spamlds

I was a gospel doctrine teacher for many years in two different wards. In one of them, the "disruptor" was a counselor in the bishopric! It was as if he coveted the calling of gospel doctrine teacher and tried to use his supposed "clout" to dominate the lessons and steer them the way he thought they should go. Every other gospel doctrine teacher before me had quit because of him. It was only with a lot of diplomacy and humor that I managed to teach the class and keep him "pacified." He meant well, and he didn't go off with false doctrinal ideas, but he constantly interfered with where the Spirit was directing the class and caused a lot of tension for everyone.

Hmmm. I don't mean to be snarky, but Bible colleges are where people go to get indoctrinated into the apostate creeds of men--the ones that the Lord called "abominations" when he appeared to Joseph Smith in the first vision. Term "deaconess" is commonly believed to simply be the wife of a deacon. Other interpretations, especially in the light of Joseph Smith's own instructions regarding ordaining women referenced in the original post in this thread are misguided attempts to teach a corrupt doctrine. Please remember, Joseph Smith saw and communed with many Biblical figures. He was instructed by Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Peter, James, John, and Paul. Joseph even described the physical appearance and the sound of Paul's voice. To suggest that he did not have a clear understanding of the order of priesthood is to suggest that he was making things up or that he was merely interpreting the Bible like any other uninspired sectarian minister.

I grew up in the South where Sundays are "fashion shows" for the various non-LDS churches. In some of them, the ladies go all out with elaborate hats and the men wear all kinds of ostentatious colors. It's not unusual to see the discount stores in African-American neighborhoods selling men's suits that are fluorescent green and purple. The clothing worn becomes the object of gossip for the next week. In other non-LDS churches, there has been a movement away from formality, dignity, and reverence. They have rock "praise bands" with loud guitars, amps, and drums. The worshipers come to church in shorts, jeans, and whatever. Reverence is not even a consideration. There is no expectation of hearing the "still, small voice" of the Spirit. In Virginia, there was one nudist church! The ultimate in casual wear... Our standard is that we should be modest, unpretentious, and subdued. Our purpose at our meetings is to worship the Lord and make him the focus, not our apparel. Do we always succeed in this? Not always, because humans are weak. Some people want to be the center of attention and be a distraction. But we have a standard we try to maintain and that is to downplay our apparel rather than to play it up. We often don't realize that what we do sets us apart from other churches in positive ways. I've had nonmember visitors tell me that they liked the absence of the Sunday fashion show. Our dress at church is largely "neutral" and forgettable--like the Men in Black. :)

I assume you're referring to Phoebe in Romans 16:1. I used to be president of a small branch in rural Virginia and we had our own Phoebe. In the earliest days of the branch, there was only one priesthood holder who was the branch president. His job required him to travel a lot and many Sundays, he had to be out of town. On the weekends when he wasn't there, one of the Relief Society sisters would lead a scripture study, report attendance, visiting teaching, and other information to a stake high councilman. She visited members and did missionary work. She and a few other sisters were really the ones responsible for the branch surviving its "infancy" and surviving in a remote area some two hours away from the rest of the stake. This faithful sister would scoff at the very idea that women should be ordained to the priesthood, but believe me, no branch president or elder's quorum president would be stupid enough to discount this lady's wisdom and experience. If we were in biblical times, I'm sure Paul would have mentioned her in an epistle.

