for irony...

My Dear Anonymous

Apologies for giving offense. Let me try to remove any trace of mockery in responding to you. RTC and I have an old relationship, and we josh each other in a robust way, but I should not presume on other believing Mormons and assume they share our relationship.

While we should be respectful of each other, we should also state what our true opinions are. So I will declaratively, without humor, state the clear underlying position that I have presented with humor above, humor that, I confess, was aimed at clarifying truth rather than first being kind. Again, my apologies for that.

JFielding Smith said Mormonism stands or falls based on the truth of Joseph Smith's story.

Joseph Smith's story is, literally, incredible.

He tells us that as a 14 year old boy, God and Jesus appeared to him, and then an Angel appeared and gave him the tools to translate a hidden book.

If someone made such a claim today, our first rational instinct would be NOT to believe this incredible story.

The historical record adds many questions to the veracity of Smith's stories. Mormons side with Smith. Many non-Mormons still find the story extremely incredible.

part of the incredulity arises from the fact that the 14 year old boy had a dubious reputation, and that there are numerous problems with his accounts. If his claims weren't so incredible in the first place, the world might give him the benefit of the doubt.

Any rational human being would QUESTION whether one should have FAITH in these claims.

We can answer our questions through BLIND FAITH, or we can demand *some* kind of evidence.

RTC's justifications for her belief in these incredible stories are

"it's an Amazing story."
"I believe it, and lots of other Mormons do too."

Those are NOT reasons that should carry any weight with other rational human beings, Mormons or Non Mormons.

Once again, Mormon truth claims are based on the stories of a man who had a checkered relationship with the truth during his life, of whom there were many questions about his trustworthiness in affairs of THIS world (how many wives he had, money dealings, translating Egyptian funerary documents).

Trusting him in matters of an Unseen world is a Miraculous act of Faith, in the opinion of many.

Jesus's claims are similarly incredible, but at least the record we have of Jesus's life is of a man who was exemplary in his dealings with his fellow humans.

If there is a God, and I know there is, I will try to behave with the same morality towards my fellow man as I try (imperfectly) to do so now. If she is going to damn me to hell for all time, I will grit my teeth.

Love
Henry

RTC

I ran your last post by brother William, the author of The Varieties of Religious Experience"
and he summarized your position thusly.

"The Mormon Church (and JS's story) is true because I believe it's true. and lots of other people agree with me."

Substitute many other terms for "Mormon Church" and see if any questions occur to you.

"The earth is flat because I believe it is flat, and many other people agree with me."

"Jews are The Devil because I believe they are the Devil, and many other people agree with me."

"Homosexuality is a sin because I believe it is a sin, and many other people agree with me"

You are of course free to practice and believe Mormonism, and if it works for you, great. But there is no reason for David to believe Joseph Smith's story.

HJ

I am not at all impressed with your recent dialogue here. In your earlier posts, you at least had the decency to not mock people for their beliefs, but rather discuss them (and I say that loosely). Personally, I now think you're out of line. This board was not intended for mockery.

You continue to post to Mormons on this blog, time and again, at how their comments are "perceived" at being offensive - perhaps you need a dose of your own medicine mr james. Akin to the kettle calling the pot black.

Lastly, I will conclude that if you are looking for pure evidence of Jesus, God or of any Heavenly being - you will never find it until the end, when it is too late. For if you had evidence, then there would be no faith, but rather knowledge. And having that knowledge, how much greater would your sins be if you still committed them? As Christ said (and I paraphrase), "it would have been better for you to never have known me."

You had posted previously how your felt the knowledge of a Celestial Kingdom is "detrimental" to believers of the Mormon faith because they will only want to do what's right so they can make it to the highest kingdom and not because they truly are good people. Why not reciprocate this philosophy of yours and apply it to yourself. How exactly would it change you if you knew God existed? Would you then have free agency to act upon this knowledge? Or would you blatanly come out and rebel against God?

David -

Thank you for responding to my post. I am sure you are aware that there have been many many who have claimed to be prophets David, but they have not been very successful at it for very long, have they?

What has made Joseph Smith so very unique? First of all, it is apparent that the written word of God was critical in moving his work forward, thus God had prepared the plates well ahead so that they would come forth as another witness of His Son, Jesus Christ. This record is the Book of Mormon and was translated by the gift and power of God which plates were given to Joseph Smith by Moroni.

I have explained this previously, as how this testifies of Moroni as an angelic minister. This is also a firm witness that Joseph Smith is truly a prophet of God.

Therefore, that which he claims of receiving and other angelic minsters who returned authority and keys of priesthood, and that there were others present who also did testify of these things can be verified, as well as the Holy Ghost to individuals.

Also with this authority Joseph Smith did in fact organize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, as commanded by Jesus Christ himself, just as it was when he was upon the earth and as it has been needed to meet the needs of the saints of the modern church today.

