["Mormon Doctrine" and Mormon doctrine]

There are many doctrinal truths contained within Mormon Doctrine, that is why it had been quoted from. But there are also opinions contained in it which did not accurately reflect the actual church teachings. This is where the conflict came in.

[Hosea and 13yr olds...]

Yes...I thought I would get snickers and giggles too... that would have been better than the crickets chirping that I did get.

It's always a challenge to find that "angle" that the kids will relate to and be interested in.

[How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???]

Sorry my mistake. I thought he was considered a prophet and thus incapable of writing falsehoods. I too think he was wrong a lot.

I, for one, will not say that Brigham Young was wrong, as all of LDS doctrine can be found in the Bible whether in whole or in part, but it took a restoration for the correct meaning to be found.

Because God warned us there would be those who would take His true word (part or all of it) and twist it. 2 Peter 3:15 "and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures". Just because "some things hard to understand" for sure doesn't mean it's wrong.

17 "You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked"

That's a pretty clear warning of what some will do to God's word. So we would be wise to "rightly divide the word of truth"

God did warn us, as did the apostles, because it was already happening. A rift was forming and the further away from the death of the savior, the greater the rift became.

Well He sure cared when those tried to add tradition to His word; Mark 7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Again, did Jesus think the scriptures "didn't line up"?

Well I don't know how you understand this passage, but Jesus was absolutely stating that the scriptures did not line up with how the religous leaders were teaching them. The scriptures stated one thing but the Saducees and Pharisees had taken the word of God and interjected their own understandings/traditions. Remember, there had not been a prophet for hundreds of years so they had wandered away from the true meaning of the scriptures.

I just think our view of the scriptures should be the same as Jesus, the prophets and the apostles.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward Your holy temple,

And praise Your name

For Your lovingkindness and Your truth;

For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.

2 Timothy 3:16-17. I would quote it again but.....

All scripture is indeed given by inspiration, but that did not stop the prevailing religious leaders from altering their meaning...just as had been done after the death of the apostles.

It would take up a lot of time and space on this board to answer all your objections and these guys would do it much better than I and even if I did then for sure there would be more objections and more verses so it would likely be never ending. This site answers hundreds of supposed problems/contradictions from Genesis to Revelation.

Yours are in there.

God bless.

I am not sure how well you know the organization that you have linked to for answers to questions about discrepancies in the Bible, but I have read through that link and most if not all "answers" don't really add up. They either guess or simply do not fully address the discrepancy they were trying to answer. There are simply too many holes to consider them as answers.

[Hosea and 13yr olds...]

I just (tried to) teach Hosea to a class of 13yr olds.

Hosea uses a comparison of Hosea and his adulterous wife Gomer to the Lord and Israel.

For some reason, comparisons and similitudes are lost on that age group, at least the ones I had.

Lots of glassy eyes and lost looks

[How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???]

After the resurrection the souls of those (who put their trust in the Savior) in the part of Hades that was Abrahams bosom or Paradise, according to 2 Cor. 5:8 and Phil. 1:21-23 and Rev. 6:9 are now in the presence of God. Do you have teaching that shows otherwise?

I looked up those references but am not seeing how you connected the dots to arrive at your conclusion. Perhaps your foundation of understanding is different than mine so that I don't follow your reasoning?

Revelation 20 gives the timeframe in which the dead shall be released from Paradise or Hell.

Yes it seems for 3 days He was in Paradise, then was resurrected, Paradise then is taken into God's presence.

Now Christ, being God, is omnipresent, so even though He is showing His resurrected humanity to the disciples, in His divinity He is everywhere.

I am unable to find a reference that states or implies that Paradise has been taken into God's presence.

To clarify, children or those incapable of understanding, I believe God will not hold accountable. Although just because someone hasn't heard the name Jesus doesn't mean they don't need to respond in faith to the revelation that they have been given. Romans chapter one says God has given us knowledge of Him, even "made it plain" "so that men are WITHOUT excuse". This doesn't sound like they never had opportunity;

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, <snip>

You make it sound as if everyone is born with an instinctive knowledge or understanding of Christ - to which I disagree. I think you take these verses out of context, because in verse 18, it is very clear who he it talking about: those men "who hold the truth in unrighteousness". Obviously those that have never heard the truth would not be included in there.

We do believe that all who are born on earth have been given the "light of Christ", which is the ability to discern good from evil. Some may call this one's concience, but that is for another topic.

