Faded

No, not at all. I think we've gotten way, way, way off track actually. But the point being debated is one that is easily proven. The claim is that the copiers and transcribers of the Old and New Testament did make mistakes and didn't always get it 100% right. What Soninme appears to be claiming is that this is nonsense and that God would never allow his Word to be corrupted and that the Bible is perfect and flawless in every way. I do wish the facts backed up that point of view. Many centuries of debate and conflict could have been avoided if this were true. But the problem is that -- especially in the case of the New Testament -- there are many thousands of copies and fragments of the books of the Bible that simply do not match up. This means that either somebody made mistakes in transcription, or bias from their own beliefs crept in as the works were translated and transcribed. "Because I know X to be true, a better wording for this passage would be ..." We can't know which differences came from which scenario. What we do know is that thousands of significant differences between the oldest available manuscripts exist. If God had prevented the records from being corrupted and disallowed all errors, then every single manuscript of the original works of the Old and New Testament should match up perfectly and read exactly the same. Trouble is, they just don't. The creation of the most respected translations of the Bible into English took tremendous effort and collaboration by entire teams of scholars. Why is that? Because you have to determine which copies are accurate and which ones are in error. Sometimes it's a simple matter of the vast majority of reliable manuscripts agreeing on certain wording for the passage in question. Unfortunately, there often isn't a good consensus on the wording of the ancient manuscripts for the passage in question. At that point, the scholars have to decide which manuscript seems to be the most trustworthy for that particular passage. If you get a chance, go through the entire King James Version of the Bible and take note of the italics. Every single word that appears in Italics is where the scholars could not agree on the wording that should be accepted, and that the wording is their best guess at it. There are versions of the New International Version that weighs each verse for how many of the assembled team of scholars agree on the wording chosen. One might hypothesize that God led them to perfectly reassemble the words or some such. This too is debunked by the simple fact that contemporary translations of the Bible do not match up with each other in wording. If God created one perfect Bible, which translation is it? As I said earlier, while it's unbelievably obvious that the Bible can hardly be expected to be 100% perfect, that does not diminish it's value in our lives. Obviously, any scholar who was in any way involved in any Biblical translation process would never claim that they got it 100% right. But it was the Bible being made available to all the world that awoke the ancient world from their deep sleep of ignorance now commonly referred to as "The Dark Ages." The Bible was the light that woke up the world from its long slumber. The point on Biblical imperfection is being oversold. We don't approach things quite the same way Protestants do, but we place GREAT value in the Biblical record nonetheless. The thread is stuck on a tangent debating something that any true scholar already knows the answer to: Is the Biblical record, perfect and flawless? The obvious answer is, "No, it isn't, but translators do their very best to get it right and it's correct to the best of their ability to produce." It just isn't as earth-shatteringly critical a point as it's being made out to be. The value of the Bible and it's place within our faith would not change much at all if we could have a translation of the Bible that God certified was 100% perfect. The original question was, "How does the LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible?" The answer is very simple. For starters, properly understood there is no conflict between LDS doctrine and the Bible. But the truest answer is found in our Ninth Article of Faith: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." All of Christendom is united in declaring that God did speak to mankind long ago. We agree 100%. What we believe is not so different after all. All other Christian religions faithfully declare that God revealed himself and his will to mankind. We just happen to know that he still does. We have living prophets and apostles leading us. God has sent them to the world today. They are just as authoritative to the world today as the ancient apostles were when they lived. If there is a difference of opinion in translation or interpretation of a Biblical passage, we rely on the modern day prophets and apostles to lead us the right way. If some of God's teachings and commandments did not survive the long centuries since the Biblical times, or were simply not recorded, we have living apostles and prophets to restore that knowledge to us again. The OP's real question should not have been, "How do you resolve conflicts with the Bible?" We do not believe there are any. A better question would have been, "How do you resolve perceived conflicts with the Bible?" The answer is simple. God speaks to his living apostles and prophets and those sorts of perceived conflicts are answered by the very originator of the Bible: God Himself.

Here's a reference to what I think you're talking about: "President Hinckley taught that when we stand before the judgment bar of God, there will be little mention of wealth or honor. But there will be searching questions concerning our domestic relationships. (Priesthood Session, April 2002.) In June 1965, with the upstart building division of the Church, David O. McKay warned the new members of the committee that their new assignment would stretch them to the limits of time and effort. He then told them that the things of most importance must not be sacrificed for the things of least importance. He asked the new members if they would like to know what Christ would ask them at their judgment. The first two questions offered by President McKay were these: 1. Give an accounting for your relationship with your spouse. 2. Give an accounting for your relationship with each of your children. 3. What have you personally done with the talents given you in the premortal existence? 4. How did you fulfill your stewardship in Church assignments? 5. Were you honest is all your dealings? 6. What have you done to make a better city, state, and community?"

I think all of us here would love to build bridges to the other denominations that believe in the Book of Mormon, etc. One interesting tid-bit. The Church of Christ (Temple Lot/Hedrickite) owns the temple lot designated by Joseph Smith way back in the 1800's. They had a trailer on it -- as a visitor's center I suppose. Some arson set the thing on fire, it was destroyed and they were left without a building on the temple lot. From what I understand, we built them a replacement -- not a trailer but a nicer bigger, permanent building. The point is, the leaders of the Church do earnestly seek to build bridges and reconcile differences with other such groups. Often it is done very quietly. I don't think we took credit for the Hedrickite building publicly but it was left for people to assume that they had built it themselves. But anyone doing the math knew they didn't have the money to build it. Even if you had no idea where the help came from, you knew somebody helped them. There's a lot of other examples of course. We would love to re-unite with them all, but that isn't entirely up to us. FYI, I wasn't implying that you were here to bash our religion. Just bear in mind that many before you have come to this forum with that primary purpose in mind. Just letting you know that a certain amount of knee-jerk reflex defensiveness exists. As for me, I will always seek to give you or anyone the benefit of the doubt.

