Amillia

LOL :) I am the rowdiest person I know. Sorry.

Working families need your help in getting signatures on a petition telling Congress to sign the Pledge to Strengthen Social Security. Please click the following link to download and print out the petition--and ask everyone in your workplace to sign it. Download petition: http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/socia...ad/petition.pdf The more signatures you collect on the petition, the more pressure you'll put on your members of Congress to sign the pledge. They'll know how many of their constituents want them to stop Social Security privatization in its tracks. Once you have plenty of signatures, fax the petition to 202-637-5172. We'll make sure your U.S. representative and senators get the message. Privatizing Social Security would devastate working families. It would slash guaranteed benefits, explode the federal deficit, saddle our children with massive new debt, open Social Security up to corruption and Enron-ization and make America's retirement security problems worse. Please print out your own copy of the petition and ask all your co-workers to add their names to yours: http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/socia...ad/petition.pdf Thank you for taking action. You can keep up with what we are doing at http://www.aflcio.org . Sincerely, Working Families e-Activist Network

I think it is because they are trying to make like they are not morally sinful and receive the same blessings as the moral people.

Thou shalt not kill is one of the rocks. You do over dramatize things.

The Book of Mormon has a unique promise that if one prays, in faith, on the name of Jesus Christ, they will receive a witness of its divinity from the Holy Ghost. A promise that God has apparently failed to fulfill for many. I heard a talk given by a preacher of a Lutheran Church say that those who don't receive answers to their prayers, haven't put enough into his worship of God. He says that they put in a dime and expect a quarters worth. (using money as a medium for example) He was saying that whatever you put your heart, mind, and stregth to, is who you should go to to get your prayers answered. Like if you love Sports and put them first, or money, or whatever your passion is other than God, is where you will have to take your prayers to, because until you make God your passion, you might as well be praying to the wind. I believe it. I hear so many X-MOs say they didn't ever get answers or spiritual comformations. So I don't believe God or the church can really be blamed.

And the person who started WhyProphets, is he not an ex-Mormon now? M. Whyprohets was started by three men. One was abused at church and quit, got bitter and let it grow into a full blown apostasy. It wasn't the gospel at first that bothered him. It was only after he got angry, planted the seed of rebellion that the tree of apostasy grew in his heart, being fed by a lot of anti sights. I think most apostates, or people who leave the church start small with a little criticism or disaffected attitudes and just like the seed of faith, it grows into a full blown lost testimony. Sad isn't it? I didn't say it was the signature books. I just recognize the authors. They are anti.

Actually being able to worship how, when and what you want is one of those ROCKS kind of things. Don't confuse the sand with the rocks. It is just like the agency rock. Everyone can sin or be righteous according to their own conscience as well. But when you mess with basic morals, diminishing the lines between what is right and wrong and calling evil good and good evil, you are messing with the rocks and chipping them into sand.

I have felt this way for some time about brunettes. We can exist and thrive perfectly fine without them. So what's the deal? Why are they still around? I have to agree with you Curvette ~ being a blond myself! LOL

I agree. But how are we to keep the youth from accessing these things? I know my kids got them at school from friends and associates who stole them. Who would be held accountable? surveilance is becoming more and more prominent, but life is becoming just one big movie huh? of us!

There is good, better, best. What is wrong with identifying such?When you are speaking about anyone's work, it is rated in these terms. Why not life style and family? I fear we begin to melt all the lines between good and best so that no one has to really try to do best, only good because they will be put in the same light and catagory as best. I don't care where you start the melt down of level diminishing distinctions, the attitude will spread to everything else. It always does. Don't you see the difference between the ROCK and the sand? The sand shifts with whatever is moving upon it, the ROCK won't give no matter what. Christ is the ROCK. The World is tolerance which is diminishing the difference between right and wrong. Building a nation on the idea of 'whatever moves you' making good as wanted as best; is dangerous thinking. It puts us squarely in the sand ~ shiftying unstable sand.