Pardon me if this new thread covers a topic that has been discussed before. I searched around the forum and I did not find this specific set of citations that might be useful on the topic of ordaining women. As I see the argument of the Ordain Women side (trying to understand their position), they claim that they sustain the leaders of the Church, but they are not satisfied that the question has been asked regarding the ordination of women. Their indirect assertion is that the Prophet hasn't told them that he asked the Lord and that the answer is no. In all the discussions and debates I've seen around the Internet, I haven't seen anyone make reference to statements Joseph Smith made that are applicable to the question that are recorded in a very common source of history and doctrine, the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Regarding some of the contemporary religious movements of his era, Joseph critiqued a couple of them that were founded by women. Johanna Southcott professed to be a prophetess, and wrote a book of prophecies in 1804, she became the founder of a people that are still extant. She was to bring forth, in a place appointed, a son, that was to be the Messiah, which thing has failed. Independent of this, however, where do we read of a woman that was the founder of a church, in the word of God? Paul told the women in his day, "To keep silence in the church, and that if they wished to know anything to ask their husbands at home;" he would not suffer a woman "to rule, or to usurp authority in the church;" but here we find a woman the founder of a church, the revelator and guide, the Alpha and Omega, contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Four, 1839-42, p. 209). This is the statement that so many of our fellow saints have missed. Having a woman hold priesthood authority is "contrary to all acknowledged rule, principle, and order." The matter is settled. We have it from Joseph. Why does President Monson simply entertain the request of the Ordain Women group to satisfy them and/or silence them? Another principle comes into play here that we find in the TPJS. ...And again we never inquire at the hand of God for special revelation only in case of there being no previous revelation to suit the case; and that in a council of High Priests...It is a great thing to inquire at the hands of God, or to come into His presence; and we feel fearful to approach Him on subjects that are of little or no consequence, to satisfy the queries of individuals....” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section One 1830-34, p.22) The sisters and supporters of Ordain Women need to understand these two principles. First, Joseph Smith already considered the New Testament to have defined the role of women. They can enjoy spiritual gifts, and even be prophetesses, just like in the Bible. However, they are not called to the priesthood, to hold keys, or to lead the Church. Secondly, even though the Church does have continuing revelation, it is a fearful, awesome thing to approach the throne of grace and inquire of God to satisfy the queries of individuals, most especially when the matter is already settled doctrine. I thought it might be useful for Church supporters to have these two quotes because they are pertinent to the issues at hand regarding the ordination of women. If the Ordain Women supporters are sincere, they should recognize that things are exactly as the Lord has established it and accept it. Their queries have already been answered. The question is now whether or not they will accept the revealed will of the Lord or whether they will continue to badger the Lord's Anointed for something it would not be appropriate to ask of the Lord. If you would like to read more on the topic, please visit my article at the Examiner.

It must be kept in mind that, just like there is true religion and false religion, there is true science and false science. Not all science is true, just as not all religion is true. Truth can be discovered by science and by personal revelation. Much science today is politically-driven claptrap. Global warming might be true or it might not be. The science on it has been so corrupted by politics, we'll never know for sure. Meanwhile the real global warming that people should be concerned about is when the earth shall be burned at Christ's coming. Sciences like E-CAT technology will have to jump through all kinds of political hoops, not just scientific ones. Imagine if that technology is, as it appears, producing a reliable, reproducible, cold fusion that emits very little radiation, provides clean energy, and is small enough to fit in a car or power your house. Imagine the political fallout from such a technology. The George Soros-type guys would want to control and exploit it for profit. Oil-producing nations would have their entire economies collapse and would probably start a war. Small African villages could be freed from the paternalistic policies of the post-colonial powers. It could turn the whole world upside down. The result from all those intrigues impacts science, it's funding, who controls and regulates it, etc. Thus, in our politically-driven era, science is not free anymore any more than Christianity was under the Holy Roman Empire. The dichotomy between religion and science is a red herring. True science is true religion and vice versa. We are just accustomed to living in a time where both are relatively scarce.

Years ago, before joining the Church, I tried to understand the Trinity. I talked to a lot of pastors and priests about it. None of them really understand it either. To them, it's just a mystery and they'll tell you it's a mystery. The creeds call it "incomprehensible"--and that's about the only true statement in the creeds. I used to ask all kinds of questions. If the Father became the Son on the Earth, while he was in the womb and while he was a baby, who answered prayers and watched over heaven and earth? If Jesus was his own Father, why did he go through the charade of praying to himself? Why did he deceive and/or confuse a thousand generations of Christians by having the Father's voice come from heaven and the Holy Ghost descend like a dove at his baptism? How is he without "variableness" or "shadow of changing" as James calls it if he was at one time an incorporeal spirit, then became a mortal, then became a spirit, then was resurrected in a physical body, and now (as they suppose) returned to being a spirit? What happened to his body? When the resurrected Jesus appeared to Mary by the tomb, he said that he had not yet ascended to his Father in Heaven. How is that even possible if they were the same Being? When he ascended to heaven, the angels told the disciples that he'd return again in like manner. If he's a spirit now, what did he do with his body? Does he just put it on an off like a costume? I don't mean to be facetious or disrespectful in asking these things. These were the questions I had before I joined the Church. Truthfully, the LDS Church is the only one that had any answers that made sense. The answers I received harmonized the various parts of the scriptures and did away with any contradictions. It became easy to see that man's teachings (particularly neo-Platonism and Gnosticism) really messed up the understanding of God's nature once the living revelators were gone out of the Church. The Trinity is a scripturally bankrupt notion. The Lord perfectly resolves the questions in the First Vision. Any person can know for himself that Joseph Smith's experience was real by the prayer of faith and by reading the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon and the First Vision correct a whole world full of error on the topic of God's nature and provide the believer with first-hand wisdom on the subject by personal revelation.

