JohnTaylor1886

Ah yes, the old argument for moral relativism. Sin and vice are exactly that, sin and vice. Much like describing the taste of salt, except in this case, there is right and there is wrong. I couldn't care less about what the Taliban says or thinks, personally, and that is because that group has already demonstrated who they are by their actions of destruction, terrorism, and perversion of the Qur'an. Even atheists would agree that even if the religious standards were not present, there is a law of universal justice, and I have noted that they also have the same set of values as those who are Deists. (I met quite a few atheists in Poland, actually, and put the question to them.) I do not have to accept what I know to be wrong. There is a difference in being unaccepting and being intolerant. You can call me unaccepting if I choose to speak out against homosexuality, drug use, pornography, etc. You can call me unaccepting if I choose to fire shots at a dope dealer who is coming into my house after I tell him that he is not welcome. You can call me unaccepting for saying that illegal immigrants should be shipped back from whence they came. The difference between the Taliban and myself is that I do not seek to force my will on anyone, and I also do not want anyone forcing their will on me. It is a sin in both cases. While I will always believe that men are free to act for themselves, I also believe in the statement by Sir Edmund Burke, who said "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Yet that is the very thing that we are encouraged to do, nothing. Here is an example of what I am talking about: In Atlanta, a man decided to open an adult book store in a neighborhood where there were a lot of children and a few churches. The county had to grant the permit above the protests of its citizens because not to grant the permit was considered trampling on the rights of the 1st Amendment. The citizens rallied together and boycotted the store and the store was forced to close down and move elsewhere. This is ideal. Why? Because the citizens took action that was not invasive and shut down their enemy. No one had to resort to violence, attacks, or anything of that nature. The citizens stood up for themselves, and fought by refusing their patronage. I feel the same way. The Taliban and other Islamo-fascists are trying to force people to capitulate to their way of thinking by terrorism and senseless violence. Any ideal that relies on the use of force to propagate it is definitely an ideal that will not survive long. Two examples: Jesus Christ did not require violence to further His ideals. And yet his teachings have gne around the world and have lasted for about 2,000 years. On the other side of the coin, we have Adolf Hitler. His way of propagating National Socialism was to eliminate people who would not accept his political or racial agenda. He only lasted 12 years as a leader. Now, as far as sin and vice go, like I said, it is not relative. However, there is also what is called transgression. Transgression is a mere stepping across of the boundaries, stepping beyond what is acceptable, whether you know it or not. Sin is transgression, but it is done willfully and with full knowledge that consequences will be brought about. Now that this has been estabished, sin is not acceptable. If one wants to find pleasure in vice, then that is their decision, but also, I have the right (yes, right) to find pleasure in calling people aboslute idiots who overindulge in such things. And they have the right to ignore me, shout back, or turn away and cry. Getting back to the topic at hand, if you don't want your core beliefs insulted, then don't hang them on your sleeve. You have the right to believe what you will or in nothing at all (nihilism). However, offenses come when (1) people take offense and (2) when people try to force others to acceptance, because that shows signs of a weak-minded individual or group who tries such (e.g. Taliban). There is no obligation to protect you from being offended, such rights are not guaranteed in the Constitution or anywhere else.

The press was destroyed because it was considered a public nuisance. HC 6:449: "By virtue of my office as Mayor of the city of Nauvoo, I do hereby strictly enjoin it upon the municipal officers and citizens of said city to use all honorable and lawful means in their power to assist me in maintaining the public peace and common quiet of said city. As attempts have already been made to excite the jealousy and prejudice of the people of the surrounding country, by libels and slanderous articles upon the citizens and City Council, for the purpose of destroying the charter of said city, and for the purpose of raising suspicion, wrath, and indignation among a certain class of the less honorable portion of mankind, to commit acts of violence upon the innocent and unsuspecting, in a certain newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, recently established for such purposes in said city, and which has been destroyed as a nuisance, according to the provision of the charter. I further call upon every officer, authority, and citizen to be vigilant in preventing, by wisdom the promulgation of false statements, libels, slanders, or any other malicious or evil-designed concern that may be put in operation to excite and ferment the passions of men to rebel against the rights and privileges of the city, citizens, or laws of the land; to be ready to suppress the gathering of mobs; to repel, by gentle means and noble exertion, every foul scheme of unprincipled men to disgrace and dishonor the city, or state, or any of their legally-constituted authorities; and, finally to keep the peace by being cool, considerate, virtuous, unoffending, manly, and patriotic, as the true sons of liberty ever have been, and honorably maintain the precious boon our illustrious fathers won.In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said corporation at the city of Nauvoo, this 11th day of June, 1844.Joseph Smith, Mayor." It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who introduced the phrase "clear and present danger" in 1919. (This is where the argument came that standing up and shouting "Fire!" in a theater is not protected under the 1st Amendment.) There was a clear and present danger in this case, because the Nauvoo Expositor was inciting the enemies of the Saints to violence, and this was done from within the Saints' own city. Even today, such laws exist to grant shutting down newspapers or other media when their agenda is to incite violence and put lives in danger. That is why judges sometimes issue a gag order. Now, even though the "clear and present danger" statute did not come into existence until some 75 years after the Nauvoo Expositor was destroyed. Reading from HC 6:445, it was clear that even during those times, legal remedies provided for the stoppage of a newspaper that was known to publish libels.

I am really surprised that the Melchezadic Priesthood holders and the former/present Bishops on this site didn't catch this. There is no way a young man would be ordained into the Aaronic Priesthood the day after he is baptised, the same day he would be confirmed a member of the Church! Let alone be ordained into the Melchezadic Priesthood the day after his baptism! This is more proof that Christos is an Anti! Not so, Mrs. S. We fundamentalists can be ordained right after baptism if the Spirit so prompts. There is nowhere in the scriptures or in the words of the prophets that there has to be a set time frame to have passed before one can be ordained. I was baptized, confirmed, and ordained an elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood all within the same hour. Because I have what I believe to be a very strong testimony of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the Atonement, I could hardly be construed as anti-LDS, seeing as how I consider myself every bit LDS. I believe that the Spirit supercedes all. If Christos were to have been ordained to the priesthood right after baptism, there would have been no rules broken, because there aren't any. The only qualification that one has to meet to receive the priesthood is to be worthy after having accepted baptism and confirmation. One should remember that the "waiting period" is not a hard and fast rule and it is not even part of the doctrines of the Gospel, so I would hardly consider it as binding upon all those who choose to belong to the Gospel.