So the smart money is on Community of Christ, with the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) being the next most likely. Strangite and Hedrickite branches are also possible but they seem less likely in my mind due to their size. FLDS would seem like the least likely based upon what has been said so far, but it's still possible.Sorry, can't help but guess. You don't have to say if you don't want to. There are many other break-off groups. Feel free to post your concerns about our denomination's failure to abide by the teachings of the Book of Mormon -- respectfully of course (we get a lot of haters and people can jump to conclusions because of that). I'd be very interested in that discussion.

LOL, I've certainly heard of that -- as a broad spectrum movement, not a denomination. The Restoration Movement contains The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and all break-off groups from it, The Disciples of Christ, The Church of Christ (Campbellite), The Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and others. The entire premise of the Restoration Christian Movement was to recreate the Church that existed in the times of the Apostles. It is a separate concept from the Protestant Reformation and Puritanism who only wished to reform the existing Church to look and act more like the Church in the days of the Apostles. The Restoration Movement is an acknowledgement that it has to be built over again. The other branches of the Restoration Movement sought to use the Bible as their blueprint for recreating the True Church. The Latter Day Saint movement (encompassing us and all splinter groups that came from us) are the only Restorationist group that claims a restoration of modern day revelation, an open scriptural canon, and living Apostles and Prophets of equal standing with those in New Testament times. But we do fit within the overall movement because we are a movement believing that the Church and Kingdom of God needed to be recreated. I'm curious at our new friends denominational affiliation, if he has any at all. Anyways, welcome!

I'm going to have to respond piecemeal if at all to your post, so bear with me. You bring up and interesting point with this passage: Christ asked his Apostles who they thought he was. Simon answers for them saying, "You are the Messiah and the Son of God." Jesus commends Simon and tells him that God the Father had revealed the truth to him. And herein is the key of the scripture. Revelation. What will Christ build his Church on? Well, what just happened in the prior verses? God revealed the truth to Jesus chosen leaders amongst his disciples. Then Christ gives Simon a new name -- Peter (meaning small rock or pepple.) When he says "Upon this rock..." another word is used: Cephas (meaing large stone outcrop.) So what is the foundation Christ is talking about? It is two things: Christ Himself and revelation from God. So what happens when the Church and Kingdom of God are built upon revelation from God to his chosen Apostolic leaders? The gates of hell will not prevail against it. What does that mean exactly? That both individually and collectively as Christ's Church, you will not be overcome by the forces of evil if you are built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ and revelation from God. Does that mean that evil people won't kill you? Certainly not. It means that in the end, you will not be overcome by the forces of evil, but will inherit eternal life. What happens when the Church ceases to receive revelation from God? The closing of the canon, the last written words by Apostles, the lack on any new scriptures; It all adds up to the same thing. Revelation ceased. Without the foundational element of revelation you also aren't built on Christ. What you have left isn't God's Church and Kingdom on Earth anymore. What remains is only a memory of that Church and Kingdom of God, but not the real thing. How can it be God's if he isn't guiding it anymore? What this passage doesn't say is, "The Church of Christ will never fall away from the truth." In the end, God knows what he is doing. When Moses led Israel out of Egypt into the wilderness, Moses wanted to reveal a fullness to them. Israel wasn't ready for it, so they got something less from God. Early Christianity received the fullness, but they lost that fullness. Apparently they were not ready or willing to receive a fullness of what God wanted to give them, so God gave them something less. A lessening of the fullness of Christianity did not thwart the works of God anymore than ancient Israel's rebellions in the wilderness did. It worked to accomplish His will. Knowledge of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost reaches to every corner of the globe, and this happened via the hands of a lesser incomplete version of his Church. The Protestant Reformation happened and Christendom began waking up for it's long slumber of ignorance. The Bible was published in every language and swept across the world. Why did God lead men to rebel and start to question the Catholic Church? Because it was not the original Church and Kingdom of God, but only a poor copy of the real thing. And as the Reformers read the Bible and realized that the Roman Catholic Church was vastly different from the Church described in the Scriptures. Why did God lead them to realize all of this? Why would he lead them to question their mother Church? Because they needed to know that Christendom had lost it's way and strayed far from what God instructed. Because God wanted them to see with their own eyes what was missing and what had been lost. Only by knowing something is lost can you search for it and try to get it back. Quite simply, He was preparing the world for the return of His Church and Kingdom in it's fullness. Because the knowledge of God and Christ is has reached everywhere in the world, the Restored Church and Kingdom of God could be built and would not be lost this time. Now the Peter=pebble or small rock reference has significance to us in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. This almost certainly has reference to the a stone like unto the Urim and Thummim -- the use of which constitutes seers in ancient times and is mentioned in the Revelation of John. It is also mentioned in the Exodus as being part of the clothing of Aaron and presumably all subsequent High Priests. So Simon has "Peter" added to his name signifying, "Simon, prophet and seer." And the verse tells us, "You are a prophet, seer and revelator, and it is upon this foundation of revelation whereupon my Church shall be built. And because of this foundation of continual revelation, the gates of hell will not prevail against it." And the keys of the kingdom were entrusted to Simon Peter. When God undertook to restore his Church and Kingdom, he did send Simon Peter along with James and John to restore the Apostolic and Priesthood authority. So in a very real sense, this Church and Kingdom is built upon the foundation laid by Peter. The keys were passed on to living Prophets and Apostles. Our General Authorities have them today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Apostles and Prophets do? So yes, God did send someone to tell you what to believe in. It's up to you whether you listen to God's messengers or cast stones at them like they did Stephen. God will not force you to listen.

