harrypotter

Hi can you help me i am doing a psychology experiment into why some people believe in the Lds faith and others don't and why some believe in God while others don't and what benfits come from their believe. Would you mind answering the following questiions, you may be brief in your answers if you wish to quote sources just let me have the source rather that typing it out. If you wish to remain anomous you can email answers to [email protected] Thankyou in advance for your participation. Questions What is YOUR opinion of Joseph Smith and the other Book of Mormon witnesses. What have you read or heard which has influenced your opinion How would you explain the the book of Mormon as evidence of the Lds faith How many times have you read the book of Mormon Did you pray about it How often do you pray a day Do your present believes or traditions restrict your believe in some thing? What do you not believe in In your own words describe faith and it's meaning Why do you believe in your current faith. ie; parents,personal experience etc. How often do you go to church Do you eat a balanced diet Do you smoke drink or take drugs How often do you excerise Do you take part in any form of mental excerise word puzzles etc.

This is an articale from the contributor magazine which i love. It starts of with a scripture in matt 23'16 the Savoiur is describing what will happen in the last days to his Apostles. Anyhow i will let you read it cause i can't say it any better, annoyed with myself for selling my original this is of gospelink. SIGNS OF CHRIST'S COMING. III. A PROPHET. "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be."—Matt., xxiv, 37. "And God saw that the wickedness of men had become great in the earth, and every man was lifted up in the imagination of the thought of his heart, being only evil continually. And it came to pass that Noah continued his preaching unto the people, saying, Hearken and give heed unto my words, believe and repent of your sins, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers did, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things manifest; and if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you."—Pearl of Great Price. FROM the first of the foregoing passages we can readily understand that a prophet was to be raised up in some period of the world's history—subsequent to Christ's first and antecedent to His second coming, whose duty should be to herald His near approach, by warnings and predictions similar to those recorded in the second passage at the head of this article. In view of these facts we will proceed to carefully investigate the claims of the Latter-day Saints to the divinity of Joseph Smith's mission, and establish the correctness of the principles taught by him, and thereby point out to those seeking after truth the third "leaf on the fig tree." The prophets of the Old and New Testaments declared that there should be an apostacy, and in article one of this series we left no doubt but it had taken place; nor do we stand alone in this belief, for many eminent divines admit the fact and thereby support our testimony. In article two we gave abundant proof of the "Restoration," both as to time and purpose; it will now devolve upon us to establish the agency which God ordained should be used in bringing about His purposes, and which forms the subject matter of this article, and the point at issue. Comparing the reformations of Christianity with the pattern laid down in the New Testament, we are forced to the conclusion that neither in manner, agency, or effect do they in any way relate to the event which Jesus predicted should be precursive of His second advent. We are therefore led, in the discussion of the divinity of Joseph Smith's mission, to proceed interrogatively at first, and afterwards by cogent reasoning endeavor to prove him a prophet sent of God. Why should not Joseph Smith be the instrument in the hands of God to restore the "everlasting Gospel" to the earth? Is it because of his low estate? Peter, James and John were fishermen; Matthew a tax-gatherer; Paul a tent maker; and many others who were called of God to perform an important work were equally plebian in their vocations. And by this precedent modern as well as ancient Pharisees are prevented from preferring their claims to Divine favor through high estate. Was it because he was evil spoken of and persecuted? Christ's own words would help to establish his authority: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for their's is the kingdom of heaven; blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Matt., v: 10—12. Was it because he suffered an ignominious death? Christ and His Apostles suffered the same to establish their testimony, and it was accounted unto them for righteousness. We will now proceed to adduce and examine cogent reasons in support of our claim to Joseph Smith being that prophet that should be raised up as was Noah. First. The institution he founded perfectly resembles the New Testament, which is an accepted record of the Church of Christ, as to its organization, laws, officers, ordinances, etc., and the whole world, for over fifty years, have been ruthlessly assailing its principles, in the vain endeavor to overthrow and bring to naught its purposes; and although their efforts have been untiring and their zeal worthy of a better cause, they stand as monuments of a ruined hope, and their failure and chagrin characterizes their opposition and marks how baseless are their pretentions, and adds to the growth of the cause they have so vainly endeavored to suppress. Second. He commenced on a proper foundation, viz., the "Rock of Revelation,"—"And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," etc. Matt., xvi: 18. Upon close examination we discover that upon Jesus interrogating His Apostles as to His true character, and the answer from Peter that He was Christ, the Son of the living God—being revealed from the Father—his reply decides a question of great moment: "I say also unto thee, thou art Peter;" or by the same power that you are enabled to assert I am Christ I also assert that you are Peter, and upon this "rock," or power, or communication with God, will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is almost needless to say that it could not be upon Peter that He built His Church, for a short time after the gates of hell did prevail against him and overcame him. Third. He said he received it from an angel. As the restoration of the everlasting Gospel was to be brought about through this agency (Rev., xiv: 6), if he had received it in any other way, he would thereby have rendered futile any claims he may have set up to being a true prophet. The keys of the kingdom having been given to Peter, who was thereby constituted Christ's vicegerent upon the earth, the transmission of that power and authority by Peter to another would of necessity create him his legal successor upon the earth, with power to establish and maintain, to bind and to loose, and to wield such prerogatives as revelations from heaven may from time to time bestow upon him. And as neither Scripture nor profane history records the fact that Peter ever delegated this authority to any one else, the claim of Joseph Smith, that the angel Peter bestowed the keys of the kingdom upon him, remains an undisputed fact, so far as proof being brought to bear upon its overthrow. Fourth. Daniel, ii: 34, 35, declares that the restoration of the Gospel shall be as "a stone cut out of the mountains without hands," small at first, but eventually becoming a great mountain, should fill the whole earth. The Church established by Joseph Smith on April 6, 1830, now numbers about one hundred and seventy-five thousand, having, in the short space of about fifty years, grown to such proportions as to excite the whole world to dispute its claims to being the true Church of Christ, and its merits and pretended demerits are being discussed in every nation under heaven, notwithstanding the first few years of its existence it was considered so small and insignificant as to be unworthy of notice, except by the rabble, whom envy, rapine and murder had made fit instruments to oppose truth and immortalize the words of Tertullian, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." Fifth. The mission of Joseph Smith includes the gathering of Israel and restoration of the Jews; and as all Bible students are well acquainted with the predictions of the servants of God relating to this subject, we will omit its discussion here and introduce it at a more opportune moment. Sixth. The bringing forth of the Book of Mormon—the "stick of Joseph"—and uniting it to the "stick of Judah"—the Bible—and making them one in the Lord's hand (Ezek., xxxvii) to establish His kingdom and roll on His righteous purposes, is another addendum to the array of evidence in support of Joseph Smith's claim to being a prophet of God. Seventh. His calling was according to law. "No man taketh this honor unto himself (of officiating in things pertaining to God) except he be called of God as was Aaron."—Heb., v. Therefore no man can legally officiate except he be called by revelation from God as was Aaron. Exodus, iv: 14. And as the Old and New Testaments are generally accepted as our guide in all matters pertaining to God's dealings with His people anciently, we have diligently searched its pages, and failed to find where any man ever officiated legally in things pertaining to God without being called in this way. Many, like Paul, taught and preached in the Jewish synagogues, and exercised many prerogatives belonging to the Church, but authority to officiate in the more weighty matters of the kingdom was given only in the way prescribed by God's law. When the Holy Ghost said to James, Cephas and John, who were "pillars in the Church" (Gal., ii: 9), "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (Acts, xiii), then the authority was conferred upon them by the laying on of hands, and being sent away, their acts were recognized by God, and Elymas the sorcerer was stricken blind for perverting the right ways of the Lord, the cripple was healed at Lystra, devils were cast out, and many and varied were the manifestations of the power of God through His legally appointed servants. But prior to their being sent, they were content to testify to the workings of the Spirit which had been bestowed upon them at their initiation into the kingdom of God. Eighth. The promises made by Jesus (John, vii: 17) are realized through the ministrations of the servants of God today as they were formerly, as many thousands are ready and willing to testify, and supported by this testimony the Church grows and renews its strength daily for greater efforts, which are to advance God's purposes, till the "will of God is done on earth as it is done in heaven." Ninth. Many prophecies of Joseph Smith have been literally fulfilled, prominent among which may be mentioned the war of 1861—which was published in 1832—the Saints to remove to the Rocky Mountains, his own death, the Church never to cease to prevail, etc., which go far to constitute him a prophet of God, as he was a true prophet, which even his enemies are compelled, though very reluctantly, to confess. In reviewing the foregoing we discover from the text that God would, prior to the second advent of Christ, raise up a prophet like unto Noah, who should warn the people of the near approach of God's judgments, and open up a way of escape. And as the apostacy has been fully proven, and the restoration declared by John (Rev., xiv: 6), the world awaits the event predicted, and stands ready to apply the test of comparing the institutions of man, claiming to be the Church of God, with the New Testament, and as all fail and are found wanting when placed in the Scripture balances, we are forced to the conclusion that during seventeen hundred and fifty years the Church of God was not on the earth. In A. D. 1830 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Staints was founded by Joseph Smith, whose claim to being a prophet is based upon the following facts: that the Church perfectly resembles its prototype in organization and object; that it is built upon the only sure foundation—the rock of revelation; that it was restored by an angel, as John saw it in a vision; that it was small at first, as a little stone, but is now progressing to a great mountain that will eventually fill the whole earth; that in embracing the gathering of Israel, restoration of the Jews and bringing forth of the Book of Mormon it literally fulfils the predictions of the ancient prophets; that Joseph Smith received his authority from God by revelation, and the promises he made, that the gifts and knowledge of the truth should be enjoyed by the faithful, have been and are being realized; and that the literal fulfilment of his own predictions entitle him to the name of a true prophet, and combined with his other qualifications, no doubt can, or ought to exist in the minds of honest people as to his being sent of God. In conclusion, his fidelity to the trust reposed in him, and his sterling integrity—never flinching from trials of cruel mockings and scourgings, but ever valiant in defense of truth—not even "counting his life dear to himself, that he might finish his course with joy, and the ministry which he had received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God," cannot but create in the minds of thinking people serious reflections, and cause them to opine him no ordinary man, the inconsistent and false accusations of his enemies to the contrary notwithstanding, and establish in the hearts of his followers the fact that he was a prophet of God, sent to open the door of life and salvation to a benighted world, and to warn them of God's judgments, that will speedily overtake the wicked except they believe and repent of their sins, and be baptized for the remission of the same, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, that by faithful adherence to its teachings, they may be made recipients of the blessings which flow from God, while here, and partakers of the blessings awaiting the faithful hereafter. Robt. S. Spence.

