spamlds

Well said, Urstadt! My approach may seem simplistic, but before I converted to Mormonism over three decades ago, I was big-time into reading philosophy. I also delved into Eastern religions after having explored Christian faith. To me, knowing about God was not as important as knowing God. Joseph Smith's testimony thrilled me because here was an innocent who had no guile, who approached the throne of grace, and pierced the veil. He didn't bother with man's mumbo-jumbo. What is it that President Kimball said? Something like, "Who wants to drink from the low end of the stream that the cattle have walked in and muddied? Better to go to the high ground and drink from where the water comes pure out of the source!" I think Paul shared some of my frustration with philosophers. Paul knew that Christ was to be experienced. The Holy Ghost makes for an experiential religion. He wanted to bring the Athenians to that transcendent experience. Instead, all they liked to "...tell, or to hear some new thing." Paul's first-hand knowledge of the resurrection was scoffed at because it was "subjective." Suppose I knew the location of a room in a tall building in New York City that contained a million dollars and I told you that, if you followed the directions I'd provide, you could find it and share it with me. Some people would be willing to give it a try. Others would scoff saying that I was a deceiver or deluded. Others would say it isn't possible that an average person like me could know such a thing. A debate could erupt between those who would say I might know and others who would try to dissuade them from believing me. Nevertheless, all it would take to find the fortune is to follow my directions and you would know I was in my right mind and correct. My "subjective" knowledge was indeed true. It could be validated by simply following the correct directions, step-by-step. Our missionaries teach people how to find the Pearl of Great Price--a personal, experiential testimony of Christ through the Holy Spirit. All anyone has to do is follow their simple instructions to find it. It's as easy as finding the treasure in my example. All anyone has to do is have faith in the instructions and act upon them.

2ndRateMind wrote: "Can we arrive at a compromise? I will try not to lead anyone astray with sophistry, and you let me ask questions that respect the fundamentals of any Christian faith; that God exists, is good, and loves us, and that Jesus was born, lived, taught, was crucified and died, was resurrected, and now sits heavenward, at the right hand of Majesty on high." Nobody is bargaining here. It's an open forum and the mods set the limits very liberally. I have no problem with you asking questions. However, it's important that we deal with the most fundamental questions. You restated my questions in terms that are straight out of the Christian creeds, and more importantly, you omitted the ones that require a committed answer. Our message to the world is straightforward. God has commissioned us to preach repentance. Intellectuals don't like that word. (Mind you, I have a college degree, but I know what my professors were like.) Repentance is a heartfelt admission that one has been on the wrong path all along. It's a turning toward the right path. The right path is Christ. Jesus indeed founded a Church and gave the keys of the kingdom unto men. That authority was taken from the primitive Church for apostasy. A new dispensation was opened in 1820. The Father and the Son appeared to a prophet in modern times. Over the ensuing decade, Joseph Smith was given the keys of the kingdom that were held by Peter, James, and John. The spirit of revelation guides the Church today. Christ himself directs it through revelation. The Church holds the keys of baptism and other gospel ordinances. Those who repent and are baptized receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. The gifts of the spirit are manifest in the lives of the members of the Church. Miracles occur, just like in the New Testament. None of these things have to do with philosophy or dogma. They are the consequences of God restoring the ancient Church of Jesus Christ anew. This morning, I will leave my home and go sit in council with the local leaders of our congregation. We will discuss things like how to help a family who is suffering from unemployment become more self-reliant while we provide for their temporal needs. We will make plans for visiting the sick and the aged who need assistance. We will make decisions about missionary work to proclaim the gospel more effectively. We will coordinate efforts to assist youth who may be on the verge of straying. We will discuss how to reach out to less-active members who are struggling with questions of faith and love them back into the fold. We will make plans to visit the sick and lay hands on them so God will heal them. In all of those deliberations, Plato is not going to be mentioned once. Plato doesn't save souls. He doesn't possess any divine authority. He has no power to touch lives and bless them. None of the people who I'll meet with this morning will act out of dogma--they'll act out of love. It will be the source of our joy for the rest of the week. That's what is going on in the thousands of LDS congregations around the planet today. The price to join that effort is sincere repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. No Plato is required. You can ask questions all day, but you're missing an enormous opportunity.

The temples are a "whole 'nother world" compare to our weekly sacrament services. You've probably noticed that Church policy doesn't even allow a picture of the Savior in the chapel. In the exterior hallways, foyers, etc., you'll find artwork with him in it, but never in the chapel. The symbol of Christ there is the sacrament. Our meetinghouses are pretty plain. Then you go to the temple. If you haven't been endowed yet, visit a temple that has a visitor's center and take a tour of the grounds. When I was a new convert, I toured the Washington, D.C. temple grounds with a guide who described the architectural details. It was amazingly rich in symbolism. For example, each of the six pointy spires is slighly different in height and they represent the offices of the priesthood. The doors have bronze seals on them that represent different dispensations. The temple is oriented based on celestial north, not magnetic north, indicating that our personal orientation is celestial, not earthly. Most temples have a "Moroni" on top, but very few members ever ask why that's the case. In Jewish tradition, the Feast of Trumpets represents the call to repentance. It precedes the Day of Atonement (judgment) and the Feast of Tabernacles, when God's presence returns to his people. The day that Moroni gave Joseph Smith the plates in 1827 to begin the translation was the Feast of Trumpets in that year. Moroni symbolizes God's call to the world to repent and accept the Restoration. Obviously we can't discuss the temple ordinances, but they are also symbolic. The use of repetition in the temple is God's own pedagogy that assists individuals in memorizing over two hours worth of information and instruction. It's beautiful and fulfilling. Yes, the temple is where the OP needs to go to find the ritual richness he is longing for!

Like I said, I wasn't making any comment toward any particular individual in this discussion so far. My insinuation is that when Plato's name emerges in a discussion of Christian theology, it's a warning flag. Greek philosophy was a corrupting influence in both Judaism and early Christianity. Paul warned in Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." There is a danger that concerned Paul that people would intellectualize the simple gospel truths and engage in philosophical debates "after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." All the early Christian controversies, like Arianism, had roots in Neoplatonism. One of the things I admire about the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young is the complete lack of this kind of attempt to intellectualize our religion. I'm not anti-intellectual, but footnotes don't convert anyone. We send out uneducated missionaries who are witnesses of direct personal intervention in their lives by the Holy Ghost. We sent out untrained farmers, laborers, merchants, and others to preach the gospel at the beginning of this dispensation. I love what it says in D&C Section 1: 19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh— 20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world; 21 That faith also might increase in the earth; 22 That mine everlasting covenant might be established; 23 That the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers. Like Paul, our lot is to be "fools for Christ's sake" when it comes to the sophistries of the world (1 Corinthians 4:10). There are some questions we need to be focused on, especially when we deal with nonmembers. Does God live? Is Jesus the Son of God? Did Jesus establish a Church? Did the members of the Godhead restore that Church through revelation to Joseph Smith? Have we received gospel ordinances from a person having authority? Have we received a remission of our sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost since we believed? If the answers to those things are all affirmative, the Holy Ghost will do the rest of the teaching as we do our duty. Plato's not going to do us any good if the answers to any of those questions is "No."