The 2nd Timothy tells us what scripture is and why it is useful. What I'm seeing is you reading something more into it. Yes all things that are worthy of being called Scripture are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. The primary purpose for studying the Scriptures is indeed to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. None of this contradicts our understanding and teachings in any way. It only becomes contradictory when you read more into it.What the passage doesn't say is that the Bible is the only scripture that ever was and ever will be. It never says that all you need is Scripture. It never says nor implies that all that can be had from God is contained in the Bible, nor that it is contained in any Scriptures. The passage makes no claim that the Biblical record would never be corrupted by errors -- whether accidental or intentional. We believe that the Biblical record was perfect when it was came from the pen of the original writers. We believe that the Bible is mostly correct, but that there are some errors. I don't choose to focus too much on those errors -- but those that do are simply trying to make the case that it takes more than just a slightly imperfect Bible to build God's Church and Kingdom on Earth. Is the Bible perfect? Well, the Protestant theory goes like this: "It would have never been corrupted because God would have never let such a thing happen to his Word." News flash for you: we already have proof that it just didn't happen like that. There are differences between the oldest texts we have. The Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Peshitta, Vulgate, Masoretic Text, Samarian Pentateuch and Targum don't match 100% of the time. There are significant differences in many cases. Commenting on the many texts that the New Testament derives from, texual scholar Bart Ehrman said, "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament..." Almost any expert can tell you that when the NIV was written, the writers felt they were able to make a better Bible than the King James Version -- mostly because of new discoveries that they felt enabled them to more accurately reflect the true text of the original Old and New Testament. You can find plenty of info in this Wikipedia article: Biblical Manuscripts. Or just do your own research. The fact is, there is considerable debate about what the exact text of the Old and New Testament was originally. So the theory that you're clinging to doesn't stand up to reality. God did not prevent error from creeping into Biblical texts by transcribers. Very often, two texts of the same book of the Bible will have significant differences, despite both being from reputable sources and from about the same historic period. It is my opinion that the level of preservation of the Old and New Testament is nothing short of miraculous, but it's just not 100% perfect. If it was perfect and God prevented any errors in copying and transcription, then all the texts would be exactly identical -- and that simply isn't the case. In the end, I don't dwell on the slight imperfections that the Bible may have picked up over the years. I think it's been oversold by many that have posted in this thread, and as a Church we're not quite as keen as they make out to point out Biblical imperfections. The Bible doesn't need to be perfect if you have living Prophets and Apostles to guide Christ's Church. And that's where it's all leading. Having a book written by Apostles and Prophets 2000+ years ago is nice and all, but having living Apostles and Prophets to lead and guide you in addition to those ancient records is vastly better. Just like the ancient Apostles before them, Prophets and Apostles today draw heavily from the ancient scriptures (the Bible being one) for their direction to the Church. To say that we ignore the Bible or do not teach from it is nonsense. But we do feel it is not our only source of information from God. Consider this for a moment. When a modern day Apostle and Prophet reveals that God did NOT harden Pharoh's heart in the time of the Exodus, but that Pharoh hardened his own heart, my faith and trust in God increase greatly. That feature of Exodus had always bothered me a lot. If God hardened Pharoh's heart to prevent Pharoh from letting Israel go, then God was playing the part of a cruel torturer. He is forcing the whole of Egypt to suffer greater and greater plagues and forcing their leader to disregard logic, and keep all of Egypt in the cookpot to suffer greater and greater plagues. But if it was Pharoh who hardened his own heart, then the notion of God cruelly tormenting the Egyptians is dispelled. Instead, we find a very, very stubborn man in the person of Pharoh. By his own incredible stubbornness, he brings one catastrophe after another down on Egypt. He was not being forced to do it all against his will, but is pitting his will against God's will. This modern day revelation correcting a long standing transcriptional mistake goes a long ways towards improving my good opinion of my God and the God of Israel. That is just one example why having living Apostles and Prophets is a very good thing.

Please note, I made a couple of important additions to the post on John Wycliffe. I think it's worth mentioning that the Council of Constance and the Pope ordered his remains to be dug up and that he be posthumously burned at the stake, which actually did happen -- 44 years after Wycliffe was dead and buried.

I wouldn't be too quick to judge. Yes the Church did have its own hidden agenda in their dealings with Wycliffe, but then again, so did those who supported and protected Wycliffe.The Roman Catholic Church sincerely did and does believe itself to be the Church and Kingdom of God on Earth. With this in mind, the Roman Catholic Church sought to make Western Europe one big Christian Empire. And by 1200 AD, they had pretty much succeeded. The Pope was a virtual Emperor over the West. The kings dared not defy the Pope, for fear of being excommunicated (which would turn all their subjects against them, and would almost certainly lead to their overthrow.) The Pope used his power for both good and bad purposes. He was able to end bloody wars between kingdoms and keep Christendom and its kings from doing things that really would have been contrary to the will of God. He was able to keep Western Europe united under his guidance. But unfortunately, the Pope also abused his power quite often. The Roman Catholic Church would view 1100 AD to 1200 AD as the golden age of Christianity. Why? Because, at least in the West, Christendom was united. There was only one faith, one Lord and one baptism. There were not 30,000+ denominations, just one. If we put ourselves in their shoes, we would certainly view it as a very good thing if an entire continent contained nothing but members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And we would view it as a great disaster about half of the members of the LDS Church on that hypothetical continent rebelled, defected from the Church and rebelled against the will of God. What Catholicism is blind to is that the Protestant Reformation was not a bad thing. We know this because of Joseph Smith's experience. When God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him and he asked them directly which church to join, they did not say "Go join the Roman Catholic Church." He was commanded to "Join none of them." This experience puts our religious experience apart from any other Christian movement or denomination. The rest of them are left to assume that the Church and Kingdom of God on Earth survived and that there was no Great Apostasy. Catholics stake the claim that they are that very Kingdom and that priesthood authority passed directly from the Apostles to the Roman Catholic Church, making it the ultimate religious authority on Earth. Protestantism counter-claims that there is no priesthood authority, but that all believers in Christ become a "priesthood of all believers." Protestant Reformers point out that the Roman Catholic Church is contradictory to the teachings in the Bible, especially the New Testament. And since the Church of Jesus Christ strayed from the teachings of the Apostles, the only solution is to use the Bible as the ultimate authority in sorting truth from error. To them, the Bible becomes the ultimate authority in the Church on Earth. In the centuries old debate between Option A and Option B, none of them really considered the possibility that the correct answer was "C - None of the Above."