We have gone way off topic though.

I agree, we have gone way off topic so I will leave it at that.

[How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???]

Fly,

please let me clarify, in Luke 16:22-26, Jesus said the rich man and Lazarus both went to the place of the dead (Hades). The righteous and the wicked are separated by a "great gulf fixed". The blessed dead are in that part of Hades called "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22) or "paradise" (Luke 23:43) (those of the faith of Abraham, which would include David). This was before Christs' resurrection. They were not permitted to enter into the presence of God in heaven until after the atonement. Jesus, upon His death, descended to Abraham's bosom, proclaimed the gospel, and then led its residents into heaven.

Paul said in 2 Cor. 5:8 "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord". Also see Phil 1:21-23. Those who were in Hades (the place of torment for those without faith) will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15) These are the final, eternal destinations of all people—based entirely on whether or not a person trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation at the time of ones death. (Hebrews 9:27)

So yes, David didn't stay in the grave (Sheol, Hades, Hell) but after the resurrection your spirit either goes into the Lord's presence forever or out of it forever.

Well I can see how that interpretation can be arrived at, but Abraham's Bosom or Paradise is not Heaven or the presence of God.

Remember that Christ told the thief on the cross that today thou shalt be with me in Paradise, however 3 days later upon His resurrection, He clearly states He has not yet ascended to His Father. So where He went in those 3 days that is called Paradise, but is not the presence of the Father.

The place He went to, Paradise/Abraham's Bosom/Hades/Spirit Prison, is a temporary place where those who die go to to await final judgment. While they are there, for those who were good, whether they were Jewish or not, or a believer or not, it would be a Paradise and would be taught the gospel. For those who were wicked, it will be a prison of sorts or a hell. They too will be taugth the gospel.

Your outlook on someone going to hell or not based on if they trusted in Jesus by the time of their death seems quite harsh, since there have been millions if not billions of people who have lived on this earth without ever having an opportunity to even hear the name of Jesus let alone trust in Him...that just doesn't make any sense.

No one affiliated with the true church will be in Hell.

I beg to differ. Just because someone is affiliated with the true church does not mean they are righteous(Judas).

The gates of Hell only let souls in, not out.

The gates of Hell (the power of Satan or of unbelievers) shall not prevail (overcome) the church. Ever.

The gates of hell, or death, shall not prevail, because the atonement of Christ has overcome death, both physical and spiritual.

[How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???]

Fly,

Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more.

No one going to Hades is coming out.

This is ironic, because if that is true, the gates of hell have definately prevailed.

Luke 16:22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.

As believers Paul said 2 Cor. 5:8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him (Jesus) is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

King David tells us that it is possible to leave hell:

Psalms 16

10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

[How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???]

Recreating!!!!! ???? Ahh so the gates of Hell really did prevail against Christs church. (Math. 16:18)

What exactly was Jesus saying in this scriptural passage?

This is an analysis of this verse, given by a poster on another forum, which I think lays out the meaning very well:

" Many of our fellow Christians have great difficulty accepting the concept of a great or total apostasy of the church. They look to Matthew 16:13-18 as proof that Christ’s church could not go into total apostasy. They believe that if an apostasy took place then the gates of hell has prevailed against the church.

“When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, Who do people say that the Son of Man is? They replied, Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them, But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter said in reply, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:13-18)

The first mistake made is when they fail to realize is the word translated as hell comes from the Greek word “Hades” which means place of departed souls. It is not derived from the Greek word “Gehenna” which means place of everlasting punishment. They err in confusing the two terms.

“Hell. In the Old Testament, this is the word generally, and unfortunately, used by our translators to render the Hebrew, Sheol. It really means the place of the dead, the unseen world, without deciding whether it be the place of misery or of happiness … In the New Testament, "hell" is the translation of two words, Hades and Gehenna. The word Hades, like Sheol sometimes means merely "the grave", Act_2:31; 1Co_15:55; Rev_20:13, or in general, "the unseen world". It is in this sense that the creeds say of our Lord, "He went down into hell," meaning the state of the dead in general, without any restriction of happiness or misery” (F.N. Peloubet, D.D., ed., “Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary”, Philadelphia, PA: The John C. Winston Company, [1947], pg. 247 )

What Christ was saying is that the gates will be opened allowing the souls of our departed dead to exit. As will be illustrated in a few moments, Christ will take the keys and opened the gates and let the dead return to life in the Kingdom of God our Father.