All Priesthood, keys and authority are continually passed on in succession within the First Presidency and Quorums of the Twelve from the time prior, beginning with Joseph Smith until today with Gordon B. Hinckley who stands at the Head as Our Prophet, Seer, Revelator and The President of The Church.

In short, Joseph Smith was once asked what it was that made the LDS church different from all others, and basically his answer was.... it was the gift of the Holy Ghost.

This comes to each individual member once they have been baptized. They then are confirmed a member by the laying on of hands and commanded to receive the Holy Ghost. This is what is referred to in scriptures as the baptism of fire. This must be done by one who hold the melchizidek priesthood of god and is a real power in the lives of the saints. It cannot be duplicated by one without this ordinance and one having authority.

This is what I honestly believe continues to move the LDS church forward when there seems to be so much resistance continually. Once an individual, such as myself, has received such a confirmation by the power of the Holy Ghost and then chooses to receive this gift, it is potent. Personally, it is of such force in acknowledging truth and teaching me detail in my life, that I cannot imagine ever being without it again.

I believe that is why so many will stand with such a firm conviction in regards to Joseph Smith as a prophet. We certainly do not worship Joseph Smith, but we do support the work of God that he was called to bring forth. We have no question of of that, as our lives are evidence of it daily.
rtc

HJ -

My good old friend, I am glad to hear that you have found companionship with Amit, who seems to quite enjoy your type of humor. I too, am amused, for I must confess that I cannot help but not be offended at reading the dialogue of this most recent manuscript that you have created in this imagination of yours!

Surely you must realize that your pen is but fantasy! For you write against the journals of those that bear witness that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God and whose lives testify as living witnesses having recorded it for posterity. You do not have enough lives in all eternity to pen enough fantasy to stand in opposition of living truth.

Although you and I are entitled to our own beliefs, and we certainly have them, do we not? What becomes evident physically is what will stand as truth. Can we agree on this? So let us be patient and love one another as we together continue to strengthen each other in our continued search for that truth which we both seek in that way which we trust.

For I am confident in that source that leads me daily to truth and light, for it is clear and unfailing in it's direction and it's answers to all things it has given me. I shall continue to follow that which has been sure for me and I trust that you shall do the same...
rtc

RTC,

Hello again my friend. Hope your having a blessed day.

I do appreciate your long post and I read through it all. I do wonder though how you discern from the truth and what is false. Joseph Smith wrote down this account about himself, but how do you know if this is true. Couldn't I just one day claim to have a vision and write it down? I'm sure millions of people would believe me because I claim to be a prophet of God. Should we just take anyone's story at truth regardless of any proof? Here's my point.

Joseph Smith could never prove his story regarding an angel named Moroni. He just told it. So, if I believed everything everyone told me, then I would believe in some crazy things. So what's the difference between J. Smith and the prophets of the Bible?

The prophecies of the true prophets of the Bible came true! God never intended for us to have "blind" faith. Why did Jesus perform miracles? So that they would believe in Him. Otherwise, He's just some crazy guy preaching and claiming to be God. Why did God bring the plagues upon Egypt and the Pharoah? So that they would believe in Him. Moses never told the Pharoah to just believe but that his God would show you signs to believe that he is real. So, anybody can write an elaborate story and claim they were visited by God or an angel from God. But you better be prepared to prove it, otherwise your followers will definately be considered to have "blind" faith, not true faith.

I do have one question. I know you believe that one day you will be a god. I know you believe that there are many gods. What would happen if one day God told you that there aren't any gods except for Him? Would you accept that? I mean if God really came down and told you that there are no other gods besides Him? Would you believe Him?

Concerned -

As per your request, I have done as you have asked me to do. I apologize to others for the length.

This account is taken from the Joseph Smith History, which is considered canonized scripture for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, so sacred is this account to the entire membership of the church.

The actual revelation that was received, given by Moroni is the first recorded revelation that is had and is contained in section two of the Doctrine and Covenants and bears one of the greatest witnesses that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God.

Thus, my personal emphasis on his age... I am truly in awe of the expanse that this revelation he was given covers, that he could have in no way known for many, many years to come. And even right up until his martyrdom did he most probably not have the entire full and complete vision.

This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ... literally.

The great work for the salvation of both the living and the dead is literally contained in the restoration of Malachi's great mission that Moroni was proclaiming in his vital message to Joseph. The keys for this work were returned in the Kirtland Temple on April 3 1836, I believe.

Temples are the great symbol of membership for all Latter-Day-Saints, as they bind families together for time and all eternity.

Pearl of Great Price
Joseph Smith - History
Chapter 1

Moroni appears to Joseph Smith—Joseph’s name is to be known for good and evil among all nations—Moroni tells him of the Book of Mormon and of the coming judgments of the Lord, and quotes many scriptures—The hiding place of the gold plates is revealed—Moroni continues to instruct the Prophet. (Verse 27-54.)
 
