LionHeart

I know one thing about Calvinism is the fact that they hold a belief that everyone is pre-destined to go somewhere in the afterlife. For example, Abraham was pre-destined, before he was ever born, to go to heaven. No mater what he did in this life, it would not have changed that. Judas was pre-destined to go to hell. Nothing he could have done in this life would have changed that. I think this is one of their key beliefs. It is also quite confusing to me because I think I would get discouraged in a religion like that; believing that nothing I could do in this life could change my reward in the afterlife. What if I was pre-destined to go to hell? I would demand retribution for that injustice. L.H.

No, I don't thinkThomas was evil in the eyes of the Lord, because he was a good man; he just had less faith than the rest of them. I believe the type of people who is referred to in the Doctrine and Covenants are those who are on a wicked, or neutral path who refuse to change unless they recieve hard evidence. (a sign)Thomas was at least on the right path.

Jesus said: "Thomas, you believe because you see, but blessed is he who believes without seeing." I believe that proof follows faith. Joseph Smith taught that some people say "show me a sign, and then will I believe." But he then said that such people are wicked people and they will never recieve their sign. But it is actually the other way around. First we must believe and have faith. Then, if we exercise that faith, and it is rightfully placed, then we will recieve the signs. And the signs will not be just good feelings, but actual experiences that stay with us and give us a testimony that the Lord does exist and that He is with us. And if he is with us, then he must be pleased with our actions, therefore, offering us an assurance that we are on the right path. Another principle comes to mind at this moment: Some people desire to know the truth. There is a truth out there, but finding it can be difficult, and many people lack the determination to know it for themselves. Therfore they ride on the testimonies of others. Now, if one goes to the Lord in prayer, and asks the Lord to manifest the truth unto him, the first thing the Lord is going to wonder is: "If I give this person the truth, what will he do with it? Does he just want to know for the sake of knowing; or is he going to live by it?" I will tell you that the Lord will not give anyone the truth who does not intend to live by it. Such an action would only bring greater condemnation to that person. So when a person goes before the Lord to ask for the truth, he must be ready to submit himself to it whether he likes it or not. Otherwise, that person will not recieve an answer. L.H.

This literature against the Book of Abraham is quite strong, however, before I would consider any truthfulness in it, I would need to know the credibility of the author thereof. Judging by some of the wording in the article, it seems to me that the author of it is very anti-Mormon. And who did he get his literature from; was it a credible source; or was it from a rogue archaeologist who merely developed his own opinions? (you know, the type of thing you see on television all the time about how a certain group of scientists proved something and yet that is the last time you hear of it) As far as my personal beliefs of the Book of Abraham: that book is a source of some deep doctrine when understood; alot of which I understand and probably more of which I am still learning to understand. And the strange thing about it is the parts that I do understand make perfect sense. Don't ask me to try to explain it because I don't think I could. It requires alot of learning other principles before it begins to make sense. This is one of the reasons I continue to believe that it's true; in spite of this alledged evidence against it. But if you would really like some good reading, read a little booklet called "The Lectures On Faith." That book is also a source of some deep doctrine when understood.

Hello JoshuaK. You said in a previous post that you found the book of Abraham interesting. Do you mind if I ask what it was about it that you were interested in? Also, you have presented this literature that provides evidence against the book of Abraham and asked us what we think about it, but I would like to know what you think about it. Thanks. That's fine, but would you be so kind as to point out to me which Bible passage prophecies of a restoration? Im afraid Im not aware of that one. On the other hand, there is a mention or two about a "remnant" that would be god's faithful. Perhaps your friend confused the two? Of course, Im not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs, Im just trying to be practical and consistent. :) Hello Jason. Would you be able to tell me where the Bible talks about this "remnant"? Thanks.

I'll tell you my opinion about the book of Abraham. It is a very fascinating bit of literature. And regardless of that anti-Mormon "proof" against it, and that nonsense about how those facsimilies were pictures of burial rituals, my belief in the truthfulness of it remains unchanged. The reasons for this, however, are of a personal matter which I prefer not go into. Have a nice day. :)

"Special"? Is that what they call it these days? Do they also get their own class room at school?

Well my source is unverifiable so it may not be true, but it was good none the less.

Great post EMF78. Thank you for that.