Introduction What about authority? When Jesus set up the New Testament church, he called apostles, pastors, teachers, etc. The apostles kept the church in order. What the apostles wrote became known as Scripture. But after the apostles died, the church fell into a serious spiritual decline (as might be expected). Modern churches claim to be the church that Jesus set up. Sometimes they even claim to be a restoration of primitive Christianity. They claim authority from one (or more) of four sources: The Bible – the text is all you need Tradition – "traditional teachings" are seen as a sign of truth Apostles and the Holy Spirit – "there are 'apostles' in the church today" Somehow represented by the true believers Looking closely, we can see that all these claims are false. Modern churches do not start with apostles as Jesus did. Consequently, they can have no serious claim to authority, if one accepts the Biblical pattern as genuine. Is Authority in the People? Most churches have committees or synods that vote on any changes (e.g. women priests, marrying divorcees, status of homosexuals etc.). This necessarily assumes the church is a democracy. Is the church a democracy, or is it a theocracy? We Do Not Need Actual Prophets... ... Just good Christians who have a good understanding of the gospel. This sounds good, until we ask to see such a Christian. Where is the mythical good Christian? Who can stand up as a spokesman for Christianity? Is anyone free to nominate for the position, or is it put to a vote? Can Individual Members Speak For Christianity? It is a reassuring fantasy that truth resides with "the priesthood of believers." This sounds fine until we remember that most believers do not know much of what their church teaches, other than what they learn from preachers and their fellow believers. Add the fact that individuals typically disagree over many details, and that fashions come and go in church beliefs (who preaches predestination any more?) and we can see that this is no guarantee. If even great preachers can get it wrong, why should the majority of believers be any better? Is mere belief enough to impart authority? No, for even the devils believe and tremble. The Majority of Christians Will Tend to be Right, Even if They Are Uninspired: This is just the argument for tradition. This is discussed elsewhere on this page. Does God Speak to the World Through an Assemblage of 'Inspired' Voting Disciples? If he does, then they should publish it as another book of the Bible, and inform the other churches of this wonderful event. But in practice they dare not – as one church will vote one way (e.g. to allow women priests and to remarry divorcees) and another church will vote the opposite way. We could perhaps trust a vote if a majority of voters was inspired. But this makes the problem even harder – this would imply a claim to have not just one prophet, but hundreds, or even thousands! Was the Bible Canon Decided by Vote ? (Back in the Great Councils of the Fourth to Sixth Centuries) These early bishops did vote, but not on their own authority. They appealed to tradition (e.g. "we have always accepted these books") and to apostolic origin ("a real apostle wrote it"). They had become like the Pharisees and like modern evangelical churches – claiming no authority for themselves. Do Church Leaders (Who Do Not Claim to be Prophets) Speak for Christianity? Many churches have authority figures – the Catholics have the Pope, for example. But unless these figures can produce new scriptures, their words will always be inferior to the words of the dead prophets. Their words are not quite as reliable as they could be, or why not bite the bullet and admit that their words are scripture? Prophets and apostles speak words that carry equal authority with anything that has gone before. Do the Great and Famous Preachers Speak for Christianity? Look at the great preachers, the ones who can fill football stadiums – do they represent the authentic Christian voice? There are none more successful than the great TV evangelists – and we all know what became of some of the greatest of them in the 1980s. Just think of names like Bakker, Roberts, Swaggert, etc. Are the great preachers really a guide to true Christianity? Of course, you get the occasional great leader – most notably Billy Graham – who seems to be consistently honorable. But even he has been criticized by the fundamentalists of his own faith for being too pro-Catholic. And of course, if we are looking for the great preachers who can fill the stadiums, then the greatest preacher of all has to be the Pope. Would Protestants accept him? He is, after all, a sincere and well-informed believer. Conclusion: The idea that "the believers have doctrinal authority" is at best a moving target, and at worst a great deception. Does the Bible Give Authority? If the Bible was so clear, we would not need new alternate translations, Sunday preachers, Bible study groups, or books like "What Christians believe." Clearly, the Bible is not enough to speak for itself. Or perhaps the Mormons are the only ones to misunderstand the Bible? OK, who does understand it? Who can tell us what it really means? Who speaks for Christianity? Is Authority in the Written Word? The idea that you can recreate the authentic Christian church from the scriptures is absurd. Is that what Abraham did? Or Moses? Or Christ? No. When the truth is lost, it must be restored in its original form from heaven. A few questions will illustrate this. ? If you find a copy of someone's will, does that give you the authority to act as executor? ? If you find a copy of some Acts of Parliament, does that give you authority to run the country? ? If you study the law, does that give you the authority to be a high court judge? ? Is someone who lives in England, who has studied American politics, able to tell everyone he or she is the official American ambassador to London? Do you think that the US Government would accept them as such? What if they claimed that the existing US ambassador was a charlatan and a fraud. Do you think the government would agree? Isn't it more likely that they would be locked up, or at least treated as lunatics? ? So why do some Christians think that reading the Bible gives them the authority to run the church of God? The idea is crazy – or blasphemous. If you don't have the authority, then you don't have the authority. That's all there is to it. You cannot restore the lost church based on the Bible: Whenever the gospel has been restored in the past (by Moses and by Christ, for example), it has been by new scripture, not by studying the old. It was the Scribes and Pharisees who studied the old texts at length. Jesus had the living word. If God is unable or unwilling to tell us directly (through prophets), but has left us his last "Will and Testament," that seems to imply that God is dead. The New Testament is a record of church history, not an ecclesiastical instruction manual. It is not even complete (John 21:25). Nowhere does it define what the gospel is, how to baptize, what the duties of a priest are, and so on. We do not have an equivalent to the Essenes' Manual of Discipline or the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy. And if we do not need such things, why not say so and stop pretending that the Bible can tell us what to do with the church. We do not have the original scriptures, only various translations and copies of copies of fragments. We do not even know if we have all the relevant books, since the canon was decided long after the apostles died, and was chosen from only what remained. Everyone interprets the same scripture in different ways. Why else are there so many churches, when Jesus implored that we should be one (John 17:20-23)? If we copy what we see in the Bible, all we have is a copy. Not the original. Following the Bible – Or Writing the Bible: All Christian churches but one try (to some extent) to follow the Bible. The Mormon Church is the one exception. It does not try to follow the Bible. Yet it is the most Biblical church on earth. Why? Because the Mormon Church wrote the Bible. Why should it waste effort trying to copy its own history? It is too busy creating new history. In the same way, Jesus was the most Christian man who ever lived, yet he probably never read the New Testament (it did not exist in its present form for a long time after the crucifixion). He did read the "law and the prophets," or Old Testament, but he did not justify everything he did from that, as the scribes did. Instead, he spoke with authority (see Matthew 7:29). The Mormon Church is the New Testament church restored to earth from heaven. Its real name in these last days is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The New Testament Church (nicknamed "the sect of the Nazarenes" – Acts 24:5 ) was the "Mormon" church of Roman times. The Holy Spirit and the Apostles Obviously the Holy Spirit is the ultimate guide to truth. But many people claim to have the spirit, and they disagree with and contradict each other. And if you are not living your life in harmony with God's words, how do you know that you are listening to the right spirit? The Holy Spirit is certainly part of the answer, but only a part. Authority and the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit does not provide authority to run the church. The Holy Spirit can give power, but not organization. God himself gives organization, with His Son as head of the church. It is true that the Holy Spirit can give us direction from time to time, but it is too easy to lose (and to fake) this to be useful as a basis for organization. As noted at the end of the page on 7 proofs of the apostasy, some people (such as Simeon) had the Holy Spirit even before Jesus was born. But that did not stop the Jewish church from being in a state of apostasy. It did not give Simeon the authority to do anything. Second Rate, Imitation Apostles: Most Protestants claim that the Bible is all they need. But Catholics, Pentecostals and Charismatics recognize the need for apostles just as in Bible times. They tend to see "apostles" as just "those who are sent" (the literal meaning of the Greek word). Hence their "apostles" do not have the features of the twelve apostles in Jesus' day: Do they form a quorum of twelve? Do they have the keys to the kingdom of heaven – something distinct from what the regular members have? Do they meet together to run the church? Do they produce new scripture? Do they regulate the existing churches, by visits and by letter? Are they approved by the previous apostles, and so on, in an unbroken line to Christ? Are they known, by name, to all the church? If not, they are not like the apostles of the Bible. They are some kind of inferior imitation. Were the Apostles Intended to Continue Beyond the First Century? "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians 4:11-14.) Did the church arrive at a unity of faith by the second century? Did the church cease to be tossed about by other doctrines by the second century? If not, then the apostles were supposed to continue. But due to external persecution and internal problems with the church, one by one they were killed off or otherwise taken from among men, and the church had just the problems that had been foreseen. See 7 proofs of the apostasy. Do Apostles Need to Have Seen Jesus Personally? This was certainly an advantage in New Testament times, as questions might arise concerning Jesus' mortal life. But the word "witness" used in the New Testament was "martus." It was also the word used for "martyr." In other words, the important thing was not being an eye witness, but to have strength of testimony and willingness to serve. Many (most?) of the martyrs seen by John in the Book of Revelation were born long after Jesus died, and probably never saw him. Similarly, when Paul refers to witnesses in Hebrews 12:1, he refers to the faithful saints he listed in Hebrews 10. Very few of them had seen Jesus, but their lives were their witness. Today it is more common to have a vision of Jesus than we might think. Many people who have had "near death" experiences report seeing a Christ-like figure. Many ordinary people claim to have seen him (see for example the unflattering example in "How To Handle Bibliolaters"). I was recently reading about Bob Dylan. He claims to have had a vision of Christ back in 1978. Jesus said that the more blessed ones are those who have not seen, yet still believed (John 20:29). We know someone's faith by their works, not because they claim some miracle. Personally, I would prefer an apostle who had gained his knowledge the hard way to one who just claims to have had a special dream. But that is just my personal opinion. Having said all that, many of the modern apostles have referred to being a "special witness" of Christ as something more than simply knowing by the Holy Ghost. A few have spoken reverently about seeing Christ personally. However, they tend to treat these things as sacred. To speak of these things too often would seem like attention-seeking, it would reduce the sacred value of such experiences, and would simply encourage sign-seekers. Finally, it is sometimes argued that Paul saw Jesus "last of all" (1 Corinthians 15:8), so therefore Jesus was not going to appear to anyone else. This argument backfires when we recall that Jesus appeared to John the Revelator after that, and has appeared to many people in vision since that time. Paul just referred to himself "last in the list I have just given." Tradition and Authority In Defense of Protestants: In this section I say strong things against Protestantism. This is not to say that everything Protestants teach is wrong, or that Protestants are bad people. However, they do teach false doctrines when it comes to the central point of authority. In this sense, they are just like the ancient Pharisees. Jesus largely supported what the Pharisees taught: "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do." (Matthew 23:1-3) As the dominant church, it is likely that most of Jesus' followers started as Pharisees. The Pharisees, for example, had a better understanding of he resurrection than did their rivals the Sadducees. Indeed, some scholars have argued that Jesus himself, in many ways, was a good Pharisee. See "Jesus the Pharisee" (A critical evangelical response is here) and the book by Geza Vermes and other articles entitled "Jesus the Jew" (Click here for "Jewish voices about Jesus"). But when it comes to how the traditional mainstream church (the Pharisees) treats the prophets, which is the same way that Protestants treat the prophets, Jesus has very strong words to say. Modern Day Pharisees: Where authority is concerned, modern Protestant churches appear to model themselves on the Pharisees. Their concept of authority is based on not having authority – that is, there are no prophets or apostles. Nobody who can produce new scripture like the genuine apostles and prophets could. As with the Pharisees, everything is based on looking backwards to the old days when the church was healthier and used to have prophets. All doctrinal decisions are based on "what did the church do in Bible times?" The main difference between the ancient Pharisees and modern conservative Protestants is the Pharisees were more honest in openly admitting that scripture need to be interpreted. Any thinking person can see that the Bible can be interpreted in more than one way (even Luther accepted this). Like the Pharisees, they condemn the living prophets by appealing to the dead prophets. For more about the Pharisees' attacks on Jesus, see the page on critics. For more about the ancient Jewish claims to authority, see religion.rutgers.edu/iho/talmud.html The real basis for Protestant authority is tradition: "this is the way we have always done it." I have been told by critics of the church that tradition is the real test of truth: "Traditional Teachings" – A Guide to Truth? A critic seemed to speak for many modern Christians when he wrote, "the further a person or group strays from traditional teachings the more likely they are to be in error." Is tradition an indication of truth? Catholics, Protestants, Scribes and Pharisees say yes. Jesus Christ said no. His religion upset the traditional churches in so many ways: The traditional churches observed every detail of the scriptures (or so they thought), but Jesus said they had missed the point (Matthew 23:23). The traditional churches taught that Messiah would come to free them politically. They were wrong. The traditional churches said you should not do any kind of work on the Sabbath. Jesus disagreed (Matthew 12:2). The traditional churches said you should wash your hands in a certain way. Jesus said no (Matthew 15:12). The traditional churches said you could avoid honoring your obligations to your parents by dedicating your property to God. Jesus said you could not (Matthew 15:3-9). The traditional churches said you should not eat with publicans and sinners. Jesus did just that (Luke 5:30). The traditional churches said you should fast often, but Jesus and his disciples did not (Matthew 9:14). The traditional churches said you should stone people for adultery, but Jesus had a very different approach (John 8:3-11). The traditional churches taught that a sinful woman couldn't touch a rabbi, but Jesus disagreed (Luke 7:39). And so they went on, "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7:13) All these things seemed good traditions, drawing on the scriptures. But tradition is not a test of truth. If we claim to have a Biblical church, we must not have respect for tradition, but only for the word of God. Jesus even gave a parable – of the leaven – to warn people against the doctrines of the traditional churches (the Pharisees and Sadducees) – see Matthew 16:11-12. Even if every church member believes the same thing for a thousand years (as the Roman church did), that does not make it more true. John the Baptist had a simple response for the Pharisees, who appealed to their history and tradition: Matthew 3:7-9 "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Jesus was even more bold: Matthew 23:29-32 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers." Compare this to the message of modern Protestants: they condemn the Catholic church for (allegedly) killing the true Christians. But they accept most the Catholics' key practices and doctrines: the rejection of new prophets, a paid ministry, the belief in the trinity, etc., etc. And early Protestant sects were just as bloodthirsty (religious wars, burning witches, etc.) as the Catholics of the time. Conclusion: In conclusion, the appeal to tradition alone is a very dangerous one indeed. If it could be shown that the Pharisees of Protestants have some other, additional claim to authority, then a look at what the majority believe might be a useful guide to roughly what is correct. Even that would make tradition just a second-rate test. But on its own, tradition counts for nothing. The Bottom Line "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Hebrews 5:4)

