LynnR

GV, Rather than go down the line and respond to specific concerns you have, I can say it no better than your general authorites. You ask, "why are you here?" I let them speak again for me. I see my calling and ministry as: building bridges. I share some church history quotes that are meaningful to what I do. “...We are asked, ‘is the church of God, and the kingdom of God the same organization? And we are informed that some of the brethren hold that they are separate.' This is the correct view to take. The kingdom of God is a separate organization from the Church of God. On this point the prophet of God gave an example, which he asked the younger elders who were present to always remember. It was to the effect that men might be chosen to officiate as members of the kingdom of God who had no standing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (LDS History of the Church, 7:382). In the 1998 General Conference, Gordon B. Hinkley said: "We can respect other religions, and must do so. We must recognize the great good they accomplish. We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith. We can and do work with those of other religions in the defense of those values which have made our civilization great and our society distinctive." And of course, Joseph Smith's quasi-famous statement (from History of the Church 5:517): "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons." " And (from History of the Church 5:499)... "The inquiry is frequently made of me, "Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?" In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism" is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." And, one of my new favorites (from Documentary History of the Church Vol.5, p. 498): "The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholic or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves." And finally, Brother Brigham on the subject (from Journal of Discourses 11:375): ""Mormonism" so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to "Mormonism." The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this church. As for their morality many of them are morally just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this church and kingdom." I will share this. I believe it's a new day. Important leaders in both camps are beginning to dialogue. I am acquainted with BYU professors who are dialoguing, for instance, with evangelical seminary presidents. I'm particularly thinking of Dr. Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary and Bob Millett, BYU faculty member. In fact, Dr. Mouw wrote the forward and afterward to Professor Millett's latest book. A thing unheard of a few years back! Lynn

Absolutely awesome! Lynn

It’s that time of year again. A time to love. A time to be a child again. A time to accept everyone and everything again. It’s time for the Christmas Story. We all know it. And it’s a blessed theme. May I put a new spin on it?… Much of the symbolism of the Christmas story, I believe, wraps around one of my favorite persons—Joseph Smith, Jr. Take, for instance, the star. Wise men from the east looked for this sign to appear in the heavens. And the star must appear at an appointed time. It must appear on the darkest night of the year. Which happens to be, by the way, December 23rd. Joseph Smith was born on December 23rd--the darkest night of the year. The Egyptians referred to this night as the “Winter Solstice.” It was believed among the ancient Egyptians that the purpose of earth life was to prepare for eternal life with the Gods in the world to come. Everything that was, had been before. There was nothing “…new under the sun.” Every person simply had to find his place on the celestial stairway, pass the guardian angels and find his way back into celestial glory. I submit--Joseph is that Star which leads a dark world out of “Winter Solstice”-- back to the Christ child. He’s the guardian messenger who has the revelations, the hidden mysteries—that lead us back into celestial glory. Especially in our dispensation, for so many grand truths were lost in the reformation. December 23rd—Winter Solstice—Joseph Smith—the Star on that dark night—and the Christmas Story. I can see the symbolism. Wise men from the east were called magi, or grand magi. Wise men from