Okay, so this guy buys a case of 24 very rare and expensive cigars; so expensive, that he decides to get insurance on them; insuring against flood, fire, theft, etc. So within a month, he had smoked all of them; and before paying even his first premium on the insurance, he files a claim against the insurance company; saying that the cigars were lost in "a series of small fires". Of course the insurance company refused to pay because they knew he smoked em. So the man sued the insurance company and won!!! The judge granted him the case on the grounds that the insurance company did not specify clearly enough what could be considered as fire damage. So rather than endure a lengthy and costly appealing process, the insurance company decided to accept the ruling and pay the little cretin $15,000 for the 24 cigars he lost in "the fires". But it gets better. After the cretin cashed his settlement check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.

I believe I see what you're saying. It's similar to what Joseph Smith was feeling three days before he died when he said this: "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as the summers morning; I have a concience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me--he was murdered in cold blood." So basically, his inner peace came in knowing that our Heavenly Father was well pleased with him and his works.

On the contrary Nephi5, the Book of Mormon does include some of them. Maureen and Dr T., I apologize for the delayed response, It took me a while to realize that I was in the spotlight on this thread. In answer to the question, I will first point out that the belief that many things were taken from the bible is an LDS belief. I cannot produce solid evidence of all of it, but can only provide circumstantial evidence of some of it, and go by what I was taught to believe for the rest. But just to name a few, we have: Baptizm by immersion. The laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Consecration and United order. Proper priesthood authority. Saving ordinances. Functions of various priesthood offices. The ones off of this list that are included in the Book of Mormon are baptizm by immersion, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and Consecration and United Order. And then there are things in the bible that seem to be riddles, for example read this passage in Isaiah: 19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD’s servant? 20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. 21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable. 22 But this is a apeople robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore. 23 Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come? So the Lord is pleased with his blind and deaf servant? The one who opens his ears but doesn't hear; or sees many things but just doesn't get it? Now read the Joseph Smith translation of the same passage. Isaiah 42:19-23; Joseph Smith translation: 19 For I will send my servant unto you who are blind; yea, a messenger to open the eyes of the blind, and unstop the ears of the deaf; 20 And they shall be made perfect notwithstanding their blindness, if they will hearken unto the messenger, the Lord's servant. 21 Thou art a people, seeing many things, but thou observest not, opening the ears to hear, but thou hearest not. 22 The Lord is not well pleased with such a people, but for his righteousness' sake he will magnify the law and make it honorable. 23 Thou art a people robbed and spoiled; thy enemies, all of them, have snared thee in holes, and they have hid thee in prison houses; they have taken thee for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, restore. The latter makes alot more sense. And now concerning the 'Consecration and United Order', if one reads in the book of acts chapter 4: 32-37, and chapter 5:1-10, you will find evidence that Peter had set up a system among the ancient church which is known to the LDS as "Consecration and United Order". The Book of Mormon goes into more detail about how this is practiced , whereas the new testament barely touches it at all. There were also a few attempts at this practice in the early days of the LDS Church. Among these things is the fact that before the bible became the official canon of Christianity, the churches in all different areas were getting different doctrine; depending on the beliefs of the man in charge of the church of that area. Emperor Constantine of Rome decided that they needed to be unified so he called a meeting of the clergy men to get together and decide on an official canon. (keep in mind, Emperor Constantine was not baptized into the church until he was lying on his death bed) Now one issue these clergy men faced was their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, however, the bible clearly states that Jesus had brothers. Their solution to this problem came when a man suggested that perhaps Joseph was a widower and had sons from his deceased wife. Rather than researching it, these men heard what they wanted to hear and accepted it as truth. And these are the men who compiled the official canon. Given their character, it is concieveable that these men would extract things from the bible which they did not agree with.

"He among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." This could be interpreted as saying "accept and love people for who they are because everyone has their own individualistic peculiararities."

Apparently it is easier to explain why you won't correct your spelling rather than correct your spelling?

Hello Mrs.s. Many people don't know this but the bible corrections contained in the LDS publication of the KJV bible are not all of them. Joseph Smith actually got alot farther than people know. The only problem is that Emma Smith inherited those papers. She and her son Joseph Smith III took them and used them in their little religion. They claim that Joseph Smith actually completed his work of translating the bible; and they also present pretty convincing evidence of this statement. Anyway, their bible contains all of the changes Joseph Smith made to the KJV bible.

As a matter of fact there is a book. It is called 'Book of Mormon Student Manual' and can be purchased for dirt cheap at any LDS bookstore. It is actually a companion to the Book of Mormon and is intended to be read along with the Book of Mormon.

I believe Jason is right. At least according to my understanding of the Melchizidek priesthood, along with it comes the authority to baptize and administer the laying on of hands. Perhaps further than this is only an office issue.