What puts someone in the position of "enlightened thinker", especially in this day and age? An "enlightened thinker" is one who preaches tolerance and acceptance of vice. An "enlightened thinker" is one who won't stand up for what he believes because he worships the god of "non-offense" and political correctness. An "enlightened thinker" is one who will pander to the emotions of just about anyone. An "enlightened thinker" spurns those who take a stand, especially if that stand is based on traditional, wholesome values and, hypocritically, refuses to let them have a voice without being heckled. An "enlightened thinker" is one who accuses those who follow traditional values of backwards and archaic thinking and will suggest going by the values of 2006 and not 1866. An "enlightened thinker" is one who considers himself an intellectual elite, and in order to be like him, you must sacrifice your morals, ethics, and values for a philosophical "new world order". An "enlightened thinker" is like a fashion model, always following the trend no matter how ridiculous it is, and will sacrifice any personal values that he has in order to follow that trend. An "enlightened thinker" never "puts his money where his mouth is". An "enlightened thinker" will spare no effort in shaming people who believe in things like morality, truth, and decency...things held sacred and dear to most Christians. Now, when I hear people on the television or radio speak of how people need to live the ideas of today and abandon their traditional beliefs, it puts me on edge because so many people adopt that liberal garbage. (No, I am not speaking politically, although it could also apply.) It's really fascinating. We have things like gay pride, but I guarantee you, if we had Christian pride parades, people would be jeering. People will worship the god of political correctness and believe in henotheism, yet we forget the injunction of the Saviour who said "I am the way, the truth and the life". James E. Faust had a quote that I believe is accurate, and that is "people try to please God without offending the devil", and such is the mindset of these "enlightened thinkers". Value of this thought...not even worth a tinker's.......

I saw the topic of this thread and read a few of the posts on this. I believe in the adage that "offense is never given, but always taken". You cannot be offended if you choose not to be. The problem with most people is that we do not speak out. There is a time and place for everything, I agree. However, I believe that we have been held captive to political correctness way too long. Why do I say this? Look at what is going on today. It seems that the media and all of these other libertines try to make people ashamed for associating with a traditional value or a tradition-based system. Look at the way people describe Christians today as being archaic, backwards-thinking, closed-minded characters who cannot think for themselves. Many people that stick to their traditions are painted as those who are not up on the times, and are slaves to what they have been taught. Ah, yes, and who made you an authority on what I think and what I believe, Mr(s). Enlightened Thinker? Has it never occurred to you that I have already thought about my own beliefs and that is why I accept them?! Who are you to say that I haven't? Do you presume to read everyone else's mind? And yet, that is exactly what people do. There is nothing more revolting than being told what I think, believe, or feel, especially if it nowhere close. (Such has been my experience with several anti-Mormons..especially those who are so-called "authorities" on Mormonism.) Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. If you have any doubts about that, do an etymological study on both words. You will be amazed. I can tolerate homosexuals, but I do not have to accept their agenda. I can tolerate drug users, but I do not have to accept having them acting crazy around me because they are stoned. I can tolerate adulterers, but I do not have to have them in my house or around my wife or girlfriend. I can tolerate Klansmen, but if I catch them in my yard burning a cross, then the lead will be flying. Is the acceptance that sin is normal and that vices are a good thing...these are examples of enlightened thinking in this day and age?! Heaven help us! Whatever happened to asking someone their core beliefs instead of assuming them? Yes, the saying about the word "assume" comes to mind here as well. You may not like what one believes or thinks. You may choose to speak out against it. You may not like the agenda of a group or organization. (For example, Hezbollah's agenda is nothing more than an pitiful, idiotic attempt to stir up trouble and put the blame on Israel. Period.) That's fine. Just make sure that if you choose to throw stones, some may get thrown back at you. Gee, I wish some of these "Enlightened Thinkers" would realize this? But no, give them their own medicine and they scream like a burned child. Value of this thought: 1/2¢...so forget the penny for my thoughts.

that is exactly my question. I am not the expert on this issue. I thought that the LDS members here have heard about it, read about it, have had discussion about it, etc. and would be the appropriate people to ask about it. My initial thought though, were that apostasy was complete not partial. I look forward to learning about what is taught to LDS members. Dr. T I will answer with my opinion concerning apostasy. In general apostasy is a deviation from a prescribed or standard set of concepts. In this case we are speaking of religious truths. Anciently the concept of religion did not exist. The scriptures instead refer to a “path” or “way”. In reference to Jesus Christ the correct way I believe was comprised of several parts. Following is a list that may not be comprehensive: 1. Kingdom = A organization based on the ancient concept of kingdoms and not modern ideas of social structures. 2. Ordinances = Prescribed methods of initiating and binding standard covenants, commandments, doctrines, relationships, duties and other such things. 3. Rituals = Defined methodologies of standard religious behaviors. 4. Authority = Comes from Kingdom structures and who is authorized to act in proxy for G-d within his kingdom. Must be given and not taken or assumed. 5. Doctrine = The basis of belief. In Matt starting in chapter 5-7 a summery of several stages of apostasy are summarized by Christ. Example, “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” He also defines “wolfs” in sheep clothing intending to destroy the flock. As to the great Apostasy the Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS rely on what Jesus told Joseph Smith concerning churches and why he was not to join any that existed at that time. There were three main categorizes: First: Ordinances had been altered Second: Doctrines had been miss-interpreted Third: The creeds were an abomination (falsely claimed to be G-d’s will) In relationship to the First: We have experienced an “evolution” of sacred ordinances such as baptism and the breaking of bread according to the last supper In relationship to the Second: We now have historical evidence (Dead Sea Scrolls and historians like Josephis) that there was an effort beginning as early as 74 AD. To modify scriptures and doctrine concepts for both Jews and Christians. In relationship to the Third: The use of creeds were not used among the Jews or Christians until the introduction of paganism in Christianity by the influence and force of the pagan Roman Empire. What then followed has become classically known by students of history as the “Dark Ages”. This is a short summery - Hope you get the idea. The Traveler Ordinances continue to be altered...take into consideration that administration of the sacrament has changed as well as the ordinance of baptism for health was taken away.

Sure, I'll play along. Die Prinzen Pink Floyd Testament Fatboy Slim Cornelio Reyna Waylon Jennings Hank Williams, Jr. Digital Undergorund Erasure Depeche Mode Poison Primus Kingston Trio Paul Simon Cypress Hill Elton John Boney M That is just some. I don't really have more of one genre of music than another.