I mean no disrespect toward any individual when I say this, but it seems that when our personal preoccupation with religion revolves around resolving these kinds of questions, it has gone off the rails. Mormonism in particular is a practical religion, not a philosophical one. If we have time to be ruminating over these kinds of questions, we need to get up and go do some Christian service instead. There are lost souls who need the gospel preached to them. There are families in dire need of assistance. There are real physical needs all around us. We need to be doers of the word, not just hearers only, like James said. Whenever I've been involved in service to others, my heart and mind are never troubled by such questions as this. One of my sons said that Elder Packer came to his mission and one of the elders had a list of such questions to ask him. According to the missionary, Elder Packer's reply was, "Just love the Lord!" There's nothing wrong with clarifying gospel principles and preaching the message of the Restoration. Vain philosophical questions like this are a distraction and preoccupation with them is one of the things that set the primitive Church on the path to apostasy. When someone brings up Plato, I just remember how Neoplatonism was one of the big heresies that corrupted the primitive Church and caused its demise. Let's just do Plato's baptism for the dead and be done with it! Then go out an serve God by serving our fellow men and women.

When I first joined the Church, i read all the standard works in one year. I read the Book of Mormon first, then I followed that with the New Testament. Then I read the D&C, the PofGP and then the Old Testament. I think that was a good order to read them in because it helped me understand things more when it got to the Old Testament. I'd read the New Testament before the D&C because many of those revelations came about from Joseph doing his own translation of the New Testament. That would give you a better context of the D&C and why those revelations came. BYU offers a class in the D&C that is very good that you can take through distance learning, too.

Perhaps I can help with the explanation of our heavenly "cosmology." All this comes from Doctrine and Covenants 76, but I'm just paraphrasing. I'm going to reverse the traditional order of explanation for clarity. Sons of Perdition: This is what the Protestants would consider the eternal hell of the afterlife. It is a kingdom of no spiritual light. It is such a bad place to dwell in that the fullness of the suffering of its inhabitants is not completely revealed. People who go there are those who received the witness of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Savior, yet chose to oppose him, his work, and his Church. They are the ones who, if it was in their power to do so, would crucify Jesus all over again. They are "vessels of wrath." These are the only ones who do not ever enter a kingdom of any glory in eternity. Telestial Kingdom: These are the "natural man" whose lives are wholly consumed with worldliness. They are unrepentant sinners who reject the offering of Christ's atonement after it has been presented to them, either in the flesh or in the spirit world prior to the resurrection. Interestingly, it is also the place of sectarian partisans who claimed to be teachers of truth, but led people astray. This kingdom is composed of a myriad of degrees of varying glory, commensurate to the degree of light these souls chose to receive and obey. Paul described them as like the light of the stars in heaven, all of which vary in magnitude. Terrestrial Kingdom: These are the "honorable men (and women) of the earth. It includes people of all faiths or even those of no faith who lived honest lives of virtue and obedience to God's commandments. However, their vision was limited by the false doctrines and philosophies of men. They rejected revealed authority and the gospel ordinances that would have admitted them into the Celestial Kingdom. This kingdom also is home to Mormons who are not faithful to the covenants they made and were not valiant in the testimony of Jesus. Celestial Kingdom: This kingdom is the eternal place of rest for anyone in any dispensation who believed and accepted Jesus Christ's atonement, repented of their sins, and kept the gospel covenants that were administered by proper, revealed authority. Mormons represent only the saints of this last dispensation. There have been many dispensations headed by other prophets prior to Joseph Smith. Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, and others. The believers who followed these prophets, accepted their testimony, and received gospel ordinances by those in authority are also in the Celestial Kingdom. They are not "Mormons" per se, but Mormons are their modern counterparts. The Celestial Kingdom is also the eternal abode of anyone who dies before reaching the age of accountability. Thus children who die are heirs of the Celestial Kingdom, having been called home by their merciful Creator before having arrived at the age of understanding, regardless of the religion of their parents. Those who are mentally disabled or otherwise unaccountable in this life also inherit Celestial glory. The Celestial Kingdom has, within itself, three degrees of glory. Entrance into the highest of these requires a man and woman to be sealed in an eternal marriage in the temples. This ordinance has been in the world throughout history, except for periods of apostasy when there were no legal administrators to perform it. Sealed couples who obtain exaltation in the highest degree of glory are the "Church of the Firstborn" mentioned in the scriptures. I hope this helps. As you can see, the Celestial Kingdom is not just for Mormons. Many Mormons won't make it there because of disobedience and breaking their covenants. Many who lived in other dispensations will be there as well as anyone who was unaccountable. Because the gospel is preached to the spirits who die (See John 5:25, 1 Peter 3:18, 4:6) and because baptism for the dead is possible (1 Corinthians 15:29) many who did not hear the gospel in life will accept it and be able to receive the ordinances to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

On question #4, pioneer Mosiah Hancock recorded a dream in which he saw the pre-mortal life. I'm not saying this is doctrine, because he wasn't in a position to declare doctrine for the Church--but it's interesting what he says he saw. He said that, when the scripture says, "male and female created he them," Hancock says he saw that our spiritual creation was as male-female pairs. He saw people going to classes and learning and that the male-female companionships were together always. I think the Church doesn't teach this because it would lead people to hold out to find their "soul-mates," which they have advised against. I can see the wisdom in that. We should trust the Lord to lead us to our mates and seek them out using our feelings and the Holy Ghost to be our guide. Another interesting thing Hancock saw was that, the rebellious 1/3 who were cast out after the war in heaven were exclusively males. When it says that "the heavens wept" after the war in heaven, there were probably a lot of broken hearts as the pairs were broken up. It also might explain the need for plural marriage at certain times in certain dispensations to provide sealing opportunities for females who lost their partners to rebellion in the premortal life. I'm not saying that any of this is doctrine. But it does provide some interesting insights into question #4 on the list. If you want to read the document, check the link below. Search on the term "male and female" and it will take you to the relevant section. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/MHancock.html