"If there is any Church in this world that really believes that Jesus is the Christ, surely it is the Latter-day Saints. No Church has ever exalted him as has this Church. He is the head of the Church, literally... the Church bears his name; and there was no other Church in the world that bore his name when he committed it to this Church and commanded that the Church should be named after him. The whole premise of Mormonism is based upon the fact that the Father and the Son literally appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith. They couldn't have done that if they were only an essence, everywhere present in the world. With that glorified body that Jesus took out of the tomb, he appeared to Joseph Smith, and if that thing did not actually transpire, we have no right to be assembled here in a conference claiming to be the Church of Jesus Christ. And if it did actually transpire then all the people of this world will ultimately have to accept of the work that he established through the Prophet that he raised up in this dispensation." – LeGrand Richards, Conference Report, April 1953, p 73 See also: Where was Joseph Smith? (a map of his life) 'Born Again Christian' FAQ Religion in 1830 Who Was Joseph Smith, and Why Did he Matter? Joseph Smith was born in 1805, in upstate New York, the son of a poor farmer. He had about three years formal schooling. (Some recent evidence suggests that he only had very limited formal education, totaling no more than three months over the three year period.) He later studied a great deal for himself and became a very capable scholar. He had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820. He translated the Book of Mormon in 1829, organized the church in 1830, and restored numerous teachings that have been lost since Bible times. He was killed by a mob in 1844, but by that time he had built the church up from nothing, laying the foundation for the eleven million strong (and growing) church of today. He founded a city that at one time was larger than Chicago, built temples, and did much else besides. He cannot be ignored. (See quotations at the bottom of this page.) The Prophecies of Joseph Smith Joseph Smith was the first prophet of modern times. No other prophet (except for the Son of God himself) ever produced more scripture or achieved more. If we are interested in truth, we need to be interested in Joseph Smith. Bible Prophecies About Joseph Smith: The Bible gives many details of a "prophet who should come" – a great messenger of God in the last days. For details, and possibly even a record of his name, see the 101 prophecies section of this web site. The remainder of this page deals with prophecies made by, or reported by, Joseph Smith himself. Prophecies Fulfilled: A 'prophecy' is not just a prediction of the future, but any word from God. Many prophets – such as Moses or Peter – made very few predictive prophecies. However, people are usually interested in future predictions, so let us have a look at some recorded by Joseph Smith. The first such prophecy came in 1823: Joseph Smith History 1:33 "He [the angel] called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people." This was an astonishing prediction to make, since it required the whole of humanity to fulfill it. At the time, Joseph Smith was just an obscure farmer's son. But this prophecy, like so many others, has been literally fulfilled. Millions of people round the world, including myself, look to the prophet as a man of God. Millions of others (some of whom write to me!) denounce him as a fraud. Was he a fraud? Or was he a true prophet? Let us look at the evidence. It is easy to see some of the prophecies that have been fulfilled. They come in all shapes and sizes. He predicted the American Civil War with detailed accuracy many years before it occurred. He predicted the growth of the Church and that it would become established in the Rocky Mountains. He gave us health code that has been scientifically validated in modern times, but was laughed at when first published. He gave us the Book of Mormon which fulfills Bible prophecy and has paralleled modern history since its publication. The Book of Mormon itself contains other prophecies which have been fulfilled – download the book about evidence for details. He made numerous other predictions. Many are listed in a book entitled "The prophecies of Joseph Smith," and more are mentioned in "The fate of the Persecutors of Joseph Smith." But the best way to learn of and understand his prophecies is to read the History of the Church, and especially to study the Doctrine and Covenants. He fulfilled prophecy in ways that he often did not even realise. And if you think that making accurate predictions is easy (or even possible, without divine help), just try it! Or look at any of the other futurologists – they tend to be either vague (e.g. Nostradamus) or generally wrong (e.g. scientific policy makers). I have a copy of "The Book of Predictions," a serious book of predictions from numerous sources published in 1985. Already, most of the predictions are laughable. Here, as in so much else, Joseph Smith did what other people could not do. He was a true prophet. Criticisms of Joseph Smith Critics, of course, will always look for some obscure statement that can be seen as a prophecy that was not fulfilled. They keep looking, and they have not found one yet. Actually, it should be possible to find some mistakes that Joseph Smith made, as he clearly said that he was only a prophet when he was speaking as such. But so far I have not found a single instance where he has been wrong. When people do claim to find a false prophecy, they can only do so by pulling passages out of context and by applying rules that would condemn Jesus Christ himself. The criticisms on this page all came from one person, but they represent the kind of thing I have seen from a number of different sources. (The fact that the author is unaware of the context of his quotes suggests that he is just repeating what others have said.) "The Church Stands or Falls with Joseph Smith" This part is true. But a lot of issues are impossible to prove either way, so it is often more practical to deal with other issues. In the case of particular questions about his life and work, many of these issues are already covered in web sites like www.mormon.org, www.jefflindsay.com, or www.shields-research.org, or on newsgroups such as www.angelfire.com/on2/strike/, skepticsannotatedbible.com/, or www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/biblegod.html for starters In truth, of course, there are many alternative explanations. Alleged False Prophecies People come up with various attempts to prove Joseph Smith to be a false prophet. But they always fail because the critics generally ignore the context, and they seldom understand the nature of prophecy. Many such critics are born-again Christians, which is strange, since their arguments would demolish the Bible before they damaged Joseph Smith. The following example is chosen because: It is often cited by critics It illustrates many of the common pitfalls It contains not one, but four allegedly false prophecies! The background to Doctrine and Covenants section 137 is recorded in the History of the Church (HC) volume 2. But the HC includes extra material which is not included in section 137. Some of it reads: "And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability, are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven. I saw the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, who are now upon the earth, who hold the keys of this last ministry, in foreign lands, standing together in a circle, much fatigued, with their clothes tattered and feet swollen, with their eyes cast downward, and Jesus standing in their midst, and they did not behold Him. The Saviour looked upon them and wept. "I also beheld Elder M'Lellin in the south, standing upon a hill, surrounded by a vast multitude, preaching to them, and a lame man standing before him supported by his crutches; he threw them down at his word and leaped as a hart, by the mighty power of God. Also, I saw Elder Brigham Young standing in a strange land, in the far south and west, in a desert place, upon a rock in the midst of about a dozen men of color, who appeared hostile. He was preaching to them in their own tongue, and the angel of God standing above his head, with a drawn Sword in his hand, protecting him, but he did not see it. And I finally saw the Twelve in the celestial kingdom of God. I also beheld the redemption of Zion, and many things which the tongue of man cannot describe in full." Alleged false prophecy # 1: "This shows the 12 apostles in the Celestial kingdom, yet some of them later left the church" No, Smith claimed to see "The Twelve." "The Twelve" refers to the quorum, and not the individual members. The members come and go, but the quorum remains the same. To a traditional Christian, who does not accept the Bible teaching that the twelve apostles were to continue, this does indeed create a problem. But such a person has an even greater problem with the New Testament (Luke 22:14, 28-30, at the Last Supper): "And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. ... [and he said] Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." This teaching is repeated with more detail, in Matthew 19:28: "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Jesus knew that Judas would betray him. Judas is elsewhere portrayed as following Satan. Yet Jesus said that those twelve would sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel! The Book of Revelation is even more clear (Revelation 21:14): "And the wall of the city [heaven] had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." If you condemn Joseph Smith for referring to 'the twelve' you must also reject Jesus on the same grounds. Alleged false prophecy # 2: "The vision of M'Lellin preaching and working miracles in the south never came true because he apostatized from the church without ever doing it!" It is understandable that people who reject living prophets would not understand prophecy – they had the same difficulty with accepting Jesus, 2000 years ago. But in this particular case we do not have much excuse. If we look at the context of this passage, the answer is obvious. I will now quote the parts that the critics conveniently miss out (HC 2:381-382).: "At early candle-light I met with the Presidency at the west school room, in the Temple, to attend to the ordinance of anointing our heads with holy oil; also the Councils of Kirtland and Zion met in the two adjoining rooms, and waited in prayer while we attended to the ordinance. ... "We then laid our hands upon our aged Father Smith, and invoked the blessings of heaven. I then anointed his head with the consecrated oil, and sealed many blessings upon him. The Presidency then in turn laid their hands upon his head, beginning at the