““86 ᾅδης hadēs hah'-dace From G1 (as a negative particle) and 1492; properly unseen, i.e., “Hades” or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave, hell.” (James Strong, “Strong’s Dictionary of the Greek Testament”, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg. 8 )

1067 γέεννα geenna gheh'-en-nah of Hebrew origin ([1516] and [H2011]); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell.” (James Strong, “Strong’s Dictionary of the Greek Testament”, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg. 20)

The second mistake made is when they fail to realize that gates are stationary. They cannot attack; they can only be defended.

“May his towns be protected with iron gates, And may he always live secure.” (Deuteronomy 33:25)

And because gates are the weakest part of a fortification, they are heavily defended.

“And he commanded them, saying, This is the thing that ye shall do; A third part of you that enter in on the sabbath shall even be keepers of the watch of the king's house; And a third part shall be at the gate of Sur; and a third part at the gate behind the guard: so shall ye keep the watch of the house, that it be not broken down. And two parts of all you that go forth on the sabbath, even they shall keep the watch of the house of the LORD about the king." (2 Kings 11:5-7)

Sometimes, as heavily guarded as they are, gates are still not adequate to withstand the determination of a single servant of the Lord. The gates of the Philistines city of Gaza did not prevail against Samson. This is an exceptional example, of what Christ meant.

“And it was told the Gazites, saying, Samson is come hither. And they compassed him in, and laid wait for him all night in the gate of the city, and were quiet all the night, saying, In the morning, when it is day, we shall kill him. And Samson lay till midnight, and arose at midnight, and took the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and went away with them, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carried them up to the top of an hill that is before Hebron.” (Judges 16:2-3)

Normally, for the gates to fall they would need to come under repeated attacks. Between attacks there would be times where the attacker fell back and regrouped. It was during such a regrouping that King David was told that Uriah the Hittite was dead.

“Then Joab sent and told David all the things concerning the war; And charged the messenger, saying, When thou hast made an end of telling the matters of the war unto the king, And if so be that the king's wrath arise, and he say unto thee, Wherefore approached ye so nigh unto the city when ye did fight? knew ye not that they would shoot from the wall? Who smote Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? did not a woman cast a piece of a millstone upon him from the wall, that he died in Thebez? why went ye nigh the wall? then say thou, Thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also. So the messenger went, and came and shewed David all that Joab had sent him for. And the messenger said unto David, Surely the men prevailed against us, and came out unto us into the field, and we were upon them even unto the entering of the gate. And the shooters shot from off the wall upon thy servants; and some of the king's servants be dead, and thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.” (2 Samuel 11:18-24)

To conquer a city the attacking army sometimes tried to burn the gates. This was easier than breaking down or scaling walls.

“Thus saith the LORD of hosts; The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken, and her high gates shall be burned with fire; and the people shall labour in vain, and the folk in the fire, and they shall be weary.” (Jeremiah 51:58)

The gates sometime were felt to be so impregnable that only the promise of God’s help made it worthwhile to attack them. Look at the promise made to king Cyrus founder of the Persian Empire.

“Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron” (Isaiah 45:1-2)

Such is the promise made to Peter in Matthew 16:17-18. Jesus buttressed the principle of revelation in these verses. John had a testimony of the divinity of Jesus Christ, not because of his own studies or from the influences of other people but because God had revealed to him. Like the promise to King Cyrus, Jesus promised his church would be built upon this principle of revelation and the gates of hell will be destroyed because of it.

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17-18)

After his death and subsequent resurrection, Jesus revealed to John that He, Christ, now had the keys to the gates of hell.

“I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of eath.” (Revelation 1:18)

“I'm Alive. I died, but I came to life, and my life is now forever. See these keys in my hand? They open and lock Death's doors, they open and lock Hell's gates.” (Revelation 1:18-The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language)

Through modern revelation we know that it is the members of the church who will enter Hades to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and liberate the spirits of men held captive.

“And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them; But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:29-31)

So, when it is the appropriate time, the gates of hell will not prevail. Like the sea and death, hell will be unlocked and forced to give up its dead.

“And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.” (Revelation 20:13)

And the sea gave up the dead, the [ones] in it, and death and the realm of the dead [Gr. hades] gave up the dead, the [ones] in them. And they were judged, each one according to their works.” (Revelation 20:13-ALT)

(Upon This Rock Will I Build My Church - Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board)

[Gift of the Holy Ghost]

Something else to consider:

The translation of the Bible was done by those that may not have known the difference between the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" and a manifestation of the Holy Ghost. So in my mind, when the scriptures say "on the gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost", it could very well mean a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, or "gifts from the Holy Ghost".