So, if he sleeps with someone NOT espoused to him.... what then? Does that free the virgins who were espoused to him to marry another? Kind of cruel to me that the female could stay true to her vows and then go to another man when her marriage was defiled by a cheating husband and DESTROYED? sheeeesh You have to look at the context in which this scripture was given. I recognize it from D&C 132, the very section that described the law of Celestial Plural Marriage (CPM). Yes, on the surface, it does seem unfair. But then you have to ask yourself the following questions: How did people marry originally? By consummation. Nowhere in the scriptures is there any mention of a big wedding ceremony or elaborate vows being spoken. In fact, Abraham and Jacob were told by their wives to sleep with their handmaidens to raise up children. See D&C 132:34. By virtue of the fact that they slept with them, that very act raised them to the status of wives. Now, if a man goes and sleeps with another woman who is already espoused, yes that spells adultery and also spells bigtime trouble. That would also explain the injunction that Moses gave regarding a man who rapes a virgin...she becomes his spouse, and he cannot put her away ever (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). On top of that, for humbling her, as the scriptures put it, he had to be fined 50 shekels of silver. How much is that? Well, the only record we have of its weight was during the Intertestamental period. 50 shekels was around 750 grams, which is about 1.67 lbs of silver (avoirdupois). That is a good bit of silver to pay. Why the inequality? Inequality is a relative term. Granted, it does not seem fair that the man can have other women and the woman has to stay true to the man. However, you have to step back and look at the big picture. What was the law of CPM? I do not mean this in a rude or dour way, but it would help to read all of Section 132 and then couple it with the understanding of the Old Testament. Once a man and a woman consummate, they are husband and wife. Furthermore, there are injunctions against the husband as well. He has to treat all of his wives and children equally (Deuteronomy 21:15-17). He also has the obligation of providing for all within his household, otherwise he is worse off than an infidel (I Timothy 5:8). It is a simple matter, really. The husband has to learn to judge equally and fairly, as well as provide for his own children. If we expect to become like our Heavenly Father, we will have to learn to do the same exact thing here on earth.

I agree, issues like virginity are still important... should be important for both male and female. However, I think that so many cultures hold the male unacountable when it comes to being chaste. That is what I have a hard time with.... why should a female be looked down upon when the male commits the same sin? I can appreciate those countries where the male is held just as accountable for his actions..... kudos to them! If more countries followed suit... rape and unwed pregnancy would drop dramaticallyIt bothers me that now-a-days love has been thrown out of the act of giving of oneself to another..... it's so what's the word... desensitized? I could not agree with you more, and I am a male, for what it is worth. It is easy for a man to conceal the fact that he is unchaste. Nothing really happens to him. A female, well, that is a bit different. They can become pregnant, but a male...nothing. Is it fair? No. I agree that a male should be looked down upon for being unchaste. Giving oneself to another is the highest form of love that there is. In fact, in ancient times, the way to marry was through consummating the marriage. That was it. Of course, later, people started to stand on ceremony...some of then to the point of hedonistic extravagance. I am going to "quit while I am ahead", because I have more thoughts on this, but I do not want to derail the thread.

I have a lot of free time because I do not sleep very much at night and I work in the afternoons, lol. Yes, I admit, I am one of those that does very well on 4-5 hours of sleep. Besides, I could think of much more to do with those 8 hours than just lie. I'll sleep well when I am dead, lol. I promised that I would give examples of the Bible mistranslations and contradictions. Now, the teachings of the Bible I do not call into question. However, those that argue the standpoint of Biblical inerrancy go far beyond that, they argue that the Bible is also accurate as a text. I have already stated that there are books to which the Bible refers, but are not present. There is a list of them in the LDS KJV of the Bible. a. Book of the wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14) b. Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13, II Samuel 1:18) Some argue that the present book has been found, others say that it is not the same book. It can be found online. Judge for yourself. c. Book of the acts of Solomon (I Kings 11:41) d. Book of Samuel the seer (I Chronicles 29:29) e. Book of Gad the seer (I Chronicles 29:29) f. Book of Nathan the prophet (I Chronicles 29:29, II Chronicles 9:29) g. Prophecy of Ahijah (II Chronicles 9:29) h. Visions of Iddo the seer (II Chronicles 9:29, 12:15, 13:22) i. Book of Shemaiah (II Chronicles 12:15) j. Book of Jehu (II Chronicles 20:34) k. Sayings of the seers (II Chronicles 33:19) l. An earlier epistle to the Corinthians (earlier than I Corinthians) (I Corinthians 5:9) m. A possible earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians 3:3) n. An epistle to the church at Laodicea (Colossians 4:16) o. Prophecies of Enoch that were known to Jude (Jude 1:14). There is some dispute that the Pseudepigraphal books of I and II Enoch fit this category. 15 books. Over half the size of the New Testament. Now, how could a perfectly infallible text have gaping references like text? Or is it that the bible was once an infallible text, but isn't now? The Biblical inerrancy camp would not concede to either of these points. The common argument is that we have all that we need for our salvation, but that is not our decision to make. There are a few contradictions in the Bible. Acts 9:7 says that there was a voice but no man. And yet, the same story is recounted in Acts 22:9. Those same men saw a light, but heard no voice. Others can be found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). What hour did the crucifixion take place? Matthew 27:45--"Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour" Mark 15:25--"And it was the third hour, and they crucified him" Luke 23:44--"And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour" John 19:13-14--"When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement , but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! We have two accounts that put darkness at the sixth hour, one that says he was crucified at the thrid hour, and John says that at the sixth hour, Pilate was still addressing the crowd with Christ present Also contradictory are the exact wording of the title written over the cross (Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:19) and the account of the two thieves crucified beside Christ (see Matthew 27:43-44 and Luke 23:39-43). Matthew 27:9 points to a prophecy made by Jeremy the prophet. If Jeremy is the same as Jeremiah as most would claim, then that prophecy is not in that book. It is actually found in Zechariah 11:13. Either Matthew got it wrong, or there is a prophecy that is not located in the Bible. Matthew 27:5 says that Judas [iscariot] hanged himself. However, Acts 1:18 says that is was a fall that killed him. Oddly enough, in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, it seems that the large majority of the manuscripts leaves out John 5:4, as does the Vulgate version. Yet it is still there. In II Kings 2:23-24, we read of two she-bears that came out of the woods and slew 42 children. Were they children? The Hebrew from verse 23 uses the word ne'arim, which means a young man, probably an adolescent. From verse 24, they are referred to as yeladim, which means a young boy, probably the age of a schoolkid. So, which was it? Looking at the verse strictly in the English text, one would think that God punishes little children with terrible punishments, but that is not the case, especially when one does not realize the full extent of one's sin. Personally, I take the point of view that it was a group of youths that were being a bit rowdy with Elisha, and they got torn apart. However, the text itself is very unclear. I am also sure that many have taken issue with the actual translation of Elohim, meaning "Gods". Even with the Documentary Hypothesis, and seeing as how many say that they are monotheists, it makes me wonder. Why is the plural form used? Is Jesus also part of Elohim? I think so. But then, the dual form isn't used either. So where is the third or other elements? My answer may serve as Occam's razor on ths one we worship one God, but that does not negate the existence of many gods. If the Bible meant only one God, it sure has a funny way of expressing it. I am sure some of these points are well-known, but it seems that Biblical inerrantists do not pay them much attnetion.