THE CALLING OF MOSES. II IT is difficult to decide whether Moses enjoyed his education while the Institute was in its flourishing condition, or while it approached its corruption; there is no doubt, however, but that it commenced to decline, if we may judge from a few less commendable artifices, resorted to by the Hebrew lawgiver. But the spirit of its founder had not yet altogether disappeared, and the doctrine of the unity of the Creator still rewarded the initiated. This doctrine which had, as its inevitable consequence, the most decided contempt for idolatry, in connection with the doctrine of the immortality, from which it could hardly be separated, was that rich treasure which the young Hebrew obtained from the mysteries of Isis. He was at the same time herein made familiar with physics, which formed a part of the secret sciences, and it was this knowledge which subsequently enabled him to work miracles, and in presence of Pharaoh, to compete with his own teachers, or the magicians, whom he in some instances excelled. His early life shows that he was an apt and attentive scholar, and that he in intuitive power, and as a seer, had reached the highest degree attainable. In this school he gathered a real treasure in hieroglyphics, mysterious figures and ceremonies, which his ingenious spirit afterwards made use of. He had gone through the entire category of Egyptian wisdom, made himself thoroughly familiar with the system of the priests, its defects and advantages, carefully compared its weakness and strength, and closely investigated the form of government of these people. It is not known how long he remained in the school of the priests, but his subsequent political career, in which he first appeared in his eightieth year, makes us infer that during twenty years or more he applied himself to the study of the mysteries and the policy of the state. His sojourn among the priests seems not in the least to have prevented him from associating with his own people, and he had ample opportunity to witness the nameless misery they endured. The Egyptian education had not robbed him of his patriotic sentiment. The illtreatment of his people reminded him that he also was a Hebrew, and a feeling of just indignation filled his heart whenever he witnessed their suffering. The more he himself commenced to feel, the more he rebelled against the unworthy treatment of his people. At one time he saw one of the Hebrews brutally beaten by an Egyptian overseer, and this so enraged him, that he killed the Egyptian. The rumor of this deed soon spread, and his life being in danger, he was bound to flee from Egypt, and seek refuge in the Arabian desert. Many assert that this flight occurred in his eightieth year, but without proofs. It is enough for us to know that he could no longer be young at this period. With this exile commences a new epoch of his life, and if we desire to form a correct opinion of his future political career in Egypt, we must accompany him in his solitude in Arabia. He brought with him into the Arabian wilderness a burning hatred towards the oppressors of his people, and all the knowledge that he had obtained from the mysteries. His mind was full of ideas and projects, his heart full of bitterness, and no one to divert his thoughts in those immeasurable wilds, void of human beings. He is said to have tended the sheep of an Arabian Bedouin, Jethro. How deep a fall from all his glorious prospects in Egypt to a simple shepherd in Arabia! From a future ruler of nations, to become a hireling to a nomad! How deeply this must have wounded his soul! Under the plain attire of a simple swain, he carries the ardent soul of a commander—a restless ambition. In this romantic wilderness, where the present has nothing to offer him, he finds relief in the past and future, and is entertained by his own quiet thoughts. All the scenes of oppression, which he had witnessed, now passed in review before him, and no softening influence prevented their stinging deep into his heart. Nothing is more unendurable to a great soul than to suffer injustice; and in this instance it still more aggravated him, as it was his own people who suffered. A noble pride awakened in his bosom; a passionate desire to press forward, and to act, is coupled to this wounded pride. All that which has taken him long years to accomplish, all his achievements and beautiful plans, must all perish with him in this wilderness! Has he then thought and labored in vain? This very thought is unendurable to his fiery soul. But he will not succumb to this seeming inevitable fate; this wilderness shall not be the final limit to his activity; the great being, whom he learned to know in the mysteries, has surely intended him for something extraordinary. In his quietude and loneliness his imagination is spurred by what touches nearest his heart, the interest of his oppressed people. Similar sentiments seek each other, and the unhappy will, as a matter of choice, side with misfortune. In Egypt he would be an Egyptian, a hierophant, a general. In Arabia he is a Hebrew. Grand and glorious is the idea, as it rises above all other considerations "I will deliver this people." But how could it be possible to accomplish this undertaking? Insurmountable obstacles rise up before him, and those which he had to combat among his own people were by far the most difficult of them all. There can be found neither unity nor confidence, neither selfwill nor courage, neither public spirit nor enthusiasm, to spur them to action; a long and oppressive slavery, a misery during four long centuries, have thoroughly destroyed those sentiments. The people whom he should deliver were no more capable than worthy of such an enterprise. He could expect nothing from this people themselves, and still he can do nothing without them. What course could he then pursue? Before he undertook their deliverance, he must make them capable of this success. He must replace them in possession of those human rights and privileges which they had lost. He must restore to them these attributes which a long estrangement has destroyed in them; that is, he must awaken within them hope, confidence, heroism, enthusiasm, etc. But these sentiments could only rest upon a feeling (whether true or false) of independent power, and how should the slaves of the Egyptians ever be able to acquire such a faculty? Suppose even that he succeeded, through his eloquence, to persuade them for a time, would not this enthusiasm, thus artificially produced, give way at the first approach of danger? Would they not relapse into their former diffidence and become still more abject than before? Here comes the Egyptian priest and statesman in timely aid to the Hebrew. From his Mysteries, from his ecclesiastical school at Heliopolis, he remembers the effective agency, through which a small order of priests would control millions of ignorant men and women. This agency is nothing more nor less than an implicit confidence in supernatural protection, faith in supernatural power. Now, as he cannot discover anything in this mundane sphere, in the natural order of things, by which he can produce courage in the hearts of his countrymen, he directs their attention towards heaven. And as he cannot hope to inspire them with confidence in their own strength, he must bring them under the guidance of a god possessing such power. Should he thus succeed in infusing into their minds a feeling of confidence in this god, then he has made them strong and dauntless, and the confidence in this higher power is the flame that shall kindle all other virtues and powers. If he only can prove himself to his brethren the legitimate representative of this god, then they are at his command in every way, and he can lead them wherever he pleases. But now arises the question, which god shall Moses represent, and how shall he prevail upon them to place implicit faith and confidence in him? Shall he proclaim the only true god, Jao or Jehova, the one that he learned to know in the Mysteries? How could he confide the most sacred truth, the inheritance of only a few Egyptian wise men to a slavish rabble, when to comprehend such truth requires a high degree of intelligence and mental culture? How could he flatter himself with the hope that the out cast of Egypt can understand that which the choicest of the land can but partially appreciate? But suppose even that he should succeed in imparting to the Hebrews a knowledge of the true god, it would be of no advantage to them in their present situation, and their accepting this deity would sooner destroy than promote his project. The true god took no more interest in the Hebrews than in any other people. The true god could not fight their battles, and could not suspend the laws of nature for their special accommodation. Had he not allowed them to fight their own battles with the Egyptians during four hundred years without interfering by miracle, or any other manifestation of his power, in their behalf, how could they then place their hope or confidence in him? Shall he proclaim a fabulous god, contrary to his own judgment, and whom the Mysteries have taught him to despise? His mind is too enlightened and his heart too noble to allow him such treacherous proceedings. He will not make a falsehood the foundation of his noble deed. The enthusiasm which now animates him would not lend its fire to sustain a deception, and such a contemptible character, so opposed to his conviction, would soon rob him of courage, joy and perseverance, and land him in helpless misery. He wants his kind act in favor of his people to be a grand success; he will not only make them independent, he will make them happy and enlightened. He will make the foundation of his work to stand forever. It must, then, be founded on principles of truth—not upon deception. But how can he harmonize these contradictions? He cannot present before them the true god, because they are unable to comprehend him; he will not announce a fabled deity, because this is contrary to his own conviction. He has, then no other choice than to proclaim his own true god in a fabulous manner. Now he tries his religion of reason, to ascertain what he must give and take in order to secure a successful issue among the Hebrews. He places himself in their situation, in their contracted sphere, spying into their souls to discover, if possible, those secret sympathies concealed there, by which he might connect his great truths. Consequently he attaches to his god those peculiar attributes which the comprehension of the Hebrews, and their present demands, require. He adapts his Jao to the people to whom he desires to introduce him; he adapts him to the circumstances under which he brings him to their notice, and thus originates his Jehova. His people have certainly got faith in divine things, but this faith is degenerated into the most degrading superstition. This superstition he must destroy, but preserve the faith, and only turn it away from its unworthy object and direct it towards his true god. The superstition itself furnishes him with means for this purpose. According to the general fancy of these times, each people stood under the special protection of a national deity, and it gratified the native pride to place this deity over the gods of all other people, as the greatest and mightiest of them all. They did not deny them (the gods of others) their divine character, but they must not be exalted above the national god. And Moses used this delusion as the foundation for his truth. He made the original deity of the Mysteries the national god of the Hebrews, but he went still further. He was not satisfied by only making this national deity the mightiest of all other gods, but he made him the only one and overthrew all the rest. He gave him to the Hebrews as their own, in order to adapt him to their imagination, but he placed him also over all other people and all the powers of nature. Thus he saved in the image, in which he presented him before the Hebrews, the two most important attributes of his true god, unity and omnipotence, and made them more effective under this human garb. The vain, childish pride, in desiring to possess an independent deity, must now serve the interest of truth in securing the acceptance of his doctrine. It is indeed an uncertain faith, by which he intends to replace the old one, but this new faith is certainly much nearer the truth than the one he will supplant; and it is in reality by adding this seeming deception that he secures the best success of his truth; and it is through this foreseen misapprehension of his doctrine that this gain is secured. What use would a philosophical deity have been to the Hebrews? With this national god, however, he can accomplish wonders. Let us for a moment imagine ourselves in the place of the Hebrews. Ignorant, as they are, they measure the power of the gods according to the success of the people placed under their protection. Neglected and oppressed by men, the Hebrews believe themselves at the same time forgotten by the gods; and they conclude that in the same relation in which they stand to the Egyptians in the same ratio must their god stand to those of the Egyptians; he must be a small light in comparison, or they doubt, in reality, if they have any god at all. All at once it was proclaimed to them that they also had a protector above the starry vault, and that this protector has awakened out of his long slumber and is prepared to perform great things among their enemies. This divine announcement is like the call of a commander to gather under his triumphant banners. If this commander now gives proofs of his power, or if they recognize him from old, then will the enthusiasm fill the most fainthearted with courage, and even this advantage was brought into account by Moses in his future plans. The conversation which he had with the apparition in the burning bush, causes us the same doubt which Moses himself entertains, as well as the manner in which he has answered the same. Will my unhappy people place implicit confidence in a god who so long has neglected them, and who now so suddenly claims their attention, whose name they have not even heard pronounced, and who, for centuries has been a dumb spectator of their misery and woe heaped upon them by their heartless oppressors? Will they not sooner consider the god of their fortunate enemies as the mightiest? These were the urgent considerations that filled the heart of the new prophet. In what manner, however, does he meet these scruples? He makes his Jao the god of their forefathers, and links him to their old legends, and thus metamorphosed into a native deity, he is looked upon as a familiar god of old. But to show that he means the only true God, to prevent any confounding whatever, with any other image of a superstitious character, and to avoid all possible misapprehension, Moses gives him that very name by which he is known in the mysteries. I am the same forever Say to the people Israel, so sayeth the Lord, he has sent me to you. To the ignorant Hebrews, however, this name must sound unfamiliar. It must be impossible for them thereby to form any conception, and Moses would certainly have achieved more by any other name; but he would sooner face this inconvenience than to give up an idea upon which so much depended, and this was to make the Hebrews acquainted with that same God represented in the mysteries of Isis. As it is pretty certain that the Egyptian mysteries had already been demoralized when Jehovah appeared to Moses in the burning bush, it is a striking fact that He gives him that particular name by which he was known before in the mysteries of Isis. But it is not sufficient that Jehovah appeared before the Hebrews as a god of old, as a god of their forefathers; He must also prove Himself a god of superior power to claim their confidence; and this was the more necessary because they had not learned to entertain a very high opinion of Him as their protector, on account of their misfortunes in Egypt. If Moses, then, would justify his calling, he must support it with great and wonderful deeds. And we need have no doubt but what he has performed these wonders; but how, and in what way we are to view them we will leave to our readers to reflect upon. The communication in which Moses conveys his calling, has all the requirements necessary to secure the faith and confidence of the Hebrews, and this was all for which it was calculated. We know, for instance, that it is immaterial to the Creator of the world when He should conclude to appear to a human being in fire or in wind, whether He was approached by uncovered feet or not. Moses, however, puts this command into the mouth of his Jehovah to take the shoes off his feet, while he stood upon holy ground; because Moses knew very well that by such an outward token of respect, he strengthened the impression of divine holiness among the Hebrews; one of his experiences in the initiation of the mysteries. And thus he, no doubt, took into consideration that, for instance, his awkward manner of speech would be a drawback to him—consequently he provided against this inconvenience—he brings this objection into his communication, and Jehovah must come to his rescue. And only when his many scruples have been allayed, he accepts his calling. In this manner he adds importance to the divine mandate, and makes it more impressive upon the minds of his people. That these and similar precautions were necessary, we have no reason to doubt, and that Moses fully realized the importance of securing, in every way possible, the confidence of the Israelites, upon which depended his entire success. Taking everything into consideration, what was really the plan which Moses so carefully studied out in the Arabian Desert? He desired to lead the Israelites out of Egypt to freedom and independence, and to give them a free constitution and a country exclusively their own. But while he knew the many obstacles and difficulties which he had to contend with; while he knew that he could not count upon the individual strength of this people, until they acquired confidence in themselves, courage, hope and enthusiasm; while he foresaw that his efforts and all his persuasion would have no effect upon the slavish disposition of the Hebrews, he realizes that he must place them under supernatural protection, and gather them under the standard of a divine commander. He gives them a god in order, in the first place, to deliver them out of Egypt; but this is not enough, as he must secure to them another country in place of the one he takes away from them; and while they must first conquer the other country with armed force, and then maintain themselves therein, it is the more necessary for him to keep them united in one body politic, and to do this, he must provide them with suitable laws and a constitution. But as a priest and a statesman, he is fully convinced that the strongest and most essential pillar of any and all political combinations is religion; that God, therefore, whom he gave them for their deliverance from Egypt as only a commander-in-chief, must also be employed in their legislation; he must therefore introduce Him in accordance with the manner in which he intends to employ Him. But for founding the state and for legislative purposes he must have the true God, because as he himself is a great and noble human soul, he will not have a falsehood as the foundation for a work that is to last forever. He will make the Hebrews happy, and for ever happy, through the arrangement which he has intended for them, and this is only possible by making truth and justice the foundation of his legislation. But their power of comprehension is, however, yet too insipid, too blunt, for this truth; he cannot therefore bring it to them through the legitimate way of reason. And while he cannot convince them by argument, he must persuade and bribe them. He must therefore equip the god whom he has introduced to them with attributes adapted and commendable to their feeble conceptions; he must apply to him the outward garb of a heathen, and feel satisfied when the people approach him accordingly. By this he secures a very great advantage—that the foundation of his legislation is true and need not be torn down by any future reformer, which, however, is the inevitable consequence with all false religions when brought under the touch of reason. All other states at this and subsequent times were founded upon error, deception and idolatry, although, as we have seen, there was in Egypt a small society of people who entertained correct ideas concerning the highest being. Moses, who belonged to this society to whom he is indebted for his knowledge of the true God, is the first one who dared not only proclaim these secret results of the mysteries publicly, but makes them the foundation of an entire state. He is consequently looked upon by the world and posterity as a traitor to the mysteries, while he imparts to an entire nation a truth which was orginally the exclusive possession of a few wise men, or seers. He could not, however, impart to the Hebrews, in connection with the new religion, the understanding necessary to comprehend it, and in this the Egyptian seers had a great advantage over them. The seers acknowledged the truth through their reason; the Hebrews could at best but blindly believe it. This brief outline has been drawn in accordance with the ideas of the above mentioned writers, and although the Latter-day Saints have a higher and purer knowledge, from an inspired source, of this wonderful dispensation, it may still be interesting to some to see how the world has been taught to look upon Moses and his works in Egypt. I look back with awe and wonder upon those solemn scenes, that draw our sympathies back into the very night of time, before Troy, before Memphis; scenes full of sadness and woe, sighing a faint echo across the placid waters of the imperial Nile. J. S. A once famous quack doctor headed his advertisement: "Ho! all ye dyspeptics!" That's just what dyspeptics won't do. If they would all hoe vigorously, they would not need any other medicine. Well....not exactly. You see, Deists don't have any beliefs. We know that we don't know (because it's not possible), and we know that you don't know either. That's the sum of the argument. ←