One of the first significant Reformers was John Wycliffe. Wycliffe was a man who appeared at the right place at the right time to introduce radical ideas that were ahead of their time. John Wycliffe came to prominence as a theologian at Oxford University in England in 1360. At the time, the Hundred Years War was ongoing and the Avignon Papacy was still in power. The Avignon Popes, being French, frequently showed substantial bias in favor of France, and against England. Wycliffe rose to prominence as a defender of English interests agaist the Avignon Pope Urban V. In light of the English position, Wycliffe's suggestion that the Roman Catholic Church was not what Christ's Church was supposed to be, was not met with the outrage and hostility that it would have at any other time in history. He advocated the Kingdom of England seizing much of the Church's property on English soil. He believed that the Church should be poor as it was in the days of the Apostles and that it should not exercise earthly governmental rule, saying that it contradicted the Scriptures. The acting ruler of England, John Gaunt (steward for the King, his 10 year old nephew) defended Wycliffe from any threat of Roman Catholic retribution. John liked what Wycliffe was teaching and liked the prospect of seizing Church properties. When the Bishop of London attempted to call Wycliffe to account for his heretical statements, John Gaunt and several like minded English lords came with him. With the defacto King defending him, the Bishop of London had not choice but to let the matter go. John declared to the Bishop that he would humble the pride of the English clergy. Pope Gregory XI denounced Wycliffe and his teachings, but with John Gaunt and the entire English nation stood to protect him from any punishment. At the request of the English governemnt, Wycliffe denounced Rome's financial demands upon England as an overt attempt to suck the life out of them. When called to trial before the English clergy, the most the bishops dared was to forbid Wycliffe from speaking anymore about these controversies. When the Oxford Vice-Chancellor followed the Pope's directions and confined Wycliffe in the Black Hall and proceeded to physically mistreat him, Wycliffe's supporters got him out, imprisoned the Vice-Chancellor in the very same prison and subjected him to the same treatment Wycliffe had received at his hands. At this point in 1382, Gregory XI died and the Great Western Schism began. No further action was attempted by the Papacy against Wycliffe. In 1382, Wycliffe completed the first ever translation of the Bible into English. At the time, this was seen as heresy and treason in the extreme, but for the man who had already dared to challenge Rome so much, this was nothing. Wycliffe's teachings included returning the Church to a simpler and non-earthly government, using the Scriptures as the ultimate authority, and strong advocation that the Bible should be studied by all. John Wycliffe was the first to begin to claim belief in two concepts that would shape the Protestant Reformation. The first was a belief in justification by faith, which was the center-piece teaching of Martin Luther. He also taught a less developed version of the doctrine of Predestination, which was on of the most distinguishing teachings of reformer John Calvin. John Wycliffe died in 1384 AD at 64 years old. Wycliffe is widely regarded as "The Morning Star of the Reformation." His followers, the Lollards included a Bohemian man by the name of John Huss, another one of the great Early Reformers. In 1401 the Catholic Church reasserted control over religious affairs in England. A new law ordered that heretics be burned at the stake and followers of Wycliffe were heretics. Archbishop Arundel declared that it was illegal even to read the English Bible Wycliffe had translated. He decreed that no one should translate any part of the Bible into the English language nor read any of Wycliffe’s writings, either publicly or privately. Anyone who defied these orders would be burned at the stake as a supporter of heresy. One interesting development occurred 31 years after John Wycliffe was dead and buried. In 1415 the Council of Constance ordered that John Wycliffe's body be disinterred and burned. Pope Martin V approved the order, and the deed was finally carried out in 1428, approximately 44 years after Wycliffe’s death. His bones were burned in a field of execution and the ashes scattered in the River Swift near Lutterworth. The general thinking that goes into this is that by destroying a person's remains, they will not be able to rise in the resurrection of the just. John Wycliffe's success emboldened reformers who came after him. Wycliffe can rightly be seen as the earliest beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

Pre-Reformation Continued During this same time period, two extremely significant calamities further ripened Western Europe for the Protestant Reformation. The Hundred Years War occurred in an overlapping time period 1337–1453 AD as the Avignon Papacy and the Great Western Schism. The Capetian line of French kings had died out and there were two leading claimants to the French throne were House of Valois and the House of Plantagenet, (also known as the House of Anjou). The Plantagenets/Anjou just happened to be the reigning royal line of England at the time. For 116 years the English and French battled off and on, with the French securing their claim to the throne. The Hundred Years War took a terrible toll on Western Christendom, etablishing an enduring hatred between France and England that lasted several centuries. Any illusions that the kingdoms of Western Europe were some great brotherhood under Christ, all under the watchful eye of Rome -- the idea would have seemed ridiculous in the face of such a bitter war. So where was the Pope and why couldn't he prevent (or at least negotiate the peace) this long and bloody feud? The answer is simple enough. At the beginning of the Hundred Years War, the Papacy was ruling from Avignon, France and largely a puppet of the French monarchs and nobles. Their French bias would have made them ill suited to mediate. Later on in the Hundred Years War, the Papacy was in the middle of the Great Western Schism, and Papal authority looked very weak indeed. Right in the middle of the Avignon Papacy and the Hundred Years War, the greatest blow landed. The Black Plague struck Europe like a hammer blow, sweeping over Europe from 1346 to 1351. The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population, and killed approximately 75 million people world-wide in the 14th century alone (and that in a time when there were far fewer people living on this planet.) The fact that the Roman Catholic Church was utterly powerless to stop the Black Plague shook the faith of the peoples of Western Europe. "Why is God punishing us?" The divergent answers to that very question lead Europe in many different unexpected directions. Many of those answers blamed the Roman Catholic Church in some way or another. The massive death toll also introduced some unexpected things. There was no longer a large surplus of peasants in Europe. Now there was a significant shortage. Up to that point, peasants were slaves for all intents and purposes. But with a demand for their services, Europe would see attempt after attempt by via peasant revolts to turn the feudal system on it's head and end their servitude. The lowest of the low in European society were no longer content to sit quiet and accept what life had given them. In the long run, the aristocracy would lose their iron grip of control, as the common people rose up and demanded a better life. More than anything, the Black Death got a lot of Western Europeans doubting things they'd never had any reason to doubt before, and much of that leads more immediately to the Renaissance and Reformation.

