MaidservantX

a.) I have heard rumors of what happens in the ceremonies for a temple reccommend mormon. Can you give me any insight into any of these ceremonies, the purposes of them, or any other information? This does not really apply to my overall quest, but rather is just a matter I am curious of. You know, there are publications in the church that give a good overview of what to expect from the temple and temple ceremony. Many things, while not secret, are sacred, and should be discussed in a sacred setting (which I'm not sure a forum is! lol). The name of the publication I don't know right off the top of my head, but if you search out the LDS websites I mentioned, you might come across it. A couple of things to say about the temple, yes, we do make further covenants with God, and yes, these covenants are necessary if one wishes to enter the celestial kingdom (the highest heaven). b.) I heard, and again please excuse me if I am way off or sound blatantly ignorant, that in Mormonism, one of the lesser known doctrines even among many devout Mormons) is that God (or Jehova) is from the planet Kolob. Is this a widely held beleif? Is this a correct statement? You know, I don't think a lot of non-mormons understand that a lot of statements have been made over the years by leaders and by teachers who have done studying that cannot meet the test of being called DOCTRINE. DOCTRINE is in: The Old Testament, The New Testament, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Also things the current prophet says, such as at the World Conferences. Also The Proclamation on the Family is doctrine. I'm sure all devout Christians take their scriptures, read them, think about them, pray about them, to try to understand what they truly mean, and may come to new conclusions they never thought about before. LDS people do the same -- we take the scriptures and study them personally and hope that God through the Spirit will reveal his will and his truth to them. It is NOT doctrine that God is from anywhere in particular. DOCTRINE is faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, the Ten commandments, tithing, the Golden Rule, etc. There are some verses in the Pearl of Great Price that name some heavenly bodies in the universe and Kolob is one of them. This is exactly what it says there: "Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God . . . it is nearest unto me." So LDS read this and think about what it means, and have learned a peaceable thing from it, but it isn't DOCTRINE, per say; it isn't necessary for one's salvation; you could live your whole life without ever hearing about Kolob, die, meet the Savior, and still be told "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." Make sense? c) Finally, I know that the Mormon community is fighting more and more to be recognized as a Christian sect. Doctrinal differences aside, does the Mormon church believe that Mormons, catholics, and protestants are all brothers and sisters in Christ? Is this a move to gain more acceptance from the rest of the CHristian community? Do Mormons WANT to be accepted by the rest of the Christian Community? And finally, do Mormons accept other non-mormons who are members of the rest of the christian community? I don't know if I would say that mormons are fighting more to be recognized as a Christian sect. My question to you is -- when were we ever not a Christian church?? Who said we weren't??? WE never said that -- many non -mormons and other Christian churches are the ones who have 'fought' to insist that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not Christian. And not only are all catholics, protestants, seventh day adventists, jehovah's witnesses all brothers and sisters, also all muslims, buddhists, atheists, hindus, etc. are all brothers and sisters LITERALLY. We are all spirit sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father. He loves us all and is doing all he can do to save each of us through the atonement and continued work of the Savior and of the kingdom of God. I guess if you are asking, do other Christian churches require a baptism as administered by the proper authority (The Church of Jesus Christ), then yes, baptism is still necessary for every one. Our current prophet has told us over and over again to accept and work with individuals, and churches collectively, of all faiths. There is much wrong in contention. In my town where I live, the Methodist church did not have enough money to finish building their church. The mormons got together and did some fundraising. We WANT to live in peace with all faiths, while still telling the joyful truth of the Living Christ and the restored gospel. I'm sure there are some mormons who do not have an accepting attitude, but mormons are humans and make mistakes, also. I don't know about 'wanting to be accepted in the Christian community' -- that would be nice -- but I DO know that we want peace over the whole earth, even with everyone's differences. We are all God's children. He wants to bless every one. Thanks for giving me a chance to talk of Christ, something I love to do! God bless you, Curious Christian, I hope you have a peaceful, happy life and get the answers you are looking for. Happy Easter.