I appreciate your concerns, but you have a bigger problem than making the Lord and the scriptures fit into your "logical" boxes. It is the tendency of mankind to want a controllable, predictable Deity. There are two camps that strive to do this. The first group is religious scholars who try to lock God into a scriptural box. The Pharisees of old did this, as do the sectarian ministers of today. They refuse to believe in a God that doesn't match the "logic" or restraints of their scriptural interpretations. With these types, the Lord challenges them with wording of things. For example, he'll have a few scriptures that say "saved by grace, not by works" and then have two dozen others that say that we're "judged according to our works." There are passages that refer to the "everlasting covenant" of circumcision that comes to an end when he declares it to be fulfilled. The Pharisee types get hung up on those things because they want logic, not God's Spirit and his wisdom. They want everything nice, neat, and well-defined. They want rules on what they can do on the sabbath and what we can't, etc. Then there are the Pharisees of science. They try to limit God to what they perceive as logic, based on man's puny understanding of things. For example, they say there can be no God because nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Meanwhile, we have recently seen experiments from CERN that produced particles that move faster than light, which would redefine the very fundamentals of our understanding of physics. We are reluctant to admit that we had it wrong for a long time. God's existence only gets contradicted by incomplete science. So when you say that something in the scriptures is a "deal breaker," it shows me that you don't really have faith, or maybe you're just beginning to develop it and it's still very weak. I've heard scientists say that religion is a crutch for the weak-minded. It's really the other way around. People who claim to be scientifically-minded are unwilling to take the leap and stand on their own faith. If you ever rode a bike with training wheels, it's much the same thing. You come to rely on the training wheels, but they hinder your freedom to really ride a bike. When you take them off, it's kind of scary. You don't know if you'll crash. Sometimes you do while you're practicing. Then one day, when you get it right, there is this amazing elation. Faith works like that. I would encourage you to take your questions to the Lord instead of asking us flawed mortals on an Internet forum. What does James 1:5-6 say? It says if you lack wisdom, ask of God. It's very simple. It doesn't say, "If you lack wisdom, ask of Google." You will get an answer and you walk by faith, trusting in that answer. Your faith will be tested and, if you pass the test, you faith will be stronger. It's the same for everybody. Remember that none of us are in the position to demand any proof from God. He responds to humility and a willingness to submit to his demands. When we do that, every single glorious possibility opens up to us. The logic in his ways becomes apparent as we live the gospel over a long time. The Lord has your answers. Go to him in faith. Trust him!

D&C 87 isn't just about the Civil War. It informs us that, beginning with the rebellion in South Carolina, war would spread to all nations, eventually making an end of all of them. The prophecy is still ongoing and will one day be fulfilled when the Lord makes a "full end of all nations," leaving his kingdom as the only legitimate, standing authority on Earth. We have a ways to go yet before that one is fulfilled.

I don't mean to say this in a disrespectful manner, prisonchaplain, but you have give us the reason why you are not a latter-day saint yet. Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice..." (John 10:27). A person who is "elect" (and everyone is "elect" in a specific moment in time during their life, when God calls them) will hear the voice of the Good Shepherd in the pages of the Book of Mormon. He will feel the burning testimony, or the sublime peace that Jonathan Edwards described, as they peruse its pages. Those who dilly-dally, searching the pages of scripture, thinking they have eternal life, do just as the Pharisees did. Imagine any sectarian minister today as a Pharisee. He's a well-meaning, educated, devout student of the scriptures. He's not a bad guy. Then, some new upstart comes along, lacking his educational background, who never when to a seminary or had any theological training, who tells the Pharisee that he's got it wrong. That's what Jesus did--and the Pharisees didn't like it. Even guys like Nicodemus, who were attracted to Jesus' doctrine had to be careful, because they didn't want to lose their position of privilege and respect among their peers. They had to be very guarded. The had a vested interest in the outcome. It was a lot to ask to get a Pharisee to accept Jesus. Even a converted Pharisee like Saul of Tarsus had difficulty converting other Pharisees. The people that did convert did so because of the spiritual witness that came to them. The Pharisees only became the bad guys when they were unwilling to see the scriptures differently--to trust the impressions of the heart over what their indoctrination and years of study told them--that "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet" (John 7:52). When we learn that the Bible isn't common ground, that it is the source of contention between 1000 bickering Christian sects, we'll see what the Book of Mormon really gives us. The most direct path to knowledge is in the Sacred Grove, not in the pages of the Bible. The testimony that comes from the Sacred Grove is what harmonizes the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Happy Thanksgiving to all.