I have just started doing lessons out of one of the earlier ces mannuals called achieving indiviual spirituality. The first lesson is on following the counsel of the brethren, I found it really interesting as i though about the counsel we are given and the amount we choose to follow. An example would be Pres. Hinckley's advice to read the BOM i do think a majority of saints have taken up that challenge without to much murmuring and i myself didn't murmur, but then an interesting thing happened my girlfriend told me Pres. Hinckley had asked for all YSA to be involved with Institue and i was like i can't do that i am to busy it's to far to go and so on and without realising it i began to murmur like Laman i guess. Anyhow this first lesson talks like i said about the safety that is in following counsel. It talks about Noahs day and about those who didn't heed counsel and the results of that.It also talks about the church system and how each of us have spiritual advisors in our Bishops and Stake presidents and about the counsel they give us. I though it would be interesting to compare the counsel we recieve from our leaders. What was the last bit of counsel given to you in a ward meeting did you take it in. At our last priesthood meeting our Stake president tolds us to be careful about how mush time we spend on the internet and cell-phones and instant messaging he told us to iradicate anything than was distructive to the spirit of the Lord from our lives. I also found this artical quite interesting i found it and read it some years ago and will try and find it again and cut and paste it. Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet by President Ezra Taft Benson Introduction President Ezra Taft Benson is President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of THE CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints and has served in that council for nearly thirty-five years. He was serving as Washington, D.C., stake president when first called to the Council of the Twelve in October 1943. A former missionary to the British Isles, he has twice served as president of the European Mission, the first time immediately following the end of World War II. President Benson has served on the Idaho Cooperative Council, as executive secretary of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, and as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture for eight years under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He is now a member of the National Advisory Board of the Boy Scouts of America and holds Scouting's highest council, regional, and national awards. He graduated with honors from Brigham Young University and received his master's degree in agricultural economics from Iowa State University, later doing further graduate work at the University of California. He has received a total of eleven honorary degrees. President Benson is married to Flora Smith Amussen. They have six children and thirty-three grandchildren. This devotional address was given in the Marriott Center at Brigham Young University on 26 February 1980. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My beloved brothers and sisters, I am honored to be in your presence today. You students are a part of a choice young generation--a generation which might well witness the return of our Lord. Not only is the Church growing in numbers today, it is growing in faithfulness and, even more important, our young generation, as a group, is even more faithful than the older generation. God has reserved you for the eleventh hour--the great and dreadful day of the Lord. It will be your responsibility not only to help bear off the kingdom of God triumphantly but to save your own soul and strive to save those of your family and to honor the principles of our inspired constitution. To help you pass the crucial tests which lie ahead I am going to give you today several facets of a grand key which, if you will honor them, will crown you with God's glory and bring you out victorious in spite of Satan's fury. Soon we will be honoring our prophet on his eighty-fifth birthday. As a Church we sing the song, "We Thank Thee, O God, For a Prophet." Here then is the grand key: follow the prophet. And here now are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet, the President of THE CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything. In section 132, verse 7, of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord speaks of the Prophet--the President--and says: "There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom his power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred." Then in section 21, verses 4-6, the Lord states: Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you. Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to "give heed unto all his words"--as if from the Lord's "own mouth." Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works. President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith: I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtiand in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: "You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them." When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, "Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of old. " Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now," said he, "when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books." That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth." [in Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18-19) Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. The living prophet has the power of TNT. By that I mean "Todays News Today." God's revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore, the most important prophet, so far as you and I are concerned, is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore, the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each week in the Church Section of the Deseret News, and any words of the prophet contained each month in our Church magazines. Our marching orders for each six months are found in the general conference addresses, which are printed in the Ensign magazine. I am so grateful that the current conference report is studied as part of one of your religion classes--the course entitied "Teachings of the Living Prophets," number 333. May I commend that class to you, and suggest that you get a copy of the class manual at your bookstore, whether you're able to take the class or not. The manual is entitled "Living Prophets for a Living Church." Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence. Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray. President Wilford Woodruff stated: "I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God." (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.) President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident, which happened to him: I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." [in Conference Report, October 1), p. 78] Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven't yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate in any subject, but as someone said, "A prophet may not have his Ph.D. but he certainly has his LDS." We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you'll be blessed and time will vindicate you. Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture. Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you" (D&C 21:4). And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: "Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed". Said Brigham Young, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot], 13:95). Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know. "Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear," complained Nephi's brethren. But Nephi answered by saying, "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center" (1 Nephi 16:1, 3). Or, to put it in another prophet's words, "Hit pigeons flutter." Said President Harold B. Lee: You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life.... Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow.... Let's keep our eye on the President of the Church. [in Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152-153) But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. "Even in the Church," said President Kimball, "many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterday's prophets and mentally stone the living ones" (Instructor, 95:257). Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or mind their own business. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on. How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness. Said President Marion G. Romney, "It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets." And then he gives this illustration: One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, "Why did you come to America?" "I am here because a prophet of God told me to come." "Who was the prophet;" I continued. "Wilford Woodruff." "Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?" "Yes, I do." "Do you believe that President Joseph F. Smith was a prophet of God?" "Yes, sir." Then came the sixty-four dollar question. "Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?"His answer, "I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old age assistance." Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living Prophet of God." [in Conference Report, April 1953, p. 125] Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning. There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and the reasoning of men--between the prophet and the politician or professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith, "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire" (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173). Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay, and applying it to the man's eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6-7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river? Yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kings 5.) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. [isaiah 55:8,9] Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter--temporal or spiritual. Said Brigham Young: Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs... . In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, "Ye Elders of Israel.... will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the Kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?" Not one of them could do it.... I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be. [Journal of Discourses, 10:363-364] Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters. When a people are righteous they want the best to lead them in government. Alma was the head of the Church and of the government in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo, and Brigham Young was governor of Utah. Isaiah was deeply involved in giving counsel on political matters and of his words the Lord Himself said, "Great are the words of Isaiah" (3 Nephi 23:1). Those who would remove prophets from politics would take God out of government. Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich. The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them; otherwise, the prophet is just giving his opinion--speaking as a man. The rich may feel they have no need to take counsel of a lowly prophet. In the Book of Mormon we read: O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches--yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them. [2 Nephi 9:28,29,42] Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly. As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words, but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the worldly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as if the prophet didn't exist, rather than repent of their sins. Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or cast out. As we come closer to the Lord's second coming, you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them. Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church. In the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord refers to the First Presidency as "the highest council of the Church" (107:80) and says, "whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those....the First Presidency, whom I have sent" (112:20). Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer. President Harold B. Lee relates this incident from Church history: The story is told in the early days of the Church--particularly, I think, at Kirtland--where some of the leading brethren in the presiding councils of the Church met secretly and tried to scheme as to how they could get rid of the Prophet Joseph's leadership. They made the mistake of inviting Brigham Young to one of these secret meetings. He rebuked them, after he had heard the purpose of their meeting. This is part of what he said: "You cannot destroy the appointment of a prophet of God, but you can cut the thread that binds you to the prophet of God and sink yourselves to hell." [in Conference Report, April 1963, p. 81] In a general conference of the Church President N. Eldon Tanner stated: The Prophet spoke out clearly on Friday moming, telling us what our responsibilities are... .A man said to me after that, "You know, there are people in our state who believe in following the Prophet in everything they think is right, but when it is something they think isn't right, and it doesn't appeal to them, then that's different." He said, "Then they become their own prophet. They decide what the Lord wants and what the Lord doesn't want." I thought how true, and how serious when we begin to choose which of the covenants, which of the commandments we will keep and follow. When we decide that there are some of them that we will not keep or follow, we are taking the law of the Lord into our own hands and become our own prophets, and believe me, we will be led astray, because we are false prophets to ourselves when we do not to follow the Prophet of God. No, we should never discriminate between these commandments, as to those we should and should not keep. [in Conference Report, October 1966, p. 98] "Look to the Presidency and receive instruction," said the Prophet Joseph Smith (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938], p. 161). But Almon Babbitt didn't, and in the Doctrine and Covenants section 124, verse 84, the Lord states: And with my servant Almon Babbitt, there are many things with which I am not pleased; behold, he aspireth to establish his counsel instead of the counsel which I have ordained, even that of the Presidency of my Church. In conclusion, let us summarize this grand key, these "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," for our salvation hangs on them. First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything. Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works. Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet. Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray. Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture. Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know. Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning. Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters. Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich. Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly. Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church. Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the First Presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer. I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. if we want to know how well we stand with the Lord, then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain. How closely do our lives harmonize with the words of the Lord's anointed--the living prophet, the President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency? May God bless us all to look to the prophet and the presidency in the critical and crucial days ahead, is my prayer. In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Copyright by BYU All About Mormons http://www.mormons.org