II. Regarding 'Salvation' a). Does Mormonism hold that only Mormons are able to be saved? Are the writings and revelations of Smith crucial to one's salvation, or does Mormonism more identify with the " If you Believe in Christ, do your best to adhere to his teachings, you are saved." The fourth article of faith says: "The first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." The third article of faith states: "We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel." The things that are necessary to enter the kingdom of God are faith, repentence, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. We do believe that baptism and confirmation (gift of the Holy Ghost) must be done by those who hold power and authority directly from God (the priesthood), and that the only place that that authority can be found is in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- it was given to Joseph Smith by Peter, James and John (resurrected), and of course, we know that Jesus gave the apostleship and priesthood to Peter, James and John. My husband held the priesthood, and therefore had the authority, under the direction of the bishop of our ward, to baptize our children when they turned 8 years of age. Having said this, no one who is unbaptized is going to hell. There are at least three reasons for this: 1. Eventually every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. Every one in any time or age, past and future, will have a chance to know and accept the truth, and really, every one eventually will come to understand and believe. 2. Little children, of course, do not need baptism and are saved without baptism. 3. Individuals will receive the eternal reward they desire and prepare for. Even if they were to insist never to be baptized in this grand 'eventually', God still has a reward for them of peace and glory, although they might have had greater if they had desired and prepared for it. There are many good people not and never baptized -- would God punish them to hell for this? I don't think so. There are many people who are baptized who do terrible things -- will God exalt them? I don't think so. 4. LDS search out their ancestors (family history or geneology) and if they were unbaptized, we perform a baptismal ordinance for them, or in behalf of them, in the temples. We call this 'baptism for the dead'. So, everyone can be baptized! Again, study the scriptures and the words of the current prophet for more. B). (Forgive my ignorance on this question, I am in no way trying to be disrespectful) What is it to be saved? I have heard of the belief that, in Mormonism, when one dies (assuming one is saved), one will inheret a planet. I vaguely remember hearing of farming, but if I remember correctly, this is where the idea that families will remain together for eternity. So, is this an accurate description of what Mormons beleive heaven is? Or, let me phrase it in a more direct manner: What is heaven? I would appreciate as many details as possible. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not have complete details of 'heaven' any more than any other religion does. Every one in the whole earth of any religion has only a vague idea of what the details of heaven will be for them -- and yet we all like to contemplate it. We imagine joy and peace, the same as everyone else does. And yes, families will (or can) be together eternally, particularly husband and wife, in an eternal bond. I don't know about 'inheriting a planet' -- I suppose that is something someone thought about once, but there is no stated doctrine. However, we do believe that we shall be joint heirs with Christ and will eventually enjoy all that the Father has, and to most every lds who thinks about this, we believe that we will participate in the work of Creation (i.e. planets) in a continued universe and eternity of God's unending works. Once again -- an answer that requires study on the part of even the LDS to be able to be taught by the Spirit and to understand the scriptures, so that we know what is in store for us in eternity. c).Does Mormonism have any similarities to traditional protestantism in what it believes about Heaven? Or is this part of what Smith clarifies in the Restoration? I don't know what traditional protestantism actually believes, I figure they believe in the scriptures, and so do we -- so see my above reply. Yes, there were many truths restored and clarified by Jesus Christ, through Joseph Smith and further prophets (currently Gordon B. Hinckley). d.) (this sort of goes along with question a. ) Is church membership a requirement for salvation? Does excommunication imply that one is no longer saved? (and...if whoever reads this knows, is this what catholics believe to be true as well?) Baptism is membership in the Church of Jesus Christ., so see my answer to "a)" above, as far as being a requirement of salvation. If a member of the Church is excommunicated, yes, their baptism is no longer in effect. Most persons who are excommunicated, however, if they are truly sincere, can prepare themselves and repent and be baptized again. In my understanding, I'm not looking at any statistics, but I believe that the main reason a person would be excommunicated from the church would be for committing adultery. one more post!