I have nothing to back that up with, but was a thought I had on the subject.

[How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???]

Yes I agree, if something is required but taught that it's not that is a false teaching.

A truth that is lost (until corrected) to the one doing the interpreting but that doesn't at all make the translation flawed.

I agree. But without knowing a truth is lost, it cannot be corrected.

Understood, so far as we are discusing interpretation.

Right, so far we are only discussing interpretation.

Now as far as translation, what meanings are lost? Which verses are you refering to that the translators altered just enough to get only half the meaning intended? This is huge!

I made that statement as a general statement on translating. I had no specific verses in mind. However, if you wanted an exemple of verses where meaning was lost, I would direct you to the JST. The JST is to put meaning back in where it was lost, it is not an attempt to re-translate text.

Fly I would submit that if I'm a translator my job is to get the words correct and I believe the words in the Bible are correct. Jesus told us "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away". (Math. 24:35)

If the words are correct then we have the word of God. That is all I'm trying to show here.

Understanding the culture the word was penned in gives us better interpretation as we study the translation.

Getting the words correct is only half the battle for a translator. The meaning has to be there too.

The english language is rife with words and expressions that can mean something other than the obvious: hot, cold, bad, good, yeah right, etc. There are also words that can be interchangable with other words, but the meaning is somewhat different - a thesauraus is full of them. I am no student of greek or hebrew, but I have read where the word translated as "perfect" as used in Matthew 5:48, can also mean "complete". Now I can see how both those words can be used, but "complete" brings different connatations than "perfect" does.

[How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???]

Hi Fly,

Yes I have read more than a few commentaries from opposing sides on the Comma Johanneum. Not being any kind of an expert my thought is, set it to the side.

My belief in the Trinity wasn't and isn't based on any single verse of scripture and I personally don't use it when defending the Trinity so as not to head down rabbit trails.

I am blessed to have five Bibles in my house and each one of them has a note in them saying "only five late manuscripts contain these words."

I don't believe it changes or adds to any teaching not already firmly taught in scripture, therefore my thought, if in dispute, set it to the side.

Yes I totally understand "there are many disagreements, from one faith to another, on what the scriptures actually teach". This is not the scriptures fault. John 3:5 was correctly quoted by you and is God's word; that there are different interpretations of that verse doesn't mean the verse was altered or in error, it just means there are different interpretations. Some may be what God intended some may not. That is why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. (John 16:13)

To better understand your point; could you tell me what plain and precious thing or meaning was lost or removed from the John 3:5 that you quoted.

John 3:5 was a simple example. The point I was making is that if indeed baptism is required to enter the kingdom of God, and there are denominations that teach that it is not, then that is a big missing piece, would you agree? If there is an error in interpretation that takes away the intended meaning, then that is a truth that is lost...a plain and precious truth.

Baptism is just one example. Other things that I can think of off the top of my head are:

1) Trinity/Godhead (Nature of God)

2) Pre-mortal existance

3) Preisthood authority

4) Grace/Works

5) Plan of Salvation

6) Prophets & Apostles

7) Apostacy/restoration

...just to name a few.

Each one of these things have references in the scriptures that support our understanding of them, but have been interpreted in a different direction by mainstream christianity.

Any time there is a translation from one language to another, there are meanings that are lost - sometimes it is only slight nuances, other times it is altered just enough to get only half the meaning intended. There may be cultural references that are lost on the translators. Sure they may get the words correct, but the meaning is only superficial.

[How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???]

. . .

If the Bible has the many mistakes and discrepancies in it as is claimed then it has no credibility. Why would it commend the Bereans in Acts 17:11 for searching it to see if what Paul said was true? Or was that verse a mistake or added? What basis would we have for testing the spirits to see if they are of God (1 John 4:1)? Or was that verse a mistake or added too?

We say we don't question the originals but we don't have the originals, so I guess we must believe the spirit that best stirs our heart because the Bible may be wrong because of it's many mistakes and discrepancies so therefore Jim Jones could right or maybe it's the Hindus. Are we really saved by grace through faith or was that added?

I have a Kirby vaccum I am putting together after being left in my closet for years. The original assembly instructions are gone but were, I'm told, hand copied by various people.

