Faded

As to the original question ... It's never a matter of The Church of Jesus Christ and the Bible contradicting one another. Depending upon how you interpret the Bible, you could say that the Bible contradicts every Christian denomination on this earth. It's not so much that the Bible contradicts them, it's more that certain well-established interpretations of the Bible contradict them. Every single Christian denomination can be thoroughly denounced and revealed as fraudulent -- all you have to do is find the appropriate way to interpret the Bible. I don't recall anything in Genesis weighing in on this one way or the other. Genesis leaves ample room for this doctrinal possibility, but does not explicitly teach it either.

Catholics comprise more than 40% of the population in New York. Protestants are 30% of the population, Jews 8.4%, Muslims 3.5%, Buddhists 1%. The State of New York has about 20 million residents, which would make 700,000 New York residents Muslim. It's no secret that Muslims are heavily concentrated around the urban areas, particularly New York City, so it wouldn't surprise anyone if about 500,000 residents in the greater New York City area are Muslim. That is FAR greater numerically than the LDS Church in New York City. There are more than 10 times as many Muslims as there are Latter Day Saints. It was an interesting question so I had to go and try to figure out the answer.

I agree that building so close to Ground Zero was a poor choice on their part. It would make a big difference if they were actually making it as a statement against fundamentalists in Islam. But let us not forget that our religion has spent a good deal of its history being demonized by misguided zealots for Christian doctrinal purity. Saying the 70% of the nation had little but contempt for "Mormonism" at various points in our history would be underestimating things. The numbers were probably higher than 70% on several occasions. And it had more to do with the lies and mis-information they were being fed than anything else. So yes it's possible for ignorance to prevail in the majority of Americans -- it's happened before. It happened to us. We have every reason to be understanding of the vast majority of Muslims who are not terrorists. Islam and Christianity have spent 1300 years as mortal enemies. About 1000 years of that history was spent in a state of almost constant war. Unfortunately, for that very reason, those coming from a Christian background are extremely willing to believe the worst of Muslims with minimal evidence. The September 11th attacks intensified that tendency. It is for that reason that it would be unwise for the Muslim-American community to build there -- to keep the peace and not provoke the American people, they should look to build further away from Ground Zero. But I am not convinced that their true intent is to "raise of monument of victory at Ground Zero." I think that was not their intent at all. More than anything else, the whole thing reminds me far too much of what plays out every single time we try to build a new temple, and that makes it difficult to write off the Muslims who are building this Mosque as having nothing but evil intentions. It sounds like exactly the sort of thing Anti-Mormons push through media and government sources to try to thwart us at virtually everything we try to do.

The controversy over the mosque near Ground Zero has been strange certainly. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, seeing this sort of behavior is nothing new. Both Catholicism and Protestantism denounce us as "Not Christians" for our rejection of the Trinity Doctrine. Every single time that we try to build a new Temple, a bunch of hatemongers show up enmasse. They picket and protest at the proposed site. They go through government channels to try to stop the Temple from being built. They plug into every local media outlet that will listen to them, decrying "the evils of the Mormons" and seeking to stop us from building our much needed sacred structure. Examples: "The Newport Beach Planning Commission gave its approval for the Newport Beach California Temple on October 3, 2002, despite protests from the numerous residents in attendance. The Church worked closely with residents in a spirit of compromise, making changes in response to their concerns that included turning off flood lighting by 11:00 p.m., changing the color of the building from off-white to an earth-tone shade of seashell, and reducing the height of the spire from 124 feet to 100 feet.1 On November 12, 2002, the Newport Beach City Council gave final approval for the temple upon agreement by the Church to make a second reduction in the height of the steeple from 100 feet to 90 feet. The 10-foot concession gained yards in public relations, as staunch opponents embraced the compromise, saying they were ready to move forward as a community." Newport Beach California LDS (Mormon) Temple Essentially, we're not allowed to build our own holy structure as we see fit. Local governments will insist on making it smaller or different or that it be in a different location for the most ridiculous of reasons. Heaven help us if we'd been unwilling to comprise on design and/or location for countless temples. "Much opposition was met to the building of the Atlanta Georgia Temple including a protest march down Atlanta's Peachtree Street. When protestors arrived at the temple on dedication day, the governor—who had been invited to attend—ordered a police escort of demonstrators away from the property. He assured President Hinckley that he would not be a Governor Boggs (the governor who ordered the extermination of Mormons in the state of Missouri in 1838)." Atlanta Georgia LDS (Mormon) Temple Good for the Georgia governor for seeing reason here. The USA has a bloody history of religious intolerance and it's good that he sought to not repeat it. The Missouri Extermination Order stayed on the books until the 1970's. But once again, our religion building a place of worship was met with public outrage and hostility. These same people also show up without fail at General Conference (a world-wide meeting of our Church) to protest us. YouTube - LDS General Conference Protesters Is this really so very different? In fact, the Muslims in question who are trying to build this mosque are so moderate and so opposite to the fundamentalist Muslims that many Muslims question their Muslim-ness. "We want to push back against the extremists," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the lead organizer, is quoted as saying. My heartfelt condolences to the Muslims of New York City who are being targeted by a similar pack of bigots as we've routinely faced. I can understand how infuriating this must be. I did look into the location and yes it certainly is close to ground zero. About 300-400 yards away or so. The Burlington Coat Factory that would need to be demolished was seriously damaged by the collapse of the World Trade Center towers -- so it's pretty close indeed. The fact that it's so close to ground zero was just asking for controversy -- stupid though the controversy is. I think the best solution is to do more to sell it as a monument in defiance against Muslim extremists and in favor of peace and reconcilliation.