The Elias that appeared in the Kirtland Temple was Gabriel (who we know was Noah in mortality). A careful reading of D&C 27 reveals this tidbit: 6 And also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days; 7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he(Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias... (D&C 27:6-7) This passage mentions two Eliases. The first one, In verse 6, held the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things. That same Elias appeared to Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist in the Jewish temple to tell him he would have a son and that he would name him John. Luke 1:19 tells us that this was the angel Gabriel, who Joseph Smith taught was the prophet Noah in mortality. See the connection? The prophet Noah was the forerunner before the baptism of the earth by water. He appeared to the father of the forerunner of the Messiah's coming to announce the Baptist's mission. He passed on the duty of the office of Elias to John the Baptist. When the restoration of all things came to pass, he appeared in the Kirtland Temple. Joseph Smith is the forerunner of the earth's baptism by fire. Joseph Smith had to receive Noah's keys to preside over this dispensation. In the appearance in the Kirtland Temple, Elias (Noah/Gabriel) committed the "the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed" (D&C 110:12). This makes perfect sense because the keys of priesthood had to come from Noah, down to Shem, to Abraham. In "Lectures on Faith," Joseph Smith taught that Shem was Melchizedek. It was a title given to him. So the keys of the previous dispensation came to Abraham through Shem, who ordained Abraham to the priesthood. Galatians 3:8 tells us that the gospel was preached to Abraham. That's how it came down to him, through the lineage of Elias (Noah/Gabriel). So, both Elias AND Elijah appeared in the Kirtland Temple.

One thing that we don't often consider is how many countries were open to missionaries (and rejected them) at the early part of this dispensation. For example, I believe Orson Hyde, on his way to dedicate the Holy Land for the return of the Jews in 1838 passed through many European cities, and along the way he preached in Constantinople, which is now Istanbul, Turkey. Another thing to consider that we have members in countries where we don't currently enjoy official recognition. There was an article a few years ago in the Church News or the Ensign about members in Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. In most of these Arab countries, there are communities of guest workers from other countries. They are not Muslims and the government grants them permission to meet for worship services very discreetly. There are many Filipino LDS living in these Muslim countries for example. We also have congregations that meet in mainland China. They don't proselyte, but the example that LDS members set in communist East Germany demonstrates that our members can be good citizens in any political system. When I was in the MTC in 1980, Elder Carlos E. Asay of the Seventy told us stories from his mission in Lebanon. When I was in the Air Force during the Cold War, I was in Germany when Russia's government collapsed and East Germany reunified with the West. It was an amazing thing to see our elders go into those countries and to see a temple built in Freiberg. I would have never expected to see the gospel go into Russia during my lifetime back then. I would love to see a list of every country that has ever had LDS members in it or had LDS missionaries preach in it. I would bet that it would show that we are very close to have preached the gospel in every nation in this dispensation.

In the headlines today... China will create own Christian belief system amid tensions with church, says official New Chinese theology must suit Chinese culture and values, State Religious Affairs director says http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1568209/china-will-create-own-christian-belief-system-amid-tensions-church-says This is an excellent modern example of how the Great Apostasy occurred. Constantine created a state church out of Christianity and it was modified to meet the political ends of the Roman Empire. Henry VIII started a state church so he could get divorced. Martin Luther was sheltered by German kings so they could diminish the power of the Roman Church over their domain. Now we see a new state chuch being created in real-time, for political purposes. In 500 years (if the world lasts that long) there will be Chinese Christians contending with Roman Catholics and Protestants that they are the true church! It's the way of history.

I understand the sensitivity of our discussion. Because people internalize and personalize their faith, they take it as a personal affront when Mormons teach the First Vision. It makes us seem unyielding and inflexible. On the Internet, where there is no tone of voice or nonverbal communication, things can seem to be insulting which are not meant to be. Nowhere along the way in these discussions did I say anything derogatory about Faith4's person. I have been talking about doctrine and history. No offense has been intended at any time. Let's think for a moment, because when you look at it, Mormons are in the same exact situation as our former-day saints in the First Century vis-a-vis an established "orthodoxy," for lack of a better term. Let's compare the situations. During the Babylonian captivity, the Sanhedrin was formed to preserve Judaism. Why did Israel go into captivity? Because the people rejected the prophets like Jeremiah. Since God had withdrawn prophets from them, they became dependent upon the written word. Their job became to maintain Mosaic teachings, culture, and tradition no matter what. When the Jews finally returned to their ancestral lands, the Sandhedrin still worked to preserve Jewish religion. When John the Baptist came along, they regarded him with suspicion. Because they were so focused on "the Book," most of them would not accept a true prophet who stood among them. When Jesus showed up, now they had another "prophet" to deal with. They rejected him even though he did miracles in front of them. They searched their scriptures to find ways to trip up and defeat this supposed pretender. They dreamed up stratagems to lure Jesus into tripping over his words or contradicting himself. Jesus was inflexible with them. He said, "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24). He called them hypocrites and vipers. He wasn't very nice to them. He wouldn't even speak to Herod! They took it very personally. Let us compare the modern-day restoration of Jesus' Church with the situation today. In our time, we had an established orthodoxy that tried to preserve Christian teaching, just like the Pharisees and the scribes did. They became totally reliant upon the written word of God because their creeds shut them off from asking for revelation. Yet when real, legitimate, keys-of-the-kingdom-holding apostles came among them again, the protectors of religious orthodoxy reacted just like the Pharisees did. They persecuted them. They spread falsehoods about them. And they ended up killing the Prophet that God had sent. They also killed two apostles of Jesus, Parley Pratt and David Patten. As I have taught the gospel in meekness through the years, I've been physically assaulted, spat upon, roughed up, and had a Baptist deacon chase me across his lawn with a shovel in his hand. Our missionaries get accosted by various religious zealots around this country and around the world. We get called the same names that they called Jesus and the apostles of old. We are told we do miracles by the power of Beelzebub, just like they said of Jesus. Our churches and temples have been targets of arson and vandalism. Yet we've done nothing but preach the gospel with meekness. It's the message we bring that elicits that reaction from them. It has nothing to do with us as individuals, thus we take no personal offense at those things. It seems a strange thing to me that non-LDS people would join an LDS forum for the purpose of telling us our doctrine is wrong, and then they claim to be offended when we defend the doctrines they question. Does it not seem offensive that they, by their words and actions, imply that we are ignorant, deceived, or deceivers?