There were always various sects that sought to break with the official Church dogma. Those that survived became separate denominations. Those that were successfully erradicated by the Church were dubbed heresies. There is a very long list of them: Catholic Heresies Pre-Reformation Before the more successful Protestant Reformation, there were a number of events and groups that set the stage to make a break with Rome not only possible, but practically inevitable. The first divergence from Roman Catholicism to survive were the Waldensians, founded about 1177 by Peter Waldo. Waldensians believed in poverty and austerity, public preaching, personal study of the scriptures and and freedom of conscience. They challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of their belief that it was not based on the Scriptures. The Catholic Church tried to erradicate them and almost succeeded, but not quite. The sect survives to this day, albeit in small numbers. The failure of the Church to eliminate them did not have a very significant impact historically, but many major Protestant were influenced by the Waldensians to varying degrees. One of the major events that hurt the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church was the Avignon Papacy from 1305 to 1377 AD. The Roman Catholic Church refers to this period as the Babylonian Captivity. The French had played a significant role in establishing the Pope's preeminent authority over all of Western Europe, and attained equal clout with Italy within the Church. They came to resent the exclusive control Italy had over the Papacy, and this was reflected in the fact that there was an equal number of French and Italian Cardinals -- and if you know anything about Cardinals, you know that they elect the new Pope when the reigning Pope dies of them dies. Things heated up when a newly elected French Pope, Clement V (elected 1305), refused to go to Rome. The Pope had always been the Bishop of Rome, yet Clement V refused to go to Rome after his election. Instead he was crowned in Lyons, France and then set up papal rule in Avignon, France. And he had good cause. Wars between the private armies of Roman aristocrats had turned the city into a nightmarish war-zone. The Basilica of St. John Lateran (the official cathedral of the Pope) had been torched and was unusable. Rome was not a very safe place to be. The unintended consequences were firstly that Clement V acted very much like a puppet of the King of France. Secondly, Clement V became the first of a series of seven Popes who reigned in Avignon. The Bishop of Rome was not longer residing in Rome. The city itself had always granted a certain aura of authority, hearkening back to the glory days of Roman power. Now the Papacy looked more like a puppet to of the Kingdom of France than the highest religious authority in the world, (as the Pope claims to be.) Things got much worse before they got better. The seventh of the line of Avignon popes, Gregory XI, returned to Rome on January 17, 1377. Gregory XI died a year later, which likely wasn't enough to solidly reestablish Rome as the seat of the Pope. After Gregory's death, the cardinals elected an Italian Pope, Urban VI. That same year, the French cardinals in Avignon elected a French Pope, Clement VII. So now, Western Europe who had well the supremacy of the Pope well established in their minds was confronted with two Popes at the same time. Clement VII and Urban VI excommunicated each other of course, each man insisting that he was the true Pope. Each Pope demanded the loyalty of Western Europe, and the nations' loyalties were split almost evenly. Here's a map of what that looked like (sorry it's in French. Blue supported Rome. Red supported Avignon. Orange didn't take a side.): From 1378 AD to 1409 AD, the Western Church lived under the rule of two feuding Popes. It went on for so long that both the Pope in Avignon and the Pope in Rome had died, and successors had been elected. In fact, Rome was on it's fourth succeeding rival Pope before anything was done about the split. Finally, the French and Italian cardinals reconciled their differences and decided to abandon both current Popes, Gregory XII in Rome and Benedict XIII in Avignon. They met in Pisa, Italy and elected a new Pope, Alexander V -- who died within the year unfortunately, (and Catholic canon regards him as an anti-pope or false pope). After Alexander's death, the combined French and Italian cardinals elected Pope John XXIII, who began to reign in Pisa, Italy. Unfortunately, both Gregory XII and Benedict XIII refused to step aside. So now you had THREE POPES at the same time!! Finally, at the Council of Constance in 1414, things started to sort themselves out a bit. The Council was able to secure the resignation of John XXIII (Pisa) and Gregory XII (Rome). Benedict XIII (Avignon) refused to step aside and was excommunicated by the Council, but since excommunication is usually the exclusive right of the Pope and it is questionable whether a pope can be excommunicated. Ultimately, Benedict refused to acknowledge it, and continued to reign in France. The Council of Constance, feeling they had removed all of the three rival Popes proceeded to elect a new Pope, a Roman noble who took the name Martin V. Martin V was broadly accepted, and by the time Benedict XIII died two years later, there was little widespread support for a continuation of the line of Popes in Avignon. Benedict XIII had three successors who had virutally no support, even from within France itself. The three of them are regarded as anti-popes. Finally, the Great Western Schism was over. Below is a picture of what it all looked like: With the authority of the Church in worse straights than anyone could have dreamed, the Council of Constance undertook two other very important actions. The condemnations of Jon Huss and John Wycliffe (who was dead 31 years), two very significant early Reformers. Jon Huss was invited to the Council, with explicit guarantees that he would not be harmed, and that his complaints against Church dogma would be discussed. Upon arival, Jon Huss was arrested, condemned by the Council and burned at the stake. No discussion was ever attempted. More on that later.