Jason, as usual, you conveniently ignore things in your haste to make a reply, dropping arguments here and there. Here is one example: Wow. You actually walked into a Catholic Church once? Amazing. You're way smarter than me. If I were a lawyer, I would actually object, for assuming facts not in evidence. You don't know how many times I have been to a Roman Catholic church, cathedral, rectory, or mission. I could also easily look at the quote that you have provided such as: I studied Roman Catholicism two years ago. That discussion let me into a discussion with a Priest and a highly respected Layman. You mean you had a discussion once? Or maybe twice? I won't to assume, but suffice it to say, that yor own logic would damage you at this point. Second, don't whine to me about attacks on your person. In fact, wasn't it you that said that I needed to brush up on my Latin? Then I called you on it, because you couldn't distinguish between the two? What's worse, now you say that you weren't sure. Well, if you're not sure of what they said in one facet, then how can you be sure of what they said in another? Third, I asked you which theologians you cited. "Everyone in the New Advent". Yes, I am familiar with the New Advent, and yes, I have used it on a goodly number of occasions. Big deal. Usually, if you are going to quote something, you give references, including name, page number, date, and publisher, if they are available. Besides, New Advent is about as official as Mormon Doctrine. New Advent is a good reference tool for Roman Catholicism, nothing more, nothing less. I won't go into how the Cathecism compares, but suffice it to say, it has a much higher standing. That was where the quotes came...and still no objections. Ah well, no objections, no problem. Fourth, polygamy is not the issue we are dealing with. Technically, neither is the Virgin Mary, for that matter, since this thread deals with the Biblical errancy. Just for the record, yes, polygamy is an LDS issue. Whether or not the powers that be in Salt Lake choose to deal with or sweep it under the rug, that is their decision...and that is for another thread altogether. It doesn't make anyone less of a Latter-Day Saint if one chooses to follow that doctrine, because the mainstream (or Corporate) LDS church in Salt Lake City is not the end-all, be-all of Mormonism. I didn't really come here to propagate the doctrine of plural marriage, as there is a lot more to fundamentalism than that, and I am confident that you know that already. So, I'll just label this a red herring and let it swim back upstream. If you want to start a seperate thread that deals with that very issue and its basis, or lack thereof, proszę bardzo (go ahead). Fifth, I know what you said and I know what I read. The Wikipedia article and the things you say are a very close parallel. Draw whatever conclusions you desire. Sixth. Prayers that are directed to Heavenly Father are not said "Hail, Mary", or "Ave, Maria". Could it be that Mary was, in fact, deified? Now, this may be pure speculation, but I have reasons to think that the early Christian Church did just that. The Roman Emperor was looked upon as a God, and that is common knowledge. However, Jason, for your amusement (yes, I am actually thinking that you may fnd this amusing, considering the history of the world after this), I am providing you with a letter from Pliny the Elder to Trajan and Trajan's response. This is from The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage, pp.79-81 (Deseret Book, 1958 edition) (who cites another source, namely Milner. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PLINY AND TRAJAN. The inquiry of the younger Pliny, governor of Pontus, addressed to Trajan, emperor of Rome, and the imperial reply thereto, are of such interest as to be worthy of reproduction in full. The version here given is that of Milner as appears in his "History of the Church of Christ," edition of 1810, Cent. II, ch. 1. "Pliny to Trajan, Emperor:"Health—It is my usual custom, Sir, to refer all things, of which I harbor any doubts, to you. For who can better direct my judgment in its hesitation, or instruct my understanding in its ignorance? I never had the fortune to be present at any examination of Christians, before I came into this province. I am therefore at a loss to determine what is the usual object either of inquiry or of punishment, and to what length either of them is to be carried. It has also been with me a question very problematical,—whether any distinction should be made between young and the old, the tender and the robust;—whether any room should be given for repentance, or the guilt of Christianity once incurred is not to be expiated by the most unequivocal retraction;—whether the name itself, abstracted from any flagitiousness of conduct, or the crimes connected with the name, be the object of punishment. In the meantime, this has been my method, with respect to those who were brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians: if they pleaded guilty, I interrogated them twice afresh with a menace of capital punishment. In case of obstinate perseverence I ordered them to be executed. For of this I had no doubt, whatever was the nature of their religion, that a sudden and obstinate inflexibility called for the vengeance of the magistrate. Some were infected with the same madness, whom, on account of their privilege of citizenship, I reserved to be sent to Rome, to be referred to your tribunal. In the course of this business, informations pouring in, as is usual when they are encouraged, more cases occurred. An anonymous libel was exhibited, with a catalogue of names of persons, who yet declared that they were not Christians then, nor ever had been; and they repeated after me an invocation of the gods and of your image, which, for this purpose, I had ordered to be brought with the images of the deities. They performed sacred rites with wine and frankincense, and execrated Christ,—none of which things I am told a real Christian can ever be compelled to do. On this account I dismissed them. Others named by an informer, first affirmed, and then denied the charge of Christianity; declaring that they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so some three years ago, others even longer, some even twenty years ago. All of them worshiped your image, and the statues of the gods, and also execrated Christ. And this was the account which they gave of the nature of the religion they had once professed, whether it deserves the name of crime or error,—namely—that they were accustomed on a stated day to meet before daylight, and to repeat among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath, with an obligation of not committing any wickedness;—but on the contrary, of abstaining from thefts, robberies, and adulteries;—also of not violating their promise or denying a pledge;—after which it was their custom to separate, and to meet again at a promiscuous harmless meal, from which last practice they however desisted, after the publication of my edict, in which, agreeably to your orders, I forbade any societies of that sort. On which account I judged it the more necessary to inquire, by torture, from two females, who were said to be deaconesses, what is the real truth. But nothing could I collect except a depraved and excessive superstition. Deferring, therefore, any farther investigation, I determined to consult you. For the number of culprits is so great as to call for serious consultation. Many persons are informed against of every age and of both sexes; and more still will be in the same situation. The contagion of the superstition hath spread not only through cities, but even villages and the country. Not that I think it impossible to check and correct it. The success of my endeavors hitherto forbids such desponding thoughts; for the temples, once almost desolate, began to be frequented, and the sacred solemnities, which had long been intermitted, are now attended afresh; and the sacrificial victims are now sold everywhere, which once could scarcely find a purchaser. Whence I conclude that many might be reclaimed were the hope of impunity, on repentance, absolutely confirmed." The emperor's reply follows: "Trajan to Pliny:"You have done perfectly right, my dear Pliny, in the inquiry which you have made concerning Christians. For truly no one general rule can be laid down, which will apply to all cases. These people must not be sought after. If they are brought before you and convicted, let them be capitally punished, yet with this restriction that if any one renounce Christianity, and evidence his sincerity by supplicating our gods, however suspected he may be for the past, he shall obtain pardon for the future, on his repentance. But anonymous libels in no case ought to be attended to; for the precedent would be of the worst sort, and perfectly incongruous to the maxims of my government." "Ave, Imperator..." "Ave, Maria..." Gee..... Seventh, yes, I am quite aware that the thread was moved. I saw it this afternoon. That's fine. Now, getting back to the topic of the thread before we derailed it (and yes, that is an inclusive "we") No, the Bible is not infallible, it is not inerrant, and it is not the end-all, be-all of scripture. I'll divide this into two sections, personal beliefs and reasons for those beliefs, and you will see quotes and evidence in the second part. Yes, the Bible is scripture. Look up the etymology of the word scripture, and that is what it literally is...writing. Do I believe the Bible is textually infallible? No! Absolutely not! It isn't even complete because there are so many references to other books, books that are not had in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any other books that have been discovered to date. Other scriptures have been discovered. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, the Old and New Testament Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha...yes, I consider them all to be scripture in the literal sense. Now, as to whether all of them are true, some are and some aren't. Careful study can lead to which is true and which is not. Now, why do I deny Biblical infallibility? 1. When people make reference to the Bible, it is largely ambiguous. With or without the Apocrypha? Which version? (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, NKJV, Douay, Luther's Bible....which one?) And no, you cannot say that they are all the same, because the insertion or omission of a single word can change the meaning, so yes, each edition has its own slant and that slant may not be correct. 2. We do not have the original texts of the Bible to make such a statement (a.k.a Autographa). We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have the Nag Hammadi Library, we have other manuscripts and codices (such as the Codex Vaticanus) that can be studied. Try to find an original text from John, Luke, Moses, Malachi, or even Q (if you accept that hypothesis and if you actually believe that it is out there). I find it very two-faced when individuals demand to see the gold plates for the Book of Mormon, but yet, they can't provide any material evidence of manuscripts that come from the Bible. If material proof alone brought faith, I would become a Gnostic or an Essene (but don't ask me to becme a Docetist). 3. Take a collection of books and put them in order. Now, having no list, try and order them again after 50 years after everyone has been through your library several times. That's right....that is a hard task. I will address the mistranslations of the Bible in a later post, as well as other points, hopefully within a few hours.