Interesting point on spiritual gifts. As a rule, must tradition be proven wrong in all cases? It does seem to me that Luther threw out a number of things without overwhelming Biblical proof that he should do so, but I could be wrong.The item that has always puzzled me has been the almost universal acceptance of the Council of Nicaea and many of it's conclusions. Protestants generally reject every other Ecumenical Council to some degree, but not Nicaea. It's always struck me as very out of character for the whole Protestant movement. Protestant reformers always sought to question and either thoroughly validate or reject everything the Catholic Church ever taught, based upon Scripture. Concepts like the Trinity and ex nihilo creation tend to get a free pass. Giving ANYTHING a free pass seems very out of character for the entire movement. Or were they ever questioned or debated? I suppose that would be an additional item where Protestantism relies on non-Biblical tradition as a basis for truth. And there are a number of other examples. This being said, I've got no interest in debating Trinity vs Godhead vs Whatever. Done to death and always a pointless debate.

True, it isn't your ever day dinner-table conversation kind of word.But it is true that they spin it to sound as scandalous and offensive as they can. The verbiage used by the anti-Mormon promotes misunderstanding, fear and ignorance. If they can come with meaner things to say about us without outright lying, they will. The goal is to make people afraid of the "Mormon Church."

I think you have the right general idea but have their motives all wrong. Traditional Christian clergy who do preach or offer advice based upon anti-Mormon views are a lot like the Jews reacting to the early Christian Church. The Jews believed with all their hearts that Christianity (initially a Jewish sect) was a blasphemous contradiction to everything they thought they knew about God. And the Jews got extremely mean-spirited in their attacks against this perceived blasphemous sect. But they didn't stand to lose all that much if Christianity was successful. They were mostly just self-righteously certain that everything the Christians taught was theologically toxic. Pure poison to everyone who heard the message of Jesus of Nazareth and these cultists that hailed him as the Messiah. That is exactly how traditional Christians approach the Church of Jesus Christ. With contempt for it's heresy and blasphemy, believing that it is spiritual poison to all who hear it's message.