The question in question basically asks if a member supports or agrees with any individual, group or organization whose teachings are contrary to or oppose the teachings of the Church. Why would anyone want to be a member of any religion he didn't agree with? Before I became a latter-day saint 33 years ago, I asked question, studied, and researched all sorts of religions. I didn't join a religion I didn't agree with. My family was Presbyterian but that didn't hinder me from looking elsewhere. With all the different "brands" of religion out there, why would anyone remain in one with whose precepts he fundamentally disagrees? It's not like going through the motions is going to save anyone. When I converted to the gospel, I wanted to obtain what 1 Corinthians 2:16 calls "the mind of Christ." I was not interested in obtaining the mind of Luther, or Calvin, or even the mind of Joseph Smith. I wanted to obtain the "mind of Christ." I have found that in the Church's teachings. In living the gospel, I have obtained a witness that the teachings of the Church are the mind of God on those issues. Whether it's marriage (same-sex or traditional), or abortion, or immigration, or war, or whatever, we can be confident that the revelations we have been given are the mind of God insofar as it has been given today. Will there be future revelations? Yes. Inasmuch as my own personal opinions ever came into conflict with the teachings of the restored gospel, I have discovered that the way to resolve the conflict was to accept and practice the teachings of the Church first, while praying for insights about the conflict. In every situation, over the course of time, I found that the Lord's opinion became clear to me as I obeyed his will. Like John 7:17 says, if we do his will, we will learn if the doctrine is of God or not. The Lord is content to leave us with false opinions and the conflicts they cause because he respects our agency. Nevertheless, if we seek his opinion, he does give it in his own way if we are faithful and obedient. The Lord doesn't compel, but he wants us to yield to him. Helaman 3:35 says: "Nevertheless they did fast and pray oft, and did wax stronger and stronger in their humility, and firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ, unto the filling their souls with joy and consolation, yea, even to the purifying and the sanctification of their hearts, which sanctification cometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God." Those who will not yield their hearts unto God don't get sanctified. If they don't get sanctified, they don't end up in the celestial kingdom. Essentially, we will go where our hearts and minds point us. If anyone feels in conflict with the Church and its leaders, it is natural to have to do some soul-searching. Nevertheless, my experience of over three decades is that a person who will yield his heart to the Lord will experience greater peace and happiness than those who continue to kick against the pricks of man's misguided philosophies and politics.

Regarding the "Biblical witness"-- If I approached a person who had never seen a Bible in his life and I gave him the Book of Mormon to read, I would expect him to ask questions about its origins, its translation, and its contents. He would want to know who wrote it, when, and how. If he wants to know of its divine origin, he can't get that information from me or any physical evidence. He has to get it through the revelation of the Spirit. That's how we come to know that anything is true. If we don't have that, we simply have a superstition that is based on hearsay. If I approached a person who had never seen a Bible and I handed a Bible to him and commanded him to believe it or go to a burning hell forever, what would he rely on to confirm its contents? He might learn of the various codices and texts that were assembled, none of which matched perfectly, to construct the modern Bible hundreds of years after the events it describes took place. He might talk to learned men and archaeologists, etc., but none of them will attest to having been an eyewitness of Jesus' miracles. If it all comes down to believing a book whose antiquity can be proved, then why not believe in the Vedas or the Bhagavad Gita of the Hindus, which is far older than the Bible? What I'm getting at is that each person has to determine what his threshold for believing is and whether it is consistent in all situations. It makes no sense to believe the Bible and reject the Book of Mormon when the same proofs required to believe the Book of Mormon would undo faith in the Bible if they were to be applied to it. In the end, it all comes down to the testimony of eleven men who saw Jesus Christ resurrected. The Spirit of God confirms their testimony to the believer. There's no other way to know that Jesus is who they say he was than to get the testimony of the Spirit. Like the Bible, there are eleven men who saw the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated -- the same number as who saw the resurrected Jesus, interestingly. These men saw, touched, felt, and handled the plates, just like the eleven men who saw, felt, touched, and handled the Lord's resurrected form. We can gain a testimony of the truth of these things also through the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3 says "that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." Now obviously, even an atheist like Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens is physically capable of saying the words "Jesus is Lord." What this passage means is that the saving knowledge of this fact only comes through the Holy Ghost. A person can read a sacred text or hear the testimony of another and feel the truth of this by the manifestations of the Holy Ghost. It doesn't come from archaeology, DNA, or any other proof. Millions of people have read the Bible who never, ever come to faith in Christ. Does that make the Bible false? No, of course not. Does it make the Book of Mormon false because millions have read it and not believed? Likewise, no. They failed to learn the truth because they did not have sufficient faith to obtain a witness of the Spirit. That's what these books do. They sort the sheep from the goats, so to speak. They identify who has faith and who does not. Those who truly have faith will come to a knowledge of the gospel by the Holy Spirit. I believe Jonathan Edwards did this, from the sensations he described. I would not be surprised to learn that he has embraced the Restored gospel in the spirit world. The "Biblical witness" is best summarized in James--"if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God." P.S. As anti-Mormons are determined to stop people from praying about the Book of Mormon, I wrote an article for the Examiner a couple of years ago that deals more in-depth with their opposition. Here's the link. When you read their arguments against praying and against the "burning in the bosom," you'll see why this topic is important to understand. The evil spirit that teaches a person not to pray - National LDS Church | Examiner.com