I. Mormonism Doctrine as it compares to 'Traditional Chrisitan Doctrine". (Namely...what exactly do each see Jesus as?) I am not conversant in any other sect of Christianity, nor of any other religion. I would have to let each speak for itself as to where it came from, what it believes and why it believes as it does. However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the following heritage: The gospel was given to Adam as well as to each of the Old Testament prophets. Then, as we know, Jesus was born of Mary and lived his perfect life and gave his sacrificial atonement, so was our Savior, and then was resurrected and IS STILL LIVING TODAY. Jesus Apostle's led the church for as long as they were able, but eventually the truth and authority they had was lost. Emperor Constantine was the one who commissioned the council of Nicea for these group of men to decide what God was and what the doctrine was. Later in history, Martin Luther and others, under the influence of the spirit, tried to create a religion that better reflected what the Savior had done. However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not rely on what was done at Nicea, nor do they rely on other honorable men who nevertheless did not have the complete truth (Martin Luther, etc). Jesus Christ directly organized his church on the earth again with authority straight from heaven, and he did this by calling a prophet again on the earth: Joseph Smith. This is a very truncated version, but it will get you started thinking. I will add that the Church of Jesus Christ has NEVER said we have a 'different' Jesus than the rest of Christianity. Jesus Christ is who he is -- God and Savior. It is the rest of Christianity who has insisted on terming this 'difference' -- why do they do that, that is what I would like to know? a.) In Mormon tradition, is Jesus 'a part of God?' In other words, while I understand that Mormonism does not agree with the Trinity doctrine (which, to be honest, I do not know if I fully agree with myself), does it beleive that Jesus is one with God? Or, are Jesus and God two separate, distinct entities? (Or is there another way of looking at it that I haven't mentioned?) If so, if Jesus at all equal to God, or is he lesser? This is almost impossible to answer because the question isn't even the right question. Heavenly Father is a glorified, exalted man. He sent his son (the Son of God) to be born on earth and to be our Savior. The Savior, since his resurrection, is also a glorified, exalted man. The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. Our first article of faith (there are 13 of them) says: "We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." The Book of Mormon speaks of Jesus being One with his Father, but the scriptures also invite all of US human beings to be ONE with THEM. It's not a doctrine so much as it is a mystery that requires constant pondering and believing and living through one's whole life. We pray to our Father in Heaven in the name of Jesus Christ. We make our covenants with the Godhead (all three). Jesus Christ, our God, administers all that happens on this earth in the name of his Father. There is so much more -- but I would have to quote the entire Bible and Book of Mormon to you! lol b.)Traditional Protestantism holds the belief that one must hold a 'personal relationship' with Christ. I know this is a rather ambiguous concept, but nevertheless is is wideley held and preached in protestant churches. When I was searching this site, I did not see any reference to personal relationships, and was wondering what was the Mormon church's ideas about such relationships? Are they necessary? Are they possible? Often enough, you will hear someone speak in church of a 'personal relationship' with Christ. We know Jesus knows us, that he loves us, that we must love him, and that we are his children. So I suppose that is quite a bit of personal relationship. Loving God is always necessary. We are to come to know our Father in heaven and his Son. c.) Was Jesus ever married? And, not to bring the discussion to the Da Vinci, code, but if he was, was it to Mary Magdalene? There is no doctrine in the church that states that Jesus Christ was or is married. Every lds person you ask will likely have a different answer. It is something that lds people like to discuss and come to a conclusion regarding, but it is all study and faith, not certainty, at this point. If you want to look among the previous threads on this site, I think you will see we discussed it thoroughly here, and you can see what people's different viewpoints were. More answers coming up.