 27 I continued to pursue my common vocations in life until the twenty-first of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three, all the time suffering severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men, both religious and irreligious, because I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision.

  28 During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three—having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me—I was left to all kinds of temptations and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

  29 In consequence of these things, I often felt condemned for my weakness and imperfections; when, on the evening of the above-mentioned twenty-first of September, after I had retired to my bed for the night, I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God for forgiveness of all my sins and follies, and also for a manifestation to me, that I might know of my state and standing before him; for I had full confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation, as I previously had one.

  30 While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

  31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

  32 Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightening. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid, but the fear soon left me.

  33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

  34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

  35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted "seers" in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

  36 After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:

  37 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

  38 And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

  39 He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

  40 In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when “they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,” but soon would come.

  41 He also quoted the second chapter of Joel from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further stated that the fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. He quoted many other passages of scripture, and offered many explanations which cannot be mentioned here.

  42 Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it.

  43 After this communication, I saw the light in the room begin to gather immediately around the person of him who had been speaking to me, and it continued to do so until the room was again left dark, except just around him; when, instantly I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up into heaven, and he ascended till he entirely disappeared, and the room was left as it had been before this heavenly light had made its appearance.

  44 I lay musing on the singularity of the scene, and marveling greatly at what had been told to me by this extraordinary messenger; when, in the midst of my meditation I suddenly discovered that my room was again beginning to get lighted, and in an instant, as it were, the same heavenly messenger was again by my bedside.

  45 He commenced, and again related the very same things which he had done at his first visit, without the least variation; which having done, he informed me of great judgements which were coming upon the earth, with great desolations by sword, famine and pestilence; and that these grievous judgments would come on the earth in this generation. Having related these things, he again ascended as he had done before.

  46 By this time, so deep were the impressions made on my mind, that sleep had fled from my eyes, and I lay overwhelmed in astonishment at what I had both seen and heard. But what was my surprise when again I beheld the same messenger at my bedside, and heard him rehearse or repeat over again to me the same things as before; and added a caution to me, telling me that Satan would try to tempt me (in consequence of the indigent circumstances of my father’s family), to get the plates for the purpose of getting rich. This he forbade me, saying that I must have no other object in view in getting the plates but to glorify God, and must not be influenced by any other motive than that of building his kingdom; otherwise I could not get them.

  47 After this third visit, he again ascended into heaven as before, and I was again left to ponder on the strangeness of what I had just experienced; when almost immediately after the heavenly messenger had ascended from me for the third time, the cock crowed, and I found that day was approaching, so that our interviews must have occupied the whole of that night.

  48 I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything.

  49 The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received.

  50 I obeyed; I returned to my father in the field, and rehearsed the whole matter to him. He replied to me that it was of God, and told me to go and do as commanded by the messenger. I left the field, and went to the place where the messenger had told me the plates were deposited; and owing to the distinctness of the vision which I had had concerning it, I knew the place the instant that I arrived there.

  51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.

  52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

  53 I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for bringing them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates.

  54 Accordingly, as I had been commanded, I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews, respecting what the Lord was going to do, and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted in the last days.

Concerned - Just to emphasize the topic we are discussing on this thread, and that is about ASKING and FAITH in religion. I understand how believing in the types of mystical and mysterious winged angels you refer to often would be offensive. Frankly, when I think of that type of angel, it is a put off to me if others think of Moroni or the many angelic beings that I am familiar with in that way.

These things are not mystical to me at all, they are simply spiritual facts of which I feel blessed to have an understanding of as realities, so that I am not caught up in the things that you speak of... because I do understand where you are coming from.

Thank you for asking, and I really do like your straighforward style:-)

(you may go to lds.org and read more of the Joseph Smith History for his entire account)

RTC
We almost lost Amit, but through Faith Healing I was able to revive him, just barely.. And intensive prayer.

RTC wrote:
“I can receive personal answers to my own individual prayers and that is amazing. BUT, the living prophet SPEAKS to us collectively for OUR DAY. THIS IS AMAZING!”

Amit: I can call up sprits from the briny deep.
Shakespeare: But do they come when you call.
Amit: Once again, the “evidence” (sound of stifled laughter) that RTC cites is HER AMAZEMENT.
On this same evidence, Dorothy was convinced that the Wizard of Oz, whose real name was Gordon, did AMAZING things.

RTC (Amit asks): are you trying to parody yourself?

RTC says: “in this world of ours of so much confusion and turmoil etc….”

Amit: let us ask this question (Mr otterson advises us to question)

Don’t human beings look for certainty and answers in the face of “turmoil.” Isn’t there abundant “evidence” of that behavior pattern.

And isn’t this a pretty good explanation of why people believe in “God” – to give them a sense of certainty amidst the turmoil?

RTC says that LDS people have “less turmoil” than the population at large. Perhaps.