I once saw a French branch get into a huge controversy over this approach to harmonize the Word of Wisdom, which is a requirement given by modern revelation, to ancient practices regarding the drinking of wine. There were some members that were unwisely trying to equate the wine of the Old and New Testament with unfermented grape juice. I'm not going into all the scriptures I used at the time to prove the point (because they are too numerous for this venue). However, keep in mind a few examples: --Noah cursed Ham when he was drunk (Genesis 9:21). --Ammon and King Limhi used a tribute of wine to get the Lamanite guards drunk so they could escape from bondage in Mosiah 22. --The Lamanites tried to do the same thing to the Nephites in Alma 55. --Bishops in the New Testament were not to be given to wine and to be models of sobriety (so evidently the wine could get them drunk!) --Old Testament Nazarites were to shun intoxicating drinks because of their special vows (Numbers 6). There are lots of warnings about drinking alcoholic beverages, because of the inebriating qualities they possess. If someone tries to argue that "Jesus drank wine, why can't Mormons?" the simple answer is that it is a modern commandment. Like the Nazarites of old, who didn't drink wine, Mormons are also a people that have been set apart for a special purpose. The Word of Wisdom has nothing to do with any other dispensation. Please not the wording from Section 89-- "Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—" Keeping the Word of Wisdom is a sign of faith in God's prophets in the latter-days. It doesn't matter what went before, whether it was the "everlasting covenant" of circumcision that God did away with or the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic law, which God did away with. In fact, the Lord says that he won't drink of the fruit of the vine again until he returns: "Verily I say unto you, Of this ye shall bear record; for I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine with you, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God" (JST Mark 14:25). The Lord even says that he will drink of the fruit of the vine again with Moroni, Elias, John the Baptist, Elijah, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Michael, Peter, James, and John when he returns (See D&C 27:5-12). Like circumcision, the Word of Wisdom apparently comes to an end when the next dispensation begins. It is a commandment that is uniquely for the particular dispensation in which we live today. Don't try to argue semantics with non-believers over something so trivial as this. Don't try to rationalize that the Lord gave people commandments in olden times that are different from today. The Word of Wisdom is intended to protect the saints of the latter days that are unique to our time and which threaten our unique mission to establish Zion before the Second Coming.

It happens sometime that the patriarch forgets to declare lineage. In that case, your wife may request a second patriarchal blessing to find out what tribe she belongs to. Explain that to your bishop and he'll consult the handbook. Then he'll give her a new recommend and she can get second blessing. That's an interesting opportunity--the Lord obviously has more to tell her through his servant, the patriarch!

Indeed, that is the whole test of life, to see if we can sort out that "signal" through the static of our own thoughts, Satan's temptations, and worldly distractions. It requires a great deal of attention, preparation, and devotion. There is a mistaken notion that the "signal" gets stronger over time or that someone, due to their calling or position in the Church, is entitled to stronger "signals" than anyone else. I've found that this is not the case. Someone once said that, even in the highest councils of the Church, the still, small voice is still the still, small voice. I spent several years as a linguist/voice processing specialist working for Air Force intelligence. The more experienced guys could pick out the most distant, remote, faint signals out of the static, while the novices just hear static. When I first started in the field, I'd think, "There's no way they heard that!" Then with time and experience, I found I could do the same thing. Understanding and interpreting the Spirit's voice is much the same way. It comes to us in thoughts and feelings that are distinctive, but we have to learn to recognize them. It's easy to mistake them for normal day-to-day mind clutter. If it was easy, life wouldn't be the test that it's meant to be.