"The most important thing we can do in this life is to find divine truths and then live them." I really like that statement, consider it we are challenged to actuallly become something rather than achieve something on a mere intellectual basis. You can have as much knowledge as you like but it still wont make you happy if you aren't living a good life. Consider the following thought when you die you will remember all that you have learnt but you will have to live with all that you have become. I believe there is a distinct difference between the two. I really enjoyed this chinese proverb, it's tranmission reads; i here, i forget i see, i know i do, i understand This statement is like that which the Saviour made if any man will do my will he will know of a surity weather i speak of myself or him that sent me. We know God through Christ Consider this analogy You have never tasted chocolate, you have heard that it is sweet and good from others but have yet to experience it yourself. But once you have you know and are sure. This is a testimony and know one can take it away from you because you know. I like it how faith and testimony are all interlinked if we revist the last analogy we probably woouldn't have tasted the chocolate if we weren't encouraged by freinds.It is a spiritual gift to believe the testimony of others. Once we hear that testimony it is down to us to excercise the nessicary faith and taste the chocolate. We do everything by faith i would ask anybody to tell me something that we didn't do without faith? Anyhow just a few rambling thoughts i'd share with you. take care Stephen

My Bishop told us not to pet. What's that? Basically, it means keep your hands to yourself. In describing moral transgressions, the words that adults use sometimes confuse youth. When I was 16, I remember a Church leader talking to a number of the young men and telling us not to neck or pet when we went on dates. I nodded my head, and then went home to look up "petting" in the dictionary. It said something about affectionate fondling. Then I looked up "fondling" and read something about touching. Then I wondered if that included hand holding or putting my arm around a girl. I think I figured out that it must mean touching certain places other than hands or shoulders, but I was confused. Petting is a formal word that refers to touching of private areas, particularly breasts or genitals (in the latter case, it's often called "heavy petting"). Necking, another word that confuses some youth, refers to heavy kissing, passionate kissing, or "making out." Necking often leads to petting. Here are the words of President Spencer W. Kimball on the topic, taken from The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, pp. 280-281: "Necking" and "petting" are wrong. Instead of remaining in the field of simple expressions of affection, some have turned themselves loose to fondling, often called "necking," with its intimate contacts and its passionate kissing. Necking is the younger member of this unholy family. Its bigger sister is called "petting." When the intimacies have reached this stage, they are surely the sins condemned by the Savior. "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28.) Who would say that he or she who pets has not become lustful, has not become passionate?... Too often, young people dismiss their petting with a shrug of their shoulders as a little indiscretion, while admitting that fornication is a base transgression. Too many of them are shocked, or feign to be, when told that what they have done in the name of petting was in reality fornication. The dividing line is a thin, blurry one.... The devil knows how to destroy our young girls and boys. He may not be able to tempt a person to murder or to commit adultery immediately, but he knows that if he can get a boy and a girl to sit in the car late enough after the dance, or to park long enough in the dark at the end of the lane, the best boy and the best girl will finally succumb and fall. He knows that all have a limit to their resistance.... Almost like twins, "petting"-and especially "heavy petting"-and fornication are alike. Also like twins, the one precedes the other, but most of the same characteristics are there. The same passions are aroused and, with but slight difference, similar body contacts are made. And from it are likely to come the same frustrations, sorrows, anguish, and remorse.

I wouldn't be surprised either, but then to me it really doesn't matter. By that I mean that a person who holds the priesthood is promised no blessing that a non-priesthood holder won't receive. That's almost a double-negative, let me rephrase that. Any blessings that a righteous priesthood holder will receive are also promised to the righteous non-priesthood holders (i.e. women as per this discussion) in the church. One other thing I've thought about now and again...when a woman is ready to go the temple, she only needs a recommend (regardless of the purpose, mission or marriage). When a man is ready to go to the temple, he must first be ordained to the office of Elder in the priesthood. So what do women have that guys have to make up for in priesthood anyway? If there IS an inequality anywhere, it's that women are born with something that guys have to catch up with via the priesthood! ← I know that the RLDS gives the priesthood to women. I am not sure wheather it is part of Heavenly Fathers plan that woman ( themselves) need the priesthood to fuffill there eternal destiny though. Considering their role in creation and a mans role in the creation. God created them male and female for a reason we both have gender characteristics for a reason they are part of an eternal identity. The only references i have read to women officating in priesthood activity is by Edward Tullidge books ie; Women of Mormondom who was RLDS, so i would take it with a pinch of salt.

Deists do not believe in any revealed religion or their revelations in the form of bibles, etc. We don't need a Savior, therefore we think little more of Jesus than we do Buddha. Deists accept a higher power which created the earth. That's about it. There is no universal plan. We just are. ← I hope i am not prying, but what do you hope for in life, do you believe life goes on if so how?

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet..." (Ezekiel 14:9) Looks like your god likes to play tricks on people. ← Forgive me my ignorance Jason and this is nothing to do with the above, but do Deists believe in the scriptures if they don't believe in revelation, what do they think of Christ and what do they believe is there purpose in life and there relationship to God oh and who was it's founder.Just queries many thanks Stephen

Okay so what you are saying is that perfect knowledge is perfection? I thought it would be a spiritual state... of being without spot... through Christ as taught in Moroni 10. Maybe there are different things we can become perfect in... like paying tithing... reading our scriptures.... having family prayer.... repenting and becoming born again.... perfect in Christ.... here... but perfect in body and knowledge after this life? ← sounds good i'd agree with that

OK one statement at a time first of all why can there only be one church;eph 4;9 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" To me there is only one faith, there is only one way back to God through Jesus Chirst. "no man cometh unto the father but by me." Let's get to the heart of the problem why so many churches. When Christ was on the earth he created a church by calling Apostles and told them to go out the teach the people baptizing them. True or false When these apostles who were called had all been maryred the church could know longer function because it could not recieve revelation for all of God children through a prophet If you agree with this you must agree there was an apostasy, if you don't you must be a catholic. do you agree there was an apostasy, do you agree that God calls men to be prophets. ← When you say a man can't see God what of Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Jacob, Moses,David, Sollomon,Daneil, Isaiah.Plus Saul saw Jesus Christ, Stephen saw the heavens open and saw the son of man standing at the right hand of power, peter, james and john were taken by the Lord up the MT of transfiguration. This is one of the strongest parts of my testimony that Joseph Smith saw God because his testimony fits perfectly with what other prophets have unergone in the past. Basically we can see God if we are transfigered, we can be brought into his presence ← Question if we are not all children of God where did we come from? ← Sorry are all members of your faith perfect or have a mis-understood what you were trying to say.

OK one statement at a time first of all why can there only be one church;eph 4;9 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" To me there is only one faith, there is only one way back to God through Jesus Chirst. "no man cometh unto the father but by me." Let's get to the heart of the problem why so many churches. When Christ was on the earth he created a church by calling Apostles and told them to go out the teach the people baptizing them. True or false When these apostles who were called had all been maryred the church could know longer function because it could not recieve revelation for all of God children through a prophet If you agree with this you must agree there was an apostasy, if you don't you must be a catholic. do you agree there was an apostasy, do you agree that God calls men to be prophets. ← When you say a man can't see God what of Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Jacob, Moses,David, Sollomon,Daneil, Isaiah.Plus Saul saw Jesus Christ, Stephen saw the heavens open and saw the son of man standing at the right hand of power, peter, james and john were taken by the Lord up the MT of transfiguration. This is one of the strongest parts of my testimony that Joseph Smith saw God because his testimony fits perfectly with what other prophets have unergone in the past. Basically we can see God if we are transfigered, we can be brought into his presence ← Question if we are not all children of God where did we come from?

OK one statement at a time first of all why can there only be one church;eph 4;9 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" To me there is only one faith, there is only one way back to God through Jesus Chirst. "no man cometh unto the father but by me." Let's get to the heart of the problem why so many churches. When Christ was on the earth he created a church by calling Apostles and told them to go out the teach the people baptizing them. True or false When these apostles who were called had all been maryred the church could know longer function because it could not recieve revelation for all of God children through a prophet If you agree with this you must agree there was an apostasy, if you don't you must be a catholic. do you agree there was an apostasy, do you agree that God calls men to be prophets. ← When you say a man can't see God what of Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Jacob, Moses,David, Sollomon,Daneil, Isaiah.Plus Saul saw Jesus Christ, Stephen saw the heavens open and saw the son of man standing at the right hand of power, peter, james and john were taken by the Lord up the MT of transfiguration. This is one of the strongest parts of my testimony that Joseph Smith saw God because his testimony fits perfectly with what other prophets have unergone in the past. Basically we can see God if we are transfigered, we can be brought into his presence

OK one statement at a time first of all why can there only be one church;eph 4;9 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" To me there is only one faith, there is only one way back to God through Jesus Chirst. "no man cometh unto the father but by me." Let's get to the heart of the problem why so many churches. When Christ was on the earth he created a church by calling Apostles and told them to go out the teach the people baptizing them. True or false When these apostles who were called had all been maryred the church could know longer function because it could not recieve revelation for all of God children through a prophet If you agree with this you must agree there was an apostasy, if you don't you must be a catholic. do you agree there was an apostasy, do you agree that God calls men to be prophets.

