Doctor Steuss

Sorry about that. I guess you're referring to Matt 16:18? If you are, this is my speculative opinion...It helps to know what is meant by ecclesia. The gates of "hell" (I'll address the meaning of "hell" in a moment) would not prevail against those called by Christ, or ecclesia ("church"). There was no gaurtantee for those who weren't ecclesia. Also, hades ("hell") is simply a resting place for the dead. The gates of hades did not prevail because Christ went and preached to the dead thus opening up the gospel for them. The "falling away" IMO was a loss of authority. It wasn't a sudden event, and it didn't cause for there to be no more good men on earth or for G-d to completely remove His light from the world. It simply meant that the keys for governing His kingdom here on earth were lost and needed to be restored. Such is my understanding...

I remember similar thoughts being made in regards to Adam and Eve being married forever (don't know if it was an ANF though) because Adam and Eve were married by G-d, and that which is done by G-d is eternal. The Gospel of Phillip (don't have it here with me... sorry or I'd hook you up with the passages) speaks of a mirrored bridal chamber and of how those united in that chamber will no longer be seperated. Edited to add: If you ever find that ANF quote again, please oh please oh please do share... (pretty pretty please)

Here are a few resources that might help: Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp (Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp: Three Bishops between the Apostles and Apostasy,” Ensign, Aug. 1976, 51) Whither the Early Church? (S. Kent Brown, “Whither the Early Church?” Ensign, Oct. 1988, 7) Early Signs of the Apostasy (Kent P. Jackson, “Early Signs of the Apostasy,” Ensign, Dec. 1984, 8) The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail (Charles Muldowney, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Aug. 1993, 52) The Apostasy Foretold (Barry Bickmore) The Loss of Apostolic Authority in the Church (Barry Bickmore) Upon This Rock... (Barry Bickmore) Apostasy from the Original Church of Christ (Gerald Smith) The Corruption of Scripture in the Second Century (John Gee, Ph.D.) Edited to add: Another avenue that might be interesting to take is how many of the Early Christian Fathers spoke of esoteric rights...

Besides the prophecies that it would? I guess it all depends on what you think is meant by "apostasy" and what might be considered evidence (or "fruits") of it. Would the creation of new doctrines be proof? How about the loss of doctrines (which is a pickle, because how would you prove it was lost)? How about saving ordinances (or initiatory “sacraments”) being lost and/or changed? I tend to think that "apostasy" is ultimately a loss of authority. Thusly, (IMO) it comes down to whether or not the Catholic Church (or a similar Orthodox church) can show a definite line of authority from the apostles. I have seen some compelling evidence for this, but I have also seen some compelling evidence against this. I'm going to have to think about this statement a bit. I'm not sure I'm comfortable pigeon-holing the reasons for the restoration into such tight quarters.

Elisha had 42 children killed by she-bears because they made fun of his baldness.

My intent was two fold (although the secondary is probably an obscure afterthought that wasn’t conveyed in the quotes).#1: We should not obey blindly (this is almost what was proposed by Lucifer). If we are obeying, it should be because we know the thing is right. There may be instances where a leader isn’t “right” per se (hopefully this little statement makes sense; if not I can elaborate), and there is a proper channel that should be utilized when this is the case. G-d gave all of us free agency, access to Him (and the Spirit), and the power of discernment. These are priceless gifts, and we should never shy away from using them. Blind obedience does not facilitate growth; and growth is a major key of why we are here. #2: We must learn to differentiate between commandment and counsel; both as members and leaders.

I don't know why, but this scripture popped in my head when I read the above: Ether 12:26-28 26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness; 27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them. 28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.

D&C 9:8 illustrates this concept nicely. It also explains how there could be different people coming to different conclusions. There could be several people whom the L-rd sees fit to serve. Often there isn't just one right answer in life. Also, in my experience, G-d doesn’t always seem to call the qualified. He often qualifies the called.