Dear CuriousChristian and Friend, I love to talk about the gospel, about the Savior and about the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, this website is just a gathering site to chat. It is not sponsored by the church, although the owners of this site make that LDS standards are maintained. So, you may get a lot of different opinions here from people that love the Lord that may not really be doctrine of the church. If you want to know about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you should study the following resources: The Old Testament, The New Testament (if you like, you can find the Bible as published by the LDS church; the content will be the same, but the cross-reference material and the bible dictionary included, among other things, may be of interest to you); The Book of Mormon; www.lds.org, www.josephsmith.net, www.mormon.org. If you study these things thoroughly and still have questions, then I'm sure you could come back here and ask. There is also a several volume "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" published by Macmillan Publishing Company in 1992. Going on from there you could read a favorite volume of the LDS called "Jesus the Christ" by James E. Talmadge. You can subscribe to the Church's magazine, "The Ensign". You can get ahold of the Church's hymn book and the song book for children, to see what we sing about (which is Jesus!). Last weekend was held the World Conference and the prophet and apostles and other leaders spoke. You can find the text of those things they taught us online (www.lds.org, I think). I will try to make a brief reply to each of your specific questions, however, but perhaps you should take what I say with a grain of salt until you get a chance to study all of the above. Happy learning.

Sweet.

Do your best not to be alone. Go out for a walk and go visit someone that no body likes, ha ha! God bless you Gretchen; I'll pray for you.

For those of you who have seen the cute movie Baptists at our Barbecue -- remember the exchange between Tartan and Mrs. Jones? something to this effect: Mrs. Jones: "Why if the Lord can create the earth in seven days . . . [etc]" Tartan: "Well, not literally." Then I think Mrs. Jones started beating Tartan up for the heresy!! Lol ROFL. Check it out!

I find the theory of evolution to be a house of straw as well. Going along with what you were trying to express, Lionheart, how does an environmental factor (a penny on the ground; or leaves high in the tree in the case of a giraffe or pre-giraffe needing to eat the high leaves and therefore increase survival) inform the DNA instructions? How does the environmental factor bear upon that at all? The answer at least partly, is that the theory of evolution imagines that there are innumerable mutations that arise spontaneously and randomly (in response to no stimulus other than unknown energy or intraDNA processes) and these mutations are all BORN biological items, but the ones that have short necks (giraffes) dies out (Starvation) before reproduction and ability to pass on their short neck genes, whereas since the long necks were able to EAT, they reached the age of reproduction and passed on genes and this lasted enough generations until there was an entire specie of long necks. This seems to me to be a very inadequate explanation as well. The following is an excerpt of a book I am writing titled: "The Origin of the Human Body" "Think of your body as a separate object. A machine. A vessel. An instrument. It takes up space. It is formed of matter. It has capacities and capabilities and functions. Your body was conceived. It developed and was born. It continued to develop to its (hopefully) prime. There was an extended prime period. Your body is aging and will die. When your body is buried, it will break down. It will be eaten by microorganisms. Conception, birth, death, and many of the other words I have used could bear definition, but we will forgive ourselves of that yet. I ask this question. What is the origin of my body? What is the origin of the human body? Oddly enough, I and we know the answer to that exactly, from direct observation. . . . . We know that the sperm and ovum each carry twenty-three chromosomes that represent some half of the genetic code of the body they come from. When the sperm and ovum meet and fuse, the two sets of (twenty-three) chromosomes become one set of forty-six chromosomes and a new human body (not to be confused with the term ‘new person’) has been initiated. This is all very clear. If we turn our minds to the past, in our imaginations we can watch the conceptions of billions of human bodies in that past. Myself, then my mother and father, then my grandparents and so on in innumerable generations that we cannot give name to. Human bodies produce (reproduce) new human bodies. This is inarguable. At what point in that past, that chain of generations, do we see that a human body is produced from a non-human body or non-human object/process? Why do we see that and at what point in time did our realization of that information arise? Since it is observable that human bodies are generated from human bodies, what has caused us to conclude something inobservable (so far), namely that a human body was generated from something non-human? This is a concept that is agreed to be true among us. We feel that we have learned it. There was a time and space that did not have human bodies in it, we say. And then a human body existed – once? Then many times. A human body was made. Was born. Arose. Was generated, produced. Created. Forget about where we learned it. Forget about terming that ‘where’ as religion or science or something else. Simply answer this question. If we KNOW that a human body is created from two other human bodies, then how and when and why did we learn, or believe that we learned, that in the past there was ever a different process for generating a body? What record or report are we receiving information from to conclude this, since we are limited from directly observing the far past? For the purposes of this book, let us begin here: let us rely on our observation only. A human body is generated from another human body. That is our only conclusion. Let us not come to any other conclusion until we have passed through this book–wherein we will view records, reports, etc. They may lead us where they will to a conclusion about the ultimate origin of the human body. I can tell you right now that there are only four possible ends to the story. One, we will conclude that human bodies ALWAYS come from other human bodies–there IS no other different process and there never was. Two, we will conclude that the first human body was generated from some other non-human biological organism. Three, that the origin of the first human body was from some other object or process neither human NOR biological. Remember, too, that for conclusions two and three, there would have been a FIRST human body. Since we cannot observe it, we are on a search for the record of it. There would be a FIRST, or possibly a FIRST SET. Number two relies on a biological birth process (probably) and a birth, in our experience, takes a few hours only. So, for number two, we have an entire existence with no human body THERE, and then within the time it takes for gestation and birth (several months only), there now exists ONE HUMAN BODY. The fourth conclusion is this: a little bit of the first three conclusions in some combination. It could happen."