the grand orient lodge will follow that star until they find the babe wrapped in his stable. There was no room for the babe in the Inn (or lodge). No room for the Master in other lodges, so he was born among the common folks of his day. Nothing has changed… There will be those who will follow the Master out of all lodges of perfection, even in our day—out of all false plans of salvation. They will be known as wise men who will follow the star that leads them to the Inn where the babe lies in a manger. Joseph Smith, Jr. was one of the Wise Men of his day. I want to be one of the Wise Men of my day. I’m sure the same can be said of all of us. We want to be wise. Wherein lies wisdom? It’s found in the simplicity of the Christmas Story. It’s said of the three wise men--they were learned men of the east, schooled in astronomy and the signs of the stars. Yet these three wise men followed their hearts that night and found the Gift of Love. They laid aside their wisdom and acquired His. They embraced the simplicity of the story. The Christmas Story is a simple story. Even a child understands. It’s we adults who complicate matters. I love Joseph Smith, for he had a simple mind. (He was not simple-minded.) He played with children. He loved simple things. And he restored the simple gospel—love your neighbor as yourself. It takes a wise man to remain simple. Jesus said an interesting thing during his sermon on the mount; “…consider the lilies of the field, how they grow…and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these” (Mt. 6:28,29). He made reference to the “…lilies of the field,” and then made reference to Solomon. Solomon, in his writings, also referred to the same flower. Hymns have been written about Solomon’s classic statement, “…I AM the rose of Sharon and the lily of the valleys” (Song of Solomon 2:1). As a young lad growing up in a small Baptist Church back in the hills of the Ozarks, I heard many a sermon preached on Jesus as the lily of the valley and the Rose of Sharon. I’ve sung the hymn “Lily of the Valley” many times. Let me suggest another possible meaning. Joseph Smith was born on December 23rd, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont. The word “rose” means “secret unfolding.” The Rose of Sharon is often the emblem for secret brotherhood. It’s used as an emblem in many lodges. I believe Joseph Smith is the Rose of Sharon. His teachings are like secrets unfolded. Like roses. Like Jesus and his sermons, you either get it or you don't. You’re either part of His “wise brotherhood” who spread the simplicity of the gospel around, or you don’t. Like the three wise men, you’ve either exchanged your worldly wisdom for his, or you haven’t. Perhaps you too have decided to follow your heart--and have found the greatest story ever told. The Gift of Love in a manger, wrapped in all its plainness. You either have a revelation of the kingdom of God on this earth, or you don’t. You either speak well of Joseph Smith, or you don’t. You’ll either come out of all other lodges and embrace the Rose of Sharon, embrace his secret unfoldings, and start spreading the gospel of simplicity—or you won’t. Yes, I believe Joseph Smith was the Rose of Sharon. He was also the Lily of the Valleys. The flower lily is white as white can be. It’s known for its whiteness. The lily stands for purity and innocence. Joseph’s heart, I believe, was both pure and innocent. Like a child’s. Those who have sat under his teachings and who have watched him unfold his secrets, they have seen his white heart. And the lily grows in the valley. So did Joseph. His life was one of trials, trails, temptations and tears. He grew in the valley. Well, Jesus said, “Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.” “…one of these?…” Like one of those who follows the Rose of Sharon and his teachings of Jesus Christ. Like one of those who understands the true meaning of the Christmas Story… It’s the Gift of Love wrapped in all its simplicity Lynn Let me be quick to add--I'm not implying that Jesus is not the Reason for the Season. Of course, our focus is on Him. I am suggesting, however, that scripture is like an onion. It has many layers of meaning. Yes, Jesus, I'm certain, could very well be the Rose of Sharon and the Lily of the Valley. But then, so could Joseph.