Does anyone remember that Paul1690, or 1980, or something like that; anyway, that boy had the audacity to P.M. me and tell me that it was his God given mission in this life to convince Mormons that they are lost souls and need to return to the true fold.

Yes Traveler, I would be interested. When you say 'ancient temple', are you referring to the temples of biblical, times or the first LDS temple?

Hello JoshuaK, I will answer all of your questions with this one simple principle. First of all, it doesn't matter what religion you look into, they will all have certain things that don't seem quite right; and further, they will all have things that don't make any sense at all. This situation was put here on this Earth for a definite purpose. That purpose can be summed up in these words: "Thomas, you believe because you see, but blessed are those who believe without seeing." The reason it is this way is to get people to seek after God. This is how He seperates the wheat from the tares. Those who truly want to follow Him and live according to His commandments will seek after Him. Once they have found Him, they know what He wants them to do; and when people bring up questions about why this or that doesn't make sense, their faith is not shaken because they have that testimony. They believe without seeing. And if they continue on that path, their faith will eventually become a knowledge, and they will no longer have to believe because they will know. You see, these people who want hard evidence of certain things before they will consider any certain path are those who must see before they will believe.

Cranial Stomping: When children try to stomp on the heads of their shadows. A little off, but humorous none the less. The main reason I find it funny is because I remember doing that when I was a child.

A farmer had three daughters. All of which had a date on one particular evening. So the doorbell rings and the farmer picks up his shot gun and opens the door. The young man standing there says: "Hi, my name's Joe, I've come to get Flo, we're going to the show. Is she ready to go?" So the farmer calles Flo down and she leaves with her date. A few minutes later, the doorbell rings again, and again, the farmer grabs his shot gun and opens the door. The young man standing at the door says: "Hi, my name's Eddy, I've come to get Betty, we're going to go get some spaghetti. Is she ready?" So the farmer called Betty down and likewise, she leaves with her date. In a few more minutes the doorbell rings again, so again the farmer grabs his shotgun and opens the door. The young man standing at the door says: "Hi, my name's Rex....." BOOM!!! But dude, seriously, the Church does have these standards and they are good. Perhaps when you have daughters of your own, you will realize this. When a young woman and a young man get together alone, sometimes things just happen. And perhaps you are strong enough to resist the temptation but some people are not. And all it takes is one theif and you have lock everyone out. Or in other words, all it takes is one person with low moral standards, and rules have to be set. It might seem like this girl's parents are taking their religion too seriously, but in reality, if you understood it the way they do, you would take it very seriously as well. To them, it is the difference between eternal life and eternal death. So don't let this incident affect you in any way. If you do, it will only lead to greater disappointment later on in life. If you really think about it, what better way to lower the rates of illigitimate children, or STDs than to teach the young people not to fool around; or even get themselves into a situation that could possibly lead to fooling around.

Near Victor by chance? My uncle was mayor there for a while. We used to go through there on the way to Jackson Hole to buy fireworks and ride the alpine slides. I was born in Montana, grew up in Idaho, live in Utah. Yeah, Victor is about 25 miles away. In 2003, Victor was the second fastest growing city in Idaho. Rexburg was the first. This year, victor might take the number one spot. It seems that many people have just recently taken a liking to teton valley so as a result, the towns are expanding extremely fast. Good place to invest in real estate.

Teton County, Idaho; out in the sticks.

It is an important step in our understanding of the gospel. The bible has had many important things removed from it. The Book of Mormon includes many of those things that were taken from the bible. But notice that the Book of Mormon, in many places, says something like: "And he spake many other things unto me that are forbidden to be written." And why were they forbidden to be written? This verse from the D&C should answer the question: D&C 19: 21-22: And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me. For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore they must not know these things, lest they perish. Now, notice in the book of Ether, it says that the name of the brother of Jared was so holy that it was forbidden to be written. When Elder Reynolds Cahoon had a new born baby, Joseph Smith came over to bless the child and christen him with a name. The name he gave the child was 'Mahonri Moriancumer'. He then told Elder Cahoon that this was the name of the brother of Jared. So, it is reasonable to believe that many of the things in the Doctrine and Covenants and The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith are some of the things that were forbidden to be written in the Book of Mormon. For example, imagine the trouble and uprising that would have resulted had Joseph Smith came out on April 6th of 1830 and said "God was once a man and we can become Gods." He likely would have been crucified. But he fed the people milk first, and when their understanding had reached a high enough level, he then gave them the next higher step in doctrine.