oldest, until they had all laid their hands upon him, and pronounced such blessings upon his head, as the Lord put into their hearts, all blessing him to be our Patriarch, to anoint our heads, and attend to all duties that pertain to that office. The Presidency then took the seat in their turn, according to their age, beginning at the oldest, and received their anointing and blessing under the hands of Father Smith. And in my turn, my father anointed my head, and sealed upon me the blessings of Moses, to lead Israel in the latter days, even as Moses led him in days of old; also the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. All of the Presidency laid their hands upon me, and pronounced upon my head many prophecies and blessings, many of which I shall not notice at this time. But as Paul said, so say I, let us come to visions and revelations." [Joseph then reports one of these prophecies and blessings, referring to the great work of the apostles and the promise of the celestial kingdom.] "The Bishop of Kirtland with his Counselors, and the Bishop of Zion with his Counselors, were present with us, and received their anointings under the hands of Father Smith, and this was confirmed by the Presidency, and the glories of heaven were unfolded to them also. "We then invited the High Councilors of Kirtland and Zion into our room, and President Hyrum Smith anointed the head of the President of the Councilors in Kirtland, and President David Whitmer the head of the President of the Councilors of Zion. The President of each quorum then anointed the heads of his colleagues, each in his turn, beginning at the oldest." And so the passage continues: Anyone with any experience of the church will recognize this as a "patriarchal blessing." Every member of the church is entitled to one, although they are not usually this dramatic! The key fact of a patriarchal blessing is that all the blessings and promises are dependent on the righteousness of the member concerned. If the person does not remain faithful, the promises are withheld. I have received my own patriarchal blessing, and I also received promises. Like millions of others, I can confirm that, insofar as I have remained faithful, the promises have all been fulfilled. Just as they were fulfilled in the lives of those members of the quorum of twelve in Joseph Smith's day who remained faithful. We do not have to look in the history books to see prophecy at work in the church! Often, prophecies are fulfilled in miraculous ways. For example, my own patriarchal blessing says certain specific things about sharing the gospel. At the time (1985) I could not see how they could be fulfilled, as I am not a naturally sociable person and do not chat easily. I prefer to have my head buried in a book. How could I be happy as a missionary? But the Lord must have known about the Internet, because here I am, buried in books, and talking with thousands of people about the church! Prophecy is a wonderful thing. Alleged false prophecy # 3: "The vision of Brigham Young preaching to "men of color" in their own language, in some strange and faraway place in the southwest never took place." Has this critic never read church history? Are there no maps in their house? This prophecy was given in Kirtland, near the northern tip of Ohio, by Lake Erie. Almost every inch of Utah, as well as the pioneer trail west, is south of this place. Brigham Young spent most of his life in what was then Indian Territory, far away "to the south and west" of Kirtland. He sometimes traveled further south to the outlying pioneer settlements, and often met native Americans – men of color. Given the times that Brigham experienced the gift of tongues, as well as his ability to speak plainly, using idioms that his audience would understand, this prophecy must have been fulfilled many times over. Alleged false prophecy # 4: "Zion (Independence, MO.) was never redeemed, and has never been redeemed in the 150+ years since the prophecy was made." This point is confused over the meaning of the word "Zion" in church history. The Doctrine and Covenants explains that "Zion" refers to the people who are pure in heart (Doctrine and Covenants 97:21, Moses 7:18). Jackson County is only referred to as Zion because it is their eventual inheritance. Thus, the geographical label is only a secondary meaning. So usually, as in the passage in question, Zion refers to the people, not the place. Two years before 1836 (when the passage in question was written), the Lord made clear that the church would have to wait and go somewhere else before finishing at Jackson County. See Doctrine and Covenants 101:17-18, which explains the doctrine of "redeeming Zion." It finishes by saying (verse 100) "Nevertheless, I do not say they shall not dwell thereon; for inasmuch as they bring forth fruit and works meet for my kingdom they shall dwell thereon." The need to keep the commandments in order to inherit the land is further emphasized in section 103 (verses 1, 29, etc.) The sad fact is that the church did not live up to all the standards necessary, so it was not ready (and is still not ready) to inherit the lands promised: Doctrine and Covenants 105:9 (also received before the passage in question): "Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season for the redemption of Zion" Once again, if you reject Joseph Smith (because members had to wait over 150 years for their lands of inheritance), you have to reject the Bible first – the Jews had to wait nearly 2000 years for their promises to be fulfilled! The Critic's Conclusion: "Is it any wonder that the Brethren chose to remove whole chunks of this revelation?" They were very wise to do so! These criticisms show that many readers obviously do not read their Bibles or church history, so they have to be spoon-fed a simplified version. They are not ready for anything stronger. Statements From Non-Mormon Scholars "It is by no means improbable that some future textbook, for the use of generations yet unborn, will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destiny of his countrymen? And it is by no means impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet. And the reply, absurd as it doubtless seems to most men now living, may be an obvious commonplace to their descendants." – From Figures of the Past, by Josiah Quincy, former mayor of Boston (1926 ed., p 317) "Let anyone, even a literary genius, after forty years of life, try to write a companion volume to the Book of Mormon, and then almost daily for a number of years give out `revelations' that internally harmonize one with another at the same time formulate a system of doctrine for a Church, introduce many new principles, resuscitate extinct priesthoods, and formulate a system of Church government which has no superior upon earth... to deny such a man a wonderful power over the human heart and intellect is absurd. Only fanatical prejudice can ignore it. However he may be accounted for by the reasoning mind, Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, was one of the wonders of his time." – George Wharton James, quoted by Alvin R. Dyer, in Conference Report, October 1959, p 21 "The Mormon people teach the American religion; their principles teach the people not only of Heaven and its attendant glories, but how to live so that their social and economic relations with each other are placed on a sound basis. If the people follow the teachings of this Church, nothing can stop their progress--it will be limitless. There have been great movements started in the past but they have died or been modified before they reached maturity. If Mormonism is able to endure, unmodified, until it reaches the third and fourth generations, it is destined to become the greatest power the world has ever known." – Count Leo Tolstoi, quoted in A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p 435–36 "Whatever his lapses, Smith was an authentic religious genius, unique in our national history." – Harold Bloom, The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), p 82 "I also do not find it possible to doubt that Joseph Smith was an authentic prophet. Where in all of American history can we find his match? . . . In proportion to his importance and his complexity, [Joseph Smith] remains the least-studied personage, of an undiminished vitality, in our entire national saga." – Ibid, p 95 "If there is already in place any authentic version of the American Religion then, as Tolstoy surmised, it must be Mormonism, whose future as yet may prove decisive for the nation, and for more than this nation alone." – Ibid p 97 "Joseph's teachings provide solutions for most, if not all, of the genuine problems and contradictions of the Bible with which scholars have wrestled for generations." – Heikki Raisanen, Finnish theologian, quoted in Edwin O. Haroldsen, Good and Evil Spoken Of, unpublished article (quoted in Powerful Truths). [After calculating that church membership would be 265 million by the year 2080:] "We are observing an extraordinarily rare event. After a hiatus [or break] of fourteen hundred years, in our time a new world faith seems to be stirring." – Rodney Stark, "Modernization and Mormon Growth: The Secularization Thesis Revisited," Contemporary Mormonism: Social Science Perspectives, eds. Marie Cornwall, Tim B. Heaton, and Lawrence A. Young [urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1994], pp 13, 22 See also: "The Rise of a New World Faith," Review of Religious Research, 26, no. 1 [september 1984], pp 18–27). Conclusion Gordon B. Hinckley on Joseph Smith "I am grateful, my brethren and sisters, for the breadth of this kingdom. My testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith has been strengthened by the manner in which this work has spread over the earth. I think of the statement made by Moroni in 1823 to an unknown farm boy in western New York that his 'name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues.' (JSH 1:33.) I think of the word of the Lord to the Prophet in the loneliness of Liberty Jail: 'The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee; While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand.' (D&C 122:1-2.) "My brethren and sisters, I have witnessed the fulfillment of these marvelous promises. ... "I marvel at, and am grateful, for the breadth of the kingdom, its spread over the world, and I know that the end is not yet-that this stone which was cut out of the mountain without hands, as the prophet– foretold, shall roll forth and fill the earth, touching the hearts and lives of the virtuous and the wise and the pure in heart, wherever it is taught- for it is the kingdom of our God. "Secondly, as I am grateful for the breadth of the kingdom, I am likewise grateful for the depth of its teaching. To spread laterally is one thing. To grow in 'the third dimension of religion,' as one writer put it, is another. "I think we witnessed in these temples that