God is the Truth. Jesus said so in John 14:6. “I am…the truth,” he said. In other words, Ultimate Truth is found in a person, not a creed or doctrine... Your theology and doctrine are the truth about the truth about the Truth... most believers (LDS and evangelicals) get hung up on truth about the Truth. Doctrine. Sadly, it’s our belief about God that keeps us from God... (Lynn) This is what's kind of perplexing, especially that last statement. How can we come to know God, except by learning the truth about Him? How can we come close to Him, unless we know of His character? And how can we continue to learn more of His truth except through his chosen servants, the ancient and modern day prophets? How can it be our belief about God that keeps us from Him? Isn't that kind of getting down on the Bible and the Book of Mormon, from whence come our beliefs about God? How would you even know anything about God if it weren't for prophets and scripture, and how could you come to personally know if the scriptures are true, if it weren't for the Holy Ghost? What about receiving the ordinances such as baptism that Jesus commanded us to do? How / in what manner is that to be done? What about other things that God commands us to do, and how to interpret certain scriptures? The different denominations interpret the same scriptures differently as you know. Are you saying these things are not important? Is it not important to keep learning as much truth about God as we can? How can we do this, if we know not where to go to find it? I can understand how you might conclude that I’m minimizing the importance of the scriptures. That’s not my point. I need to clarify what I’m getting at. I’m saying—to value the scriptures above the Holy Spirit is idolatry. It is not: Father, Son, and Holy Bible (or Book of Mormon). The Bible and Book of Mormon REVEAL God, but are not God. Neither book does not CONTAIN Him. God is bigger than His books! That was Joseph’s point with the Protestant ministers of his day. Ministers in Joseph’s day had become worshippers of the Bible—biblicists—rather than seekers after the Living God. They had committed the sin of biblio-idolatry. That’s why when Joseph had his encounter with the living Godhead in the grove, He was scorned by the religious folks of his day. Joseph’s testimony was: God lives, for I have seen Him. And they killed him. One of the things that attracted me to the restoration gospel was its inclusion of The Divine Encounter. Take, for instance, the very first miracle of the church. How did all this get started? I’m sure you know the story: Church History Volume One, pages 82-84. The First Conference was being held in a modest dwelling belonging to a Joseph Knight. Mr. Knight had a son by the name of Newel. Joseph, the prophet, calls on the lad to pray. He was bashful and bound by spirits. Joseph cast out the spirits and the power and presence of the Almighty descended on the young lad and floated him to the ceiling! The young man was suspended in the air up near the rafters, with his head pushed up against the ceiling, when he came to his senses. Many witnessed the Divine Encounter and became members. I think I would have joined too! I’m simply saying, a balance of scripture that includes such Divine Encounters is what the restoration gospel is all about. We need both—not at the exclusion of the other. Lynn

“…In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.” --II Kings 17:6 “…So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day…” --II Kings 17:23 Israel was carried away into Media and the Jews were carried away into Babylon. The Jews’ captivity occurred in 588 BC. (As a footnote, the prophet Amos had prophesied concerning the captivity and return of the ten-tribed kingdom one hundred and ninety-nine years before the Jews went into Babylon.) It is a well-known fact among Protestant Christians that the Jews returned to their homeland after their release from captivity. It is not well known that no tribe of the northern kingdom, no children of Israel, have ever returned to and dwelt in their former home. And it will not do to make the statement “…the northern tribes ceased to exist…” The proclamation is too reductionistic. Besides, history clearly refutes such an idea. Media, to whom Israel was exiled, extended north and south from two hundred and fifty to three hundred miles. In this region the ten tribes disappeared as a nation, and ceased to be known by the name of Israel. The areas where the captive Israelites was settled have been located. Most were in Upper Mesopotamia, which at that time formed part of the Assyrian Empire. The area is now best known as Turkey and Asia. There have been recent discoveries of Assyrian tablets that reveal the fate of the Lost Tribes of Israel. The Assyrians called the Israelites, according to these tablets, such names as “Khumri” or “Khormi”. Around 707 BC a people known as “Gimira” and “Gamera” were recorded. It is believed these names are Assyrian names for the Israelites. The names “Sacae” or “Sakka” (Scythians) are probably derived from “Isaaca” or “house of Isaac.” Raymond Capt points out the discoveries: “…It can now be truly said—archaeology has solved two great mysteries, both occurring at the same time in history: 1) What happened to the countless thousands of Israelites that disappeared into Assyrian Captivity? 