There is a tremendous influx of paganism into the practices of Christendom, that is true. It also does the early Christian Church no favors when, by virtue of declaring Christianity a state religion, Emperor Constantine and his successors ultimately usurped real leadership of The Church. Catholic Apologists will tell you differently, but history tells a different tale. The Emperor was the head of the Church for all intents and purposes. Constantine took that role upon himself before he was even baptized as a Christian! Their claim to leadership really isn't that complicated. The Apostles were all dead, and the Church came to believe that was the way God intended it to happen. So if God meant for the Apostles to die out, then God must have meant for someone to lead the Church thereafter, right? This is where it starts getting a bit ridiculous. The bishops of both Rome and Antioch claim that Peter was once the Bishop of their city. Of the two, Rome's claim is the more ludicrous. Peter did lead the Church from both Jerusalem and Antioch. The only time he even set foot in Rome was as a Roman prisoner, and tradition holds that it was at Rome that Peter was put to death. But ridiculous or not, Roman Catholics adamantly declare that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and therefore his successors as Bishop of Rome were also successors to his preeminence in the Church. This is the foundation on which the Pope's entire authority stands. As already stated, Antioch claims apostolic successorship through Peter. Alexandria likewise claims authoritative successorship from Saint Mark. Jerusalem claims successorship from James. Constantinople, interestingly enough, does not (as far as I'm aware) lay claim on any of the Apostles, but her bishop became the recognized "greatest among equals" because Constantine rules from Constantinople. It should be noted that the Eastern Church developed very differently from the Roman Catholic Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople is only viewed as the "greatest among equals" and his preeminence is nothing like that of the Pope in the West. In the West, there was indeed an ecclesiastical and political power vacuum left by the demise of the line of emperors. The same cannot be said for the Eastern Orthodox Church, who went from having an Emperor and Supreme Church Leader directly to being under the thumb of the Muslim Ottoman Empire. So there was no logical single leader for the Orthodox Church. The Russians claim successorship to the Emperor's mantle in their Tsars (which is a Russian spelling for Cesars), but this is only accepted in the Russian Orthodox Church. The rest of the Eastern Church did not recognize the Tsar's authority. The remainder were left organizationally pretty much as they were when Constantinople fell. If there is a leader over the Eastern Orthodox Church, it's the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The more important aspect that makes this statement true is that Jehovah-God was, is and always will be greater than Jesus Christ in every way. Jesus becomes more of a demi-god really. Powerful, but nothing quite like Jehovah-God. That is if I understood them correctly. What we do believe is that while they are equal in power and knowledge, it is God the Father's role to take the lead and the Son and Holy Spirit do as He commands.

I think the entire room would be full of blank stares if you started in on the whole "they are the same substance" thing. More than anything, you'd have a lot of people trying to sort out what you mean by it.It's not something commonplace to LDS theology. It's so foreign that some would remain silent and figure you're saying "made from the same stuff, cut from the same cloth, exactly like one another" which wouldn't really contradict our views on the Godhead. Then there might be those who would ask further probing questions, and they'd probably come out in the same straights as myself: Utterly, completely and thoroughly confused. The Nicaean Trinity does not claim that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the same person. It also does not claim that they are the same being. It claims they are the same substance. So then you'd have to explain what you mean by substance -- and there's really no notion of what you have in mind within LDS theology, so you'd have a hard time of it there. You might have them too confused by trying to explain it for them to even bother accusing you of teaching false doctrine. That may come a week or two later after their heads clear a bit.