Here is a bit of informed personal speculation on Alma 34:34: "...for that same spirit which doth bpossess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world." If you will go to this link and read the Brigham Young priesthood manual we used several years ago, Chapter 38 in that manual has a great lesson on the spirit world. Here's the link to it. LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - The Spirit World Brigham Young said: "Suppose, then, that a man is evil in his heart—wholly given up to wickedness, and in that condition dies, his spirit will enter into the spirit world intent upon evil. On the other hand, if we are striving with all the powers and faculties God has given us to improve upon our talents, to prepare ourselves to dwell in eternal life, and the grave receives our bodies while we are thus engaged, with what disposition will our spirits enter their next state? They will be still striving to do the things of God, only in a much greater degree—learning, increasing, growing in grace and in the knowledge of the truth (DBY, 379). "If we are faithful to our religion, when we go into the spirit world, the fallen spirits—Lucifer and the third part of the heavenly hosts that came with him, and the spirits of wicked men who have dwelt upon this earth, the whole of them combined will have no influence over our spirits. Is not that an advantage? Yes. All the rest of the children of men are more or less subject to them, and they are subject to them as they were while here in the flesh (DBY, 379). "Here [the faithful] shall be perplexed and hunted by him; but when we go into the spirit world there we are masters over the power of satan, and he cannot afflict us any more, and this is enough for me to know" (DNW, 1 Oct. 1856, 3). There's your answer as to why it's difficult to repent in the spirit world. When the righteous leave this life, Satan has no further power over them. They have overcome him. When the wicked leave this life and go into the spirit world, Satan has the same power to tempt them and influence them. They are not free from his power. A spirit who can master the desires and weaknesses of the body and attain to righteousness has power over Satan when he no longer has the body. Having a body to learn to master is a blessing. When that body is no more, it's actually harder to repent. Brigham Young also said: "And when there we may behold the earth as at the dawn of creation, or we may visit any city we please that exists upon its surface. If we wish to understand how they are living here on these western islands, or in China, we are there; in fact, we are like the light of the morning. … God has revealed some little things, with regard to his movements and power, and the operation and motion of the lightning furnish a fine illustration of the ability of the Almighty" (DBY, 380). Imagine a wicked person with those kinds of abilities to move and act, but whose desires are wicked. That ability will actually hinder his ability repent in the spirit world. For example, imagine a spirit who was addicted to pornography. Now, in the spirit world, he can indulge that evil desire 24/7 nonstop as he can see any place and any time on the earth. Do you think the wicked will wish to repent in that state? It would be a challenge for them, because they have lost the body through which practicing mastery of desires and impulses is most effective. It's a really good lesson in that manual. Check it out.

I also like Edward's description of it as a "...gentle and holy majesty; and also a majestic meekness; a high, great, and holy gentleness..." Very poetic, expressed in very exquisite language that does justice to the sentiment.

There has been an unfortunate trend among sectarian Christians to disparage Mormonism's belief in the manifestation of the Spirit we call the "burning in the bosom." This phrase is taken from Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 where the Lord taught Oliver Cowdery how to recognize this manifestation of a spiritual witness. "But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." I have encountered anti-Mormon web sites where evangelical Christians have ridiculed this particular manifestation, encouraging those who investigate the Church to place no confidence in this sensation. When sharing your understanding of it with other Christians, it might be useful to have knowledge of a couple of passages from Jonathan Edwards' "Personal Narrative." Edwards, who lived before the Restoration occurred (1703-1758) was one of the most important American Protestant theologians. His sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is credited with starting the first Great Awakening. Edwards theology is staunchly Calvinist in nature. Yet his doctrine still resonates with evangelicals today. That's why I think it is important to know and use these passages from his narrative. Here they are: "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.... "...[T]here came into my mind so sweet a sense of the glorious majesty and grace of God, that I know not how to express. I seemed to see them both in a sweet conjunction; majesty and meekness joined together; it was a gentle and holy majesty; and also a majestic meekness; a high, great, and holy gentleness (Edwards). "...[E}very word seemed to touch my heart. I felt a harmony between something in my heart and those sweet and powerful words...." "Somtimes, 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" (Edwards)." Conversion happens when an investigator recognizes the testimony of the Holy Ghost. The great Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards knew and recognized this special feeling and he described it as good as any person ever has. When other Christians realize that this same holy feeling that many of them have experienced can testify of the Restoration, they may be more willing to rely upon it and accept the glorious principles that have been revealed in the latter-days. I think Jonathan Edwards would have recognized the movements of the Spirit and embraced the Restoration, had he lived long enough to see it.