2) Where did the countless thousands of Scythians and Cimmerians come from? Both mysteries no longer exist. The so-called ‘Lost Tribes’ of Israel were really never ‘lost.’ They only lost their identity during their captivity in Assyria.” --Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets, pp. 122, 123 It is almost inconceivable that the tribe of Judah, after centuries of persecution, should number in the millions and the ten tribes not be of still greater numbers. Perhaps tens of millions. Neither does it seem conceivable that the ten tribes since the dispersion should become mixed with other races and so lose their identity as to be lost forever, so lost that God could not find them—a popular notion with most Protestant Christians. Especially after the promise God made to the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, concerning Israel. God promised that not one would remain lost (Amos (9:9)! The Lost Tribes are lost. They’re lost as to their identity. But not to God. Israel was given a prophecy that she would eventually return (Amos 9:14,15) but first the Lord would “…sift the house of Israel among all nations…” (Amos 9:9). It bears repeating—Amos prophesied Israel’s return from captivity before the Jews were captured by the Babylonians. That precludes any belief that Amos’ prophecies were fulfilled when the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity. Where did the ten tribes go? They went northwest. The Migration “…Listen, O isles, unto me, and harken, ye people from far; thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” --Isa.49:1-3 “…Therefore will I cast you out of this land, into a land that ye know not, neither ye nor your fathers, and there shall ye serve other gods day and night; where I will not show you favor. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall be no more said, The Lord liveth, that brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but the Lord liveth that brought the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them; and I will bring them again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers.” --Jer.16:13-15 There are other scriptures that speak of the migration (Jer.3:9,10; Ezek.16:35-63). Note three things about Jeremiah’s prophecy: 1) “…I will cast you out of this land…” We know they were taken into Assyria. 2) “…Into a land that ye know not…” They were not to remain in Assyria. They were familiar with that land. 3) "…Neither ye nor your fathers…” They migrated to a land unknown to the entire race, a land a long way from their home. They were to move on through the nations, into unknown regions, into the uninhabited, unexplored wilderness “…Thus saith the Lord, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel” (Jer.31:2). So, while Israel was taken to Assyria, they were not to stay there, but to wander into an unknown country called “the wilderness.” Eventually, when becoming “many nations” had fulfilled their destiny, the Lord would begin gathering them from the north and the west. “…Behold, these [israel in the isles] shall come from far, and lo, these from the north and from the west…The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait [cramped] for me, a place to me that I may dwell.” --Isa.49:12, 20 Here are five points worthy of summary: 1) Ephraim (Israel) follows after an east wind (Hos.12:1). That meant the tribes traveled west. 2) They passed through a narrow passage (Micah 2:13). This “gate” or “narrow passage,” which is among the headquarters of the Euphrates, is known as the “Caucasian Pass,” or the “Pass of Dariel.” Ancient writings sometimes refer to it as the "Pass of Israel.” 3) Ezekiel said they traveled through “great waters” and Jeremiah said they came to a group of “isles” (Ezek.27:26; Jer.31:9,10). 4) Isaiah said they were to remain in the isles to “…let the people renew their strength…” (Isa.41:12). 