third dimension. I shall never forget the testimony of a young man who had come from Perth on the west coast of Australia. He and his wife and children had traveled across Australia, a distance approximately as great as from San Francisco to New York, and then across the Tasman Sea to New Zealand. He said they had to sell their furniture, their car, their dishes, and many other of their prized possessions, but, he said, as he looked at his wife and their lovely children, he knew these were more precious than car, furniture, or china. By hard work and careful saving he could replace his worldly goods, but he could never afford to lose those he loved. "And so they had come, with a sustaining conviction in their hearts that life, love, and family may all be eternal under the plan of the Lord. And as they kneeled about the altar of the temple and were bound together under the authority of the Holy Priesthood in an imperishable relationship, one glimpsed the great, eternal purposes of God-the everlasting verities that transcend in beauty and satisfaction the thin values by which most men gauge their lives." – Gordon B. Hinckley, Conference Report, October 1958, p 12 The Bottom Line The more I learn about Joseph Smith, the more I respect him. He was a great, great man, and an eye witness of the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Why Follow the Prophet? Or Who Are the Real "Free Thinkers?" Related Topics: Why Prophets? Freedom Changes Real Mormonism Quotations The Tree of Knowledge Free Will Happiness See also: Is the Church a Big Bad Brainwasher? Introduction Some people are teenagers at heart. Teenagers like to rebel. They get tired of parents and teachers telling them what to think. They want freedom! They want to think for themselves! They experiment with anything that looks exciting or new. Anyone who does not share their rebellion is obviously slow, stupid, or stuck in the past. Thankfully, teenagers tend to grow up. They eventually learn some more, and see the wisdom in becoming like their parents. The anarchists get jobs. The hippies buy houses. The revolutionary joins a traditional political party. Then they have kids, and the cycle starts again. But some people stay as intellectual teenagers. It makes them feel excited and important. They pity anyone who is not enlightened like themselves. And most of all they pity religious people, just as the party-going teenager pities the repressed fool who still listens to his parents. This page looks a little closer at the idea of "free thinking" and what it really means. Thinking and Following Most Mormons (at least outside the US) are converts. They examined the church, and chose to join, despite going against what everyone else said. They do not change all their views overnight, but continue to examine and question even after baptism. They are thus free thinkers. But some people try to pretend that those who give up and rejoin the majority view are really the free thinkers. What do they mean? What is "Free Thinking?" Definition 1 – Not Following? I recently came across a web site that divided people into either "thinkers" or "followers." The implication was that "followers" did not think for themselves, and "thinkers" do not follow others. Apart from being offensive, it is of course complete nonsense. This is why: Everyone relies on others for most of their ideas. So called "free" thinkers are simply following a popular path. It is naive to think that we can completely rise above our environment. We are all influenced by those around us, because they set the agenda, and because they lead us to associate certain thought patterns with certain behaviours (e.g. religious people look boring, and rebels look exciting). "Free thought" web sites sometimes tell others what to think, and always tell people how to think. In other words, they want followers. Followers choose to follow. Just as pure "thinkers" do not exist, so pure "followers" do not exist. Those who choose to follow do so because they think it is the best route, from what they can see of the alternatives. Definition 2 – Choosing? So called "followers" choose all the time. For example, I choose each day to follow the prophet. If there ever comes a day when following the prophet becomes a bad idea, I will stop following him. So far, I have heard many arguments for rejecting the prophets. But none of the arguments make sense, so I still follow. Following a Prophet Means Evaluating the Evidence Every Day... David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, p 100-101: "Now it is given unto some, says the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants, to know by the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Son of God and Saviour of the world. It is to these I refer who stand firm upon the rock of revelation in the testimony that they bear to the world. But the Lord says further there are others to whom it is given to believe upon the testimony of others' words, that they may also receive salvation if they continue faithful. To all these, however, there comes the testimony also of daily experience. "The Latter-day Saints throughout the world find confirmation of their testimony in every performance of duty. They know that the gospel teaches them to be better individuals, that obedience to the principles of the gospel makes them stronger men and truer women. Every day such knowledge comes to them, and they cannot gainsay it; they know that obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ makes them better and truer husbands, true and honoured wives, obedient children. They know that obedience to the principles of the gospel makes them in every respect ideal home builders; the ideal is there; they sense it in their minds; they cannot gainsay it; they know it; and they know that transgression of these principles will have the opposite effect upon their individual lives and upon their home life. "They know that obedience to the gospel fosters true brotherhood and fellowship among mankind; they know that they are better citizens by virtue of obedience unto the laws and ordinances. So, as they go through their daily acts and apply religion in their vocation, the truth of the gospel becomes exemplified in their lives. Thus, with the testimony of the Spirit, the testimony of reason, and the testimony of daily experience, the Latter-day Saints throughout the world must stand impregnable." Many readers will argue that they have tried the church and they did not experience this. But that is the whole point. If you are not living in a better way, you have not got it. If it's good, it's Mormonism. If it isn't good, it isn't Mormonism (that was Moroni's test – see the page on answers to prayer). The ranks of ex-Mormons are full of people who were in the church for years but never really understood what it was about. Definition 3 – Not Bound By a Particular Idea or Set Of Ideas? Look at a good "free thinker" web site and you will see a mass of links to different ideas. Sounds good? Maybe. But those who constantly move from idea to idea think they have quality when in fact they have quantity. If your current ideas fulfill your needs, why waste time with more searching, then risk something which may turn out to be more superficially appealing, but less useful in the long run? if it ain't broke, why fix it? More seriously, looking does not solve any problems. Accepting new ideas does. But as soon as you choose to accept an idea, you are bound by its implications. You cease to be "free" in these terms. Definition 4 – Not Aligning Yourself With Any Group? This idea sounds very appealing. It is also rather stupid, as will be discussed next. Free thinkers have hijacked noble-sounding words and quietly applied them to narrow and misleading ends. In reality, "free thinking" refers to unintelligent thinking. Why Lone Thinking is a Bad Idea: Obviously, each person must choose for themselves. But this inevitably involves choosing to follow some existing scheme for the time being. (Remember, we are not talking about blindly following, but choosing to follow on a day to day basis). The alternative – to develop your own private morality and world view – is a bad idea. This is why: Life is Too Complex: Few people (if any) are able to develop a genuinely consistent and proportionate world view. E.g. one that makes sense in terms of logic and in terms of priorities. For example, a "rational" person will usually give way to intangibles like love and art. A "moral" person will usually rather spend his spare money on himself rather than giving it to the poor. As a famous philosopher once put it, when it comes to everyday living, most people are pragmatists. They muddle through. They do not worry about the details. In other words, this kind of lonely philosophy does not work. "The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living" Lone beliefs are, by definition, not examined objectively. Even if we present them for others to criticise, we act as our own judge and jury – hardly an objective measure. Group beliefs are more robust. If a political party has a set of beliefs, its opponents can take them apart and see if they are moral, consistent, or proportionate. The beliefs are further clarified as party members come to some consensus about what they actually mean. But private beliefs have none of these advantages. They cannot be examined in any way that is even close to objective. The potential for self-delusion is unlimited. Put another way, churches and political parties are easy targets. Private beliefs are usually far weaker, but are not open to examination, so go uncontested. I am constantly amazed how people can see themselves as rational, yet would rather risk endless contradictions than make a serious attempt to be consistent. Lone Thinking is Not Practical: It is no accident that almost every nation on earth has a form of party politics. When it comes to finding real answers to real problems, people have to think as groups. This allows ideas to be tested and examined by many different minds. It demands consistency and holds people to account if they diverge from the standards. It also allows others to understand and thus choose between word views. The alternative is for everyone to have their own vague and unexplained philosophy. With purely lone thinking, nothing would get done. For similar reasons, most of the world's financial business is done by businesses larger than one man. In the real world, if you want to get things done, you have to organise. There is No Alternative to Organisation... What is called "free thought" is just "let's all be different." But if you ever do find some better ideas, you will need to work together, and then you find yourself acting like an organisation again. "Free thought" is thus a useful tool of organisation, but is no solution on its own. (N.B. Some organisations – e.g. cooperatives, do not have a single person at the head. But the