Yes Maureen, there have been splinter groups all along. They disconnect themselves from the true vine and they wither away. When these groups break off, the keys don't go with them. The authority remains with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. When Joseph Smith died, there was some worry about what would happen if the majority of the saints chose to follow Sidney Rigdon or some other leader. Brigham Young said that it wouldn't matter. The keys were with the Twelve and, if the whole body of the Church fell away, the keys were still with them and they would use the keys to build the kingdom. The same thing happens today. The keys are with the Church. Those who break away or are excommunicated lose access to them. I find it disingenuous that you would say that you agree with Catholic dogma fully. If you did, you would be Catholic, not Protestant. Would you and Faith4 agree that your pastor has apostolic authority? Would you and Faith4 agree that you can be saved without receiving the sacraments of the Catholic Church? Do you believe that the bread and wine of the communion is literally--not figuratively--the body and blood of Jesus? Would you and Faith4 agree on what happens to the soul after death? If you are Protestant, the tenets of your faith are derived from the teachings of Martin Luther or Jean Calvin. Why did those men break away from the Roman Church? I would encourage you to ask your Protestant minister if Catholics are going to be saved. Then go ask a Catholic priest if he thinks Protestants will be saved if they don't convert to Catholicism. You'll find that the centuries-old conflicts are still there. The Great Apostasy is not about whether people are nice, or kind, or good, or even whether they believe in Jesus or not. The falling away occurred because ancient Christians ceased to follow the apostles of Jesus and God took the keys out of their midst. Ephesians 4:11-14 says that Christ placed apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in the Church to build it up. Ephesians 2:19-20 tells us that the foundation is built upon apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone. Think about that analogy. When you take away the foundation of a building, it collapses. But there are still pieces of the building around that are recognizable. There's a window, a door, a sink, rafters, and beams, etc. Without the foundation of apostles and prophets--and the primitive Church officially began to teach around 150 A.D. that there would be no more revelation--the Church collapsed. Without the keys, no one could rebuild it. There were still vestiges of that original Church that remained, but no one had authority to put it back together as Christ had built it. That's why the Lord said in the First Vision that they had a "form of godliness" but they "denied the power thereof" (revelation and the keys). It was not until the restoration of the priesthood and the apostleship that God conferred that power again unto men in the flesh.

Good point! There are actually two battles of the forces of Gog and Magog against God's people. The first is the Battle of Armageddon. No specific nations are mentioned, but Gog and Magog are simply all those who combine against Israel at Armageddon before Jesus appears to the whole world at the Second Coming. The second Gog and Magog battle occurs at the end of the millennium. That's a really interesting topic. If we consider that 3rd Nephi gives us a "type" or template for things which are to come, we see a pattern. Here are the steps as an overview. Prophets proclaim the signs of the first advent (Samuel the Lamanite in particular). The people disregard the warning and the signs appear as prophesied. Many people believe because of the signs. Thirty-three years goes by and people begin to lose faith and patience. Wars ensue. A great destruction occurs. The people who were killed were mostly the wicked ones and the more righteous people (terrestrial kingdom) survive. This is what occurs at the destruction preceding the Second Coming. The Lord appears and teaches the people. They embrace his teachings and live in the United Order with all property in common. (This represents the Millennium.) After a few generations, unbelief starts to grow among the people who did not see the Savior's visit. The three Nephites don't minister among them any more. Apostasy grows. Members of the church abandon the United Order and cease to have all things in common. Social classes emerge based on wealth and opportunity for education. Political divisions ensue. At the end, the Nephite and Lamanites are not "racial" or ethnic groups. They are political groups. (Remember the Lamanites and Nephites intermarried during the years of unity and peace--there were no more "-ites" among them!) Finally, war breaks out, society collapses, and utter destruction is visited upon them. (Final war of Gog and Magog.)We tend to focus on Armageddon because it's the closest to us, but there is a second battle of Gog and Magog. I suspect that this one will be pointed toward the destruction of Zion, the New Jerusalem and will probably take place in North America. The Lord's visit to the Americas was a literal event, but it also contains the symbolic outline of the events that will occur after the Second Coming down to the last battle of Gog and Magog at the Millennium's end.