But do they have less turmoil than practicing Buddhists, who realize that there is no God.? I don’t think so.

Do they have less turmoil than the scientists in the American Academy who marvel at the wonders of the universe and know how to question in a mature way? I don’t think so.

RTC says: “All these things born witness of by the spirit and followed by a second witness in the actual consequences in living them”

Amit: If Mormonism works for you, great. Follow it. Just be prepared to do battle with people like me when you preach to the world that Gays are sinful if they have sex, and that women are made for a non-God role while men aren’t.

And do not expect me to take your truth claims about God or the Truth of Mormonism as anything other than a wish-fulfilment delusion that is pleasing to you.

And do not be surprised when I and my fellow Indians are incredulous that you base your metaphysics on the Story of a 14 year old treasure hunter who claims he had visions.

Smith's story is less credible than the stories of the many who claim to have taken trips in UFO's.

Hello RTC, my liege

I showed your reply to my friend Amit, an Indian who is a genius at spirituality and reason both.

He translated your reply in the following way.

RTC wrote “Joseph Smith's work stands alone as evidence that is it true.”

Translation: JS’s work is self-evidently true, like 2 + 2 = 4.

For example, when JS tell’s us
“I saw God in a vision”, that statement is self-evidently true, according to RTC.

(Sound of Amit laughing uncontrollably).

HENry again: Amit is temporarily incapacitated. I will need to get back to you after I give him first aid.

HJ -

My dear friend, Joseph Smith's work stands alone as evidence that is it true. To each and every dart that is aimed, as it has appearance of a bulls-eye, this work continues to roll forth with power. Where are the detractors of the past?

This will continue to be evidence in witnessing to the world that He is and was God's prophet of the restoration of the The Gospel of Jesus Christ as was founded when the Savior was upon the earth in the meridian of time.

Gordon B. Hinckley is His living prophet today and leads The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints with the authority necessary to administer salvation to all those desiring to come unto Christ.

In my life I have learned the realities of what it means to belong to a living Church, that is led by a "living prophet". One who receives revelation directly from The Lord Himself for the benefit of the children of God.

Yes, I can receive personal answers to my own individual prayers and that is amazing. BUT, the living prophet SPEAKS to us collectively for OUR DAY. THIS IS AMAZING!

We do not speak of what this means very much, but in this world of ours of so much confusion and turmoil, there is peace and unity and love, knowing that God still speaks to man on many many issues that concern the world, families, morality, etc...

In this he is constant and quite the watchman on the tower. This is very evident as is seen with the LDS people as a whole. In general those who "follow the prophet" seem to have less turmoil in regards to those things that plague the general population. NOT TO SAY, that we are immune.

I know better than that. BUT, not only is his guidance more direct, but the doctrinal teachings that they are founded in are what strengthen that ability to live them...

All these things born witness of by the spirit and followed by a second witness in the actual consequences in living them will continue to give the WORK of Joseph Smith POWER AS IT MOVES FORWARD.

Again... the benefits of ASKING the right question of the right source with a sincere desire to KNOW THE TRUTH:-)
rtc

Concerned -

As per you request, I have done as you have asked me to do. I apologize to others for the length.

This account is taken from the Joseph Smith History, which is considered canonized scripture for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, so sacred is this account to the entire membership of the church.

The actual revelation that was received, given by Moroni is the first recorded revelation that is had and is contained in section two of the Doctrine and Covenants and bears one of the greatest witnesses that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God.

Thus, my personal emphasis on his age... I am truly in awe of the expanse that this revelation he was given covers, that he could have in no way known for many, many years to come. And even right up until his martyrdom did he most probably not have the entire full and complete vision.

This is the Gospel of Jesus Christ... literally.

The great work for the salvation of both the living and the dead is literally contained in the restoration of Malachi's great mission that Moroni was proclaiming in his vital message to Joseph. The keys for this work were returned in the Kirtland Temple on April 3 1836, I believe.

Temples are the great symbol of membership for all Latter-Day-Saints, as they bind families together for time and all eternity.

Pearl of Great Price
Joseph Smith - History
Chapter 1

Moroni appears to Joseph Smith—Joseph’s name is to be known for good and evil among all nations—Moroni tells him of the Book of Mormon and of the coming judgments of the Lord, and quotes many scriptures—The hiding place of the gold plates is revealed—Moroni continues to instruct the Prophet. (Verse 27-54.)
 
 27 I continued to pursue my common vocations in life until the twenty-first of September, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three, all the time suffering severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men, both religious and irreligious, because I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision.

  28 During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three—having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me—I was left to all kinds of temptations and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

  29 In consequence of these things, I often felt condemned for my weakness and imperfections; when, on the evening of the above-mentioned twenty-first of September, after I had retired to my bed for the night, I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God for forgiveness of all my sins and follies, and also for a manifestation to me, that I might know of my state and standing before him; for I had full confidence in obtaining a divine manifestation, as I previously had one.