a-train . . . that would be postum . . . or pero. Enjoy!

One way I think of looking at this is to realize that rescuing people in this world is not to rescue them when they don't need help. It is to rescue them when they are stuck in the snow! We will come across a lot of people who are battered from this world and from their own choices. We will come across the drunk, the stoned, the rebellious, the criminal, the adulterer, the pharisee, etc etc Many people who are far from innocent. They can be helped. They can be forgiven. We can accept them as children of God. We can help them see their strengths and we can expect them to take up their journey again and forsake their weaknesses. We can bring tons of flour to them and put them in our wagons when theirs are inadequate! Just a way to think of the principle.

I know that we are all basking in the recent April Conference. However, I am also still studying the conference Ensign for October 2006. Pres. Hinckley told the familiar and favorite story of the Willie, Martin, Hunt and Hodgett hand cart companies and how during a conference back then, Pres. Brigham Young basically said that the conference was 'now' going to be to go and rescue the hand cart companies. And every body got up and left the building and started getting ready to go out there in the snows and get those suffering. Pres. Hinckley quoted Pres. Brigham Young's words that was said at the 1856 conference. "I will tell you all that your faith, religion, and profession of religion will never save one soul of you in the celestial kingdom of our God, unless you carry out just such principles as I am now teaching you. Go and bring in those people now on the plains, and attend strictly to those things which we call temporal, or temporal duties, otherwise your faith will be in vain; the preaching you have heard will be in vain to you, and you will sink to hell, unless you attend to the things we tell you." How does what Pres. Young was trying to convey still apply to day? Who are out on the snowy plains in our lives and world? What temporal duties must we effect in deed that lead us to celestiality or if undone sink us to hell? Do you really believe that the concept central to what Pres. Brigham Young said is true religion and preaching is just secondary? I have some thoughts -- I should say this quote has caused quite a few thoughts in me that I was in need of. But I will let you go first. In fact, if you can think of more questions that should be asked in relation to this, feel free. :)

By the way, occasionally, being angry IS the right thing. There is such a thing as righteous anger. Almost no one knows how to use it. But study, ponder and pray about Jesus's anger as he cleared mockers and abusers away from the sacred temple.

I would not get definite answers here. Support yes. I'm sure I do not have to tell you, DO NOT GIVE UP! Pray to know the next door, the next resource! I know there are places in this nation SOMEWHERE that deal with this kind of situation. Keep a journal of everything that your daughter says and related things. Keep a journal, period. Forgiveness does NOT mean allowing abuse, you know that.

I was trembling on that last verse.