5) Once the house of Israel had become strong, the Lord would regather them “from the north and the west,” and they would return to their homeland “ (Isa.49:12, 20). Veil Lifted from Abrahamic Nations Israel is now in the wilderness surrounded by foes. The ten tribes were being “sifted among all nations, like corn is sifted in a sieve.” They were to “abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an epod, and without a teraphim.” But the prophecy includes the promise, “…Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God…” For now, God said to them, they are “not my people.” Later he would “…heal their backsliding, I will love them freely” (Hos.14:4). They moved toward the north, and as they journeyed, they came in contact with various tribes under different names: the Jutes of Denmark, the Angles who dwelt on the east side of the Elbe, and the Saxons north of the modern Schleswig. The Saxons are spoken of as being “powerful.” The Jutes and Angles joined with them, and together they made descent upon the coast of Britain. Sons of Isaac It is a well documented fact that the word “Saxon” is derived from the Hebrew name “I—saac.” The affix meaning “sons of.” “Sons of Isaac.” The Saxons are the Sons of Isaac! Etymologist, Professor Yatman of England, concerning the root of the word Saxon, says that the Persians used the terms Sacae and Scythian as convertible, “…whether from a corrupt rendering of one from the other or because the Sacae, a great tribe of Scythians (wanderers) bordering upon them, were so called by a tribal name.” Here’s an interesting passage: …”The vast tract, chiefly consisting of grassy plains, which lies north of the Black Sea, the Causcasus, the Caspian, and the Jaxartes-Syhun River, were inhabited in ancient times by a race or races, known to the Asiatics as Sacae, to the Greeks as Scythians. These are the people 700 years before Christ who are the ancestors of the British people…Where Israel is lost, there the Saxon is found.” --History of Anglo-Saxon, pp. 70,71 “…Where Israel is lost, there the Saxon is found…” Interesting. Of the fact of the identity of the Sacae and the Scythians there is no doubting whatsoever. These people called their country Sacasena. It is equally clear, says Yatman, that the Saxons of England were the Scythians of Celte-Scythians. Plutarch, Tacitus, Ptolemy, and many authors accurately describe their geographical position in Europe. Ptolemy finds the Saxon in a race of Scythians, called Sakai, who came from Media. Pliny says, “…The Sakai were among the most distinguished people of Scythia, who settled in Armenia, and were called Sacae-Sani.” Albinus says, “…The Saxons were descended from the ancient Sacae of Asia.” Israel was known as a people of the covenant. The word “British” means “Covenant Man.” Which takes us to… Israel in the Isles “…Thus saith the Lord…I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant people…to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages.” --Isa.49:8 The Hebrew word for “covenant” is Beriyth, which in Judges 8:33 and 9:14 is used as a proper name. It is transferred (not translated) into the English text. The Hebrew words Ben-iysh Yemiyniy are translated “Son of a man of Jemini.” Ben means “a son,” Iysh, “a man,” and Yemiyniy, Jemini. The anglicized form of these words is “Ben, ish” and “jamin.” Taken together, they mean “A man of Benjamin, or a Banjaminite.” We simply point out—ish in Hebrew means a man. Now back to the Hebrew word for “covenant,” which in its original form has no vowel, but which in its Anglicized form retains the vowel i to preserve the y sound, and we have Brith, which joined with ish is Brith-ish, and means “A Covenant Man.” The connections are obvious: “A British Man.” “A Covenant Man.” British people living in the “far isles.” The people of Waels call themselves in ancient Welsh, “Brythy Brithan,” or “Briths of Briton,” which means “The Covenanters” or “the land of the covenant.” There is too much secular history documentation, as well as scriptural, to say that the House of Israel does not today exist. Lynn

"...I am glad that you have returned to the forum, to address the many questions that your posts have produced. I detect from you, that have identified some very important points of doctrine, that ARE found in the Bible and also taught in the lds Church. I appreciate the way in which you have isolated this particular doctrine of 'becoming gods' that is taught by the lds Church, and is eternal truth. I wish that we had more time to chat on this topic, but you are very right here. Generally the evangelicals only teach that part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, wherein salvation for all that accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer is given.." You're right. We evangelicals struggle with the following distinctions: Grace has to do with that grand biblical theme of salvation. Or our destination. Works, on the other hand, have to do with sanctification. Or our exaltation. One is a doctrine of kind; the other, a doctrine of degrees. One will take you to heaven; the other will take you to a higher realm in heaven. One will change you from one kind of a person (sinner) into another kind (saint). The other will change you from one degree of glory to another degree of glory (II Cor.3:18). Our “favorite Protestant apostle,” Paul, spoke, or certainly alluded to, the grand theme. Exaltation I believe is a legitimate biblical theme. True: it’s mostly ignored by us Protestants, but nevertheless, a valid biblical theme. Which brings up the point: I believe we Protestants, generally speaking, have far too narrow of a view of the afterlife. Our view of the afterlife is too static. We seldom, if ever, preach sermons on I Corinthians 15—degrees in the afterlife & the kingdom of God. It’s just not in our makeup. Here are a few select passages I believe that point to the biblical doctrine: exaltation. “…..I press toward the mark of the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus….” Phillippians 3:14 “….For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things in bringing many sons unto glory….” Hebrews 2:10 “…..There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead…..” I Cor.15:40-42 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, teaches the doctrine which the Apostle Paul wrote, spoke and testified of throughout the New Testament. Once a person realizes WHAT Paul is speaking concerning... The New Testament now begins to un-veil itself as to these mysteries of the Kingdom. These were taught and testified of by Jesus Christ Himself, and to His Apostles. They were partakers of these truths, and were given the Keys to administer these blessings of a Higher mode of being saved, i.e. EXALTATION. Three heavens or Kingdoms are also spoken of in the Bible, baptism for the dead, POLYGAMY runs through the entire Old Testament... there is hardly a prophet who lived then, that did not have plural wives, that was sanctioned by GOD. When a true seeker of truth, begins to desire and understand... and KNOW, actually what is taught in the Bible, and when they have that great opportunity to NOW receive the Book of Mormon, which also contains the Fullness of the Gospel... they qualify themselves for the promise of which Moroni did extend... that if they pray sincerely to know IF the Book of Mormon is true... they WILL receive the confirmation, by the POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST, that it is TURE. Lynn, it appears to me that you have been given this witness regarding the Book of Mormon and also know for yourself that the Book of Mormon is true... Did you even need to ask, or has the spirit just been that LOUD? Maybe what you need to do is just ASK, and this confusion that I sense in you will dissipate into the Peace that only THE fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, CAN bring, when it is RECEIVED, completely... Come Follow Me... His way, not ours. Note - my questions in my previous post (above) still stand, although I am feeling that perhaps... your heart does have pure intentions. I hope you will continue to converse here at the forum. Best Regards, gVr Here's my perspective in a nutshell. You must keep in mind. We evangelicals can't steal second or head for home until we're on first base. It's been my experience, having dialogued for these past 20 plus years across the aisles with my LDS brothers and sisters, that you guys want us to steal second or head for home without getting us on first. Let me clarify the analogy. I'm keenly aware that the concept and doctrine of authority is central to every LDS. Your faith rises and falls on it. And I respect your sensitivity to the doctrine. Proper spiritual authority (i.e., restoration of priesthood, presidential succession, etc) is to an LDS what the Mass is to a Catholic. Both are held in the highest spiritual esteem. I understand that. Now here's something I don't believe you understand (and please, my apologies if you do). We evangelicals have a lot of theological hurdles to jump over before we're even in the least bit concerned over the issue of the restoration of the priesthood. That's the FUTHEREST thing from our minds. Here are some key issues for us: 1) Did the good guys really win at the Council of Nicea? 2) Just how trustworthy are our Patristic Church Fathers of the second and third centuries? 3) The closed canon 4) The rapture Take the last two -- numbers 3 & 4. No evangelical, for instance, is willing to take you seriously regarding the matter of priesthood authority until our two "sacred cows" are dealt with. Evangelical Christians are taught from cradle to grave that: 1) the rapture of the church could occur any moment. And 2) for "those Mormons" to talk about Joseph Smith setting up a literal kindom on this earth is pure nonsense! My peers just won't listen to you about priesthood authority and the "one true church" when they have benn taught all their lives "we're out of here." See what I mean? Also, another reason LDS are not taken seriously by evangelicals is--again, from cradle to grave we're taught that God ain't writing no more books. I know the logical arguments against the closed canon, but we're not dealing with logic here. We're dealing with one of the two precious, holy and sacred teachings of evangelicalism: the Bible is the only Word of God, and the Lord could be returning any day now to come rescue us. Both you and I know those are extra-biblical doctrines. But my friends swear they're "gospel." And deeply held traditions win out every time over logic. I'm simply belaboring the point: my mission is to get my gang on first base. First. I spend the majority, if not all, my time dealing with the above issues. Lynn