1.) Christians who claim their religion is provable via archaeology are extremely naive. Virtually every traditional Christian faith believes in ex nihilo creation (creation of a fully formed earth instantly out of nothing.) Geology contradicts their belief, showing substantial evidence that the Earth is MUCH older than their theory requires. They believe in a world-wide flood which wiped out all but 8 people. Archaelogically, nothing of the sort can be proven. The details of the Exodus, the prophets, miracles throughout the history of Israel -- none of them can be conclusively proven by archaeology and science. Some are very nearly contradicted by it. The best that they can say is that Biblical events and stories from Abraham onward occurred within a loosely known and somewhat verifiable geography. We know where Jerusalem, Tyre, Gaza, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Samaria, Shechem, Jericho, and other places were. But everything that makes Judeo-Christianity true is not provable by any science. None of the miracles or plagues of ancient Biblical times -- the events that would perhaps prove God's existence to some degree -- can be proven to have occurred in true miraculous fashion. We stand together with them in that we just have faith that the miraculous events in the Bible really happened. 2.) We're no different from them in one important aspect: We both have to have faith and trust in God. Nobody has ready to hand evidence proving the existence of God. So the statement that "our religion is based upon feelings, theirs upon facts" is complete hogwash. They have no better proof of God than we do. They have to find God through the whisperings of the Holy Ghost just like we do. 3.) Your passion for truth is admirable, but you're going to find that spending any length of time debating with our detractors is going to be a waste of time. Their mind is solidly made up. You have as much chance of convincing them as you might turn a staunch Democrat into a hardcore Republican -- probably less chance than that. It sounds like a typical buzz-word focused anti-Mormon. The truth of the matter is we believe in the same Jesus Christ. We just disagree about his attributes and characteristics. Specifically, we disagree on HOW the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one. But they like to say "Mormons believe in a different Jesus" because it makes us sound more scandalous. They'll call us polytheists. Well, Jews believe that Trinity-believing Christians transformed the God of Israel into a polytheistic belief. So they are throwing the same accusation at us that they're receiving from others. What we believe about the Godhead is Henotheistic (as Wingnut said). Henotheism is considered a form of Montheism. But the polytheism accusation carries more scandalous implications. So that's what they say. The folks who spread this nonsense are usually so completely indoctrinated against the Church of Jesus Christ that there is no possible way to bring them around. You're going to want to know the answers for the people that are influenced by them though. People who "heard that Mormons believe ______" but didn't think about it much at the time, and still have an open mind. You will be able to tell very quickly which ones are which.

If you mean the Latino kids; Well ... it is a Mexican holiday we're talking about: But as for the non-Mexican kids wearing American flag stuff -- I don't understand why this is offensive, even if they were trying to be offensive. Why did it bother anyone to begin with? Seems like there should need to be something more to it. Something directly slanderous of Latinos or Mexicans. Do they consider the American Flag offensive? If so, why?

To attempt to punish anyone for wearing an American Flag anything is just silly. This case is the equivalent of punishing Mexicans for wearing any Mexican flag designs at a tourist resort on the 4th of July -- just because there's likely to be a lot of American tourists at the resort. If you want to be patriotic in your own country, then by all means, be patriotic. But I can see where PC is coming from. Mexicans are just one segment of the Latino immigrants and in many ways they are viewed with the same contempt and mistrust that the Irish were 100+ years ago. I guess we never learn, though we're not as bad as we once were. Here's a blast from the past for you: ---------------------- I do think the most appropriate thing would be to wear both, something like this:

What is added? Well, we add to the Matthew Account: "after he hung himself the rope broke, he fell, burst assunder and his bowels gushed out." "Because the money used by the chief priests to purchase the field had belonged to Judas, he became the owner of that field posthumously. So in a way, Judas bought the field even though he was dead before the purchase." To the Acts account: "Before Judas fell he hung himself. The rope broke. That's how he fell and burst asunder and had his bowels gush out. Sorry, forgot to mention that part." " 'Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity.' Well ... technically Judas didn't actually purchase the field. Not exactly. You see, he was the implied posthumous owner because money that was used to buy the field had belonged to him before he died. So he sorta bought it indirectly. Oh yeah, and he was dead before all that happened. We just said it in the wrong order. Sorry about that. Just reverse the order and what we said is accurate." Yeah, I think it's fair to say that we're not going to agree on this one. You're essentially saying that because the two passages do not agree at first glance, that it's okay to invent a bunch of details to force the two stories to agree, even though the connecting details are not mentioned in either account. Two things that are in neither account: A.) The sequence of events: Hung himself, rope breaks, falls to his death, bursts asunder, bowels gush out. B.) Judas becomes posthumous owner of a field via technicality. I could as easily take an account of another man -- I'll just throw something together. Account A: John Doe convicted of murder and dies in the electric chair at age 30. Account B: John Doe died of cancer at age 50 while serving a life sentence in prison for murder. We know that it's two conflicting accounts reporting the cause of death of the same person. By applying the same methodology, we will just presume both accounts are correct. So obviously, the man did go to the electric chair, but obviously he must have survived it. He must have been reported dead in error after the failed execution. Clearly the State must have decided against re-electrocuting the man, and his sentence must have been altered to life in prison. Twenty years later, he dies of cancer in prison. So obviously, both stories are accurate. But am I right to make this assumption just because I refuse to believe that one of the accounts is inaccurate? It creates a very sloppy and illogical line of reasoning IMHO. If I did all that penciling in of details in any kind of official capacity, I'd be fired for making up details.