We do follow the living prophet, we are taught that we must in order to be spiritually safe and enlightened. Journal of Discourses are neither canonized nor are they living prophets anymore. Just 'saying' something, and giving ideas, even inspired ideas, is not the same thing as presenting doctrine or issuing commands. Some things have to come forth line upon line and precept upon precept. I take my General Conference Ensign and I do my best to live by it for the next six months, until the next conference (Ensign). It's scripture for six months, although of course they speak of many immutable doctrines as well. By the way, caffeine is not prohibited. Coffee and tea are, it's not quite the same thing. We aren't told why coffee and tea are prohibited, in God's mind it may have zero to do with the caffeine. And word of wisdom obedience is something that does not arise so much from past pronouncements as it does the continued and present confirmation of the current prophet that such a requirement (refraining from coffee, tea, alcohol, cigarettes, illegal drugs and the misuse of legal drugs) is prerequisite to entry into the temple and many other church participation. If it were revealed to the current prophet to drop the commandment, he would have no necessity of minding the previous precedent. Why does this anti mormon dude insist on saying J of D is our scripture when we would NEVER do so? Ha ha. Most lds have never even heard of J of D, much less read it. One reason, in only my opinion, and I haven't read J of D through, that it is not scripture is that it is not crucial to salvation, at least not more than what is available in the Standard Works, and it is for some extracurricular learning, but does not necessarily carry beliefs that a worldwide membership of church is required to hold in order to experience salvation and atonement.

It's not so much wicked people, as it is the fact that we will be freed from wicked and oppressive systems and beliefs. All of us need to repent. Even those who are wicked, we can't judge them by our standards, because they haven't had the light we have. It's hard enough for us to obey and we have the whole truth. God wants the wickedness to stop, but he has a tender love for all his children. There are some ways that in this age we have become more wicked, as to practices and beliefs, but we have also become more enlightened and willing to do good as well. But so far, the suffering and war just increases. Savior, please come!

I noticed that every time God dispenses a covenant throughout the ages, it also includes promise or deed to actual land. This begins with Adam, the planet was deeded to him in stewardship. Enoch had a city. Noah was given the earth. Abraham was promised Canaan -- which covenant by the way is still doing its darndest to operate. In fact, if you read carefully, Abraham was promised the whole earth (again, in type of Adam's endowment). Then, of course, we have Moses' promised land, and we have the twelve tribes of Israel deeds (also tying back in to Abraham's covenant). Even pre-Restoration faith and religiousity of pilgrims, calvanists, puritans, etc. had a divine sense of their ownership of land and the productivity and wealth from it. The dispensation of the covenant in the latter-days (beginning with Joseph Smith), also we have lots of history and doctrine related to deeds and stewardship of land. Also, we have the colonization of the entire west arising from this covenant sense. This continues with the idea of a literal Zion coming (we attach it to actual tracts in Missouri). And finally, wonderfully, the culmination, the lds have the doctrine of the celestialization of this earth at the completion of it's mortal purpose, and we expect to actually live here in our resurrected condition. The dispensation that is missing from this is actually when Christ was on the earth, I'm not recalling any land based doctrine -- maybe someone could remind me? Also, not as much with the stories in the Book of Mormon, although even there you have Nephi's promised land and the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's being gifted with the land of Jershon (?). Now, here is this, what I mean to say. This sense of land is NOT about ownership and wealth. Though also true, however, ownership and wealth is a result that does not need to be pursued, since it will occur automatically when the true purpose is realized. This is seen most easily in a celestialized earth. Yes we will 'own' it and there will be 'wealth', but is this really why we have a desire for a celestial earth? Of course not. Ownership and wealth is trivial in comparison to the sacred purpose. Which is: Why does God want land? Why is land, including entire planets, part of his plan and covenant? Is it merely a metaphor that describes our spiritual inheritance? I disagree with this. I could say several reasons why, but let us just say that it relates to the concept of why our body is, rather than being shed in order to become more glorious and exalted, is rather going to be fused to our spirit permanently (resurrection) in order to experience glory and heaven. So, assuming for purposes of this post that is NOT merely a metaphor divorced from reality/ physicality, then what is God's intent and result of his intent? It is literally and actually to spread his kingdom. Again, NOT an ownership and wealth kingdom per say. But the same kingdom we always praise, the kingdom of godliness. The main implication of this is -- if Israel has its land (and were to have had actually kept the commandments, which they most often did not); if Zion begins to be built in Missouri; if (a portion of) the celestial kingdom is placed on this earth, then what has happened? Satan has been bound. He has been cast out. He has been sealed away. He cannot enter. He is not to be found. He can never return. It's just not his place, his space, his matter, any more. It's God's space. And of course, we will have peace, liberty, love, etc etc in a land belonging to God and barred to the Adversary. By the way, THERE is your 'war in heaven'. Which is interesting, because godliness cannot be produced from contention. Although 'war' is one of those words that is semantically overloaded and challenged. I do know that we have to defend and stand. But the 'war' is actually in the heart. If we can be victorious there, then the parameters of any war external to our soul will be clear to us, and I think it is made up of mercy and justice but not hatred.