(Note: This is an article I wrote several years ago for the Examiner. I thought you all might enjoy it and that it will lead to interesting discussions.) Latter-day Saints love the Bible and believe it as scripture. Indeed, Joseph Smith went so far as to say that we are the only people who truly believe it as it is written. Modern, sectarian Christians hang Bible verses like ornaments on an artificial tree constructed of man-made creeds, ignoring the passages which conflict with or contradict their doctrines. In the process, they have allowed a number of myths about the Bible to be promulgated because it serves their own ends. The following eight myths are summarized from "Here We Stand" by Joseph Fielding McConkie (1995, Deseret Book) McConkie is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. 1. The Bible is a single book McConkie points out that the Bible is a collection of books which were gathered together by men over thousands of years. The Jewish Bible consists of 24 books that Christians call the Old Testament. The actual books that are agreed upon by Jews came from a council in 90 A.D. in Jamnia (near Joppa, Israel). At his council, it became so contentious that it resulted in bloodshed. (McConkie, 36) Christians have divided these 24 books into 39 and ordered them differently. Their version of the Old Testament comes from the Greek Septuagint, which was rejected by Jews, because of the influence of Greek thought and the inclusion of the Apocrypha. Catholics accept the Apocrypha as scripture because they sustain otherwise unscriptural doctrines, such as masses for the dead and the existence of Purgatory. (McConkie, 37-38) The origin of the New Testament begins with two second-century heretics. Marcion, a bishop's son and a wealthy ship owner, was the first to create a canonical list of books. His list rejected the Old Testament entirely as scripture and "was closed to all but ten of the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke." Macrion's false teachings caused him to be excommunicated from the ancient Church. Macrion's excommunication was so final that the Church gave him back all the money he had donated.(McConkie, 38) The second "heretic" was Montanus who declared that he was the incarnation of the Holy Ghost promised by the Savior to come. He denounced the absence of revelation in the church and the lack of spiritual gifts. To counteract his claims, the church began to teach that there would be no further disruptive revelations and that the canon of scripture was closed. Over the next two centuries, Origen of Alexandria divided the books in his New Testament into classes of acknowledged books and disputed texts. The list of disputed books included James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. This constituted the oldest Greek manuscript, consisting of 29 books. (McConkie, 39) Eusebius of Caesaria omitted not only the Shepherd and Barnabas from his list, but also the Book of Revelation. Most Greek manuscripts omit it also. Other disputed books which Eusebius rejected were the Acts of Paul, the Revelation of Peter, and the Teachings of the Apostles. (McConkie, 39) In 367 A.D., Athanasius sent an Easter letter to the churches of his diocese, listing the books approved for reading in the church. This list matches the current-day New Testament. Thus it wasn't until the fourth century that there was any consensus on which books comprised the Bible. 2. The Bible preceded doctrine Since the Bible didn't exist in its current form in the time of the Bible, how did it then form the basis for the doctrines taught by Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other apostles? "The book was created by the church, not the church by the book." (McConkie, 40) An example of doctrine preceding the Bible would be the Nicene Creed, which was devised by a council in 325 A.D. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged from this council, which took place after the church had declared that revelation had ceased, but before the time that the canon of the Bible was agreed upon. (McConkie, 41) 3. True religion is Bible religion Since the Bible didn't exist in the time of Peter and Paul. "No one who lived within the time period of the Bible ever had a Bible." (McConkie, 41) Therefore, their religion was not "Bible religion." The Bible is the testimony that God interacts with man via revelation and spiritual gifts, directly and personally. It was not based solely upon the words of God to ancient prophets, but to living ones. Why should it not be so today? 4. Everything in the Bible is the Word of God The Bible is the word of God so far as it is translated correctly, but every word in it was not uttered by God. The Bible contains the words of the devil to Adam and Eve in the Garden and to Jesus Christ during his temptation in the wilderness. It contains the words of Adam, Eve, a serpent, angels, prophets, apostles, and their scribes. It even contains the words spoken by Balaam's mule, who chastened him for his cruel treatment. All these are in addition to the words of God spoken to prophets and the words of Jesus Christ himself. (McConkie, 43) 5. The canon is closed Nowhere in the books of the Bible does it say that the canon of scripture is closed. Many will refer to the last lines of Revelation to claim that the book cannot be added to. Since the Bible didn't exist at the time of the writing of the Revelation of John, it couldn't refer to the Bible as a whole. The Revelation remained a disputed book for two centuries after John penned it. Thus the commandment that it should not be added to must refer to that particular scroll which John wrote. We should understand that most scholars believe that John himself "added to" the Bible, because it is commonly believed that he wrote Revelation before the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John came AFTER the book of Revelation in the chronological sequence of Bible texts. The apostle John told us that "...there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one...that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." A similar interdiction against adding to God's word appears in Deuteronomy. Following the logic of those who say the Bible can't be added to because of John's statement, we must consider tossing anything that comes after Moses and Deuteronomy. Man's rejection of further revelation is an attempt to "mute" God and deny that he has power to reveal anything new or essential to mankind. It defends the status quo, having a "form of godliness" but denies the power thereof. Since the Bible itself doesn't claim to contain all God's words, it would require a revelation from God to tell us that the Bible is inerrant, sufficient, persipicacious, and the final authority in all things. Thus, you can see the quandary: it would require a revelation to tell us that there will be no more revelation. The position is logically untenable. 6. The Bible can be interpreted independent of a predetermined ideology McConkie poses a hypothetical situation. Suppose an angel took a copy of the Bible to a people who had no knowledge of it whatsoever and had no predetermined views on its contents. Suppose they built up a church using the Bible as their guide. Can we realistically imagine that they would, using the Bible alone, come up with anything remotely resembling the doctrine of the Trinity? Neither can we imagine that they would come up with a doctrine that one is saved solely by God's grace, without the requirement of faith and obedience to the commandments of God and the ordinances. (McConkie, 50) The Bible doesn't clearly explain how to baptize, who can perform the ordinance, and at what age the ordinance the ordinance can take place. It doesn't explain the duties of bishops, deacons, and elders and what are the limits of their ecclesiastical authority. Thus everyone, including Mormons, must interpret the Bible through an ideological lens. The lens the Jew uses is different than the Christian. The historian will use a different lens altogether. The Mormon's view must necessarily differ from that of Jews, the Christians, and the historian. This realization is important, because we must understand that, without modern day revelation to guide us, one Bible interpretation is no more authoritative than another. The restoration of the Gospel, the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, all provide additional light and knowledge that give us the keys to interpret the Bible correctly. Without revelation, it would be impossible to determine whose interpretation is correct, because each interpretation will be influenced by the world view of its proponents. The same scriptures that convince a Jew that it is unlawful to turn on a light switch on the Sabbath day also convince him that Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah. (McConkie, 48) The same Bible that convinces Christians to proclaim an end to revelation and miracles also led a young Joseph Smith to "ask of God" and receive a glorious vision of the Father and the Son. 7. To know the Bible is to understand it The Bible is probably the most misquoted book in existence. Paul is probably the most misquoted person ever. The Bible was written by living oracles of God to people who were accustomed to and accepting of the principle of contemporary revelation from God. The counsel and guidance the apostles gave were to people who had a shared understanding. It makes no sense to preach grace to those who haven't repented, been baptized,and had a remission of their sins. It doesn't add up to teach about spiritual gifts and the fruits of the spirit to those who have no right to them. The scriptures don't ask the reader to accept Christ as a personal Savior or to make a committment for Christ, because it is addressed to those who had already accepted Christ by covenant. (McConkie, 53) The cafeteria-style doctrinal approach of contemporary Christian churches is the result of their rejection of modern revelation as a possibility. Without revelation to guide, one must try to cobble together some theology by picking and choosing what fits into one's world view and reject the rest as "metaphors" or "symbolism." (McConkie, 54) 8. The Bible is common ground in missionary work This statement applies especially to Latter-day Saints. We often assume that the Bible is the common ground from which we can build understanding. If there was any semblance of agreement in modern Christianity, do you think there would be a thousand quarelling sects and denominations? (McConkie, 54) Joseph Smith went into the grove to pray because he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to find out which Church he should join by studying the Bible alone. This is a true statement. In this "war of words" and "tumult of opinions" that rages in Christendom, the only way to find the truth is to "ask of God." (James 1:5) Thus the Book of Mormon becomes the preeminent tool for conversion. It offers clear and plain gospel teachings free of sectarian interpretations. It clarifies the Bible's teachings and helps identify the interpolations of men. It also identifies to the sincere seeker, where and how to locate the conduit of personal revelation for himself, independent of anyone or anything else. Latter-day Saints will be more effective by teaching the gospel from the Book of Mormon than from any other source. We should encourage all interested parties to seek truth in prayer and from the Book of Mormon. Finding the truth in this manner identifies the means of obtaining personal revelation, the source of restored authority, how to obtain the ordinances of salvation, and how to live in such a manner as to obtain and keep a remission of one's sins.