  30 While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

  31 He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrist; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.

  32 Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightening. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid, but the fear soon left me.

  33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

  34 He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

  35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted "seers" in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

  36 After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:

  37 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

  38 And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

  39 He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

  40 In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when “they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,” but soon would come.

  41 He also quoted the second chapter of Joel from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further stated that the fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. He quoted many other passages of scripture, and offered many explanations which cannot be mentioned here.

  42 Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed. While he was conversing with me about the plates, the vision was opened to my mind that I could see the place where the plates were deposited, and that so clearly and distinctly that I knew the place again when I visited it.

  43 After this communication, I saw the light in the room begin to gather immediately around the person of him who had been speaking to me, and it continued to do so until the room was again left dark, except just around him; when, instantly I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up into heaven, and he ascended till he entirely disappeared, and the room was left as it had been before this heavenly light had made its appearance.

  44 I lay musing on the singularity of the scene, and marveling greatly at what had been told to me by this extraordinary messenger; when, in the midst of my meditation I suddenly discovered that my room was again beginning to get lighted, and in an instant, as it were, the same heavenly messenger was again by my bedside.

  45 He commenced, and again related the very same things which he had done at his first visit, without the least variation; which having done, he informed me of great judgements which were coming upon the earth, with great desolations by sword, famine and pestilence; and that these grievous judgments would come on the earth in this generation. Having related these things, he again ascended as he had done before.

  46 By this time, so deep were the impressions made on my mind, that sleep had fled from my eyes, and I lay overwhelmed in astonishment at what I had both seen and heard. But what was my surprise when again I beheld the same messenger at my bedside, and heard him rehearse or repeat over again to me the same things as before; and added a caution to me, telling me that Satan would try to tempt me (in consequence of the indigent circumstances of my father’s family), to get the plates for the purpose of getting rich. This he forbade me, saying that I must have no other object in view in getting the plates but to glorify God, and must not be influenced by any other motive than that of building his kingdom; otherwise I could not get them.

  47 After this third visit, he again ascended into heaven as before, and I was again left to ponder on the strangeness of what I had just experienced; when almost immediately after the heavenly messenger had ascended from me for the third time, the cock crowed, and I found that day was approaching, so that our interviews must have occupied the whole of that night.

  48 I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything.

  49 The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received.

  50 I obeyed; I returned to my father in the field, and rehearsed the whole matter to him. He replied to me that it was of God, and told me to go and do as commanded by the messenger. I left the field, and went to the place where the messenger had told me the plates were deposited; and owing to the distinctness of the vision which I had had concerning it, I knew the place the instant that I arrived there.

  51 Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.

  52 Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

  53 I made an attempt to take them out, but was forbidden by the messenger, and was again informed that the time for bringing them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates.

  54 Accordingly, as I had been commanded, I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews, respecting what the Lord was going to do, and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted in the last days.

Concerned - Just to emphasize the topic we are discussing on this thread, and that is about ASKING and FAITH in religion. I understand how believing in the types of mystical and mysterious winged angels you refer to often would be offensive. Frankly, when I think of that type of angel, it is a put off to me if others think of Moroni or the many angelic beings that I am familiar with in that way.

These things are not mystical to me at all, they are simply spiritual facts of which I feel blessed to have an understanding of as realities, so that I am not caught up in the things that you speak of... because I do understand where you are coming from.

Thank you for asking, and I really do like your straighforward style:-)

(you may go to lds.org and read more of the Joseph Smith History for his entire account)

Do You Believe in Joseph Smith

I must admit,Concerned makes a fundamental point.

To believe in the "truth" of Mormonism

is

to believe the story of
1. a 14 year old boy (know any 14 year old boys?)
2. who changed that story 5 times over the next 20 years
3. who was locally famous for being a treasure hunter and a charlatan
4. who told us he saw God, Jesus, and a variety of angels.

In the 60's, lots of teenagers had similar experiences. We attributed them to LSD.

But people believe Smith based on the evidence that when they read the book the Angel directed him to, they get a Burning in their Chest.

I wish I were exaggerating.

My other brother (not William), and my sainted Mother all believed all of the above.

RTC,

Please copy and paste the multiple attestations confirming that Joe Smith really talked to and actually saw Moroni in any form. Again, using the words of a 1823 CE teenager/fortune teller as the basis of a religion is very, very disturbing.

Hi Concerned and David -

Glad you found me David, I figured you most likely would. But David, as much as I would like to continue having a conversation with both you and Concerned, the spirit that is whispering to me and that I have trusted for so many years, which I might add, has never led me astray, tells me that there is most likely not a thing that I could say to either one of you that would have the power to convey through the spirit that what I am saying, is what I do know to be the truth.

But, just to assure you, let me just say that I have been applying this truth to my life with faith, as well as teaching it to my children and others for almost 30 of my adult years now. I can testify to you that it is even more true, if that is possible, now than it was when I first prayed to know IF the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and did receive that confirming answer by the power of the Holy Ghost of, YES.