The times are Eastern times. Various television shows that might be of interest. The Road to Guantanamo, Monday, March 19, Sundance channel, 10:15 p.m. Othello, Tuesday, March 20, IFC, 9 p.m. The Last Days of Disco, Thursday, March 22, Showtme, 9:35 p.m. Iraq in Fragments, Tuesday, March 20, Cinemax, 7 p.m. Planet Earth, Sunday, March 25, Discovery channel, 8 p.m. Through Deaf Eyes, Wednesday, March 21, PBS, 9 p.m. Barenboim on Beethoven, Thursday, March 22, PBS, 9 p.m.

LOL, Ben . . . . resist arrest . . .

Although I am truly enjoying our conversation, Truth, I can tell you don't have any real questions, rather, you have answers. Very well. Joseph Smith doesn't have a gospel. Jesus Christ does. The New Testament is not the only record of Jesus Christ's gospel. The gospel was given to Adam, for example. That verse in 1 Nephi refers to the influence of Satan upon the earth and upon the information available to men, especially after the truth that the Savior spoke in the New Testament was lost in succeeding generations. There is no latter-day Saint that would ever suggest that 'perverted' describes the words and teachings in the Bible. The only individuals that I ever hear insisting on that description are some non-lds individuals, which I find odd. Why would you try to convince me that I think the Bible is perverted since I so plainly have stated that I love and follow the gospel as found in the Bible (among other places)? The rest of the scenario that is begun in 1 Nephi ch 13 verses 26 and 27 is culminated in verses 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and most especially verses 40 and 41 " . . . shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved. And they must come according to the words which shall be established by the mouth of the Lamb; and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one; for there is one God and one Shepherd over all the earth." These words reflect both what you have been saying and what I (and the others) have been saying. Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything. You obviously are passionate about your Savior. But I continue this conversation because I never get tired of talking about God and the scriptures, it is wonderful to do. The Savior did talk about a 'division' you refer to (I'm not sure why you brought that up or why it applies to the rest of your invitation or statement?), but I think he was warning us that choosing him would not always be easy and that we might have to leave even our families behind. I don't think it was an instruction or blessing upon deliberately being a source of contention to those who believe differently than we do (I'm not saying you are, but neither am I, of course). We can all serve and teach each other. I have chosen. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. I have made covenants with him and I have his baptism. He has me in his hand and he leads me in the paths he desires me to go. It sounds like this is so with you, as well. Isn't it joyful to experience this salvation?