I am still right. That seems to be the whole thesis behind your argument. That is most assuredly an argumentum ad lapidem Sorry, this is not a college debate. You don't get the benefit of implementation by affirmative fiat here. First, you failed to address the passages that were taken straight from the Catechism, and not only that, you then choose to basically ignore the interpretation thereof by failure to offer up one of your own. Second, you failed miserably in correctly identifying which language went with which concept. Like I said I can't trust your ability to identify language, and if that is the case, then obviously, your interpretation is invalid. Third, the fact that you had mistaken the languages leads me to believe that you were absent-mindedly quoting an article...which I had found in Wikipedia under Virgin Mary. Fourth, prayers are addressed to Mary. Among them are Ave Maria, and Salve Regina, both of which I have in a copy of St. Joseph's Daily Missal. You say that all praise directed to them is also directed to God. I hardly consider the saints or the Virgin Mary as an extension of God that needs prayer. You might, some others might, but I don't. And even under the pretense that what you say is true, nowhere in any scriptures, ancient or modern, is there a clause that permits oration to Mary or any of the Saints, or any icons mentioning such. I actually walked into a Catholic church (actaully, this building was where the diocese was housed) in Łódź, Poland and asked about the Assupmtion of Mary. I had asked the same questions in Kraków and in Sosnowiec. It turns out that all three said the same thing...it was nothing more than tradition. "Nie ma nic takiego w Biblii, tylko to jest tradycyjna." (It doesn't exist in the Bible, it is only traditional.) So were the idolatries of Astarte (or Ishtar) as Baal.

If you can't properly udentify Greek and Latin words, then you also cannot properly identify the sense in which they were used...so that whole argument is, at best, an argumentum ad lapidem. And just which theologians are you citing here? I also have supplied a goodly number of excerpts from the Roman Catholic Catechism to explain my point, so that also gets pulled across to our side. Monica, I appreciate the reference. I use Strong's (very common), as well as Gesenius' works and Thayer's. If you want a very concise reference grammar of Greek, use Smyth's. Allen and Greenough have a very excellent Latin grammar.

I am also opposed to the United Negro College Fund, BET, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, etc., etc. I know for a fact that if I started a United White College Fund or White Entertainment Television, or worse yet, instead of the NAACP, how about the National Association for the Advancement of White People, people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and Kwesi Mfume would all have a conniption fit. What most people do not seem to understand, especially those outside the South looking in, is that racism was not as widespread as people think. Yes, you had Selma, Talladega, the students killed in Neshoba County, MS, and others. But let's be fair. Most of the riots occurred in places like L.A., Chicago, and Detroit. If you are going to measure racism using violence as a standard, the South would win that comparison hands down. Here is a philosopical question. What is racism? If, for example I refuse to serve non-English speaking customers, is that racism? If I am a cop and I catch an Arab doing 25 mph over the speed limit, is that profiling? It seems that the liberals have really been doing some backwards thinking on what constitutes racism and/or profiling. Equality means just that, equality. No affirmative action, no funding for minorities for college and businesses, no special considerations for minorities. Period. Ideally, that is how it should be, operative word being "ideally". I truly believe that as long as we have institutions that favor or cater to a particular race, such as NAACP, then yes, there will always be racism. That would put people like Jesse Jackson out of work, now wouldn't it? Much of what Dr. Martin Luther King said was on the money. Granted, his moral character left a bit to be desired, but the ideas he espoused as far as equality goes...those were on the mark.

I hope that I may be of some help. I do speak German and I can also read and write it. Send me anything you need to have translated at my LDSTalk address (same as my name here). As far as Iowa goes, I don't know much about it, but perhaps I can help with linking. I ran into the same road block when I was doing work up in Ohio. Fortunately, the death certificates there listed the names of the parents of the deceased. With that information, I was able to link up some of the names in my family tree and find out more information. According to the information I have pulled up, official registration of births, marriages, and deaths began in Iowa on 1 July 1880. So, what you would need to do is find out which department keeps the vital records (vital records being birth, marraige and death certificates). It is usually done by the county health department. Find the county where he lived, contact the health department there, and obtain the information. If you knew where he died, you could also contact the health department there and ask for a copy of the death certificate. I used to work in a credit insurance bureau and I have had to view death certificates from several states in order to pay out benefits. Most, if not all, list the names of the parents on them. All you would need to know is where he died. If you knew when he died, that would help narrow thngs down a good bit. I hope this helps. Write to my LDSTalk mailbox if you have further questions.