What I mean, is that with that YES, came the SURE KNOWLEDGE, that Joseph Smith, IS AND WAS God's living prophet on the earth at the time when that sacred book came forth to him through the angel Moroni, and he did translate it by the gift and power of God. I receive this powerful witness daily as I study it and apply its teachings in my life. It is filled with knowledge and wisdom far beyond mortal man, for it truly came from God. This is a repetitive witness that builds in strength and power.

Frankly I must agree with your assessment, in that there is a problem with reception somewhere along our communication lines, as there can only be one correct source. However, I do appreciate the energy that you have put forth in your rewiring efforts, but I assure you that I have had everything checked out and my wires are not only connecting, but receiving at full voltage:-)

For each item you listed, if I chose, we could spend much time repairing and rewiring for you. I have done that on other threads. I am an electrician and can do a pretty good job. But it takes much too much time away from other discussions, for which this thread is intended. Have you need of references? You may check the archives if necessary.

But also, for each of your Concerns, I could list at least 100 grand-slams to light up the stadium for you... with fireworks of course! But, I am sorry, Tinker-bell is NOT part of the show. lol (sorry, could not resist)

I realize folks enjoy focusing on the bad press. It is human nature I suppose, but I assure you that if an honest repair person were in your area that you could call upon, you would not have any problem getting things taken care of.

For so many of the Concerns that you have addressed doctrinally, modern revelation has shed wonderful light upon, which gives such beautiful understanding, to what now is often misunderstood or even believed to never have been taught by the Savior. So it is understandable that many might be uncomfortable with the doctrines of the LDS Church.

I hope I have not been offensive to either of you, as that has not been my intention. I do hope that you will spend some time over at mormon.org, for they have spent a great deal of time updating this site if you have not been there in a while. I think you may enjoy the information found there.
rtc

RFC,

It is all about attestations. Any other books or reports other than the Book of Mormon about the appearance of Moroni. Sept. 21, 1823 was a time for newspapers, reporters, artist renderings, and eye-witness accounts (other than "Boy" Smith). A single attestation by a teenage boy does not make for a good foundation of a religion. And the gold plates went where?

Hi RTC,

I see you have moved to a different thread. I saw that you posted a verse.

James 1: 5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Great verse I must say. It's wonderful that God would allow us to have wisdom simply by prayer. But there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. I see many LDS cite this verse as an explanation of why they believe in the LDS doctrines. Simply by prayer they have been shown the truth by the Spirit. Here lies the problem. You claim to KNOW that the LDS is true by prayer. This verse does not say that God will grant you the KNOWLEDGE if you ask Him. It is WISDOM. Here's the differnce between knowledge and wisdom. Should I pray to know if 1+1=2? Of course not, that is already in my knowledge. That we KNOW. Therefore that is knowledge. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. We KNOW that we must love one another. It is by wisdom that we enact upon our knowledge. So you may ask, how do we find true knowledge.

“believe not every spirit, but try [test] the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1).

So test the Spirit. If this Spirit tells you that you will be married to your earthly spouse in heaven, but then Jesus says in Matt 22 that you will not. Then you know that Spirit is of satan. And as we know by 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 satan will come as an angel of light. Also, I will remind you that in Acts 17:11 the Bereans were commended for testing Paul's preaching instead of just accepting it.Here's another verse as well.

Proverbs 14:12

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

I must ask you to find me a verse that says God will give us the knowledge through prayer if the Bible is correct or not. I assure you that through prayer it is wisdom we are granted. Knowledge is given to us by testing everything.

And it's through this testing that I have found the Book of Mormon to be false and no from God. I also (through testing) have found Joseph Smith to be false as well. Here's a couple of false prophecies that J. Smith and Brigham Young came up with.

Joseph Smith prophesied that the United States government would be overthrown in the 1800's. (History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1973, 5:394)

- Joseph Smith prophesied that the New Jerusalem would be built in Missouri within his generation. (Doctrine and Covenants 84:1-5)

- Brigham Young prophesied that the Civil War would fail to end black slavery. (Journal of Discourses, 1854-56, 10:250)

- Brigham Young said that the moon and the sun were inhabited. (Journal of Discourses, 13:271)

So what does the Bible say about those whose prophecies do not come true or are found to be false.

Deut 18:20-22

20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

So I have tested the LDS faith. I have found contradictions in the BOM within itself and the BOM contradicts the Bible. Also, obviously J. Smith and Brigham Young both were false prophets obviously since their prophecies never came true.

Now I have that knowledge that the LDS is a false teaching system that contradicts the Bible. I prayed to God for wisdom like is says in James 1:5 and God gave me the wisdom to enact upon my knowledge and share with you the TRUE Word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. I do hope that you too can see that you MUST test everything. I do, no matter what church I go to, I make sure all that they teach is biblical. Otherwise, I know it's not from God.