As you say, I'm sure there is a scripture that brings forward the idea of 'unprofitable servants'. However there are scriptures such as these: John 1:12 (becoming sons of God) and those passages that speak of heirs and joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17; Galations 4:7; Titus 3:7). The problem is that we can slap scriptures around all day to bring different angles of the Word to light. We here are, of course, not trying to prove the truth or our religion or faith in Jesus Christ to you. We would never suggest that you are condemned because of your beliefs, although you are willing to suggest such to us. We were and are willing to provide information in the subject of your questions. God can provide his own proofs. Paul's teachings are not of questionable origin. Paul wrote those letters. The Bible as an entirety has passed through the hands of some uninspired and perhaps even corrupt persons; as well as some inspired persons. It would be in the interest of all persons who love God and the Bible to seek a restoration of what was really written at His hands. However two things cannot be overemphasized (although they've already been said): We read and study the King James Version of the Bible, period. I am positive you would be comfortable in any LDS Sunday School anywhere, in the years we study the Old and New Testament (which volume are we studying this year? I never get to go to Sunday School lately 'cause of the baby it seems). That's one. Two, is that the final word of doctrine is not any written tome of scripture -- not the Bible, not the Book of Mormon. If there is any final word, it will come straight from the mouth of God's prophet. They are living words from a living Jesus Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's World (General) Conference is about to be held coming up on March 31 and April 1. Depending on where you live or if you have satellite tv, you may be able to find a visual or audio broadcast. Or you can later find the texts of the messages given in the Ensign magazine, published in May, or at www.lds.org. This will give you the best idea of what is currently being taught in the Church of Jesus Christ. (You can also look up texts of October's conference online -- it was an amazing meeting, a lot about healing and trust in God through trials). I disagree that the only two choices are 1) the Bible is true. or 2) the Bible is perverted. Where did you get the word perverted? Why would you use that word? We would NEVER use that word to describe the Bible. Why is it so difficult to see that some things in the original scripts of the texts used in the Bible could have been lost or tampered with? Why isn't that at least something to be considered? However, these challenges in the Bible hardly change its central and overall message: that Jesus Christ is Savior, Redeemer, Messiah and is the Lamb of God, giving his sacrifice and atonement so that Heavenly Father's children can be reconciled to him. By the way, the amount of Jesus's words that got recorded in the New Testament must be an unbelievably small fraction of what he said throughout his life and his 3 year ministry. Wouldn't it be nice to somehow get to 'hear' it all?

oh, I was going to say, too, it has been a while since I got deep into the New Testament, so I'm sure you are more prepared with understanding from there at this time. I have been reading Isaiah lately, and also several passages about the topic of prayer in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. In fact, that is why I turned to Isaiah, too, I wanted to deepen my understanding of a prayer relationship with my Heavenly Father. Happy believing, Truth in Love. Jesus Christ speaks to his prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley. Jesus spoke as recorded in the New Testament. But he is not a silent God in the present, he still speaks.

Thank you for your words and testimony. And your take on those passages. I agree that there is one gospel. I would say that it comes straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ still lives today and his words have not come to an end.

How do others deal with it? How did they decide to overemphasize it and take it out of context? First of all, that verse does NOT apply to preaching a 'new' gospel, it more aptly applies to holding on to a 'old' one. When I studied those entire chapters surrounding that verse (and that is the only way it should be understood, not picked out without reference), I got the picture that Paul (the writer) was ticked off at and disappointed in Peter -- who was, by the way, Paul's leader! Peter was still holding on to some Jewish eating customs and had made some new members of the growing church feel bad because Peter wasn't sure he should eat with them (or something like that, it has been a long time, by all means refresh my memory), because the new members were, or had been, gentiles. Paul's 'ticked off ness' reached a peak in that verse, lol! He was condemning Peter. And yet, is Peter condemned? I'm sure God wasn't exactly pleased with Peter's attitude either, but I think the word 'condemned' does not mean some judgment or hellfire -- just that Paul was trying to tell his audience that the gospel is perfect -- but sometimes people aren't and not to lose their faith over it. What do you think? Do you think Paul and Peter made up later? lol. They didn't stop following Peter's guidance over this situation. By the way, we don't have a 'new' gospel. We have the old one -- we have the gospel Jesus Christ organized on the earth when he lived here. I think the Nicene Creed and subsequent movements are much newer than that, eh?

Ha ha, which I love the Song of Solomon, so. I've never heard that he left it out, but I admit I am not an expert on the particulars. The Song of Solomon has several levels, some of which are metaphors and do apply very well to the church's relationship to Christ.