The book of mormon teaches us to fast and to pray and read then ask God our father if the book is true, if it is he will manifest the truth to us by the holy ghost i have a testimony of the gospel thru the holy ghost and can't deny it. Because it is the only source of truth.It appears to me that you seek for truth, but can't find it because you keep finding contradictions, Out of interest what do you believe in. Our gospel is the only true gospel on the earth,we don't ingore any scripture although we may not all live our lives as we should and are a imperfect people the church is not! Study our articales of faith. We believe in Christ who came to fuffill the law of Moses and introduce and teach us the gospel, we believe he came here to suffer for you sins die and over come death through the ressurection, we believe we are children of our heavenly father if we are all this children and he is a loving God then he will be willing to save all his children even those who haven't heard his name which is why we have salvation for the dead. we believe that God calls men to be prophets to deny prophets and that God speaks to men is to deny the bible. this church is the only true church on the face on the earth today, i am sorry if you find difficulty with it's members because of there imperfections

I like the scripture in Alma i think it is 34 or 38 "this life is the time to prepare to meet God." I don't think we can be perfect in this life what i think is we need to cleanse ourselves through the atoning blood of Christ so we might receive his spirit which will sanctify us from all unrighteousness. We can reach a state in this life when we are worthy to recieve the second comforter " The promise of Exhaltation" i believe this to be the Holy Spirit of promise kind of a comfirmation a good account to read on this is Thankful Pratt record of recieving it in the autobiography of P P Pratt.Another good scripture is in Isiah where we sees God in the temple and says he is unclean and a cheribum takes a coal from the altar which represent the atoning blood because Chirst was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world the coal is lain on his lips and he is purged from his sins this is all symbolic but mean we have to cleanse orselves or as King bemnjamin puts it rid our garments of the blood. It all comes down to following Christ Hope this helps. ← Do you believe there are two kinds of perfect? the spiritual and the physical? and if it is here that we can have our sins atoned for... and not after this life because this is the time to repent and come unto Christ to have the sins removed... then when would that happen after death as discribed in this Moroni scripture? Mosiah 27:25 states that we must be born again changed from a fallen state to one of righteousness... and our righteousness comes here ... not in the next life.. right? that is why I am a bit confused... The physical perfect is a given... because everyone will be resurrected in their perfect frame... but the spiritual perfection mentioned in this scripture seems to be talking about repentence and becoming clean without spot... and isn't that here? One more question... because I really do appreciate you insights here... can we actually cleanse ourselves of the blood... is this not just for stewarts like prophets etc? One more thing... because you have said some pretty interesting things about the 2nd comforter... Joseph spoke on this one ... is there not an ordinance for this...?? ← Your right there are to kinds of perfection a physical the ressurection and spiritual which we must attain through our faithfullness and obediance the first law of heaven we must be willing to live the laws of the land remmeber Satan got cast out because he didn't want to.You will find the answer to most things in the temple! Mainly it is through our faithfulness Alma talks about faith not being perfect until we have try it out then we know of a surity that it is true to have a state of perfect knowledge will require us to learn alot more than is available to us here at the moment.Therefore we can't be perfect. I believe we will have to pay the price for the sins we fail to repent of in this life read in D&c 19 " I have paid the price if they would repent if not they must suffer even as i" This is for those who knowingly sin and rebel against God and fail to come unto Christ and partake of his goodness. In paying for sins after this life Christ plays an inportant role as our mediator he will plead our cause. In king bejamin sermon he talks about the people who fell to the earth and said in one voice oh have mercy on us and apply the atoning blood of Christ they recieved it and where born again( lost the desire to do evil but to do good continually.) so yes we can. To clease ourselve of the blood.... and so on i believe applies to us all we are all watchmen/women we all have callings and made covenants to stand as a witness. The second comforter i have something somewhere i will try do dig out. I think it is a lot like to Holy Ghost when we are confirmed we recieve the gist of the holy ghost but if we do not live worthy although we have it i does we don't use it.Being married in the tempple and being sealed you have access to it but agian have to be worthy to recieve it it is not a sepererate being just a greater gift or bestol it is the promise of exhaltation and eternal life. check out calling and election

I like the scripture in Alam i think it is 34 or 38 "this life is the time to prepare to meet God." I don't think we can be perfect in this life what i think is we need to cleanse ourselves through the atoning blood of Christ so we might recieve his spirit which will sanctify us from all unrighteousness. We can reach a state in this life when we are worthy to recieve the second comforter " The promise of Exhaltation" i believe this to be the Holy Spirit of promise kind of a comfirmation a good account to read on this is Thankful Pratt record of recieving it in the autobiography of P P Pratt.Another good scripture is in Isiah where we sees God in the temple and says he is unclean and a cheribum takes a coal from the altar which represent the atoning blood because Chirst was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world the coal is lain on his lips and he is purged from his sins this is all symbolic but mean we have to cleanse orselves or as King bemnjamin puts it rid our garments of the blood. It all comes down to following Christ Hope this helps.

I like the scripture in Alam i think it is 34 or 38 "this life is the time to prepare to meet God." I don't think we can be perfect in this life what i think is we need to cleanse ourselves through the atoning blood of Christ so we might recieve his spirit which will sanctify us from all unrighteousness. We can reach a state in this life when we are worthy to recieve the second comforter " The promise of Exhaltation" i believe this to be the Holy Spirit of promise kind of a comfirmation a good account to read on this is Thankful Pratt record of recieving it in the autobiography of P P Pratt.Another good scripture is in Isiah where we sees God in the temple and says he is unclean and a cheribum takes a coal from the altar which represent the atoning blood because Chirst was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world the coal is lain on his lips and he is purged from his sins this is all symbolic but mean we have to cleanse orselves or as King bemnjamin puts it rid our garments of the blood. Hope this helps.

Apparently they aren' t the only ones. ← I just went back and read a few more of Romans posts... maybe he doesn;t have a lot to say and just has to fling mud.... or something... ← Hi just wanted to share something that might interest Roman and some others, that is that while i have been reading the Book of Mormon these last few weeks the thing that has struck me most is how Nephi testifies so much of Jesus Christ and his mission on earth " If ye believe in Christ, you will believe in these words" to say the the church of Jesus Christ doesn't believe in Christ is a bit wierd, i can only take your emails to understand that you like to stir people up and argue. I am not interested in petty arguements and i advice everyone else not to bother to quote Nephi again "Why should my strength slacken because of mine enemies" If you choose not to believe the gospel Roman that is your choice you are free to follow the saviour in what ever way you choose but remember his words that "he who has the spirit of contention is not of me" that is good advice for all of us especcally so in this link.President Packer last conferenece said we don't have to defend the Prophet Joseph the book of mormon does that for us. It will also defend or faith. On the aruement of Dr Nibley i feel we own him alot he worked tiredessly to promote a better study and understanding of the book of mormon and other scripture he served a three year mission and faithfully in his callings he inspeired lots of people to read and study and gather knowledge, i never new him and i dare say neither did many of you so to comment on his faults i find kind of embrassing...

I think you misunderstood what I was saying... I was saying that if God wants it revealed... it will be in His own good time and in His own way... Do you not remember JS and the 116 pages? ← When are the mysteries of God and the Joseph Smith papryus not that mysterious.I've been thinking quite a bit and a certain scripture comes to mind quite often;"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the one true living God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." The mysteries of God is Eternal life. How do we comprehend that, and is that what we desire and are willing to live for. I think we should take time to read the hymn "if i could hie to kolob" The mystery is there was no beginning there will be no end we have always been in existence all matter has been in existence it is Gnaulom (unsure spelling check Abr) or (eternal) I think the greatest mystery is the fact that we are children of God and as a right heirs of all that he has how grateful we should be that he wants to share that with us. In order to comprehend it though we must learn line upon line there is no piont sending a 3 year old to university before he has gone to playschool. The mysteries of God will be unfolded to us when we belive in Christ because in him is eternal life we can comprehend eternal life in him if we live the gospel. And as he grew from grace to grace so shall we for light cleaveth to light. I must admit i am more of a philosopher than a scholar i don't know much about the papyrus But i know that the mysteries of God are centered in Jesus christ and the way he lived his life and that through a study of his life and applying it's principles we can be reconiled to God through the atonement so that we will one day comprehend God and understand what he is trying to bring to pass.

You'r right Nibley was not a prophet but for me he seemed to put up a good arguement and he defends the truth kinda like B H Roberts.I think it is harsh to call somebody dishonest when they were only trying to find the bottom of a mystery just the same as you are, the fact they he created a fan base i don't beleive to be his fault. We are right though to take every thing we hear about this subject with a pinch of salt. It is given to us to know truth from error good from evil through the Holy Ghost which cleanses us and teaches us all that is true, we have it's companionship when we live the gospel and follow the teachings of Christ sometimes we can get so caught up in wanting to know we forget that, The quickest way to find out anything is actually to get out and do missionary work go hometeaching vist the sick go to the temple. Knowledge is secondary to becoming scholarahip is secondary to disipleship, we are here to use the challenges of mortality to open our spiritual eyes we can then percieve the world as heavenly father sees it and be able to understand things on his level such as the Abrham writing it is one of the basics of studying any novel to see the view piont of it's author.