God bless

Concerned-

I am quite aware of the fact that you are no stranger to these threads, nor of the various discussions that are had among the many who do post.

So you most certainly should be aware of the principle of faith being necessary, in regards to angelic visitations, I would assume?

Now, what is most interesting to me personally about this particular angel Moroni, of which you are referring, is that Joseph Smith actually received the same appearance from this "man", not a winged person or fairy-like thingy as some imagine, four times in less than a 24 hour period.

And he repeated the very same information upon each of these visits almost word for word, so important was his message to this young prophet... this juvenile boy!

And then, this "Angel Moroni", who we later are informed by Joseph Smith, is a resurrected personage, continued four years consecutively, on this anniversary date, to visit this boy prophet at a particular location to instruct him in preparation for a future work to come forth.

As I stated in my post, of which you are commenting on, those who are invited to join the LDS Church are also invited to pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and are given a promise straight off the pages of this sacred record by none other than this Angelic visitor "Moroni", who himself hid up the record, to come forth in these last days.

It is Moroni that leaves his promise that God WILL testify to ALL those who ASK with a SINCERE desire to know IF the record of the Book of Mormon is true, and that God WILL MANIFEST the truth of it by the POWER of the HOLY GHOST, so that they will KNOW.

Speaking in relation to ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION... Is this not POWERFUL?

Lets see how Powerful this ONE ANSWER IS?

IF I ASK IN SINCERE PRAYER TO KNOW THAT THE BOOK OF MORMON IS THE WORD OF GOD AND THE SPIRIT CONFIRMS THAT IT IS TRUE!

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

1. It Came from God just as Joseph Smith testified that it did.

2. Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God.

3. Joseph Smith actually did see God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate individuals with bodies of flesh and bone, that were glorified and perfected, that he testifies now to the actual reality of these truths and reports that the doctrine of a trinity is false teaching.

4. The heavens are open and that God does speak to man today as in times past. That He is a very personal God who cares deeply about each of His children.

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints IS the same Church that Jesus Christ organized when he was upon the earth.

6. All necessary Priesthood authority and keys for administering the ordinances of salvation for the children of god are restored again and are now available in His church that has been restored through angelic administration.

7. That Elijah has returned!!! Families can be forever. Temples are covering the earth so that the family of god may secure themselves throughout eternity. The words temporal, sickness, pain, sorrow, terminal, death, depart, separate, over, apart, lonely, carnage, void, empty, lack, gone, end, over, abyss, hole, unknown, lost, confused, missing, displaced, astray, beyond, longing, needing, hoping, wishing, wanting, can't, no, haven't, maybe, some, out, few, hate, and suffering shall have no power.

8. Of course, lastly.... but I could go on and on... Moroni is not some wingy thingy flying dingy, but a resurrected personage who once lived upon the earth and was the last person who had a sacred stewardship over the records of The Book of Mormon, who's promise, IF sincerely sought for, WILL bring about the firm knowledge of so much more than even this, by the POWER of the HOLY GHOST, which is the greatest gift that God can give to man while upon this earth into eternity.

ASK... and it shall be given. All from this one question, sincerely requested by any person who desires to know truth.

The other part of the equation for receiving revelation is stewardship once RECEIVED. For there is ALWAYS a responsibility involved with the gift, as selfishness is NEVER allowed.

IF we do NOT do with the gift what is REQUIRED, then we find that the lines of recieving begin to have RECEPTION difficulty...
rtc

The concept of personal revelation allows those who have questions to approach God himself, and receive particular answers through the Holy Spirit. As a Latter Day Saint, I believe in the insufficiency of our current knowledge and that God has mountains truth about the nature of reality He would love to reveal to us. I believe in the need to ask the right questions, in the right spirit, and seek these answers with confidence in God.

“If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things—that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal.” (D&C 42: 61).

One of my favorite lessons in the Book of Mormon comes from the prophet Alma where he describes that Faith is like a seed which, when planted and nourished, will grow.

He's comparing the seed to "the word." I believe that what he means is the Gospel of Christ, or the set of principles that Christ asked us to live by. I've found in my life that if I live by these principles then I'm happier. I've found that through continued nourishment, the seed has sprouted and grown and these principles have made me a better man. That's how I know the principles are good.

The same is true for any set of principles. If you try them out and they make you a better person over time then they're good. This is not unique to mormonism.

The thing I love which is unique about the mormon church, however, is its insinstence that it has a living prophet on the earth. I love that. There are times in my life when I feel like I'm completely in tune with the Lord's will. But there are times when I'm not and I love the fact that the Church has a prophet through whom the Lord will speak when he needs to.