Upon receiving a copy of the instructions I find mistakes and discrepancies, missing pages and false instructions. Now what? Guess I'll just have to figure it out myself. This is the slippery slope.

I know this is major drama and I know you don't believe this but I'm trying to make the point.

I am no way a scholar or any kind of an expert in textual criticism. That being said, I do understand in the countless translations, spelling and errors in grammer occur, but I would ask; What doctrines have been changed or lost when compared with the abundance of early manuscripts, codices and fragments that we have today?

Missing texts???

What false interpretations are you referring to?

Hi Soninme, I know I am late to this thread and have not read it from start to finish, so if what I have to say has already been brought up, please forgive me.

An example of something that crept into the bible is the Comma Johanneum.

Also, I would like to state that "mistranslations" do not only involve incorrect word usage, but incorrect meanings assigned to the words.

For example, all the correct words may be present in a translation, but the meanings assigned to them are mis-translated. For instance, in the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3:5, and Jesus states: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God", we take the phrase of "born of water" to mean "Baptized", where as other Christians take it to mean physical birth.

There is a case to be made for both usages, but one makes baptism required to enter the kingdom of God, while the other does not.

As you may already know or have seen, there are many disagreements, from one faith to another, on what the scriptures actually teach, and it is because of the plain and precious things that have been removed. These plain and precious things aren't always words, but meanings too.

We LDS see no contradictions between our teachings and the Bible, just as I am sure that other Christian denominations that disagree with us, see no contradictions in their teachings and the bible.

[? about wearing temple clothes in public.]

There is no law against wearing temple clothes outside the temple. I think people do it as a "poke in the eye" of the church.

I believe that those who would do such a thing try to get a reaction from members by taking those things that are held most sacred, and defiling them.

It just reinforces, for me, that we should not give that which is sacred unto the dogs, niether cast pearls before swine...

(note: I am not calling anyone a dog or swine)

[Surprising quote in the Ensign about long hair.]

I think the important part is to be neat and clean. If you keep your hair nicely combed, beard neatly trimmed there is no problem. Remember...cleanliness is next to godliness...

I have seen women who put a lot of time into their hair, only to look like they had driven down the freeway with their head out the window....leaves me scratching my head.

Neat and clean goes for everyone, not just guys with long hair and beards.

[questions from an investigator]

Hi. I've been reading this forum with interest for awhile and finally worked up the nerve to post. I'll just get to the point with my questions:

1) If I go to church, will they keep trying to get me to come back?

Most likely, while there, you will be greeted and introduced to a few people. You will get a freindly invite back in the form of: "Hope to see you again", or "Come back any time", or something like that. You won't be mobbed or agressively pursued to come back.

1a) If I go to services, will people be offended if I don't go to Sunday school? Bible reading is not part of my religious past and I think I need to work up to it.

Absolutely not! We/they would be glad that you came to visit at all. I would suggest doing only what you are comfortable with. I must say, though, that one does not need to be a bible scholar to get something from Sunday school, it is geared towards all levels of understanding.

1b) What if I only want to go to church once a month or so? I just don't see a need to go every week and wonder what is the percentage of Mormons who actually go every week?

Obviously you would be invited to attend every week, but come and go as you please.

2) What if you never get a temple recommend - can you still get married, that is, will people want to marry someone who can't go to the temple? I am still struggling with the idea of tithing and can see that as a big block to a full conversion and a temple recommend.

You can still get married without a temple recommend, just not in the temple. There are some people to absolutely require a temple marriage and others do not. Now of course we would prefer everyone get married in the temple.

3) I'm not sure how to put this, and I'm not trying to put anyone down who is more emotional about this than I am, but do people convert because of an intellectual decision that Mormonism is right for them, or that they agree with most of the practices?

People convert because of all different reasons, intellectual ones included. Hopefully there will be something spiritual behind or besides, as religion is faith based.

Let's just say that my job requires a high degree of intellectualism. I'm published in my field. I don't do much that isn't based in the intellect. I pray, but for someone to tell me to 'pray on it' isn't going to fly with me when it comes to finding answers. I don't think that it's wrong or disingenuous to engage in an intellectual investigation into a belief system.

Part of our instructions to everyone is to study it out in your mind. See if it makes sense. Ask questions, and finally ask the Lord(pray).

Now because religion is faith based, pure intellectualism will only go so far. Hopefully along he way of intellectual investigation, you can leave room for faith.