Kinda depends on whether he's letting everyone assume that he's 100% clean and good other than the chastity problems. I've known members who struggled with smoking and drinking who were very active and some even received minor callings. But they were up front and honest about their struggles, and they were actively working to overcome them. But no he's not going to be excommunicated for it. That's for bigger things. If he proceeded to publish literature publicly attacking the Church for their stance on smoking and drinking, then he'd be moving in the right direction for it. But the advice is sound. Holding things back just cripples the whole repentance process.

Sounds a lot like adding text to the Bible that isn't already there. For a Latter Day Saint, as long as it is through God's approved channels, that's no problem. But do you believe that the Bible can be added to and/or altered? Indeed, doesn't it require you to do so in order to align the two accounts? If you have to add outside explanations, then the Bible isn't exactly standing on it's own, and requires extra-Biblical explanation. If we're allowed to read so far into things, it then how far can we go with it? We could go ahead and assume that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene I suppose. Sure the Bible never says so, but based upon internal and cultural evidences, it seems to fit. If we declare open-season on making unfounded assumptions and connecting the dots as we see fit, where does it end?

I think that the times spent asking, "What's in it for me?" lead to feeling miserable, creating unrealistic expectations and setting yourself up for disappointment. I think that time spent thinking, "What can I do for my spouse today?" lead to a lot of happiness, contentment and general good-will. I don't think there are many answers that work for every couple. Case in point, there's about 50% of people out there who do better getting over a fight by sleeping on it. For the other 50%, that makes it worse. I'm one of the first category, and my wife is one of the second category, so for the sake of her sanity, we have to do it her way. Sleeping on it would be disastrous. But some counselors and General Authorities say, "never go to bed angry." If both marriage partners are like me, and are better off just sleeping on it, then that blanket advice is not a good fit for them. Similarly, each marriage is a bit different and everyone works out their own system. The one constant for me: When I'm staying close to God and doing what I'm supposed to be doing, I feel much greater love for my wife. When I'm slacking off on my spirituality, then I tend to start noticing and being overly annoyed with her flaws and even perceived flaws that aren't truly there. As to defining love: The chemical reaction thing is lust. Lust is not a bad thing in a marriage. It's actually a very good thing. But love is more important. But it's easy to confuse love and lust. A good definition of love: Love is not about, "What's in it for me?" Love has nothing to do with, "Is my spouse fulfilling my needs?" Love is something is looking for ways serve them, please them and make them happy. Real love is something you can spend a lifetime trying to do right and still never succeed. But the harder you both try, the happier your marriage will be.

It's both really. The accounts disagree on who did the purchasing of the field and they disagree on how Judas died.As already pointed out, Joseph Smith's Translation agrees with your assumption about Judas' death involving hanging himself, falling and having his bowels gush out. So it sorts itself out on the "how did he die?" score if you happen to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and apostle. Without that clarification, you have to add some details to make the death part work itself out. As to the "who bought the field?" part, JST never fixes it, but that's fine because we don't claim to believe that the Bible is infallible. On the other hand, it does present a major problem if you DO happen to believe that the Bible is infallible.