problem is exactly the same The majority acts as if it was a dictator. You can either find a way to get long with this dictator, or leave). Voters discovered this centuries ago. Just about every nation in the world is run on some kind of part system. It is just not practical for each person to go their own way on every topic. Nobody has enough time top become an independent expert on everything, and even if they had, politics would just be too confusing for the voters. Business discovered this years ago. The one man company still has a place, but not where serious amounts of work have to be done. ...And Organisation Implies Loyalty and Compromise. In the real world, people organise. And organisations require loyalty (so the members stand for certain standards) and compromise (since individual members may differ in many areas). It is a fact of life. It is unavoidable in any sphere, and the church is no different. Some fringe members think an organisation works better if everyone argues all the time. But people who have to actually run organisations know better. Does This Mean a Church is Just Like a Political Party? No, because: It deals directly with the big, universal questions. Who else does that? (OK, everybody does, but who else has a single, consistent set of answers, and a clear spokesman?) It is the only church with any serious claim to authority. There is good reason to suppose that God speaks through It The Holy Spirit confirms this. It is concerned with the kingdom of God – which is fundamentally different from the kingdoms of men. The Problem With Intellectual Anarchy: For ideas to be meaningful, they must be shared. For ideas to have much effect, they must be accepted by more than one person. But as soon as you share ideas, you have to accept some things on faith, you have to make compromises, cope with differing interpretations, and agree on an official party line! In other words, where those ideas are concerned, you cease to be a "free thinker." You become a Marxist/Humanist/Deconstructionist/Feminist/Mormon or whatever. Thus "free thinking" has all the problems of any other form of anarchy. It is at best the gap between following "a" and following "b". On its own, It can only offer chaos or apathy. Free Thought and Free Ignorance: So-called "free thought" confuses "good" thought with "perfect" thought. Yes, It is necessary to think for ourselves. Our conclusions may even be pretty good. But how do we know? All of us only work with a small sample of the information we might need. We are all ignorant. There are only two solutions to the problem of ignorance: Either we accumulate practically infinite experience and intelligence, or we find someone who has. "Free thinkers" take neither route, and fool themselves into believing that a tiny bit of knowledge is practically as good as the whole thing. It can never be. Of course, if you do not believe that religion really has access to God, you may say "what have I got to lose by rejecting religion?" Well, quite a lot actually! Who is Really Free? Freedom implies power. If I am free to do something, I have the power to act. By giving more power, organisations give more freedom. Without being organised, our lone efforts are very limited, and are likely to be undone by the next person. Unity is strength. Thus, unity offers freedom to act. The prophets' teachings are all designed to increase freedom. American Attitudes to Rule: The following is based on a poll of American attitudes. "No strong God. No strong rules. No strong superiors, moral or otherwise. 'The Way We Live Now' poll finds that most Americans want to decide for themselves what is right, good and meaningful." A number of responses come to mind (each response is not related to the others): School children who feel this way are usually the ones who get the worst results. Pride comes before a fall While typing this I am listening to a news item about job satisfaction. An international study found that Denmark has the highest levels of job satisfaction, and it was noted that they also have the strongest employment legislation. Maybe strong rules are OK when they suit us? This is NIH taken to its extreme. ("Not Invented Here") This reminds me of the tendency for companies to fail because they are suspicious of any ideas originating elsewhere How long before anarchy becomes the norm? (Has anyone here read any well-argued anarchist books? They are superficially very appealing. As a political stance it is founded in exactly these principles) United we stand, divided we ... ??? Yeah, who needs strength anyway? This disdain for strong government (in general, as opposed to disdain for a particular strong government)is a childish fantasy that is only held by those who have strong governments. It is like the idea that "I am a citizen of the world!" – it only works if your government is strong enough to look after you when you get stuck on your holiday in south east Asia No strong rules? I wonder how that affects the legal system? Does this mean that Americans are losing their interest in litigation? No strong God? They already have what they want, from what I see of most religions. No strong superiors? There must be a hundred witty Political responses to this one! To be fair, I may be misjudging the American character. Americans may simply be reacting to the fact that they have never seen anything but man-made morality, which naturally disappoints. If I had the exact same experiences, I would probably agree with them. In the same way, most atheists I know are not atheists out of any claim to ultimate truth, but have simply judged all religion in terms of some very bad prevailing norms) What is "right" depends on our goals. If our goals involve other people, or the objective outer world, we will need to take those ideas into account. So to this extent, we CANNOT decide purely for ourselves. I guess this means that Americans are getting tired of democracy, since democracy implies accepting some "strong rules" with which the individual will disagree. If we rely exclusively on our own understanding, we are at the intellectual mercy of those with a greater understanding than ourselves. In other words, governments and corporations that can hire the smartest spin doctors (and develop the most accurate information gathering systems) are in a position to manipulate us. The best propaganda begins by telling you how independent you are... I had better stop somewhere! A Summary of the Problems With So-called 'Free Thought': The whole premise is illogical. Everyone is a follower. The anti-religion arguments are vain (in every sense of the word). Every claim can be answered with just as much logic and evidence. Have we moved forward any? The big idea has not been thought through. It replaces a structure with anarchy. Is this a step upward? It is good to reject a naive view of religion. But what is replacing It? Something splintered, vague, full of promises, but delivering nothing. It keeps "free thinkers" happy. But I have to conclude (based on the evidence above) that self-styled "free thinkers" are not deep thinkers. They are in it for vanity (to say "look how clever I am!") and nothing more. Following All Thinkers are Followers: Even the greatest thinkers rely on previous thinkers. In other words, they choose to follow. As Newton put it, great scientists and thinkers get where they are by "standing on the shoulders of giants." We are all followers. We believe and act on authority. We choose such authorities as: peer groups the media schools employers fashions, etc. Following is the basis for society, culture, science, etc. All these things rely on agreed standards, institutions, authorities, infrastructures, etc. In other words, rules. And rules rely on following. How would the economy work if each generation had to create civilisation from raw materials without any books? If we do not wish to follow others, we may as well totally destroy all of civilisation every few years. Is that smart? The great mistake is to think that "following" is blind. No, we all choose to follow because it is the rational thing to do. Why Following is Rational: Independent, original creative thought is so unusual that even academics are expected to routinely quote sources for their ideas. Following is inevitable. It is just not possible to create each idea from scratch: There are too many possible ideas. There is too much information, too many "facts". We need to comprehend so much simultaneously – and the more we simplify, the more we risk mistakes. Following others (allowing, of course, for some checking) is a vastly more efficient method of learning and working than trying to work it all out for yourself. So the more questions you can answer by "following," the better. If we have enough time, we can perhaps work out some scientific principles from direct observation. But that is only because pure science deals with relatively simple concepts. The greatest ideas – the meaning of life, the best ultimate use of our time – are so difficult to work out that the only rational hope is to find existing ideas. Must We All Think the Same? No – most Mormons do not. It is true that most people choose not to examine their beliefs too much (this applies to declared atheists as much as to declared theists), but among those who do choose to examine their beliefs, there is a wide variety of opinion. Just get talking to members about tithing, or evolution, or Coca-Cola, or feminism, or just about any other topic. But for an organisation to work, some ideas must be shared. Let us have a look at the kinds of ideas that are shared – what are these "commandments" all about? Is It Wrong For the Whole World To Think the Same About... Working Together? (Is the United Nations wrong to exist?) Human Rights? (And by implication, human responsibilities, and some minimum international standards of law.) An Open-ended Approach to Truth? (E.g. A limit to dogma. The great difference between Mormonism and traditional Christianity is in having living prophets.) A Shared Language? (We need to share some concepts so that we can understand each other. This in turn implies a shared model of reality – nothing set in stone, but something that can work for all cultures.) Rule by Consent? (There are many approaches to democracy.) This is all that Mormons share – although we use different words. We call them "organisation," "commandments," "revelation," "scripture," and "common consent." Are these concepts evil? I suggest that they are in fact the basis of all that is good. Unless it allows these things, a "Free Thinker's" woolly approach to "variety for its own sake" is a commitment to misunderstanding and mistrust. Do We Follow the Prophet – A Fallible Human? We follow the prophet only as a useful pointer to something greater. See the page on deep doctrine and fallible prophets for details. The real basis for Mormonism is personal revelation not revelation to a