That's where you went wrong. You need to brush up on your Latin. Let's examine this from a Roman theologian's standpoint: We will begin by defining the English and Latin equivalents: Worship = Latria Veneration = Dulia (see also hyper-dulia) All approved Catholic theologians will tell you that they do not worship the Theotokos, but they do venerate her. Veneration is reserved for Mary and the Saints. Be reminded that all prayer directed towards Mary or a Saint is done under the spirit of "dulia" or veneration, and not under the spirit of "latria" or worship. Now the Theotokos is a unique person in the Church, and she is accorded a "higher" status than the Saints. Therefore, she is given greater form of veneration called "hyper-dulia". But notice that this is still not "worship" but veneration. Also, something that I learned on my own, is that all veneration given to either the Theotokos or the Saints is actually not really going to them per se. Rather, Catholics and Orthodox are venerating the attributes of Christ which was present or is present in them. The Saints are but a reflection of Jesus Christ, therefore all praise directed to them is actually praise to God. Hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding JT. Fine, if you want to argue with the Vulgate Version, go right ahead. Here is the verse in question in its entirety. Exodus 20:5--Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them, for I, the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation that hate me;" Latin Vulgate--3rd Edition--Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Exodus 20:5--Non adorabis ea neque coles ego sum Dominus Deus tuus fortis zelotes visitans iniquitatem patrum in filiis in teritam et quartam generationem eorum qui oderunt me. Also, in the book A Primer of Ecclesiatical Latin by John F. Collins and pulblished by Catholic University Press, 1985, pg. 446, under the English-Latin Vocabulary section, pg 446, we have: "worship--adoro, adorare, adoravi, adoratus" Also under The New College Latin and English Dictionary by John C. Traupmann, on page 7, under the entry "adoro, adorare", it says: "to implore; entreat; to ask for; to adore, worship" And under page 501 in Traupmann's, doing a reverse lookup, for the English word worship, it is given "worship--venerari, adorare, colere" "Adorare" and "colere" are the exact two verbs used in Exodus 20:5. Also, American Heritage Dictionary, under the etymology for the word "adore", we read "Middle English adoren, from Old French adorer, from Latin adorare, to pray to: ad- to + orare to speak, pray" "Dulia" is not Latin, but Greek! Jason, you gave the terms as Latin! I suggest you refer to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, page 157, entry # 1398 under "douleuo". I would also look up the Greek to Galatians 4:8, where the phrase "edouleusate tois fusei me ousin theois" comes into play. Thayer's renders it "to worship....gods". You made another blunder by using the word "latria". It also is not Latin, it is Greek. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg. 372, entry #'s 2999 and 3000, under "latreia" and "latreuo". If you choose to look up the extended definitions, you can, but in short, the summary meaning is "to serve [for hire] or "to worship", "to give homage". That's where you went wrong. You need to brush up on your Latin. Let's examine this from a Roman theologian's standpoint: We will begin by defining the English and Latin equivalents: Worship = Latria Veneration = Dulia (see also hyper-dulia) Jason, I would retract if I were you. You seem to have grossly obfuscated the Greek and Latin languages. And no, you can't just simply say you were wrong and have your point stand, because the Cathechism, as well as the Vulgate, being the official version of the Roman Catholic church, were both written in Latin not Greek. So much for brushing up...I don't define or equate words like one would make a shot in the dark. And if you were wrong on this point, what other points have been made in a similarly obfuscated manner? One verse for you: "Triton touto erkhomai pros humas; epi stomatos duo marturon kai trion stathesetai pan hrema." Or, if you prefer the Latin: "Ecce tertio hoc venio ad vos in ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omen verbum." Q.E.D.

True enough. But praying directly to mary is contrary to the official stance of the RCC. To judge an entire church based on the actions of a few is not a good thing to do. Like, there was the Mormon guy on the news the other day who molested kids. Does that mean that Mormons sanction molestation? Come on people. Let's be bigger than that. "No one will suspect the early Christians of idolatry, as if they had paid supreme worship to Mary's pictures or name; but how are we to explain the phenomena enumerated, unless we suppose that the early Christians venerated Mary in a special way? Nor can this veneration be said to be a corruption introduced in later times. It has been seen that the earliest picture dates from the beginning of the second century, so that within the first fifty years after the death of St. John the veneration of Mary is proved to have flourished in the Church of Rome." (www.newadvent.org--the Catholic encyclopedia website). Also, take into consideration the follwoing paragraphs from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, nihil obstat. Underlines are my own. 2676 This twofold movement of prayer to Mary has found a privileged expression in the Ave Maria: Hail Mary [or Rejoice, Mary]: the greeting of the angel Gabriel opens this prayer. It is God himself who, through his angel as intermediary, greets Mary. Our prayer dares to take up this greeting to Mary with the regard God had for the lowliness of his humble servant and to exult in the joy he finds in her. Full of grace, the Lord is with thee: These two phrases of the angel's greeting shed light on one another. Mary is full of grace because the Lord is with her. The grace with which she is filled is the presence of him who is the source of all grace. "Rejoice . . . O Daughter of Jerusalem . . . the Lord your God is in your midst." Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is "the dwelling of God . . . with men." Full of grace, Mary is wholly given over to him who has come to dwell in her and whom she is about to give to the world. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. After the angel's greeting, we make Elizabeth's greeting our own. "Filled with the Holy Spirit," Elizabeth is the first in the long succession of generations who have called Mary "blessed." "Blessed is she who believed. . . . " Mary is "blessed among women" because she believed in the fulfillment of the Lord's word. Abraham. because of his faith, became a blessing for all the nations of the earth. Mary, because of her faith, became the mother of believers, through whom all nations of the earth receive him who is God's own blessing: Jesus, the "fruit of thy womb." 725 Finally, through Mary, the Holy Spirit begins to bring men, the objects of God's merciful love, into communion with Christ. And the humble are always the first to accept him: shepherds, magi, Simeon and Anna, the bride and groom at Cana, and the first disciples. 829 "But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary": in her, the Church is already the "all-holy." 971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary. (Note: I equate adoration with worship because of the usage of the Latin verb adorare in Exodus 20:4 ("...non adorabis ea..." [Latin Vuglate Version]) 2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints. 2162 The second commandment forbids every improper use of God's name. Blasphemy is the use of the name of God, of Jesus Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and of the saints in an offensive way. 2675 Beginning with Mary's unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the person of Christ manifested in his mysteries. In countless hymns and antiphons expressing this prayer, two movements usually alternate with one another: the first "magnifies" the Lord for the "great things" he did for his lowly servant and through her for all human beings the second entrusts the supplications and praises of the children of God to the Mother of Jesus, because she now knows the humanity which, in her, the Son of God espoused. 2679 Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope. 2682 Because of Mary's singular cooperation with the action of the Holy Spirit, the Church loves to pray in communion with the Virgin Mary, to magnify with her the great things the Lord has done for her, and to entrust supplications and praises to her. Contrary to the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church? I'm afraid not! Especially when the Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church specifically talks about praying to her! That brings me to this question: can anyone here give me a reference to an official papal declaration or ecclesiastical council that specifically forbids praying to Mary? The Catechism points out the propriety of praying to Mary, so who reversed it? As far as comparing it to molestation, that is comparing apples and oranges. One is a religious doctrine and practice done individually, the other is a crime against another human.