Correct. It's generally known as the Great Schism. To better understand it, you have to understand how leadership sorted itself out in the early Christian Church. All of the Apostles were killed off, leaving a vacuum of power. In process of time, the general consensus was that a Pentarchy of the five most important bishops was the highest authority in the Church. These bishops were of the cities Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome. It may be of interest that all but Rome took the title "Patriarch" while Rome's bishop added "Pope" to his title. They mean (or came to mean) pretty much the same thing: "Presiding Father." The Eastern Church still sometimes refers to the Pope as "Patriarch of Rome." For a good comparison, lets imagine a hypothetical future where the USA meets with huge disaster that erradicates the entire Federal Government and all of the State governments as well. The leaderless nation flounders for awhile. The mayors of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC and Philidelphia -- as leaders of the most important cities -- jump in and start leading. Bereft of any other leadership, it's only natural that Americans recovering from cateclism would be happy to follow their lead. Why would they care whether the mayors had any legitimate right to lead the nation, you follow any leader when there isn't any other leadership. It should be noted that the Emperors of the Eastern and Western Empire were often viewed as the highest authority in Christendom. This traditional recognition of Imperial authority over the Church continued in the Byzantine Empire, where the Emperors remained powerful nearly a thousand years after emperors in Rome had ceased to exist. In many ways, the Pope filled the power vacuum left by the demise of Western emperors. From the First Council of Nicaea till the mid 600 AD, the Emperors and this Pentarchy of the Five Patriarchs presided over the Christian Church. Just after 600 AD, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria all fell to the Persian Empire briefly, and were subsequently reconquered by the Byzantine Roman Empire. Then came the Islamic conquests of the Arabs. Antioch fell to the Arabs in 637 AD. Then Jerusalem fell to Arab Muslim conquest in 638 AD. Alexandria was conquered by the Arab Muslims in 641 AD. Some were reconquered, either by the Byzantines, or the Armenians or the Crusaders, but all such attempts to recover those cities were short lived. You can imagine the effect. Three of Christendom's great cities rapidly declined in their presumed authority. This left just Constantinople and Rome. Both had their own delusions of supremacy over the whole Church. Rome had always been the more isolated of the 5 ruling Patriarchs. Constantinople repeatedly tried to assert dominance over the other Greek-speaking Patriachs: Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Seen as the non-Greek outsider, Rome often played mediator in the ensuing fights. This reinforced for both Constantinople and Rome the notion that they were supreme leader of Christendom. It started to come to a head when Pope Nicholas attempted to remove Patriarch Photius and reappoint Ignatius as the Patriarch of Constantinople by his own authority and decree. This did not sit well with the Byzantine Roman Emperor, who was considered superior to both Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople by the Byzantines. The Pope was trying to undo something he had no right to meddle in, in the Emperor's view. Three Councils were convened at Constantinople to sort the matter out, but it probably just made things worse. First they removed Photios as Patriarch and reinstated Ignatius. Then they re-removed Ignatius and reinstated Photios. Then the Council excommunicated Pope Nicholas and rejected his claims of supremacy. Then a new Emperor, Basil the Macedonian, came to power. He favored Ignatius. Photios was condemned as a heretic and Ignatius was reinstated as Patriarch of Constantinople. I suppose this left everyone claiming victory. The Pope and the Emperor both got their way. It all finally came to a head in 1054 AD. Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople started things off by condemning the Western Church's "Judaistic" practice of using unleavened bread in communion (among other things). Pope Leo IX responded to the accusations by asserting his own supremacy as Pope, and sent and emissaries to deliver the Pope's letter responding to the accusations. Naturally, the Patriarch refused to accept the Pope's supreme authority. The emissaries then completed their second mission -- delivering a letter of excommunication from Pope Leo IX to Patriarch Michael I. It should be noted that by the time these emissaries delived the letter excommunicating Michael I, Pope Leo IX had already died. Leo's emmissaries authority ceased with Leo's life, so the excommunication was technically invalid. The official reason for excommunication was the deletion of the some words from the Nicene Creed-- which was a completely backwards accusation. The Church in Rome had added those words, known as "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed and the Eastern Churches had never recognized the addition. From that day forward, the Patriachs of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople have remained separated from the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope). There have been numerous failed attempts to reunite East with West. Oddly, the real ecclesiastical power in the Eastern Empire, the Emperor himself, was never excommunicated. Of course the Emperor ceased to be a factor in 1453 when the Ottoman Empire finally overtook Constantinople, slaughtering most of it's inhabitants and selling the remainder into slavery. There would never again be an Eastern Roman Emperor after that. The succession of four Eastern Patriarchs within the Muslim ruled lands has continued unbroken till today, though obviously their authority is greatly diminished. In a very real sense, you might consider the Pope a beneficiary of the demise of his fellow Patriarchs as well as the Emperors. The Pope effectively becomes the last man standing.

Christian religious historians consider the Church to have been whole and united from Christ's death in 33 AD till the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, but it this hardly the case. There were great doctrinal divisions, and when certain Eccumenical Councils convened, they tread right on the toes of those divergent sets of doctrine. The Assyrian Christians broke away in 431 First Council of Ephesus by refused to accept the condemnation of Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinope. To make a long story short, it was nitpicking over the Nature of God. The Church in the Selucid Empire (Mesopotamia and Persia) cut itself off from the rest of the Church, in what is now called the Nestorian Schism. The reason they were able to break away was because they were not in the borders of the Roman Empire, so the Emperor could not force the issue. In 498 their leader "the Catholicos" assumed the title of "Patriarch of the East." Kindof like "The Pope of the Eastern Church". For many centuries this was one of the most successful missionary Christian churches. They continued to spread throughout Persia, Tartary (modern Kazakstan area), Mongolia, China, and India, developing on lines of its own. It saw very little influence from the rest of Christendom. During the time of Ghengis Khan's Empire (1206–1250) there was an emissary sent by the Pope to try to convert the Mongols in hopes of diminishing their brutal conquests. He discovered that there was already a large Christian minority among the Mongols -- probably 10-20%. These were converts to the Assyrian (sometimes called Nestorian) Christian Church. Armenia was the first country to adopt Christianity as its official religion in 301 AD -- and that's before the reign of Constantine (306 AD to 337 AD) and the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The Armenian Apostolic Church traces its origins to the missions of Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus in the 1st century. The nation of Armenia today sits just north of Iran in the Caucassus region. The Armenian Church also split with the rest of the Church. Once again it was a dispute over the nature of God and Christ. The Armenian Church rejected the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. In 554 AD they officially severed all ties with Rome and Constantinople. Georgia (north of Armenia) and Ethiopia are two other Christian nations their doctrines developed somewhat independantly from the Catholic Church because they were cut off and isolated from it. The cannonization of the Bible was a gradual process, but was more or less finished by 419 AD via the Synod of Hippo, and the First and Second Council of Carthage. There was some dispute about the validity of Hebrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and the Revelation of John. The rest of the New Testament was generally accepted -- though certainly not compiled into one book -- by 200 AD, so well before the Council of Nicaea.