Hi noticed a discussion going on about the BofA though i'd jion in as i have been studying this a bit lately. According to the late Dr Hugh Nibley the facimiles are not a representation of the text for the book of Abraham in other words the text didn't come from the drawings, which are funaral papyri ie; book of breathing texts which are buried with the dead to aid them in the after life. Egyptology should be intersting to LDS members as some parts of their beliefs are related to ours this is because the first pharaoh was a desedant of Ham one of the sons of Noah who having been denied the rights of the Priesthood through his linage saught to imitate it in his country named after this mother Egyptus ABR 1 How was the book of Abraham translated Nibley explains the difference between translation and interpretation ie; any one can translate but not everyone can understand what they translate an example would be if you stopped and egyptian and said "Horus is with Isris crossing the Nile followed by Anubis" they would just look at you and think you were crazy. So how did Joseph Smith understand what was being said. i believe the answer to be it was given his through the Urrim and Thummin which being translated are called interpretors. Through this he was able to understand what certain passages meant, how do we find out what they mean, we will recieve it from the Lord when we are prepared for it, like the sealed portion of the BofM. CHAPTER III Translated Correctly? WHAT IS A TRANSLATION? To the often-asked question, "Have the Joseph Smith Papyri been translated?" the answer is an emphatic no! What, then, is the foregoing? A mechanical transcription, no more. The hieratic text was mechanically reproduced by photography, transcribed into hieroglyphic by mechanically unimaginative reference to Moeller's and Levi's catalogues of signs, mechanically written in reverse by the use of a tracing table, transcribed into its theoretical English phonetic equivalents by reference to Gardiner's sign-list, and finally each word was matched by its modern equivalent as indicated in the Berlin Dictionary, while endings and particles were accounted for by rules laid down by Erman and Gardiner, who devoted their lives to making Egyptian texts translatable by infallible, automatic rules. What we have is a transmission rather than a translation of the text, and such transmission, as G. Santillana notes, "need in no way imply understanding." 1 Today those soliciting the aid of the computer find themselves forced to speak with a precision which philology in the past could always evade, and as a result confess to drastic defects in our knowledge of Egyptian. Thus W. Schenkel points out that so far no one has yet figured out a way to write Egyptian without hierogylphics—which means that there are fundamental aspects of the system which still escape us. The hardest question of all for the Egyptologist, according to W. Schenkel, is whether Egyptian writings can really be understood by anyone but an Egyptian. 2 Go up to the man in the car (it used to be the man in the street) when he stops at a red light and deliver this sober message to him: "Osiris shall be towed toward the interior of the great Pool of Khonsu," which is the first line of the Joseph Smith Papyrus No. XI. If the man gives you a blank look or starts an ominous muttering, explain to him that the great Lake of Khonsu is "probably a liturgical designation of the portion of the Nile that has to be crossed in order to reach the Theban cemetery on the west bank," and that Khonsu or Khons is a youthful moon-god. 3 When the light changes your new friend may proceed on his way knowing as much about the first line of our Book of Breathings as anybody else does, namely, nothing at all. Though as correct and literal as we can make it, the translation in the preceding chapter is not a translation. It is nonsense. For what is a translation? The most carefully thoughtout definition is that of Willamowitz-Moellendorf: "A translation is a statement in the translator's own words of what he thinks the author had in mind." A little reflection will show that this is the best if not the only possible definition. Gardiner defines a sentence as "any set of words in which he [the hearer] can discern a reasonable intention on the part of the speaker." 4 A translation must therefore be not a matching of dictionaries but meeting of minds, for as the philologist Entwhistle puts it, "there are no mere words ... the word is a deed"; 5 it is a whole drama with centuries of tradition encrusting it, and that whole drama must be passed in review every time the word comes up for translation. The ablest Egyptologists have always insisted that the main difficulty that confronts them is not a matter of grammar or vocabulary but a complete ignorance of what the Egyptian writer really had in mind. "The most perfect knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar of Egyptian does not suffice to pierce the obscurity," Renouf wrote long ago. "The difficulty resides not in the literal translation of the texts, but rather in the sense which is hidden behind the words with which we are familiar." 6 Or as Naville put it, "... a sentence that is easy to understand philologically, whose words and grammar cause us not the slightest perplexity, may all too often present a strange and even burlesque appearance; we have understood the form, but have not penetrated to the idea that lies behind it." 7 The Egyptian terms, Maspero noted, "always end up by escaping us, dragging us in the direction of our own present-day concepts." 8 "Too often we know approximately what a sentence means," Erman admitted, "but its exact translation is not yet possible in the present state of our knowledge," in which case he takes refuge, he says, in the "ars nescendi" of frankly admitting that he does not know, with a " 'das verstehe ich nicht,' und 'Gott weiss,' " whatever his students may think. 9 Hence "only by the unceasing re-working of texts, by combining, trial-and-error, and often also by daring guesses [is] it possible to make any progress. ... We are still obliged to come to grips with linguistic problems in every text that is not completely ordinary." 10 But here even the cautious Erman speaks too soon: is there such a thing as a "completely ordinary" text in Egyptian? To this day there is no agreement on the meaning of the most ordinary and familiar phrases in the religious writings, such as ma' khrw and per m hrw. 11 As an eminent contemporary Egyptologist puts its, "a certain helplessness in the face of these mythological records is unavoidable to both layman and Egyptologist," 12 and he demonstrates his point by showing how consistently the experts have misconstrued what an Egyptian had in mind when he employed various familiar words for "Sun." 13 The most valuable of all clues to understanding hieroglyphic texts has always been, according to Gardiner, "the logic of the situation." 14 Until we know what the situation is we are helpless, and the texts themselves rarely contain adequate clues: "These hoary strangers," wrote Breasted of the Pyramid Texts, "... often remain strangers until they disappear; we have no means of making their acquaintance or forcing them to reveal to us their names or the message which they bear, and no art of lexicography can force them all to yield up their secrets," for theirs is "a fabric of life, thought, and expression largely unfamiliar or entirely unknown to us." 15 Speaking of what have always been thought much easier texts, A. De Buck in our own day has written, "It is difficult to suppress a feeling of skepticism as to the intelligibility of the Book of the Dead version, not so much of its separate sentences, which as a rule are not difficult to translate, but before all things of the plot and story of the spell as a whole." 16 "I may say frankly," writes R. Anthes of an excellent popular edition of inscriptions in the tomb of Tutankhamen, "that I wonder what a reader not very well acquainted with Egyptian religion may possibly get out of the study of these texts and pictures. He may find in them scattered ideas which appeal to him in one way or another, but he will hardly know if his interpretations harmonize with what the Egyptians actually thought." 17 But is the Egyptologist much better off? "One is often asked this very simple question," wrote T. E. Peet. "Is it possible to read a piece of Egyptian as easily, as quickly, and as certainly as a piece of Greek or Latin? The answer to this must certainly be No." 18 "Egyptian texts are never easy," Peet explains. "Every translation ought to be accompanied by a copy of the original ... and by a mass of critical notes ... which repel the average reader." 19 But translations into English are properly meant for English readers who know no other language—the Egyptologist may be expected to read the original; what the average reader has a right to is a flawless translation here and now, and through the years various Egyptologists, by pretending that they could supply such, have beguiled the public and exploited its restless impatience with devastating effect against Joseph Smith. The trouble is, in short, that the Egyptians just don't speak our language; every sentence of theirs from our point of view is in a technical jargon, "which," as Santillana observes, "can hardly be understood if it is not recognized. Nobody can interpret farther than he understands. ... The most refined philological method in the hands of expert philologists will yield only childish stuff out of them, if childish stuff is expected. Technical indications which would make clear sense to a scientist [or to a Latter-day Saint!] go unnoticed or mistranslated. ... It should be kept in mind that every translation is a mere function of the translator's expectations." 20 From which it would seem that no matter how well one knows one's Gardiner, or how many years one has spent in Egypt, one may still be totally excluded from the real meaning of any Egyptian text. Many scholars have known Greek better than any man alive knows Egyptian, yet to this day Greek literature is full of texts that no scholar even pretends to understand; is Egyptian so much more obliging? HOW DID JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATE? What we are saying is that there is still an unbridged gulf, broad and deep, between the real message of the Joseph Smith Papyri and what purport to be translations of them. It is ironical that the chief weapon against the Prophet Joseph has always been the word translate, a word which none of his critics have bothered to define, but which if carefully considered might lead to fruitful investigation. What the philologists have always overlooked is the positive contribution of Joseph Smith as a translator. He was a translator in the grand manner, whose calling was to convey the thoughts of the ancients to his own generation by any and all means which the Spirit put at his disposal. The work of restoring all things and "bringing all things together in one," the last great summing-up in which nothing should be lost, entails a great meeting of cultures and languages, and needs above all things an inspired interpreter. Joseph Smith's proper title is "Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator," the last referring to his unique and particular work and calling. He understands "translating," in its broad and proper sense, as the handing on of any part of the heritage of the past from one generation or culture or language to another, in which the rendering of written texts is only part of the process. Webster gives as the primary meaning of "translate," "to bear, remove, or change from one place, condition, etc., to another; to carry over; to transfer." Only when we get to his seventh choice do we find, "To render into another language. ... Broadly, to carry over from any one form or mode of expression to another; to interpret into another medium." Even here the idea of a "literal" translation must yield to that of interpretation, which is something quite different. It is in this true and correct sense that Joseph Smith uses the word translation, while his crities, by employing it in a more narrow and limited sense, would ever turn it as a weapon against him. "While we were doing the work of translation which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the 28th verse of the 5th chapter of John, which was given to us as follows." (D&C 76:15.) Right here we can see that the critics of the papyri are wasting their time. The Prophet never claims to be operating as a linguist—the translation is given to him. We are reminded that he translated large parts of the Bible in the same way. Why, then, do scholars waste their time manipulating dubious Egyptian texts when a whole volume of Joseph Smith's translations lies to hand for comparison with countless translations by competent scholars of the very same biblical material? Take this passage from John, for example; are there not hundreds of scholars in the world today who can translate it "from the original Greek" better than Joseph Smith ever could? There are, and that should settle the matter. Only it doesn't. For if Willamowitz is right, how can any scholar ever be sure that he knows what John himself had in mind when he wrote those words which have baffled the doctors to this day? The "Johannine mystery" is today as much of a mystery as ever, and until we know just what John meant by the words attributed to him, we are in no position to claim that his words have been correctly translated. Only within recent years have scholars such as Klaus Koch arrived at an estimate of the Apocrypha that exactly matches that of D&C 91, namely, that "there are many things therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly," but also that "there are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. ... Therefore it is not needful that the Apocrypha be translated at this time." Here we are reminded that the problem is not one of translating from one language into another, for the incorrect interpolations are in the same languages as the rest, and no knowledge of language could produce a correct translation, which calls for nothing less than the original manuscript free even of all errors, even those made by the original writer; and it is doubtful whether any such text ever existed, for the hand is never completely obedient to the mind. To put it bluntly, short of revelation no real translation of John is possible, and that is why Bible experts today assure us that all translations are tentative and imperfect. But in section 91 translation plainly means transmission, which, as we have seen, is what a translation really is; we are told that certain parts are not translated correctly because they are false interpolations, yet they are in the same language as the rest and just as easy to "translate" as far as that goes—but that is not the point, which is that regardless of the language, they do not tell us what the original author wanted to say. No one ever stated the case more clearly than the Prophet Joseph himself when he said concerning 2 Peter, chapter 1, "the things that are written are only hints of things which existed in the prophet's mind. ..." (DHC 5:402.) In 1835 the Prophet speaks of himself as being "continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham," using translation as the equivalent of deciphering—which it is. Again, speaking of what he entitled the "Explanation of the Above Cut" in the Book of Abraham, he writes, "the above translation is given as far as we have any right to give it at the present time," here identifying translation with interpretation or explanation of a picture in which there was no writing whatever. When we are told that "a few leaves, opened by Mr. Chandler for exhibition were shown to Professor Anthon of New York and Dr. Mitchell of Philadelphia, each of whom commenced a translation," we can be sure that those men were not translating as they did from the Classical languages which they knew so well—it was perfectly correct in this case to call any attempt at interpreting any old document a translation. 