Thank you, Geoff, for your kind words. I probably sound like a broken record, but our passion is: building bridges between Book of Mormon Christians and Bible-believing Christians. Forgive the commercial, but we have started our own blog just for that very purpose: www.baptistmormonpreacher.typepad.com Thanks again for your kind words. Lynn

</span>

Sure. I'm actually what some might refer to as "charismatic Baptist." Though, of course, I still am an ordained Southern Baptist minister, what to do with the practice of spiritual gifts is still "up for grabs" for many Southern Baptist ministers. But anyway, to answer your question, the name of my church is: The Friends of God. It's essentially a non-denominational fellowship. We do lots of cell groups, or as some might say--house churches. And have approximately 450,000 brothers and sisters scattered around the world. We're a loosely-held knit with an emphasis on relationships, not structured membership. Having said that, we understand the dangers of extreme. There must be structure; ours is simply relational, not hierarchical. Another way of saying the same thing is--we're more into function, than titles. If you function as an evangelist, you're an avangelist whether or not you're recognized with the title. The ultimate emphasis of our ministry is: acquiring an intimacy with Christ. Lynn

Isaiah asks "...How do you feel about Gordon B. Hinkley? You had lunch with him...Do you think he is a prophet? I certainly have no reason not to believe he's a prophet. Also, What do you think about all of the anti-mormon literature that is out there and what it says about many of the doctrines that Baptists do not believe and regard as blasphemous even... A have a couple responses: 1) Sadly, so many of my Baptist peers have drawn their conclusions about Mormonism from seconded-handed sources; i.e., what they were taught in seminary, in evangelical colleges, from their pastor, or their family and friends. Myself included. I'm a bit ashamed to say, but I was one of those Baptist preachers who preached against Joseph Smith, the restoration gospel, and the Book of Mormon, and the full extent of my information came primarily from books like Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults." I preached against the Book of Mormon and had never read it! I'm not proud of that, by the way. It honestly tells you more about me than it does about what I was preaching against. I guess I'm saying--1) Not until my friends search out from original sources will they believe. Or have a change of heart. It was not until I sat down and read the Book of Mormon (actually to prove to my Mormon neighbor what a dumb thing to believe) that I had a change of heart. That's my first response. And 2) Why all the anti-Mormon literature out there, especially distributed by evangelicals? And this really hits close to home. Those who warn us against the dangers of cults are more dangerous than those they warn us against. Why? It's their spirit they carry. Very un-Christ-like. I'm not proud to say this, but we evangelicals have too often been the guilty ones. 3) There's really a third answer to your concern: why all the anti literature? I found it to be a truism that we don't need to defend that which we know. If we know something, why defend it? Truth, as Joseph said, will cut its own path. It needs no help of our own. I'm saying--we tend to defend at times that which we're not quite sure of. It's that feeling of being threatened. Trying to wrap my brain around how that is roconciled...For example, the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith who translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and pwer of God and the doctrines that he taught such as baptism for the dead and Polygamy? I have no doubt--none--that Joseph was guided by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writing of the Bible. And I learned long ago to put on the "back burner" those things I'm not quite certain of. Baptism for the dead and polygamy fall into that category. I really don't have an opinion one way or another. I would also like to know if you believe that I, as a practicing Mormon am saved? It would be very arrogant of me to not take your word for it. Who am I to question your confession? If you say you're saved, you're saved. I am very curious what you think of this...not challenging or doubting anything you have said...You also mentioned that you used to be a baptized member of the LDS church...Did you leave the church? Are you still officially a member or has there been an excommunication...forgive the personal question...I just want to know what you mean when you say you were baptised LDS...Why do you know longer accept that membership?..." I believe I addressed this in a previous post. Thanks for your questions. Lynn