prophet. See the page on spirituality for evidence of this. We can of course go beyond the prophet's simple words, just as Einstein went beyond what Newton said. But this does not mean we have to reject the prophet (or reject Newton). If their ideas are any good, we can build on them without rejecting them. Why Follow The Prophet – A Summary: You're going to follow something anyway. It is better to choose an organised system of ideas then invent your own unorganised grab-bag. If you are going to choose an organised philosophy, only religion can handle the biggest questions of life. If you are choosing a religion, only the Mormon Church can do the job. The nature of revelation means that you are still in charge of your life. Following the gospel actually increases freedom. The church offers more than any other system. Put simply, if you want a better world, then this is the only way. Einstein and Gordon B. Hinckley Everyone chooses to follow sometimes, and chooses not to follow at other times. The distinction between "followers" and "thinkers" is a foolish one. It is a false dichotomy. It is a bogus dilemma, a trick of the sophists. To illustrate this, let's look at two well known men: Albert Einstein (usually held up as the ultimate example of independent thought) and Gordon B. Hinckley (the prophet, a product of Mormon obedience). Einstein had independent thought, but also relied on following others' ideas. Hinckley had independent thought, but also relied on following others' ideas. Einstein has the higher IQ, but both are followers, and both have independent thought. Einstein Was a Follower Too: Einstein did not claim to be especially creative. While a student, he wrote: "I imagine myself becoming a teacher in those branches of the natural sciences, choosing the theoretical part of them. Here are the reasons which lead me to this plan. Above all, it is my disposition for abstract and mathematical thought, and my lack of imagination and practical ability." [source] His gift was not independent thought, but intelligence in choosing what to follow, then sticking with it and taking it further. He followed what he thought was worth following. He just went further than most people. "'I have no special gift,' he would say, 'I am only passionately curious.' ... Later he would say, 'It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.'" [source] He Followed His Family: "He first realised the wonders of science at the age of four, when his dad introduced him to magnets and their properties. Einstein later said: 'that experience made a deep and lasting impression on me.' later in his life as a kid, Einstein's uncle Jacob, introduced him to mathematics and specifically, equations. ... "At the age of fifteen when he decided to dropout of high school and join his family to travel to Milan." [source] He Followed the Greek Mathematicians: "At age 12, Albert Einstein came upon a set of ideas that impressed him as 'holy.' It was a booklet on Euclidean plane geometry. The concept that one could prove with certainty theorems of angles and lines that were in no way obvious made an 'indescribable impression' on the young student. He adopted mathematics as the tool he would use to pursue his curiosity and prove what he would discover about the behaviour of the universe." [source] He Followed (i.e. Relied Upon and Believed in) the Great Scientists: "At the [university] library he studied the works of physicists such as Heinrich Hertz, the discoverer of radio waves; Hermann Von Helmholtz, a proponent of the theory of sound and light; and many others." [source] "Einstein was not the first to propose all the components of special theory of relativity. His contribution is unifying important parts of classical mechanics and Maxwell's electrodynamics." [source] In the first of his famous papers (on black body radiation, in 1905), "Einstein examined the phenomenon discovered by Max Planck... Einstein used Planck's quantum hypothesis to describe the electromagnetic radiation of light." In his special theory of relativity, he relied on two key assumptions developed by others: that the laws of physics are always constant, and Maxwell's assumption that light always has a constant velocity, no matter what the frame of reference. [source] Of course he did not blindly follow others, but neither did Gordon B. Hinckley. If there is any real difference between the scientist and the prophet, it is that Einstein found his teachers could only take him so far before he had on move on. In contrast, the church always has more depths to discover. It is true that some people deny this, and reject the church, believing it to be shallow. But in my experience, whenever self-styled intellectuals reject the prophets, it is because they have not understood those depths, and have given up. Gordon B. Hinckley is An Original Thinker Too: Hinckley does not claim to have the great mind of Einstein. But he shares Einstein's habit of relying on others where appropriate. Also, like Einstein, and all human beings, he is an original thinker. Before becoming the prophet, he pioneered the adapting of Church materials, particularly historical, for the media. Since then, he has used the media more than any recent prophet. He has built more temples than all other prophets combined – more than at any other time in the history of the world. None of these things would have happened if Gordon B. Hinckley had not been the driving force. They are the product of independent thought. Maybe you don't agree with how Gordon B. Hinckley uses his independent thought. So what? That is a hallmark of being independent! No-one else would have done it in quite the Same way. But in doing so, he has made a real difference. Who Has Done the Most Good? Gordon B. Hinckley has taken real initiative. He directly addresses issues of human behaviour in an original and creative way. Love him or hate him, he has made a difference to the morals of millions of people, and laid the foundation for even greater effects in the decades to come. In contrast, Einstein, though no doubt a greater intellect, has made almost no impact on the world of morals. He campaigned for the Hebrew University and against nuclear weapons, but then so did many others. That was not original. His work is morally neutral. It can be used for either good or evil. For example, by showing the equivalence of mass and energy, he laid the path for the atomic bomb. If the world should ever destroy itself in nuclear war, this single act will outweigh all the other good that has come from Einstein's work. He could yet be remembered as the greatest monster who ever lived, despite being a kind and peaceful man. Although Einstein had plenty to say about peace and about traditional religion, his religious views were not original. (He said he followed Spinoza's views.) He contributed little if any original thinking to the field of religion. He was, in a sense, a follower of the religious fashions of the time (he disliked organised religion, and looking to science for answers). So, in terms of the bigger picture (the forces that control science), Einstein was a follower. Gordon B. Hinckley is an original thinker. Criticism of Obedience in the Church Is There Great Danger in Uncritical Obedience? Maybe, but there is danger in uncritical acceptance of any philosophy. For example, it is possible to see atheism as a license for extreme selfishness and disregard for other people (who are, after all, just machines). Sure, a critical look at atheism might lead to different conclusions, but we are talking about uncritical acceptance here. But just how dangerous are the teachings of President Hinckley? Judge for yourself. Go to Ldsworld.com and read what he has actually said. Subversive and dangerous ideas like: Take responsibility for our own actions Pay your taxes Life has a purpose Set a good example Support the Boy Scouts organisation Avoid anger Work hard etc. And consider the alternative. If someone is uncritical, would you rather they uncritically followed something else? And what about previous prophets' teachings? Critics of the church are quick to allege all kinds of strange teachings, but all the problems disappear under closer examination. A common criticism regards the church position on Negroes and the priesthood before 1978. It is possible to interpret any teaching in a negative way, and that is a risk with any set of beliefs. But the doctrine itself caused no problems. Power Tend To Corrupt Leaders in Any Organisation? Maybe, maybe not. But this is not relevant. What power do church leaders have? They have authority, but that is a different thing. Authority does not automatically bring any power (except, as a last resort, the power to exclude people who do not want to be church members anyway!) Any power can only be earned from respect. Authority and power are discussed in more detail here. Leaders Can Make Mistakes? – The Salamander Affair: This tragic series of events (where a forger tried to blackmail the Church, and killed two people) indirectly provides more evidence for the inspiration of President Hinckley. It is discussed in more detail on the page about historical documents. But a Leader Could, In Theory, Lead the Church Astray? It hasn't happened yet, and it is extremely unlikely, because: The church is based on massive doses of freedom (see previous comments). The doctrinal basis for all this in a personal testimony. So the individual has the final say. Changes have to be accepted by vote, and also have to be carried out by a lay membership. If the membership is not with the prophet, the policy cannot be carried out. Prophets are well aware of this, and one of their major tasks is to maintain unity in a large and diverse church. Indeed, the prophet is largely a figurehead – which is why the church continues quite nicely even when occasionally the prophet is very old and ill. The prophet only gets called on merit and a very long track record of service. He himself is constrained by millennia of church history and scripture (next point). Conclusion Given the way that prophets are chosen, and their background in the church, it may be helpful to non-Mormons to see the prophet not as a single man, but as a representative of six thousand years of evolving ideas. The weight of scripture, history, and responsibility, weighs very heavy on his aged shoulders. He follows existing thought and builds upon it only where necessary. He defends ideas that have been developed to work across a worldwide church (most Mormons now live outside the US) and across a huge range of cultures (ideas that must work in Japan and Nigeria, and also worked in ancient Israel and ancient Rome). They use ideas that have to work in a real life missionary-oriented church. They are above all realists. It may be useful then, to see prophecy as the ultimate example of evolved thought. Compared to the prophets, modern political theorists are still infants.