So what about questioning? A faith which prohibits or suppresses questioning turns its followers into unthinking followers. As a leader, I wouldn't ever want unthinking followers. I would want people who debate, challenge, ask questions and seek knowledge. The early School of the Prophets (a sort of "club" in the 1800s where Church members could go to talk about interesting doctrinal issues) was such an environment.

The mormon church is rich with interesting discussion topics, with its unique church history and very unique set of doctrines. They're fun to explore and to talk about. Not all members would agree and there is sometimes a cultural suppresion of these types of discussions. But more often than not, members of the mormon church relish these types of discussions--asking hard and interesting questions about our faith.

Frankly my objective in talking about this kind of stuff is entertainment and maybe a little insight. My faith is based on a seed I planted a long time ago which has grown significantly over time.

RTC:

So you actually believe in the angel Moroni? Where or where did Joe find this tinkerbell and where or where did he come up with the name? And how in Zeus' name can anyone in the 21st century believe in "pretty wingie thingies" invented by the Hittites and other ancients centuries before the birth of Christianity??

What does it mean to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints?

Just Ask.

The prophet Joseph Smith at the tender age of 14, had already learned the principle of study by faith when he came upon this passage of scripture in the Bible, which then opened the heavens and brought a revelation that revolutionized the world.

James 1: 5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Well, Joseph had a question that he wanted an answer to and so he asked the only person that he knew had the truth.

I would imagine that most members of the LDS Church, like myself, are the type that ask a lot of questions, contrary to what many outside of the church are often given to think. I believe that if more understood the beginnings of mormonism, they would realize that the LDS Church began with a "question".

Joseph Smith is known as The Master of asking questions and receiving answers. Therefore, his pattern is sought out by the LDS membership for the learning and understanding of how to receive personal revelation from The Source of all knowledge.

In fact, individuals are invited into membership of the church through the reading of The Book of Mormon, but it is through a promise found in the book that testifies of its truthfulness to be found ONLY through the asking and receiving by revelation unto knowledge.

Moroni 10:4

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

This is the only way a person can come to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and in that testimony also comes a second witness that Joseph Smith who translated it, is a true prophet of God, thus The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is the restored church of Jesus Christ upon the earth.

So, yes... we say question, and we most certainly do. I myself am so thankful for the gift of the Holy Ghost which allows me to question, and guides me daily in my personal search and discovery of truth.

I am grateful for Joseph Smith and living prophets today that encourage the members to seek knowledge for themselves by the spirit and to question and have all things confirmed by the spirit so that we are not deceived.

Ask and it shall be given, Seek and ye shall find, Knock and it shall be opened unto YOU.
rtc

If my religion depended on messages from mythical angels, I would have signficant doubts about my religion.

It turns out Mormonism ("angel" Moroni), Islam ("angel" Gabriel) and Christianity ("angels Gabriel and "no-name" dream talkers) serve as the "foundation"/conduits to God of said religions making faith in these faiths very troubling.

I like a quote I recently read that says:

"Only by questioning our beliefs can we prevent them from becoming dogma."

Certainly there are types of "questions" we can ask---some that build faith, and others that destroy. But far too often people believe something either because it's simply what they were taught, or it's the first thing they learned about a given subject.

But we need to really understand what our beliefs are, what they imply, and what history they have. Only then can our beliefs truly represent faith, for faith needs substance.

I like Elder Holland's call for faithfulness among parents (A Prayer for the Children, April 2003). Skepticism and cynicism among parents often leads to apostasy in children. He identifies the desire to be "clever or independent" as a motive for this sort of "intellectualism":

"Parents simply cannot flirt with skepticism or cynicism, then be surprised when their children expand that flirtation into full-blown romance. If in matters of faith and belief children are at risk of being swept downstream by this intellectual current or that cultural rapid, we as their parents must be more certain than ever to hold to anchored, unmistakable moorings clearly recognizable to those of our own household. It won’t help anyone if we go over the edge with them, explaining through the roar of the falls all the way down that we really did know the Church was true and that the keys of the priesthood really were lodged there but we just didn’t want to stifle anyone’s freedom to think otherwise."

"To lead a child (or anyone else!), even inadvertently, away from faithfulness, away from loyalty and bedrock belief simply because we want to be clever or independent is license no parent nor any other person has ever been given. In matters of religion a skeptical mind is not a higher manifestation of virtue than is a believing heart...."

I believe we have the right and obligation to ask questions, learn, and not follow blindly, but when we don't find answers to every question, there's a reason it's called "faith".

In a December 2006 devotional, Joseph Fielding McConkie said a young women asked him a question about the Old Testament, posed to her by her husband, that seemed to "challenge, not to build faith." He responded:

"The real question here is: If I had been able to answer each of the questions with which this man was challenging his wife, would it have accomplished anything more than require him to come up with more questions?

"The real question needing answering is: Why was he so anxious to discredit God and show the foolishness of scripture? Perhaps he ought be asked 'What commandment is it that you don’t want to keep?' or 'What blessings would you like to quit receiving?'"