I served a mission in Poland, a country which is 95% Roman Catholic and home to John Paul II. There was actually a movement within the Catholic Church there to elevate the status of Mary to the same as God the Father, and this movement is called the Mariawici movement. Some consider it part of the Roman Catholic Church, and some do not...depends on whom you ask. Is that idolatry? While we are at it, just how exactly does it translate and what exactly does that commandment mean? Well, the word for idol in Hebrew is pesel (Strong's 6459) and it comes from the Hebrew verb pasal meaning to cut or hew (i.e. from stone or wood). Or, if you like, in the Septuagint, it is rendered eidolon (from which we get our word idol), and in the Vulgate, we have the word sculptile (from which we get our word to sculpt, scuplture). This comes from Exodus 20:4. For purposes of simplicity, I will use the Latin Vulgate to continue with the meaning in the first part of verse 5, which says "non adorabis ea neque coles..." which means "You will not worship (bow) to them neither serve [them]..." Now that some things have been exegeted out, feel free to draw your own conclusion as to how it applies. As far as Mormon Doctrine goes, that book does not, never has, and never will be the "official" word of what actually constitutes Latter-Day Saint Doctrine. For one thing, Bruce R. McConkie has made several errors in his book in the past (the earliest edition in 1966 caused quite a stir among the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency insomuch that they made him revise it), and as for some things that Bro. McConkie said, I take them with a grain of salt. Regardless of my point-of-view, even if what he wrote was 100% accurate, Mormon Doctrine is not a binding summary of the doctrine of the Restored Gospel. At best, it is only a reference book, and yes, some reference books may have inaccuracies or slants. It amazes me that those who like to debate the veracity of the Gospel use something that cannot be construed as "official". Nevertheless, there are those that choose to shock people by saying "Hey, you know what? Mormons believe that Jesus Christ and Satan are spirit brothers." That, I believe is the religious equivalent of "yellow journalism". It is not shocking when one steps back and carefully looks at what the scriptures say on the matter. You have to ask yourself, is/was Lucifer a child of God? Yes, just as we are. He is the prodigal son of our Heavenly Father, only he did not return after recognizing his foolishness, rather, his act was done out of open rebellion. Even as early as the 4th century A.D., one of the early Christian Fathers, Lactantius, wrote that "Lucifer would have been nothing less that the younger brother to the Logos." I would hardly cast Lactantius into the pit, seeing as how Catholics and Protestants alike draw heavily upon referring to the early Christian Fathers. Also read Job 1:6. It talks of Satan being among the sons of God. And yes, I am aware of the argument that the sons of God refers to angels, of that argument I am aware, but I am not buyng it. On what grounds? On the grounds that in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts, the words used do not mention angels at all. In Hebrew, the word is b'ne-HaElohim, and in the Latin Vulgate, it is rendered filii Dei. The Septuagint is the only one that renders the word angels, using the phrase hoi angeloi tou theou. This causes a bit of a quandry, but not really. The word for angel in Hebrew is malakh (Strong's #4397). So, why does the Septuagint translate it that way? The reason it that the translation of the Septuagint in this particular case is not literal. That could be the only logical conclusion. If it were literal, it would have read hoi huioi tou theou, but it does not. And even if we did accept the Septuagint as literal, what would Satan be doing among the angels of God? The rules of hermeneutics (as well as Occam's razor) cannot justify Satan still being among the angels, and so that conclusion must be rejected. Therefore, the Greek in that particular passage is not to be taken as a literal rendering of the Hebrew. All right, now we go to our Hebrew, the original language of the Old Testament. Sons of God means just that, sons of God and it is translated as such. If God did not create Lucifer, then you would have to conclude that Lucifer was created by another Creator...something that most Christians would outright reject. Well then, that leaves only one conclusion, the God created Lucifer, as he created us. As such we are children of God. Christ is also a child of God, the only difference is that He was the Only Begotten. Well, Chirst being a child of God, Lucifer also being a child of God, and we being children of God (Acts 17:29), then that makes all of us, Lucifer included, brothers and sisters, and this drawn totally and strictly from the Bible. It is also not absurd to say that God is a being that progresses. Most Christians would agree that the best example of God, namely in the flesh, would be Jesus Christ. After all, He was perfect in every way because He is the Divine Son of God. One rule of thumb to which I have always subscribed is that "like begets like". In other words, two humans will not beget a goat, two lions will not beget a hippopotamus, and so forth. So, what does God beget? That's right, a being just like Him, in this case, Jesus Christ. In Luke 2:52, we read "and Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man". How is that?! I thought that Jesus Christ was perfect in every way! Ah, there is the rub. It seems that one of two conclusions must be accepted. If Christ was begotten of God, and God does not progress, but already has all things, then Christ, being the Son of God, also had all things since His birth. However, Luke 2:52 clearly states that this was not the case. The other conclusion: Christ was the literal Son of God. That means that He is like God in every way, since He [Christ] was begotten of Him [the Father]. Now, if Christ is like God in every way, and Christ had to increase in wisdom, then guess what? So did the Father! John 5:19 is a classic, and it reads "Then answered Jesus and said unto them [the Jews], Verily, Verily I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise". I would have no trouble if you chose to extend the passge over the next few verses, for it would only strengthen the point. The central point is that the Son does what his Father does, and does nothing of himself. Now, couple that with Luke 2:52, and guess what? If the Son had to increase in wisdom and stature, then it is only because He has seen the father do likewise, and this according to John 5:19. Imagine that! The Son had been shown by example on how to progress! Mormon Doctrine is a decent reference book for those who want to understand certain terminology thrown around by Mormons, but I would never even think to quote it s the source of doctrine and teachings that are binding upon those who choose to follow the Restored Gospel. Personally, as I have shown, I think I can do quite well without Mormon Doctrine speaking for what I believe, and I also believe that many other Latter-Day saints could just as easily do the same.