But don't you see the problem? You have to ad-lib to make the stories line up. You have to throw in a bunch of assumptions, some of which directly contradict the text. You have to disbelieve both stories and rewrite them. In the one case, Judas casts the pieces of silver in the temple, departs and hangs himself. It specifically states that the chief priests purchased the field that came to be known as "the field of blood" because it was blood money. In the other account it says that Judas purchased the field with the reward for betraying Christ, and no mention is made of hanging. According to Joseph Smith, the passage in Matthew originally read as follows: But in order to accept that this correction is valid, one must acknowledge that the Biblical record may not be perfect, and one must accept that Joseph Smith was an Apostle and Prophet of God. For Latter Day Saints, this isn't a problem of course. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated, transcribed and copied correctly. We believe that God can reveal the necessary corrections where needed. But anyone claiming that the Bible is uncorrupted and perfect could never accept this or any other addition or alteration, no matter what. Any ad-libbing, twisting or turning of the Biblical record would be an open acknowledgment that it is less that perfect and complete, correct?

We fully believe that the events described in the Bible truly happened and the teachings in it are true. But the purpose of the exercise is pretty straightforward: Do not trust the BIBLE to be the perfect source of all of God's truth. That would have the Bible usurping a role that is God's and God's alone. Does Jesus say that the Bible would never be corrupted? Never subject to human error? He says that "My words will by no means pass away" and here we see another generous and popular usage of IMPLICATION. He did not say, "My words as written by my apostles and disciples will never be corrupted, altered or mistranslated." He did not say, "The Bible is perfect." The word "Bible" never appears in the Biblical text. But you are saying he implied this would be the case. Fact is, he never said anything of the sort outright. Certainly his words will never pass away and will all be fulfilled. They are written in the Heavens and the eternities obey. But this lost and fallen world does not always heed it's creator, and imperfect men cannot be expected to maintain a standard of perfection, no matter how good their intentions are. And we can hardly expect that all men had pure intentions either. The solution is the same as it has always been: James 1:5-6 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. In the end, each person can either be like a wave of the sea, tossed about by every wind of doctrine or comfortable tradition. Or they can ask God, and be wholly and completely guided by Him.

I'd say that the most important thing is to let your family know of your dilemma well in advance. If they are just finding out about it when it's time to go out to eat, then it becomes a problem. If they know of it in advance, then it's not likely to cause much of a stir. If it's me, I'd just cook for everyone. But in my humble opinion I can do better than most restaurants at cooking. Again, if it's me, then I could just play host/waiter/whatever. It's a valuable thing to maintain the distinction with your family. They'll simply have to accept that you put God first and for that reason, you will not break the Sabbath.

As stated Dr T, I don't enjoy going down this road. But I'm curious enough to hear what you can do with it. How can you make these two accounts NOT contradict? One account says Judas bought the field he was ultimately buried in with the money the chief priests paid him to betray Christ. The other account says that Judas threw the money at their feet, went and hung himself and then the chief priests used that money to buy the field that Judas was buried in. Without changing the words of the Biblical record, how do you get these two accounts to agree?

I'm not a big fan of pursuing an assault on the Bible. It sacred to me and means too much to me. But the point is that it takes very little effort to find apparent contradictions in the Biblical record. I would hold that Christians are losing sight of the purpose of Bible -- to lead them to God and Christ. If you want something perfect and flawless, they are what your looking for. The Bible is simply a means to help mankind find them.

Saying that the New Testament authors are perfectly agreed and in harmony is wishful thinking and extremely naive at best. This is just one of the most obvious examples. Did Judas die by hanging or by accidental fall (presumably from a cliff or something?) and having his bowels gush out? Did Judas personally purchase the field in question before Judas died, or did the chief priests purchase it after Judas had already committed suicide? Did he commit suicide or die by accidental fall? If he threw the money at the feet of the chief priests, then he couldn't have purchased the field himself, could he? So how can we get these two contradicting accounts to line up? It's a trivial matter and not important doctrinally. But if New Testament authors can tell the same story so differently, I think it's safe to say they are not always 100% in perfect harmony. Other items of contradiction: 1.) Matthew and Luke both give geneologies, but they don't match up. 2.) The events directly leading up to Jesus crucifixion get a bit muddled. Some writers send him to Herod Antipas, some don't. Some send him to Annas first, some send him directly to the High Priest first. 3.) Mark and Luke say Barrabas was guilty of murder and insurrection. John says he's a robber. All of this doesn't devalue the Bible. But it shoots a lot of holes into the theory that it is "God's perfect word without any flaws." The truth of the matter is the apostles and other New Testament writers were imperfect mortal men giving accounts of events to the best of their recollection. Ultimately, one must come to realize that the true purpose of the Bible's existence is not to lead us to the acknowledge the Bible as the perfect vessel of all truth. It is to lead us to God who is the source of pure truth. And it is only from God that we can learn perfect truth. Soninme, you're seem very sure that your interpretation of scripture is correct, yet for everything you believe that the Bible says, there is sure to be somebody who believes with all their heart that the Bible says exactly the opposite -- or at least something vastly different. Why does this happen? Because you and others like you throw together collections of verses, convince yourselves that "[DOCTRINE X,Y,Z] are clearly implied." The Trinity is the most obvious example. The best that can be said is that the Trinitarian Dogma (as it currently exists) was implied. But it was never clearly nor concisely taught. The passage of scripture that states, "The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate persons, but of one ousia/substance/being, and One Eternal God." <-- There is no passage in the Bible that says that directly. So Trinitarians have to fall back in "it's clearly implied." Latter Day Saints would counter that clearly it isn't implied at all, and Trinity apologists are just grasping at straws desperately seeking validation in the Biblical record.