Jungler, Every Protestant denomination has differences of interpretation of what the Bible means. You say that Protestants don't study the Bible in isolation. Then why don't they agree? Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopals, Lutherans all have different teachings on who should be baptized, when they should be baptized, how they must be baptized, or if baptism is required at all. One teaches that only "saved" people should be baptized. Others consider baptism a necessary part of the spiritual regeneration to become "saved." Some believe it remits sins. Others believe it's just a nice, optional token--a public display of an inner commitment. One of the things they disagree on is WHO can baptize. Several years ago, I corresponded with a non-Mormon who went to an evangelical church like you describe. It was unaffiliated with any denomination. They just based their actions and their teachings on the Bible. Then, their hireling pastor left them for greener pastures. Shortly thereafter, while they were still seeking to hire another preacher, a few new people wanted to be baptized. A sharp disagreement arose among them that was about to split the church in two. Some members argued from the Bible, that only an ordained minister could perform the ordinance. Others argued that anyone could do it, or that one of their "deacons" could baptize. The contention could not be resolved from the Bible. These people studied it our long and hard and they could not resolve the issue. Many people left the church because of the confusion and ill will and started their own church. If you study the various denominations and their teachings, you'll discover that some Baptist churches won't accept the baptisms performed by some other Baptist churches! If we were to take Mormonism out of the picture entirely, and this discussion was happening between Jungler (a Protestant) and Faith4 (a Catholic) we would never see agreement on many issues. Yet both of you rely upon the Bible for your truth. Are a billion Catholics reading the Bible wrong, yet you and your little church group right because you read the Bible differently? That's the very reason God gave the world the Book of Mormon. It settles those differences. It unites the body of Christ. Those who find it is true find that truth through personal revelation. It points seekers toward the true Church, the one that has authority, living prophets and apostles, and the understanding on how, when, and why ordinances are to be performed. As a final point, Jungler says that his church follows the Bible. I must suppose then that they are performing baptisms for the dead, because that's mentioned in 1st Corinthians 15:29. If not, they're not following the Bible are they?

This is way too personal of an issue to bring up on a public forum like this. None of us are qualified to give you advice. I wrote earlier today in the LDS.net forum to a guy who urged investigators to seek truth by reading C.S. Lewis. The advice I gave to this fellow was to ask of God, as Joseph Smith did after reading James 1:5-6. Have you asked God what he wants you to do? Have you received an answer? Have you accepted God's answer? That's all that really matters. You made some mistakes. From what you said, your relationship was built upon physical attraction to start with. That's a weak foundation. Time and age will diminish our physical attractiveness, thus any relationship built upon that is doomed from the start. A lifelong relationship is going to endure discomforts, financial stresses, illness, getting fat, going bald, pregnancies, you name it! Enduring love has to be built on something permanent. You can build a marriage upon the gospel of Christ. Of course, it will take both you and your husband to decide how to move forward--and that's none of our business. If there's a way to heal your marriage, it's by basing it on the gospel. You chose him and he chose you. It is possible to save the marriage if that's what you want. You might find some help reading this article from Elder Oaks at a 2007 conference session. Best wishes to you. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/divorce?lang=eng

Farewell Iguy2314. I would simply like to comment on your approach to finding truth compared to the one taught by our missionaries. You urge anyone investigating the Church to start with C.S. Lewis. We urge people to ask of God. There is no more fundamental teaching that our missionaries present than James 1:5-6. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed." When a person seeks religous truth, whether to believe in Christ or not, or whether to accept the precepts of a particular denomination as truth, he needs to go to the source: God. I'm sure Iguy2314 did not intend this, but it'll ultimately be the outcome of his approach. His approach is to try to find the smartest guy around and then ask him for truth. The world is full of smart people who all disagree on what the truth is. Such an approach can only lead to confusion or deception. Joseph Smith, although a real person, represents all of us as a proxy in one sense: he had to find out what was true amidst the "war of words and tumult of opinions" in the world around him. He, like Iguy2314 and many of the rest of us, inquired of the smartest, educated, and most well-informed people he could find. He read from the Bible and compared the smart guy's answers to it. Inevitably, he came to the solution that any honest person would come to. There's no way to know. The smart guys were all sincere and convinced they were right. Then he read James 1:5-6. In a modern context, I would paraphrase this passage like this: If you lack knowledge about spiritual things, don't ask Google. Don't ask Yahoo Answers. Don't go to CARM, or MRM, or Ephesians2, or any of the various anti-Mormon ministries out there. Don't go to the Pope, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, or Jimmy Swaggart. The professors of religion at the theological seminaries argue among themselves about what the Bible means. You won't get the answer you seek from them. Instead, ask of God. Joseph Smith learned firsthand that God answers prayers and grants wisdom to those who ask him for it, in faith, believing that they will receive. The one caveat to all this is to set aside your pride and promise to follow God's answer when it comes. Have faith. Asking doesn't come without a price. Revealed truth requires you to commit to it once it is given to you. Clarity comes through personal revelation from God. For any non-LDS visitor that reads this discussion, please ask yourself. Who would you trust more, C.S. Lewis or God? We urge every sincere seeker of truth to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon and then to ask of God if it is true. We ask this confidently knowing that God will never steer you wrong.

Jungler wrote: "That's my church family. As the Chapel page says, we're non-denominational so we're not tied down to what any men or creeds say. We just follow the Bible." You do realize that the three thousand or so Christian sects today all claim to do the same thing--follow the Bible. That's why there's so much contention and division between them. Each one thinks that the others are in error and none of them have any keys or authority to declare what is true. That's not how Jesus set it up. Faith4's views are much more "Mormon" in their nature because she recognizes that there must be a central authority. Otherwise, it's spiritual anarchy. Let me share a personal example from my wife. Before she converted to Mormonism, she grew up going to a Methodist church with her mother in the small town where she lived. When she got into her teen years, she stated going to the Baptist Church because they had an active youth group, whereas the Methodist congregation didn't have any teens, just old ladies. Of course, the Baptists had their own take on things and they mildly disparaged the Methodists. Then, seeking a closer walk with the Lord, she started attending an Assemblies of God church. These folks believed in spiritual gifts, like prophecy, speaking in tongues, etc. In one of their meetings, as the "Spirit" began to work in the congregation, one man stood up and "prophesied" something under the influence of this "Spirit." Another man was offended by what the other guy had said and began shouting, "That's false! I rebuke you! I rebuke you!" Meanwhile there were people joining sides and a big fracas ensued. She realized then and there that it wasn't the Spirit moving these people, because God's house is a house of order, not one of confusion. This is what comes from "just following the Bible." There's so much that the Bible doesn't tell us. It doesn't tell exactly how to perform a baptism. It doesn't say what the duties of a bishop are and how they're different from an elder's duties. It doesn't. The reason it doesn't tell us those things because the Church was guided by living prophets and apostles and the Holy Ghost guided them. They imparted delegated authority to others to administer the Church. They didn't write all of this stuff down because, as long as there was the true Church, there would be key-holders who could preside and direct the Church. The Bible is not an instruction book on how to run the Church. It is immeasurably valuable as a source of inspiration and instruction for one's own benefit. However, if you took the Bible alone and dropped it off into one of those Stone Age tribes in South America or the Philippines that never had contact with the outside world, and then you didn't come back for 500 years to check on them. I guarantee you that, in reading the Bible, they wouldn't come up with anything that looks remotely like any Catholic or Protestant church today. They'd never read the Bible alone and come up with a Triune God, one without body, parts or passions. They'd never arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is his own Father and that he prayed to himself in Gethsemane. The world needs to understand that the Bible is the product of the Church, not the creator of it. The foundation of the Church is revelation--that is the rock that Jesus told Peter to build his church upon.