How do I reconcile both religions? I give you the "Cliff Notes" version: 1) As a Baptist minister, I found nothing in the Book of Mormon that I disagreed with. In other words, protestant doctrines and themes are all throughout the Book of Mormon, and 2) I wasn't looking for 100% doctrinal agreement. One of the main distinctions (and I'm leaving so much out for the sake of brevity) I found between the two faiths was the distinction between the doctrine of salvation and the doctrine of exaltation. We Protestants for one, don't always see or understand that critical distinction, and two--we don't understand that the teaching of exaltation is not just a "Mormon" doctrine, but it's taught, or certainly alluded to, in the Bible. As said, I left much out, but enough said. Thanks for asking, Lynn

Actually living Zion in our day. Now that's a good thought. Lynn

"...we're one of the very few sects of religion that still believe in it..." That was my point. I was complimenting you for being such good stewards of the grand theme--a theme that's not necessarily "Mormon" in origin but nevertheless one that you have preserved down through time. Lynn

Though there's no question about it, the LDS brothers and sisters have been faithful stewards of that grand truth, Zion. Still I'm convinced--Zion is not a Mormon idea. And I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just believe the concept of Zion is found all thoughout scripture. Granted, I don’t ever recall hearing a sermon on Zion while growing up in our small Baptist church back home. The concept of Zion, for sure, is not particularly a Protestant idea. But the Bible is full of Zion! There are over forty-seven direct references to Zion in the book of Isaiah alone. It’s safe to say--Isaiah saw Zion! In fact, Isaiah sees Zion and Babylon at odds in the endtime. For example, The Lord forgives Zion’s inhabitants their iniquity (Isa.33:24), but he does not forgive Babylon’s iniquity till they die (Isa.22:14). The Lord lays a sure foundation in Zion (Isa.28:16), but he removes Babylon’s foundation (Isa.28:16). The Lord protects Zion in his day of judgment (Isa.4:5,6:37; 32-35;51:16), but he does not protect Babylon in that day (Isa.13:6-19;14:21,22;15:4,9). Zion enjoys peace and an absence of fear (Isa.33:18-20;54:14), but fear and terror overtake Babylon (Isa.13:8;19:16,17;21:3,4). The Lord comforts Zion (Isa.51:3), but he discomforts Babylon (Isa.15:5;16:2;23:10-12). Zion’s children gather home safely (Isa.30:29;49:7-23;51:11), but Babylon’s children scatter and die (Isa.13:14-18;21:14,15;47:15). The Lord delivers Zion (Isa.25:9;33:15,16;46:13), but he destroys Babylon (Isa.13:19-22;14:23;15:1). The Lord redeems Zion (Isa.1:27;35:9,10;62:12), but he punishes Babylon (Isa.13:9,11;22:5,14;47:3). Zion’s land gloriously regenerates (Isa.51:3;60:13), but Babylon’s land decays and dries up (Isa.14:23;15:6;19:5-7). Zion sings with joy (Isa.12:6;51:3,11), but Babylon weeps and laments (Isa.14:31;15:2-5;23:1,6). Zion rules in the earth (Isa.2:2-4;16:1;18:7), but Babylon’s rule in the earth ends (Isa.14:5,6,21;17:3;47:1,5). The Lord exalts Zion (Isa.52:1;60:12-22;62:2,3), but he humiliates Babylon (Isa.20:4;23:9;47:1-3). The Lord clothes Zion in robes of glory (Isa.49:18;52:1;61:3), but he strips Babylon naked (Isa.47:2,3). Zion, jubilant, spreads abroad and inherits nations (Isa.54:1-3), but Babylon, speechless, ceases to rule kingdoms (Isa.47:5,8). Zion gathers and gladdens the Lord’s outcasts (Isa.56:7,8), but Babylon shows them no mercy (Isa.47:6). The Lord empowers Zion (Isa.52:11), but he renders Babylon powerless (Isa.47:13). The Lord ransoms Zion from catastrophe (Isa.51:11-16;54:15-17;59:20), but Babylon, unable to ransom herself, he visits with disaster (Isa.47:11-13). Zion lives through the devouring fire (Isa.33:14-16;43:2:66:14-16), but Babylon burns up (Isa.47:14,15). --Avraham Gileadi, The Last Days, p.257 Wow! It bears repeating—Zion is not a Mormon idea! God knows of Zion. The Jews know of Zion. Saints far back in antiquity know of Zion. Old Testament prophets know of Zion. Jesus knows of Zion. The early church knows of Zion. Our Pilgrim fathers, boarding the Mayflower, know of Zion. Protestants, in general, today do not know of Zion. I wish we did. We're missing out on so much. Lynn