I do not wish to say anything particularly negative against the teachings of other Christian sects or denominations. We are certainly the target of so many attacks that criticizing the belief system of others is distasteful. I would reply to the original poster's question in this manner. I was raised Presbyterian, gravitated towards Methodism, and later attended Baptist churches, although I never formally joined any of these denominations. I later investigated Hinduism and Buddhism. The most appealing doctrine of Mormonism was one that no other religion taught: that I could know for myself that the doctrines were true by the revelations of the Holy Spirit. Every other Christian denomination taught that faith meant blindly accepting the tenets of a particular interpretation of the Bible. My opinion was somewhat like Thomas Paine's--all revelation is hearsay to everyone but the one who receives it. I was unwilling to accept the revelations of others, especially when men's interpretations of them showed such disagreement and variation. When a Mormon acquaintance gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon and explained that God could speak directly to me through the Holy Ghost and tell me that it was true, I found that to be astonishing. I also found out that it was true. So my favorite "doctrine" would be the principle that God can and does speak directly to seekers of truth. One of the things that Mormonism does very well is that it teaches people to recognize how God speaks to them. I realize now that I had felt the Spirit of God's presence on a couple of occasions in the Methodist Church in particular. Our pastor took a group of youth on a retreat and one of the things we did was re-enact Jesus' washing the disciples' feet. We didn't wash feet, but instead the hands of the person next to us. It was an intensely spiritual experience, but I didn't understand what I was feeling. I think Mormons do very well at teaching others how to identify the presence of the Holy Ghost when it manifests truth. That's why we're successful as missionaries without theological training. We're not scholars; we're witnesses. Because our teaching helps us understand the role the Spirit has played throughout our lives, that's why Mormons don't turn into anti-Baptists, or anti-Catholics, or anti-whatever. We don't renounce the truths we knew before. We tend to see our religious experiences in other faiths as stepping stones toward a greater light and we bless the Lord's name for his mercy in what he has done in our lives. If a Baptist or a Methodist tells me that God told him that his religion is the one he should be in, that's perfectly fine with me. God's wisdom is greater than mine and he has a plan for each of us. If a person denies that God can speak and give such guidance, his belief system essentially limits what God can do. Joseph Smith said (paraphrasing) that God never penalized a person for believing too much, but for believing too little. When I was searching for the truth, another question that other denominations did not answer satisfactorily for me was "What happens to those who die in ignorance of the gospel?" The answers were so varied and contradictory that I knew that it was mere guesswork. The LDS understanding of how the Lord's plan fairly presents the gospel to everyone and allows them to exercise free agency was very appealing. The fairness and justice of it really had the mark of divinity. Again, the principle of personal revelation taught me that I could seek confirmation of the doctrine through prayer and insights from the Holy Spirit. I have no ill-feelings toward any religion, sect, denomination, or church that is genuinely seeking light and truth in their own way. What I object to is those that deviate from the path of truth to attack latter-day saints. Anti-Mormonism as manifested by various ministries are a terrible waste of resources and personal effort.

I'm surprised nobody answered the first question directly, regarding the literal gathering. The tenth article of faith says: 10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. There are five separate elements here that are not necessarily connected. 1. There will be a literal gathering of Israel. 2. The lost ten tribes will be restored. 3. The Zion known as the New Jerusalem will be built in the Americas. 4. Christ will reign personally on the earth. 5. The earth will be renewed and resume its Eden-like state. It doesn't say that the literal gathering of Israel will be to the Holy Land only and it doesn't say that the ten tribes will gather only to the New Jerusalem. Missionary work is gathering Israel. In the patriarchal blessings since the beginning of this dispensation, there have been members of the lost tribes identified by revelation. It is interesting to note that Joseph's name means "one who gathers." Joseph, the son of Jacob, had a wife whose name was Asenath. Her name meant "City of Refuge." Their marital union significantly points to the role of their posterity in the gathering of the elect to Zion, the city of refuge in the last days.