I'm sure people have gone round and round bickering about this, but Joseph Smith did indeed teach that God the Father was a mortal man like us at one point in his existence. This is a doctrine that troubles some LDS members who still hang onto false notions from their former religions. In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith made these declarations: These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. As he continued, Joseph elaborated: What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said. Members who are not ready for the meat of the gospel still prefer the milk instead. They often "excuse" Joseph Smith in making such statements by saying that the King Follett Sermon isn't doctrinal or that it's not scripture. They'll claim that the people who transcribed the speech made some errors. The problem with that viewpoint is that Joseph taught the doctrine of plurality of gods more than once. In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 312, Section Six, 1843-44, we read another explanation of this principle by the Prophet. Peter and Stephen testify that they saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Any person that had seen the heavens opened knows that there are three personages in the heavens who hold the keys of power, and one presides over all. If any man attempts to refute what I am about to say, after I have made it plain, let him beware. The Son Does What the Father Did As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again; so he has a body of His own; each one will be in His own body; and yet the sectarian world believe the body of the Son is identical with the Father's. The King Follett Discourse is a sermon similar in effect to the "Bread of Life" sermon Jesus delivered. It divided his followers. The ones who couldn't handle it left him and "walked no more with him" (John 6:61). The ones who could abide the strong meat of the Savior's demand for commitment remained. In Joseph's case, a lot of people gave up on him after that. His enemies were resolved to kill him all the more. In the history of the latter-day saint movement, you can see there was a division between the saints of the Kirtland period and the Nauvoo period. The later "Reorganites" were "Kirtland Mormons." The rejected the revelations and innovations of the Nauvoo period when much new doctrine was revealed. The strong doctrines of the Nauvoo era divided the saints. The ones who could bear the strong doctrine had the strength to endure the trials of the martyrdom of Joseph, the evacuation of Nauvoo, Winter Quarters, the months on the Plains, and the hardships of starting over in Utah. Joseph most definitely taught that God the Father was once a man and served the role as a Savior for his Father's children. Jesus used the Father as the model for his own mission. It's strong doctrine. Why do our missionaries not teach it overtly? It must be learned by the Spirit. About a month after my baptism, I bought a book that contained the King Follett Sermon in it. I remember reading it on a Sunday afternoon and feeling like I was glowing from head to toe with the Spirit. I called up the friend who had baptized me and said, "Let me get this straight. Am I understanding this correctly?" He affirmed that I did indeed understand the doctrine and I knew that the Spirit had confirmed it to me. If anyone has problems accepting this principle, I suggest fasting, praying, and then reading the King Follett Discourse on a Sabbath afternoon after church is over for the day. I guarantee that it will touch your heart and you'll know Joseph Smith knew far more about the Godhead than any council that ever wrote a creed.

There are a lot of variables here. I agree with the idea of having a family council and maybe even a family fast about it. Get everyone on the same frequency. Church councils work this way. The General Authorities will table a matter if unanimity can't be reached rather than force someone to decide something under pressure. Unanimity is one of the signs of inspired guidance given to a group. That said, when the Spirit speaks to the person who holds the keys of presidency in a council and indicates the way to go, and he reveals that to a council over which he presides, it's the duty of the council to set aside doubt and move forward. That can happen sometimes. In a bishopric, matters about calling and stuff, ordinations, etc. can involve some deliberation. Consensus comes eventually. I have learned that, when consensus doesn't come, the Lord doesn't want the decision to be made at that time. Other times, the bishop would receive revelation and the other counselor and I would receive an immediate confirmation of a decision and sustain the Bishop's action. As the father in the home, you have the right to the inspiration and the right of presidency. Your daughter doesn't hold those keys. In a ward, a Primary Teacher doesn't come to the bishop and tell him to release her and call her as the Young Women's Presidency because she had a revelation. She doesn't hold those keys. If your heart tells you this is right and it confirms your daughter's feelings, great. If not, you have the right to revelation and her revelation won't override the one God gives to you. If she's inspired, you'll be inspired to arrive at the same decision. If not, remember, you're the "bishop" of your home. I can't think of a Ward or Stake Council that would go against the inspiration of its presiding authority.

I've been a branch president and had to do these kinds of interviews before. I'm also a parent with five children. I would urge you to talk to your parents privately first. Then have them go with you to see the bishop. If you truly have an addiction to pornography, you won't beat it alone. Parents can help you. You'll need an "accountability partner" and they'd be your best choice. Satan tells you that you have to deal with this alone. The Lord would broaden the circle of care and let you know you have support.

It's wonderful that you are considering joining the Church. It's great that you have an understanding of the Bible enough to ask good questions. Most of all, it's great that you sincerely want to do the Lord's will. I think that last one is the most important. Think for a moment about the way Jesus asked for a commitment from people. He told some of them to come and follow him, right that minute. Imagine that you lived in that time. All you could see concerning the Lord during his mortal ministry was that he was an itinerant preacher who taught some familiar things and some things that seemed to defy the old ways and the old teachers. The "experts" and the learned men of his day dismissed Jesus. They used their scriptures to prove to themselves they should be looking for another Messiah. Imagine you had heard all the hearsay. You heard that Jesus did miracles, that he healed people, walked on water, and fed a multitude with only a few loaves of bread and some fish. You didn't see those things. You can only accept or reject the testimony of those who say it happened. Then you talk to your clergymen and they said that Jesus was a phony and a fraud. The anti-Christian literature of the day sounds a lot like today's anti-Mormon literature. The Pharisees spread the word that Jesus was from a disreputable family, who left home in shame when Mary got pregnant out-of-wedlock and went to Egypt. While in Egypt, Jesus picked up a few magic tricks that fooled the unschooled rubes. Now imagine that you've heard all of this anti stuff and yet, when you hear him teach, you feel something special. When you practice his teachings, you feel closer to God. Imagine that, in this moment, he asks you to forsake all and follow him today. How would you decide? There isn't time to spend months researching it. Even if you did, there's so much conflicting material, you can't figure out if it's true or not. But there he is asking you to follow him right now. How do you decide? In my experience, you have to trust your heart. You pray about it and trust that God won't lead you astray. You will never know all that you might want to know beforehand. The time for the decision is now. What you have to do is ask God with sincerity and promise you'll follow whatever he tells you--and mean it. You'll find that your answer about what to do will come. Trust in God. We ask people to study, ponder, and pray. Asking God is important and it sounds like you've done a lot of the first two steps already. If Jesus asked you to follow him today, would you do it? The invitation to join the Church comes from him also. Pray. Maybe do a day of fasting. Then act on the answer that comes. Don't be afraid. You don't have to trust us. You just have to trust what God will tell you.