One interesting detail you probably also didn't know: Roughly HALF of Arab Americans are either Assyrian Christians or Armenian Christians. They've fled their homelands in the middle east because the Muslim majority has done some terrible things to them. Early on when Muslim conquests swept over their homeland in modern Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc, Islam was much more tolerant than it is today. They've lived for about 1300 years as an isolated Christian minority. As Islam started to decline and the West started to overshadow the Islamic world, things got worse and worse for the Armenians and Assyrians. It all came to a head when last great Muslim empire, the Ottoman Empire perpetuated the first great Holocaust in modern times: The Armenian Holocaust. And estimated 1,500,000 Armenian Christians were rounded up and massacred by the Empire from 1912 to 1918 -- so throughout World War 1. Hitler would later use the Armenian Hollocaust as an excuse for his own genocide: "Our strength is our quickness and our brutality. Genghis Khan had millions of women and children hunted down and killed, deliberately and with a gay heart. History sees in him only as the great founder of States. What the weak Western European civilization alleges about me, does not matter. I have given the order—and will have everyone shot who utters but one word of criticism—that the aim of this war does not consist in reaching certain geographical lines, but in the enemies' physical elimination. Thus, for the time being only in the east, I put ready my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. Only thus will we gain the living space that we need. After all, who still remembers of the extermination of the Armenians?" The sad fact is that Hitler is largely right. Very few people remember the Armenian Holocaust.

Just for laughs, I'm going to see what happens when I try it: Edit: LOL worked. Okay so that's what Bytor was trying to post.

While we're at it:

Here is a better map of Protestantism. There's a lot of crossing influences and partial moves from one group into anther that the first chart doesn't quite do justice to. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Protestantbranches.svg

Here's a very rough sketch of Christianity. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg No, it is not quite true that everything starts with Constantine. The Assyrian and Armenian branches of Christianity were well established during the life of Constantine, but they were not within the borders of the Roman Empire. Much of the Orthodoxy of the Christians at the time of Constantine came by way of the Roman Emperor enforcing it. But the Armenians and Assyrians were not under the Emperor's command, so they were not necessarily as affected. It it however true that the Armenians (and I think the Assyrians too) deferred to the Bishop of Antioch, and Antioch certainly was within the borders of the Empire.

Right and yet a person is more likely to have a happy and satisfying marriage if they have never slept around prior to marriage. If the only person you've had sex with in your life is your spouse then they are less likely to cheat and more likely to be satisfied with what they have. A friend of mine got divorced from his non-member wife a couple years back. She was cheating on him with an ex-boyfriend that was apparently much more adventurous and a tad more able in the sex department. Outside of that, he was pretty much worthless. No job, no work ethic, irresponsible, unlikely to make anything of himself in this world. When she got caught with him (and after my friend was done beating the crap out of the fellow) she decided she wanted to be with the ex-boyfriend. They got divorced and that was the end of it. She soon realized that she'd made a terrible mistake -- but it was too late for that. Having slept around before marriage led to her making a very bad choice, and the likelihood of her cheating was much higher because she'd already slept with that guy before she got married. What you gain in these areas: Firstly, religions have an established and proven system of teaching these values. They're very good at teaching such principles and have a lot of practice at it. Additionally, they offer advice and tools to help parents teach these principles to their children. Then there is the added motivation that there is a reward waiting in the afterlife for those who lived their lives helping others, being honest and living honorable lives. Survival of the fittest Atheism has far less practice, and less rationale for such things. Why help others? Perhaps for the harmony of the civilization, but it's hardly the same. The next time you're driving on a major highway, count the number of cars that are speeding. In this case, people only obey the law when they think they're likely to get caught. Granted, some few actually do obey the speed limit, but most do not. The law of the land is not all-knowing and all-seeing, so they do what they think they can get away with. They are rewarded with getting to their destination sooner than they would have otherwise. Cheating on tests and schoolwork are at epidemic levels right now. Why do students cheat? Because if they get away with it they are given equal rewards for less effort. And far too many get away with it to make it seem like a bad idea. People do not do the right thing just because it is the right thing. They do what is in their best interests. When it comes to the law, they are looking for loopholes and workarounds. They're doing what they can get away with. If doing the right thing makes life better for them, they'll do the right thing. But law enforcement is far too blind to catch every criminal -- if people think they can get away with something and there's a very desirable reward at the end of it, they'll break the law without a second thought. Religion works very differently. You might get away with murder in this life, but God will see to it that justice is served in the end. You might be able to get away with a lot of things in this life, but if you believe in God then you know they'll catch up with you eventually. And religion teaches us to do good things and to not do bad things out of love for God more than out of fear of punishment. You are honest because you love God and He expects it of you. You keep the Law of Chastity because you love God and know He expects it of you. You don't cheat in school because you love God and know that He expects it of you. You live a good life because you love God and know that He expects it of you. You're not just looking out for your own selfish interests. You're looking for ways to be a better person and do more good for others. In short, Religion can make you better. Atheism really can't.

Ultimately, the worst possible outcome from the bank's point of view is foreclosure. It can be a long and messy process. They have to pay lawyer's fees and court costs. And very often, the homeowner they foreclose on sabotages the house, damaging it in some way. Leaving the water running is a popular choice from what I've seen while house shopping. This means they take a substantial loss on the resale. There's a very good reason that Realtors helping people buy homes are very cautious when it comes to foreclosure homes. The bank most generally would rather not "let nature take its course" and go through the whole foreclosure process. It's bad for everyone involved.

Well, mother nature has been creating exact genetic clones for a lot longer than human science. They're called identical twins. The Church of Jesus Christ does not have an official stance on the matter of whether a clone has a soul, but logically speaking, if identical twins have souls, so do clones. The process of cloning is basically just taking a fertilized egg that has not yet started dividing yet and replacing the DNA in it with the DNA of whatever you're trying to clone -- so basically hijacking an existing embryo. The science behind cloning is nowhere near what you find in Science Fiction like Star Wars. The failure rate is VERY HIGH. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 success for every 300 failures if I remember correctly. So to clone the same person 100 times would require an unobtainable number of 30,000 "spare" human embryos. And they haven't sorted out the problem with aging markers in the DNA itself, so if you cloned ... let's say Sean Connery, all of the clones would die at unusually early ages. I suppose we'll worry about it more when they get much better at cloning. Currently, it's a very wasteful and unproductive process that yields clones that age and die prematurely.