Hey Snow, I'm not doubting you a bit. You're always well read on your facts and history. But can I get a reference for this? I'd like to read up on it more.

Taking the bolded parts one by one: 1.) God is a spirit -- only a part of the truth. To say that God is ONLY a spirit would be false. So alarming item one is this false doctrine. 2.) They thanked God that they alone were saved while the every other person on earth would burn in hell for eternity. A very mean-spirited and egotistical viewpoint, and utterly false doctrine as well. 3.) They thanked God for telling them that there would never be a Messiah. So the very center-piece of the Gospel -- Jesus Christ and his Atonement -- is cast aside as a "foolish tradition." Very, very alarming indeed. 4.) The ENTIRE worship service consisted of each of them going up to the Rameumptom, offering up the same rehearsed prayer one by one, and then everyone went home. Worse yet, they never talked about God or religion for the entire rest of the week. In the Church of Jesus Christ, there are some things that always mean the same thing, and therefore the wording is always the same. The Sacrament carries exactly the same meaning and purpose each and every time. But how much of the three hour Sabbath Day meeting schedule is given to set prayers? About 60 seconds. The rest of the time is spent with no set script. There are other ordinances that are the same. Baptism for instance is always, "[Person's Name] I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Once again, the ordinance is always the same because it means the same thing each and every time it happens. The Zoramites Sabbath services were 100% scripted. Same thing over and over until everyone has said it, then everyone goes home. That HUGELY different from 60 seconds out of a 3 hour block of time. Hope that helps.

The Apostasy gets very interesting. After all the Apostles are gone, what you had left were a bunch of bishops. The belief in Jesus Christ continued to grow of course. A rush to claim successor ship and therefore legitimate rulership over the entire Church Rome would claim it based up Peter -- but this is extremely shady. They lay claim to him being Bishop of Rome, but he never was. They claim that the fact that he died in Rome invested the authority to the real estate, which makes absolutely no sense at all. The Bishop of Antioch also claimed the right to ruler-ship based upon Peter. The Bishop of Jerusalem, Constantinople and Alexandria all had their own claims to supremacy. Ultimately, they were all just ordinary bishops who happened to be in major politically or religiously significant cities. But with the apostles gone and legitimate leadership missing, all five of these laid claim to what they had no legitimate right to claim: Supremacy over all the other bishops. The conquests of Islam pretty much ended the debate by swallowing the see of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and eventually Constantinople. Tiny groups of Christians still hold one these other bishops as superior to all others. The Bishop of Rome was blessed with luck in location, so he pretty much takes over the whole thing.

If you confront the question, "Why did it last so long?" (worst case scenario), I can offer my the gospel according to me: Satan managed to destroy things to a certain extent. The Lord used the remnants of his Church and Kingdom to spread the basics of the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every part of the world, while encountering minimal resistance by Satan. But in the end, the foundational knowledge went to ever corner of the world to prepare the world for the Restoration.Best source in general: The Great Apostasy -- James E Talmage. Probably too big. Some Ensign Articles: LDS.org - Ensign Article - Apostasy and Restoration LDS.org - Ensign Article - “From the Beginning†LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Message of the Restoration