So, does anyone know of converts who came to Mormonism after a thorough investigation, perhaps accepting the tenets of the church, rather than 100% belief in them? Do you see the difference I'm getting at?

Though I can't name anyone personally, I would hope that all converts do a thourough investigation. For some people it "clicks" quickly, and for others it takes detailed study.

Well, I hope I haven't turned everyone off. Thanks in advance for any replies.

Not at all. Always happy to answer what I can.

[Faith without works]

If by "don't walk" you mean "don't love God and don't love others" faith without works is dead; or was never alive to begin with.

Saving faith will produce fruit, some hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty, some ???

I will leave that up to Him.

Is there more than one kind of faith? It sounds like you are saying there is an "introductory" faith, and then there is also a "saving" faith.

The introductory faith is what initially brings one to Christ, but if there are no works that follow, then that faith is not the saving faith, as saving faith will always produce good works.

LDS have always maintained that faith and works go hand in hand.

If one has truly received Christ then one is truly saved.

Then the logical question would be: How can one know if they have "truly" received Christ? Is it when good works begin?

If we don't love God and love others then no, we will not abide in His love.

Praise be to the Father and the Son! 1 John 1:6-9 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If, or should I say when, we fall short, stumble, error, screw up, mess up, or whatever word for sin we choose, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.1 John 2:1

I agree. We must practice the truth and walk in the light.

Again, I am not saying the commandments (loving God and loving others) aren't neccessary. I'm saying what Ephesians 2:8-10 says; For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Saved by grace through faith to do good works, not the other way around.

I agree if we abide in Christ then we are doing the good works "which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them".

To be completely honest, everytime I participate in a discussion about "saved by faith/works/grace, I always come away believing that the two sides have more in common than there are differences.

I believe that though we may use the same terms, we apply different meanings to them, and then when we try to overlay one position on top of the other, we try to do it by the terms used instead of what is actually meant by those terms, and it is very easy to talk past one another.

[ニーファイのように (We'll bring the world his truth)]

Just as a side note, the title of the song in Japanese is "Nephi no yo ni", which is to say: "Like Nephi" or "As Nephi (did)".

I wish I had the rest of the song to read, it is a beautiful song.

[Faith without works]

John 15:4-5 Jesus said; "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.

"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.

I believe we are all clear that faith in Christ comes first. No work (production of fruit) can be done without saving faith.

Once we place our (true) faith in Christ then He empowers us to walk the walk.

It's all Him and not me.

He empowers you to walk the walk, but what if you don't walk? Is one still saved without walking the walk? I get the feeling that what you refer to as "saving faith" includes works, or production of fruit.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Love fullfills the commandments.

The scripture does not say that He made them sons of God, but that "to them gave he power to become sons of God".

John 15:10-13 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

"These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.

"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

Notice the conditional "IF" at the front of this? In this IF-THEN structure, if the first part is not done, does the second part happen anyway?

1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

Romans 13:9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

If keeping His commandments are necessary for being or staying saved then ask yourself; "Do I do these every time?

If I strive to keep the commandments but fall short, is there no way to rectify this? Is there no means given by which sin can be cleansed.

If keeping the commandments are not neccessary then they are not commandments at all, but merely suggestions or a good idea.

This is why I know it's all about Him and not me, if being or staying saved has anything to do with my works then I have a reason to boast.

This is a very confusing part for me...Commandments are given, but they are optional.

Saving faith produces works or fruit, but if the fruit is not there, then....what?

It is the grace of God that gives our works any type of value, so we still have no room to boast.

[Faith without works]

I see Romans chapter 3 as telling us that no one (except Christ of course) keeps the commandments;...

Romans 3 is part of a larger sermon that is addressing Jews and gentiles and there being no advantage(profit) of being a Jew over being a gentile, as God will render to all men according to their works.

The Jews had the Law of Moses, but salvation does not come thru the Law of Moses. It comes thru Christ.

Romans 8 does a good job explaining that to be "in" Christ, we must walk by the spirit. To WALK in the spirit means action, deeds, works if you will....not the works of the law of Moses, but in obedience to the word of the Lord.

We are saved by grace through faith. James goes to great lengths to make sure we know faith without works is dead, and it is in fact our works that perfects our faith.

The rich young man had enough faith to seek Jesus and ask what is needed for eternal life, but his faith was not perfected by his works, by not doing as he was told by Jesus.

Works are not what saves us, but they must be present for our faith to be complete.