These are all anti sights Maureen. Balance is necessary even for those who are bent on their own destruction.I would recommend : Whyprophets.com Why Prophets???

ChicagoGuy, The bottom line is this: Your choice, your journey. Your reward.

Have you read the Old Testament? It fully details the functions of the Temple, down to furnishings. And the Knights Templar are no older than the 15th century. That's just history Amillia. Yes, it is history as far as it is known. But not as far as it goes. Back in the 9th century the Egyptians also had this knowledge.

hahahaha. You know what they say about farms? That you're always knee deep in s$!#! Yeah, but I think it is just a matter of perspective. Those who don't understand what me and Farms are talking about, prefer to refer to it as @#$%But we all know it's just jealousy which makes them do it.

Yeah. One of the "morer" sex. :) ROLF!

Have your read about the Nights Templar? The Freemasons came from them and they came from the Solomon's temple. They were assigned to guard the sacred things.rituals sacred

I don't think I've ever heard the term "lessor sex." I assume you mean "lesser." I've heard "weaker sex" and "fairer sex." I"m not offended by it because I know that it's a term that could only have been coined by a complete ignoramus. a complete ignoramus/man. B)

Charity is a function. Power is the action. And Christ's words about the greatest form of Charity (laying down one's life for one's friend) clearly outweighs your personal theory. As an aside, has any GA backed up your theory here, or are you just floating this? Well, FARMS agrees with me. Love is power. It isn't just an act. That is the difference between your teachings and mine.

It reminds me of the story a woman told about her NDE. She was going along a city sidewalk (during her death) and was shown a drunk on the street and told that he was one of the most chosen of chosen who had volunteered to come down here and live this horrible life as a test of the charity/love of others. IOW we are always being tested in our hearts for love, even when we don't know it or least expect it.

But there are two kinds of facts. Consider Abrahams facts: He was made a promise from the Lord that his decendants would exceed the number of sands in the sea.....then he was made to wait until his wife was past the years of baring a child.....in their doubting of the Lord and His promise....and trying to fulfill it themselves through a handmaden, don't you think they began to wonder about God's reality? The reality of their promise? The reality of everything they had believed in? Then they were given a son through Sarah miraculously. The promise was fulfilled. Then what? God comes and commands Abraham to take that promised son and sacrifice him. Again, what do you think had to be going through Abrahams mind? Was this Satan telling him to kill the promised son? Was it really God and if so, why? Put yourself totally in this man's shoes through all of this. If anyone had a good reason to doubt that God was really asking this, Abraham did. It didn't fit men's logic, or reasoning. It sounded false and sinful and wrong, so it must be from Satan. Right? But Abraham didn't go by logic, or what men claimed was right or wrong. He went by the Spirit. He followed what his spiritual heart told Him he must do ~ obey God and trust in Him. When it comes to things about how the church came about and the scriptures which had come from it, one could logically and educationally claim it to be of the devil. But by it's fruits you may know it isn't. Don't you think that as God was planting good works through the prophet JS and others, that Satan, knowing of the importance and magniftude of this work, didn't plant his own evil works to confound the weak in spirit? Don't you see how the world has taken things like marriage, morality, and truth and turned it upside down on their heads with logic, facts, and their truth? It is a fact, that if you don't find God's works through Him and HIs Spirit, you won't find them at all. D&C 76: 116 116 Neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him; Jacob 4: 8 8 Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God. 2 Pet. 1: 21 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Interesting point Cal.

A party with lesser sex? When I am at a party I don't have lesser sex! I have plenty thank you very much!~ And as a Christian Woman I am not offended with lesser sex, just left a little longing. I don't totally reject the idea of lesser sex, but I don't totally like the idea either!As to it being biblically sound ~ and twain they will be one flesh! Hows that for being biblically sound?