The necessity of partaking of the sacrament regularly is based in two things. First, in doing so, we are keeping the commandment in 3 Nephi 18: 6 And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you. 7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you... 11 And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you. 12 And I give unto you a commandment that ye shall do these things. And if ye shall always do these things blessed are ye, for ye are built upon my rock. 13 But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them. That passage there should convince any LDS member of the necessity to receive the sacrament as often as possible. In keeping the commandment we show the Lord that we remember his sacrifice and he gives the Holy Ghost as a blessing for obeying it. Those who "do more or less" are not "built upon my rock." They will become weaker and fall away in times of difficulty. The Lord also explained to Joseph Smith in Section 84 of the D&C: 19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. 20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; Without the ordinances of the gospel, the "power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh." The power of godliness is what Christians call "grace." We are saved by grace and we obtain grace through faith, making covenants, and obeying the gospel ordinances that are associated with those covenants. If we omit the ordinances, we do not receive the grace. Yes, partaking of the sacrament is an essential gospel ordinance--that is, unless someone has figured out a way to be saved without needing grace.

I had that happen once at a Village Inn pizza and ice cream place. I ordered their big "volcano" dish of ice cream and it had coffee ice cream in it. Yuck! I ended up not eating it. My non-LDS friends why I didn't finish it and I just told them that I had overestimated how much room I had left after killing a few slices of pizza. Years ago, I used to play guitar with rock and country bands. We often had gigs in bars and clubs. I used to always go to the bartenders in advance and tell them that I was Mormon and that I didn't drink alcohol. If a customer ordered a round of drinks for the band, I'd always have it arranged that mine wouldn't have any booze in it. They were fine with that. The bar still made money, the customer was happy that we accepted his kind gesture, and I stayed within the bounds of the Word of Wisdom. Every now and then, the bartender would forget (or one of my bandmates was playing a gag on me) and I'd get a soda that had a little more "kick" to it. I'd immediately recognize it and the mouthful of liquid went back into the glass with the next "swig." At a convenient moment, the contents would make their way to the bathroom sink or a nearby planter. Eventually, I gave up playing music in clubs, just because the potential for compromise was always there. Besides, when you're the only sober one in the bar, all the drunks want to come over and hang out with you so they can tell you all their problems. :)

Where I live--below the Mason-Dixon Line--you see a pretty wide spread of denominations and how they dress for their services. Older people in the white Protestant churches usually dress conservatively (shirt, tie and jacket for the men, dresses for the ladies). The churches that attract a younger crowd are getting ever more casual. I've seen people going to church in shorts and sandals. Some of those churches have a "coffee house" ambience to them. The casual worship and dress contribute to casual observance of religion, IMHO. The African-American churches are usually all decked out in the best they have. They consider it disrespectful not to dress up--and the ladies all wear hats! They do this based on a literal rendering of 1 Corinthians 11:5. We are taught to go with our Sunday best, but in a way that doesn't draw attention to ourselves. Priesthood holders who are doing gospel ordinances like passing the sacrament should strive to be generic and "invisible." We don't want anyone to be distracted away from the ordinance by ourselves. That's why we don't wear earrings, nose rings, flashy hair styles, flashy ties, etc. when we pass the sacrament. At least, that's the intent. It's not about us. It's about the Lord and the covenant represented by the ordinance. It's an unfortunate thing if we get in the way of that happening by our dress and appearance.

The very question is intended to bait you into a fruitless argument. Ask your friend to show you in the Bible where any first century Christian had a Bible to go by. The Bible is the product of the Christian Church. The Lord did not reveal a Bible and then the Church grew from it. The Lord called apostles, prophets, seventies, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, elders, deacons, bishops, etc. and gave them authority and revelation. The Church was founded upon apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. The people who ask questions like this are not Christians--they are "Biblicans." They attribute qualities of divinity like inerrancy to an inanimate book and deny utterance to the living God. It is a form of idolatry. They supplanted a living God with an inanimate object and they give it veneration. Don't worry about proving anything to anyone from the Bible. After 2000 years, there are over 1000 Christian denominations and sects who can't agree what the Bible means. It is not common ground. It is the source of contention and confusion. The Book of Mormon is the means God has given to fix the situation. If they reject it, don't sweat it. It's their choice. Life's all about making that choice.

Orson Pratt tried to get to the end of this in his treatise on the Great First Cause, which was later published in "The Seer." The work was declared non-doctrinal" by the First Presidency and the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve. Since then, such speculations have proven equally fruitless and have led some astray. The gospel is like the median lines painted in the middle of the road. If you keep them oriented properly, you'll make it to your destination. Although the speculative"scenery" is expansive off the edge of the highway, it's safer to stay in the proper lane and not drive off the cliff. Folks like our sectarian clergyman friend just start salivating when Mormons go off the mark on speculative topics for which we have no revelation and which have no saving value. Faith, repentance, baptism, getting and keeping the gift of the Holy Ghost, following the prophet, etc. has more value than all these uninspired opinions and wild guesses.