21 When we read in the eighth Article of Faith, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God," we are given to understand that the latter work, though containing "the mistakes of men," is still translated more correctly than the Bible. Well, why translate the Bible at all? Can't we study Hebrew and Greek and read it in the original? We can, but again that is not the point, which is that it is not only the English Bible which has not been translated correctly, but that the ancient texts also have suffered in transmission. When Joseph Smith announced in the King Follett Discourse that "some old Jew without any authority" had altered the first verse of Genesis, he served notice that that verse as it stands cannot be translated correctly no matter how well one knows Hebrew. By using the word translation in one sense while Joseph Smith uses it in another, his critics have sought to do him great damage. What he means by translation is clearly apparent from a revelation given while the Prophet was producing the Book of Moses, in December of 1830: "Soon after the words of Enoch were given [these are contained in the Book of Moses], the Lord gave the following commandment: '... Behold, I say unto you that it is not expedient in me that ye should translate any more until ye shall go to the Ohio. ...' " (DHC 1:139; D&C 37:1.) In what language were "the words of Enoch" which Joseph had been translating? Where was the document? All we know is that Joseph Smith did produce—"translate"—a book of Enoch, which, matched with many ancient texts discovered since the Prophet's day, must be accepted as an authentic piece of the large and growing corpus of Enoch literature. It is also important to understand Joseph Smith's method of translation. Typical of a carefully cultivated misunderstanding is Mr. Turner's statement to the world that "examination of these originals has heightened the confidence of some Egyptologists that the Book of Abraham is not a translation." 22 What originals? We have just seen that there has been a serious misunderstanding on this point: The Book of Breathings is not the pretended original text of the Book of Abraham at all. If the Book of Abraham were a hodgepodge of nonsense, one might well look for its source almost anywhere. But far from being nonsense, it tells a story of Abraham which subsequent documentary discoveries have confirmed in detail, and this, along with the now well-established tradition that Abraham did write an autobiography about his Egyptian experiences and that it was preserved and read by his descendants in Egypt, makes a very strong case for the proposition that the Book of Abraham was indeed taken from ancient writings. 23 If there is anything that the Mormons have always cried from the housetops, it is that Joseph Smith did not translate after the manner of the scholars; yet now Mr. Heward and his friends repeatedly put this fact forth as a brilliant discovery of modern science. Of course the Prophet did not translate in the manner of the Egyptologists—he had neither their tools nor their problems, for he had another method. Consider section 7 of the D&C: "Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, and Oliver Cowdery at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829, when they inquired through the Urim and Thummim. ... The revelation referred to is the translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself." Here we have a translation which Joseph Smith did not make—it was given to him, and he calls it a revelation; yet it was made from a real document, on parchment or treated leather, which John wrote with his hand and then hid away. We know from recent discoveries that it was the custom among saintly communities of Palestine in John's day to write important things on leather and then hide them up in caves, so that is an authentic touch. But the remarkable thing is that though the translation was made from a real and tangible document, such a document was never in the hands of Joseph Smith; it may still be in existence in some corner of a cave or monastery or even museum, but it is plain that Joseph Smith never had it—he didn't need to have it or to know how to read it, for the whole thing was given to him: "Now this caused us to marvel, for it was given unto us of the Spirit." (D&C 76:18.) The translation of John, like the book of Enoch, was made from a document that was never in the Prophet's possession and may indeed have been destroyed thousands of years ago. Did he know the original language of Enoch? Nobody does, but that makes no difference when a translation is not worked out but given to one by revelation. When he first got the plates, the Prophet recalled, "I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim, I translated them." Mere copying was easy enough, with that he had no trouble; but translating was another matter—for that he needed the supernatural help of the Urim and Thummim. This was not translation by normal methods and was never proclaimed as such. As everybody knows, the rendering of an exact translation, especially from an ancient language, is supposed to be an impressively slow and meticulous process. But that is not how he worked. "Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon, without apparent hesitation, as fast as a scribe could write in long-hand. There is no chance for error on this point. The entire Whitmer family, besides Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and Joseph's wife, sat and listened, or had free access to listen, to the record as it grew day by day during the entire month of June, 1829." 24 As his wife tells it, "I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscript unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him." 25 "There were no delays over obscure passages, no difficulties over the choice of words, no stoppages from the ignorance of the translator; no time was wasted in investigations or argument over the value, intent, or meaning of certain characters, and there were no references to authorities. ... All was as simple as when a clerk writes from dictation. The translation of the characters appeared on the Urim and Thummim, sentence by sentence, and as soon as one was correctly transcribed the next would appear." 26 And so in seventy-five working days, between April 7, 1829, and the first week of July 1829, a book of 264,000 words was turned out, at an average of 3,500 words a day. 27 Plainly this peculiar type of translation depends on getting in the spirit and is not to be accomplished by intellectual effort alone. Of the Apocrypha the Lord told the Prophet, "... it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; and whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated." (D&C 91. Italics added.) From this it appears that all men, and not just chosen prophets, have a right to inspiration if they are worthy, and that a translation is really a means of helping those to understand who are unable to get the Spirit for themselves. Nothing could be less like the normal ways of scholarship than the inspired mood and method in which the Prophet Joseph did his translation. "In the darkness a spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and not by any power of man." 28 If all the Prophet had to do was to read off an English text, why did he need the original characters in front of him? He didn't! "I frequently wrote day after day," E. W. Tullidge recalls, "often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with a stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us. ... He used neither manuscript nor book to read from... the plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth." 29 David Whitmer confirms this: "He did not use the plates in the translation, but would hold the interpreters to his eyes ... and before his eyes would appear what seemed to be a parchment, on which would appear the characters of the plates ... and immediately below would appear the translation in English." 30 ARE GADGETS NECESSARY? Why then did Joseph Smith need a Urim and Thummim, and why did he go through the greatest pains and perils to get and keep the plates if he didn't really need them? Can't we forget all the hardware and be guided by the Spirit alone? No, because God does not want it that way. Whether we find it agreeable and rational or not, God makes use of both human agents and physical implements in carrying out his purposes in the earth, not because he needs to but because he wants to help us help ourselves. We are here among other things to learn, and we will learn precious little if we get all our solutions from the answer book; we must have our faith tested and our skills improved. Being here to gain mastery of new dimensions of existence, we need practice and training in subduing the strange and difficult medium of the flesh, with which, thanks to the resurrection, we are destined to live forever; we cannot ignore physical bodies and physical things. Let those who are still shocked at the proposition that the Spirit works with and through physical devices consider the visits of the Lord to his disciples after the resurrection. There he stands before them, the source of all knowledge and the wellspring of the scriptures themselves; he could well push the dusty books aside and admonish his listeners to heed him alone, from whom all the books came in the first place. Instead of that, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27); among the Nephites he called for the records and personally inspected them for errors and omissions, admonishing the people to spend their days reading the words of a prophet who had been dead for seven hundred years, "... for great are the words of Isaiah!" (3 Nephi 23:1.) If the Holy Ghost brings all things to our remembrance, one may well ask, why do we need to record anything at all? Because God has so commanded "for our profit and learning." (1 Nephi 19:23.) We must not think that the Lord in giving his servants special devices to assist them was letting them off easy. He did not hand them the answer-book but only a slide rule. It takes far more formidable qualifications and far more intense concentration and cerebration to use a seerstone than it does to use a dictionary; the existence in our midst of computers does not mean, as some fondly suppose, that mathematicians and translators and genealogists no longer have to think—they have to think harder than ever. A Urim and Thummim, like a dictionary, is only an aid to the translator who knows how to work it, and may be gradually dispensed with as he becomes more proficient in his spiritual exercise. Admittedly, translating with a Urim and Thummim is not the normal way; it does not require philological training, but training of a far more exacting sort, since like the seer-stone it shows "things which are not visible to the natural eye" (Moses 6:35-36); it operates, as Buckminster Fuller would say, by the mind and not by the brain. 31 That requires even greater effort and discipline: "... when a man works by faith," said the Prophet, "he works by mental exertion, instead of exerting his physical powers." 32 It is the exertion of the mind, and it is the most strenuous and exacting work of all. Certainly the documents with which Joseph Smith was dealing could be translated in no other way than by the Spirit. How can any mortal ever know what the original first writer of Genesis had in mind save by the power of revelation? And without that knowledge no translation is possible. It was Brother Joseph's calling to interpret the minds of other dispensations to our own, and during the short time in which he worked at it he covered an astonishing lot of ground, handling huge masses of material which could only be rightly understood and explained by the power of revelation. In fulfilling his formidable mission he was never bound to any particular method or text or vocabulary or rules of grammar, since they are merely aids to any translator's ignorance. Every good translator will tell you that after all the aids and implements at his disposal, including his own long training, have been brought under contribution, it is in the last analysis his own feeling for things that makes a convincing translation—without intuition he could never make it. If truly scientific translation were possible, machine translation would have been perfected long ago; but where wide gaps of time and culture exist such a thing as a perfect translation is out of the question: in the end it is the translator's own imponderable intuition that is his claim to distinction. The most learned linguists do not make the best translators, and the uncanny skill of a Scaliger, Hicks, George Smith, or Ll. Griffith could divine the meaning of texts before which science and scholarship were helpless. Even while they deplore anything that smacks of the mysterious or defies cold logic, no scholars are more keenly aware of the intuitive nature of translation than the Egyptologists. They constantly mention it. No man ever worked harder to achieve a foolproof scientific method of rendering Egyptian texts than Sir Alan Gardiner, yet his final verdict was that "the only basis we can have for preferring one rendering to another, when once the exigencies of grammar and dictionary have been satisfied—and these leave a large margin for divergency—is an intuitive appreciation of the trend of the ancient writer's mind. A very precarious basis, all will admit." 33 Note that this most conservative of Egyptologists leads us right to Willamowitz's concept of a translation. Long before, Naville pointed out that the assumption of a perfectly correct translation on scholarly scientific principles could only lead to frustration: "... we have perhaps missed the meaning because we have always broken the expression down into component elements and then translated each of those elements literally, which has led us on the wrong path. Analysis can be destructive," and this sets a definite limit on the claims of scholarship. 