First of all, it is a myth that all callings that are extended come from the Lord. I learned that the hard way some time ago when I was asked to serve in a calling that I had just recently had twice, onc in one ward, and the second in the ward I was attending. I asked the bishop if he had prayed about it, and he admitted that he had not, that he knew that I had served in that position once and felt that I would be a good candidate for the same position. I then told him that I would fast and pray about it. I fasted for a couple of days, and got my answer...do not take the calling. When next Sunday came around, I told the bishop that I would not be taking the calling and I told him that I had fasted and prayed about it, and that I was not meant to take this calling. He took it well, and later I learned that there was someone in the ward that was pushing him to call me to that position. There is no substitute for personal revelation. When we were invited to receive baptism or to know if the Book of Mormon is true, we did so by personal revelation. Would any less be demanded of us to know if a calling was in fact, given of the Lord Jesus Chrst? I think not. No leader is the end-all, be-all of revelation, as we have to receive it for ourselves, or we become spiritually dead or enslaved. (See Journal of Discourses1: 312 and 8:399, and Discourses of Brigham Young, pg. 209.)

Depends on what you define as "Mormon". Read your Church History! "Mormons" were so named because they believed the Book of Mormon to be true, which we most certainly do. The powers that be in Salt Lake City do not have a monopoly on the name "Mormon" or "Latter-Day Saint". About the teachings of the gospel, do they change from time to time, or are they the same? Think carefully before you answer, because the way that ordinances are practiced now are not practiced the same way as they were in the original days of the Church, and Joseph Smith clearly stated in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 169, that "It signifies then, that the ordiinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise their Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing". What does this mean, You said it best, "either you follow the teachings of the Gospel or you don't". I would wager to say that there have been many changes in ordinances, especially since 1890 and beyond. Changing the ordinances is not following the teachings of the Gospel, since the symbolism of the Gospel is found in each and every ordinance that was revealed. That means, then, that there is a difference between changeable Church ordinances and eternal, unchangeable Priesthood ordinances, and this because of the way the Church has altered or eliminated certain Priesthood ordinances. There are quite a few ordinances whch have been changed since the Church was first organized in 1830 and these are evident in the history of the Church. Here they are: Baptism (and rebaptism) Sacrament Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost Membership in the Church Ordinations to Church offices Conferring the Priesthood Baptism for the dead The temple endowment Second Anointing Ordaining kings and queens Eternal marriage ceremony Entering consecration/united order Washings and anointings Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 158. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood." So now, think for a minute, was there or was their not changes to the ordinances? Yet no, self-respecting, Latter-Day Saint would say for a minute that the priesthood has changed, to which I would ask, "Would you then call Joseph Smith a liar, was he not earnest in what he said?" So, there we have it. No honest Latter-Day Saint would ever say that changes haven't happened, because they have. Then, the words of Joseph Smith take effect and so the priesthood has changed. Here is an interesting parable, and food for thought. This was contributed by Ogden Kraut, a known Fundamentalist writer. 1. And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as a Fundamentalist Mormon taught the people in the ward, and preached the Gospel, the stake president and the bishop came upon him with the elders. 2. And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is it that gave thee this authority? 3. And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: 4. The teachings of Joseph Smith, were they from heaven, or of men? 5. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? 6. But if we say, Of men; all the people will hate us; for they be persuaded that Joseph Smith was a prophet. 7. And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. 8. And the Fundamentalist Mormon said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. But they cut him off anyway! The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not serve as judge and jury of who goes into the celestial kingdom. D&C 132 makes that very clear. The laws pertaining to celestial glory have not changed. Either we follow them all or we fall short. The requirements for celestial glory in 1830 are the same as for 1855, for 1890, for 1912, for 1945, and for 2006. This can be backed up with D&C 130:20-21...you want the blessing, you obey that law. The laws of the Gospel do not change with each generation.

As much as I can tell, this was not taught originally in the early days of the Church. It is not mentioned in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The only mention of Jehovah is on pages 220-221 of that book, and there are no references, implicit or explicit, that Jehovah is Jesus Chrst. In an article by Robert Millet in BYU Studies, vol. 29 (1989), page 57, he cites a prayer given by Joseph Smith, and it says: "O, thou who seeth and knoweth the hearts of all men; thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah, God; thou Elohim, that sitteth, as saith the Psalmist, enthroned in heaven; look down upon thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him, even the faith of Elijah; and let the lamp of eternal life be lit up in his heart, never to be taken away. And let the words of eternal life be poured upon the soul of thy servant, that he may know thy will, thy statutes, and thy commandments, and thy judgments to do them" This can also be found in Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled and edited by Dean C. Jessee, pp.252-253. The way that this prayer is addressed, it seems that Jehovah is not a reference to Jesus Christ, but rather His Son. I also refer to a prayer given by Brigham Young, uttered near the end of his life, at General Conference 6 April 1877. It reads: "Wilt thou hear our supplications and answer these our petitions, for we ask all, O Jehovah, in the name of Jesus Christ our Savior. Overthrow wickedness in the land and abomination of every kind. Enable us, thy children, to establish truth in the earth, never more to be taken away, to build up Thy Zion of the latter days and to accomplish every righteous desire of our hearts." (Brigham Young: The Man and His Work, Preston Nibley, Chapter 42, p. 530) It would not be logical to address Jesus Christ in His own name, as any Latter-Day Saint will say that it is God to whom we pray in the name of Jesus Christ. The conclusion that I have is that if there exists a doctrine of Jesus Christ as the being Jehovah, it most certainly was not taught as part of the original restoration, but had to have come sometime afterwards. The earliest proponents of that teaching (that has stated this to any real significant degree) were James E. Talmage and Joseph Fielding Smith. I would certainly welcome any other insights given on this matter, if only to understand other points of view.

That somewhat reminds me of something Brigham Young said in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, 9 April 1852: "My next sermon will be to both Saint and sinner. One thing has remained a mystery in this kingdom up to this day. It is in regard to the character of the well-beloved Son of God, upon which subject the Elders of Israel have conflicting views. Our God and Father in heaven, is a being of tabernacle, or, in other words, He has a body, with parts the same as you and I have; and is capable of showing forth His works to organized beings, as, for instance, in the world in which we live, it is the result of the knowledge and infinite wisdom that dwell in His organized body. His son Jesus Christ has become a personage of tabernacle, and has a body like his father. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Lord, and issues forth from Himself, and may properly be called God's minister to execute His will in immensity; being called to govern by His influence and power; but He is not a person of tabernacle as we are, and as our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ are. The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary. The infidel world have concluded that if what the Apostles wrote about his father and mother be true, and the present marriage discipline acknowledged by Christendom be correct, then Christians must believe that God is the father of an illegitimate son, in the person of Jesus Christ! The infidel fraternity teach that to their disciples. I will tell you how it is. Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal. Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later." --Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:50-51

The only term I have ever heard that was used was "tourist attraction".