It's not that we don't understand the Trinity. We know the nature of God by direct revelation. We don't need scholars and theologians to try to reason it out. We know from direct revelation from God that the Father he has a tangible body of glorified flesh and bone. We know that he is a separate, distinct personage from the Son. We know that Jesus has a tangible, resurrected body of flesh and bone. We know the Holy Ghost is a separate personage of spirit who does not have a tangible body. A Mormon scholar might study the Trinity as a matter of academic curiosity or to facilitate dialogue, but it doesn't change what we know. We have modern revelation that corrects centuries of false human reasoning. It's new wine in old bottles. There is no harmonizing the two concepts. To know what we know, it is up to each seeker to ask God what is true. If you want to know if we're right, the most sure way to find out is to ask of God. James 1:5 is all you need. If you ask with a willingness to submit to whatever God tells you, a sure answer will come in his own time and in his own way. Mormons teach that studying things out in your mind is good. It's a first step in finding truth. Pondering and reflecting over these things is good. If what we teach troubles you, then we urge you to ask of God. The answer is there, ultimately. He will tell you what Joseph Smith saw. Then you'll know what we know.

Hi again, Faith4 wrote: God is my witness, and this gives me peace, b/c I know, and He knows what He has done for me. He hasrevealed Himself to me, I have seen His hand at work in my life, even as a child, though I did not understand until I was an adult and I could see how everything worked out perfectly in hindsight. I have experienced the miraculous, seen the miraculous, heard the miraculous and felt the miraculous (both interiorly and exteriorly). I don't dispute that you may have had many wonderful spiritual experiences. I never said that other believers in other faiths can't feel the manifestation of the Holy Ghost. A really good example of this is the great evangelist Jonathan Edwards. Edwards is pretty much credited with starting the second "Great Awakening" in America. He was a staunch Calvinist and I would disagree with most of what he taught. (A Catholic would, also!) Anyways, one of the manifestations of the spirit that Mormons often refer to is the "burning in the bosom." A lot of anti-Mormon critics attack this because they say we are trying to get people to rely on emotion, not scripture or reason. Regardless, Jonathan Edwards beautifully described the manifestation in his personal narrative: He said: This I know not how to express otherwise, than by a calm, sweet abstraction of soul from all the concerns of this world; and sometimes a kind of vision, or fixed ideas and imaginations, of being alone in the mountains, or some solitary wilderness, far from all mankind, sweetly conversing with Christ, and wrapt and swallowed up in God. The sense I had of divine things, would often of a sudden kindle up, as it were, a sweet burning in my heart; an ardor of soul, that I know not how to express. Amazing, isn't it! Jonathan Edwards felt the burning in the bosom that Mormon missionaries would have people trust! Let's see what else Edwards had to say about it: My mind was greatly fixed on divine things; almost perpetually in the contemplation of them. I spent most of my time in thinking of divine things, year after year; often walking alone in the woods, and solitary places, for meditation, soliloquy, and prayer, and converse with God; and it was always my manner, at such times, to sing forth my contemplations. I was almost constantly in ejaculatory prayer, wherever I was. Prayer seemed to be natural to me, as the breath by which the inward burnings of my heart had vent. Again, Edwards said: Sometimes, only mentioning a single word caused my heart to burn within me; or only seeing the name of Christ, or the name of some attribute of God. I point this out as one example. I could cite inspired experiences of believers of many denominations who had dreams, visions, the word of knowledge, spiritual gifts, and other such things. God loves his children, regardless of what church they attend. He is merciful beyond our understanding. However, Joseph Smith taught that there is a difference between having the Holy Spirit touch our hearts and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost which comes as an ordinance, by the laying on of hands, after proper baptism by authority for the remission of sins. Joseph cited the case of Cornelius, the Gentile in the scriptures. Jesus had sent the apostles to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" only at first. Cornelius was a God-fearing Gentile and was praying when a vision came to him telling him to send for Peter. Peter has his vision and comes at Cornelius' request and the Holy Ghost fell upon the family of Cornelius when they heard the gospel preached. Now, this was a manifestation of the Spirit bearing witness of Christ's reality. In my experience, most Christians have felt something akin to this. That's why they believe. Their hearts have been touched by the Spirit and they believe in Jesus. For some people, they think this is all that is necessary to be saved. When Cornelius and his family received the Spirit, Peter "commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." (Acts 10:48). Joseph Smith taught rightly that, had Cornelius not acted and had declined to be baptized, that spiritual manifestation would have been the end of it. The Spirit ceases to strive with a person who refuses its invitations. In Acts chapter 19, we find a group of "believers" who had received something they termed "John's baptism." Paul asked them if they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost. He was confused when they answered that they never heard of such a thing. He surmises that they have been baptized by some sincere person who meant well, but did not have authority. We can make this assumption by what he did next. He re-baptized them (by proper authority) and laid hands upon them to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is difficult for us latter-day saints to explain this difference to people of other faiths. Yes, we admit that they have spiritual experiences. We who are converts from other faith will testify that there is a difference in what you experience after baptism, compared to what you had before. You don't see Mormons talking about how bad it was when they were a Catholic or a Methodist or a Baptist. Instead, you hear them say that they obtained new blessings that they did not experience when they were in those prior denominations. The companionship of the Holy Ghost comes from the remission of sins that results from proper baptism. I don't discount your spiritual experiences or those of any other non-Mormon. Those are blessings that God has given you because of his love for you. We do say that there is something more you can experience. You can have the gift of the Holy Ghost all the time. It doesn't mean that we walk around having visions of glory all the time, but there is a difference between before and after baptism that endures. Consider that nearly 300,000 people a year convert to Mormonism. Sure, we lose some because of persecution, temptations, worldliness, etc, (i.e., Parable of the Sower). But most of them stay in the Church because they feel something that they didn't have in their former denomination. We very rarely attract complete non-believers. Usually other denominations are an intermediate step to a fuller truth that is available. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the source of the richness of life as a Mormon. People who are outside the church get a taste of it now and then to draw them closer to Christ. The fullness of it is to be had after baptism by one holding proper authority for the remission of sins. Without proper baptism, those experiences tend to fade away because the individual doesn't accept the invitation of the Spirit to move forward.