34 The key to Egyptian is not to be found in a grammar book or dictionary, but depends on knowing the Denkart of the Ancient East, according to Junker, which still eludes us. 35 How can we be expected to know what the Egyptians had in mind when even "the Egyptian scribes had difficulty in understanding what they were writing"? 36 How can we escape the absurd conclusion of many an Egyptologist, that the Egyptians took a willful delight in the incomprehensible? 37 The only hope is to follow Professor Bonnet's advice: "Every student should get the feeling for the complex reality of the textual content." 38 Yes, but how? By cultivating "an infinite naiveté, a massive shedding of one's own intellectual habits," is Professor Derchain's answer. 39 After learning everything that can be known about the Egyptians, he suggests, one then learns to "think Egyptian" by "imagining to one's self how an Egyptian would react," taking care to be "sensible to the finest nuances" of a text. 40 Very well, but if there is anything that cannot be acquired by study it is an "infinite naiveté," and the only way one becomes an Egyptologist in this world is not to shed one's own intellectual habits but to conform in all things to the most conventional and regimented forms of departmental behavior on earth. The Egyptologist is the last person in the world to meet Professor Derchain's requirements; but even if one were to succeed, who could judge whether he was really thinking like an Egyptian or not? If "the problem for the translator is, how to give the reader the feeling that he 'was there,' " 41 how is he to do it if he was never there himself? It is more than a vast gulf of time that lies between us and the Egyptians—it is an insuperable wall of religion. "Religion is the Schmerzkind of Egyptology," wrote the great Erman at the end of his life. "For half a century I have wrestled with it, and how little certainty has come out of it all! Everyone still invents his own Egyptian religion. One might say that whatever we come up with is wrong; because the task is simply insoluble. I have never been able to escape from this verdict." 42 G. Santillana notes that the Berlin Dictionary gives thirty-seven different terms for "heaven," "whose nuances are left to the translator and used according to his lights. So elaborate instructions in the Book of the Dead, referring to the soul's celestial voyage, translate into 'mystical talk,' and must be treated as holy mumbo jumbo." 43 To this day no Egyptologist can do more than pretend to understand the Book of Breathings or the Facsimilies to the Book of Abraham. Though by departmental courtesy we credit them with knowledge they do not possess, it is safe to say that they are still without a foothold in reality. Fortunately for us, the most forthright statement on the subject of translating Egyptian has been made by B. H. Stricker in a specific reference to the Book of Breathings: "The text is so pregnant," he writes, "that well-nigh every word, whether substantive, verb, or even preposition possesses a hidden [mystieke] content. The mere business of translating, under such circumstances, becomes virtually impossible. A translation can here be nothing more than a caricature." 44 Such is the predicament of any scholar who undertakes to translate the Joseph Smith Papyri. METHOD VERSUS RESULTS It is first and last on the grounds of method that Egyptologists have weighed Joseph Smith in the balance and found him wanting. Once the method has been discredited, it has been considered unnecessary to look further into the results of that method. But the Prophet has saved us the trouble of faulting his method by announcing in no uncertain terms that it is a method unique to himself depending entirely on divine revelation. That places the whole thing beyond the reach of direct examination and criticism, but leaves wide open the really effective means of testing any method, which is by the results it produces. The results in this case are a formidable corpus of purportedly ancient records which can be readily tested as such. Yet to this day the critics insist on confining their efforts strictly to an exposé of Joseph Smith's method, while avoiding any discussion of the results with almost hysterical touchiness. The case of Joseph Smith versus the scholars thus presents a remarkable parallel to the more recent experience of Michael Ventris with his critics. Some years ago a young English architect by the name of Michael Ventris announced that he had decoded the so-called Minoan Script B, which had baffled scholars for almost a century, and invited all to put his findings to the test. Instead of welcoming his contribution with open arms, the most eminent authorities condemned it outright, for Ventris had presumed to aver that Minoan B was related to Greek, whereas Sir Arthur Evans, though he could not read it, had announced 80 years before that it was not Greek; moreover, Mr. Ventris was very young and, worst of all, he who presumed to question the most eminent scholars was himself a mere amateur. To justify the out-and-out rejection of Ventris's findings was simply a matter of showing that his method was completely at variance with the practice of the experts: if he didn't use the correct scientific method, he couldn't possibly arrive at the right results, could he? In the young man's defense, Professor L. R. Palmer of Oxford pointed out that the objections of the experts were really quite irrelevant, "... criticism of his basic assumptions, his methods, the inadequacy of the script is beside the point." 45 How so? These were the very things the authorities pounced on in order to demolish Ventris; if the man's basic assumptions are wrong, his methods unacceptable, and his evidence inadequate, what more witness do we need? Why is all that "beside the point"? Because, Professor Palmer explains, in producing his translations, Ventris has "committed himself irrevocably to a precise set of predictions of great complexity," which can only be verified or refuted by the discovery of texts unknown to Ventris when he made his predictions, texts "which did not enter into the original calculation." 46 Once such texts are available, the test of Ventris is "simply the verification of a set of predictions, regardless of the way in which they were arrived at." 47 Given such a perfect "control," long syllogistic arguments based on method are a waste of time. When texts unknown at the time Ventris laid down his rules were duly discovered and confirmed his position on point after point, the critics, as might be expected, were prompt "to ascribe any 'successes' to pure chance," pointing out that since all sorts of sound combinations were possible "some sort of meaning could be wrung out of any such text." 48 Such an argument, Palmer observes, impresses only those who have not "wrestled with these texts," and who conveniently ignore the possibility of checking the probabilities mathematically in each specific case. True, each language disposes of countless phonemes, but only uses a few of them, so that if Ventris uses a shotgun he is not shooting at a solid target, but at "space thinly peopled by patterned constellations," and if each pellet connects, that can hardly be pure chance. 49 The case of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham provides a striking parallel to this. He, too, offended basic assumptions of scholarship—what possible relationship could there be between the religions of the polytheistic Egyptians and the monotheistic Hebrews? the indignant Professor Breasted asked in 1912. Joseph Smith too was a youthful amateur, totally unacquainted to the bargain with the methods and materials of scholarship: his methods were simply outrageous—no need to look any farther for evidence to damn him. And they never did look any farther. But in publishing the Book of Abraham the Prophet, even more than Ventris, had "committed himself irrevocably to a precise set of predictions of great complexity"; he told a story of Abraham that nobody knew anything about in his day, and threw in books of Enoch and Moses for good measure. Within the past hundred years hundreds of ancient documents "which did not enter into the original calculation" of Joseph Smith have come to light—all vindicating the strange stories and teachings he has given us about the ancient patriarchs. Like young Mr. Ventris, Joseph let loose with his shotgun, and his critics were quick to protest that with so many guesses some were bound to be right by pure coincidence and common-sense; but in his case also, when hundreds of buckshot hit their distant and illusive targets, mere chance is ruled out. With the sources now available, but unknown in the Prophet's time, to check his stories of Abraham, Enoch, and Moses, criticism of his basic assumptions, methods, and documents as unscientific and inadequate is indeed "beside the point." Over the signatures of Heber C. Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, and George Albert Smith there appeared in the Times and Seasons for October 8, 1840, a statement which "breathes that spirit of liberty in the pursuit of knowledge characteristic of the work of God in the last days," according to the editor. "We consider it perfectly consistent with our calling, with reason and revelation," the brethren wrote, "that we should form a knowledge of kingdoms and countries whether at home or abroad, whether ancient or modern, whether of things past or present or to come; whether it be in heaven, earth or hell, air or seas; or whether we obtain this knowledge by being local or travelling, by study or by faith, by dreams or by visions, by revelation or by prophecy, it mattereth not unto us; if we can but obtain a correct [view of] principles, and knowledge of things as they are, in their true light, past, present and to come." 50 Here is a clear statement of the principle enunciated by Professor Palmer: it "mattereth not" what method is used as long as one finds the way to demonstrably valid and correct information. The coming forth of some of the Joseph Smith Papyri in our time is a reminder that many channels of light and truth are open to us and that the Spirit chooses its own methods. Latter-day Saints are constantly asking, How did Joseph Smith translate this or that? Do we still have a seer-stone? Will we ever get the Urim and Thummim back? What about the sealed parts of the plates? Do we have the original text of the Book of Abraham? Where is the Book of Joseph?—etc., etc. With Professor Palmer, this writer views all such questions as totally irrelevant to establishing the bona fides of the Prophet. They do not even make sense as expressions of normal human curiosity, since Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear that the vital ingredient in every transmission of ancient or heavenly knowledge is always the Spirit, which places his experiences beyond the comprehension and analysis of ordinary mortals. But if the Prophet can never be pinned down in matters of sources and method, it is from the nature of the thing and not from any desire on his part to escape examination. Far from it; he was always inviting his critics to put the inspired writings to all such valid and established tests as may be applied to any purportedly ancient document, and he gave them a hundred times more evidence than they would need to determine the measure of their authenticity. If it mattereth not by what imponderable method Joseph Smith produced his translations, as long as he came up with the right answers, it matters even less from what particular edition of what particular text he was translating. It is enough at present to know that the Prophet was translating from real books of Abraham, Moses, Enoch, Mosiah, and Zenos, whose teachings now reach us in a huge and growing corpus of newly discovered writings. But instead of matching Joseph Smith's bold and explicit images of the past, "regardless of the way in which they were arrived at," with what is now being found, his critics can still think of no better attack than to go on chanting their monotonous and forlorn refrain: "He was no scholar, he was not one of us, he did not use our methods!" FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER III Footnotes 1. G. Santillana, Hamlet's Mill, p. 120. 2. W. Schenkel, Chron. d'Eg. 43:51, 58f. 3. K. Baer, Dialogue 3:119. 4. A.H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, p. 410. Italics added. 5. W.J. Entwhistle, Aspects of Language (Oxford, 1953), p. 4. 6. Cit. C. Capart, Religion of Egypt, p. 33. 7. E. Naville, Das aeg. Todtenbuch I (Intd.), pp. 2-3. 8. G. Maspero, Bibliotheque Egyptologique I, 22. 9. A. Erman, Aus meinem Leben u. Wirken, pp. 271, 281. 10. Erman, op. cit., p. 254. 11. Of the second, Naville after years of toil regrets that he has "so far been unable to translate these three Egyptian words in a satisfactory manner" (op. cit. I, 23-24). "The idea of Ma-Hrou has exhausted the efforts of Egyptologist from the beginning," A. Moret, Mystés Egyptiennes, p. 136. 12. R. Anthes, Artibus Asiae 20:92. 13. A. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 24. 14. J. Breasted, Religion & Thought, p. 90. 15. A. De Buck, JEA 38:87. 16. Anthes, op. cit., p. 92. 17. T.E. Peet, The Present Position of Egyptian Studies (Oxford, 1934), p. 14. 18. T.E. Peet, JEA 10:116. 19. G. Santillana, The Origins of Scientific Thought (N.Y.: Mentor Books, 1961), pp. 11f. 20. B.Y. Academy Review, I (March 1885). 21. New York Times, May 2, 1970. 22. See our long discussion in the Improvement Era, 72-73 (Jan. 1969-May 1970). 23. N.L. Nelson, The Mormon Point of View (Provo, 1904), pp. 124-25. 24. Quoted in the Improvement Era, 42:631. 25. Q. Reynolds, Myth of the Manuscript Found (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor, 1883), p. 71. 26. F.W. Kirkham, New Witness for Christ in America (Salt Lake City: BYU, Utah Printing Co., 1960), pp. 220-27. 27. B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:128. 51 8. E.W. Tullidge, Life of Joseph the Prophet (Plano, Illinois: Reorganized LDS Church, 1880), p. 793. 29. Interview in the Kansas City Journal, June 5, 1881. 30. B. Fuller, Intuition (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1972), pp. 77-99. 31. Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith, No. VII, Sect. 3. 32. A.H. Gardiner, in JEA, 9:6. Italics added. 33. E. Naville, Totenbuch, Intd. 22-23. 34. Cit. W. Kaiser, in OLZ, 58 (1963), pp. 340-43; Naville, in Bibliotheque Egyptologique, 1:26f. 35. E.A.W. Budge, Religion of Eg., pp. 41ff, and in Archaeologia, 52:45, and Book of the Dead, Pap. of Ani, II, 469. 36. H. Schack-Schackenburg, Zweiwegebuch, p. 9. 37. H. Bonnet, in OLZ, 1957, p. 403. 38. P. Derchain, in Chronique d'Egypte, 44:79, 82. 39. F.P. Connor, in The Listener, 67 (1962), p. 175. 40. A. Erman, Mein Werden u. Wirken, pp. 279, 285. 41. G. Santillana, Hamlet's Mill, p. 73. 42. B.H. Stricker, O.M.R.A., 31:54. 43. L.R. Palmer, in OLZ, 53:106. 44. Ibid., pp. 102-103. 45. Ibid., p. 104. 46. Ibid., pp. 106, 109. 47. Ibid., p. 111. 48. Times and Seasons, October 28, 1840: DHC IV:234.