[Faith without works]

Hello Carl,

My understanding (I'm not LDS) of Luke 18:18-20 and also Mathew 19:16-26 is not that Jesus was telling the young man that obedience to the ten commandments is the way to enter eternal life, that is law, not gospel.

Before showing him the way to eternal life, Jesus wanted to show him, and us, the righteous standard required by God and the total futility of seeking salvation by his own merits.

No one, except Christ, can keep the commandments (Math. 19:17) yet this self-righteous young man wouldn't admit his sin.

The commandments (the law) show us how sinful we are (Galatians 3:24) then knowing our depravity we fall at the feet of Christ and He saves us, not because we have kept the commandments or done other good works (Titus 3:5) but only because we believe. Genesis 15:6 And he (Abram) believed in the Lord and He accounted it to him as righteousness.(also Gal. 3:6) (James 2:23)

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Clearly our works don't save us nor do they keep us saved.

As for James he begins with the testing of our faith (1:3) and that faith is a gift (1: 17-18)

He is saying there is a faith that isn't really a faith but dead and does not save, one that is just a mental assent to the facts about Christ like the demons have. (2:19)

James isn't contrasting two methods of salvation (faith versus works) instead he contrasts two kinds of faith; one that is a living faith that saves and a dead faith, or "said faith" that doesn't.

Living faith produces works, dead faith, or a "said faith" doesn't.

Our works, or lack of, show our faith but we are not saved by them.

Isaiah 64:5-7

5 You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness,

Who remembers You in Your ways.

You are indeed angry, for we have sinned—

In these ways we continue;

And we need to be saved.

6 But we are all like an unclean thing,

And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;

We all fade as a leaf,

And our iniquities, like the wind,

Have taken us away.

7 And there is no one who calls on Your name,

Who stirs himself up to take hold of You;

For You have hidden Your face from us,

And have consumed us because of our iniquities.

Jesus and the apostles are all in agreement.

I look at that incident with the rich man in a slightly different light...

When the rich man asked what he must do to gain eternal life, the first thing Jesus asked about was obedience. Not if he was perfect, but did he keep the commandments. Once it was established that he keeps the commandments, Jesus then asked him to exercise his faith and give up all his riches and follow Him.

If his faith was true, like that of his Apostles, the young man would have done it.

The young man had faith in the law, not in Christ. The young man followed the law, keeping the commandments, but did not have faith in Christ as he did not do as Christ asked. He sought eternal life, but his actions showed he did not believe Jesus could give it.

As James said, faith without works is dead, and dead faith, cannot save, being alone.

As for the Isaiah passage, do not try and project that universally. Isaiah was talking to an apostate Israel who thought they were safe because they were still performing sacrifice, and that their works alone would keep them in good standing with the Lord.

The good works of the faithful are not as filthy rags, but are pleasing to the Lord. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

The Lord would not tell us to put our filthy rags forward for all to see, and who would glorify God because of them?

[Trinity]

I've asked some LDS on this forum, do you believe the Godhead is 3 Gods or 1 God and some have said both. That can be confusing, how is it possible to see both?

M.

There are 3 Gods in the Godhead. The members of the Godhead function as one, being one in purpose and testimony, under the direction of the Father.

The Godhead is a single organizational unit and is referred to as The One God.

This is the same concept as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, each being God individually yet there only being one God becase they share the same substance. Think of the Godhead as being the substance

[Trinity]

No problem.

No, if I convert, it will be because I believe in the LDS faith. However I find that the Trinity and the Godhead are more similar than either side admits, especially when we get past the polemics and assumptions. I also think the difficulty in discussions on the Trinity lies with it being surrounded by philosophical terms that most people aren't familiar with, especially the word "being".

I have always thought that the Trinity and the Godhead are very similar, and it is mainly the vocabulary that holds the differences.

Godhead = 3 distinct persons each individually God = 3 Gods

Trinity = 3 distinct persons each individually God = 1 God...?

To me, that seems like a forced definition, but essentially the same thing.

[Tostitos fiesta bowl]

Both teams defense kept the other team's offense in check. Loved the game, and I would say either of those teams can play with any other BCS team and win.

[College Football]

MWC is 4 - 0 in this year's bowl games...TCU can make it a clean sweep!

[Poinsettia Bowl]

I root for teams by geography. I live closest to BYU, so I root for them first. Then Utah, then the MWC. I hope the MWC teams win all the bowl games they are involved with.