A few quotes to ponder: "I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150 "But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." D&C 9:8. "Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do. If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know[ing] that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil" Josehp F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992) "Now, we do not believe in blind obedience, but we do believe in discerning obedience. Every one of us is entitled to enjoy discernment. What is discernment? It is recognizing the difference between right and wrong, or developing clearness of judgment or insight. If we are living the Gospel we are entitled to enjoy the light of the Holy Spirit to guide and bless us, to enable us to judge rightly. We do not have to accept the judgment or counsel of the man who stands at the head of the Church here upon the earth; but we will know that the things he advises are right, if we will divorce ourselves from personal or political desire or ideas. We should strive to enjoy the spirit of discernment. The Apostle Paul tells us that one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost is the discernment of spirits. In like manner one of the gifts is discernment of right and wrong. What a wonderful thing it will be when we shall all learn correct principles, and have the discernment to govern ourselves in righteousness. Then we shall grow in justice and fair dealing, we shall avoid strife and contention, we shall enact and administer equitable laws, and improve in temporal and spiritual things. The Lord will prosper this people temporally as well as spiritually if we control our selfish feelings and strive to carry out his purposes." Sylvester Q. Cannon, Conference Report, April 1937, Afternoon Meeting, 83-84 And of course, the letter George Albert Smith wrote after a little quote inadvertantly made its way into a church publication that suggested blind obedience: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Office of the First Presidency Salt Lake City, Utah December 7, 1945 Dr. J. Raymond Cope First Unitarian Society 13th East at 6th South Street Salt Lake City, Utah My dear Dr. Cope: I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16, 1945, in which you make special comment on "a short religious editorial prepared by one of your (our) leaders entitled "Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church'". You say that you read the message with amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect upon members of the Church. I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me. The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed. I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow. The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof. On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way." I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him. In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following: "Know this, that every soul is free To choose his life and what he'll be, For this eternal truth is given That God will force no man to heaven." Again I thank you for your manifest friendliness and for your expressed willingness to cooperate in every way to establish good will and harmony among the people with whom we are jointly laboring to bring brotherhood and tolerance. Faithfully yours, Geo. Albert Smith [signed] George A. Smith Papers (Manuscript no. 36, Box 63-8A), Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Can also be found in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19:1 (Spring 1986), 35-39

Here’s the thing that really gets me with the “different Jesus” thing. Do they really think this is going to be the scene of the Second Coming: *Christ comes down from the heavens surrounded by angels* Angels proclaiming: Every knee shall bend, every tongue shall confess... Mormons: Nah... we're waiting for a different Jesus. ??? People try to make a qualitatively “different” Jesus out to be a quantitatively “different” Jesus. The fact of the matter is, most of those who try to jettison the LDS from the Christian Club do so by redefining what “Christian” means. And, interestingly by butchering the definition to tailor it in such a way as to make “Christian” mean “anyone who agrees with me,” they often inadvertently jettison many of the earliest Christians and often some of the apostles themselves. They fail to recognize that many of the attributes for the “right” Jesus weren’t accepted by “orthodox” or “traditional” Christianity until at least the 2nd century (and in many cases, the 4th century or all the way up until the 12th to 16th century). I feel bad for all of the poor misguided Christians in the earliest centuries of Christianity who weren’t really Christians because they failed to think exactly the same as a small wing of twentieth century protestant-evangelism. If they want to monopolize the title of “Christian” that bad, they can keep it. I for one am fine with bearing the title of a Nazarene.

You wouldn't happen to be the same "john doe" from the MA&D board, would you? Do you have a problem with John Doe? Actually, if it's the same "john doe," I have a rather high amount of respect for him (the "john doe" I'm familiar with is extremely knowledgeable, respectable [and respectful] and level-headed). If it isn't, I'm sure I might be able to respect him nonetheless...

You wouldn't happen to be the same "john doe" from the MA&D board, would you?

Ah yes, I remember reading where Jesus said, "And unless ye have faith that I am my own Son...figuratively speaking...then ye shall be cast off to my Father's right hand...which is my hand...because I'm my own Son and my own Father...figuratively speaking...and if ye do not believe this, ye are damned." Barry Bickmore has a pretty good joke on his site: Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am? And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets. And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am? Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple." And Jesus answering, said, "What?" Source

D&C 93: 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. And also, D&C 109:7 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith; While seeking for the "Truth," don't lose sight of nor neglect the Truth you already have (which brought you into Christ's Church). Hugs, Stu

I want to take this and give an ancient parallel. Anti-Christians in the early centuries had a somewhat common criticism that they would use to “warn” others in order to keep them from joining the Christians. “Christians ritualistically cannibalize the flesh of their God and drink His blood.” Is the above correct? Technically yes. But you can see how it could potentially repulse someone who did not know the meaning, reason, symbolism and beauty of the sacrament. Anti-Mormons do the same with LDS history and doctrines. Yediyd, Many of these "truths" shed their ugliness when presented from those who are not out to "warn." BTW, when you say "this site," are you saying they told you to avoid LDSTalk?

Sorry, I missed this one in my other post. See Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax (by Stanley Kimball) -- This was published in the Ensign (August 1981, beginning on page 66).

There was a recent article in the Church News by Scott Lloyd on the different accounts of the First Vision. Also, the first 75 or so pages of Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820-1844, edited by Jack W. Welch (which was jointly published in 2005 by BYU Press and Deseret Book) are devoted to ""The Earliest Documented Accounts of Joseph's Smith's First Vision" (and a detailed analysis of them). Also, a chapter in the book that talks about the varying accounts is basically an update of an article written by James B. Allen that was published in the Improvement Era (which I believe later became the Ensign) in 1970. You might find this useful: Joseph Smith's First Vision – A Harmony (by Elden J. Watson), and this: Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith (by Richard Lloyd Anderson). From the LDS Newsroom June 19, 2007; The Mountain Meadows Massacre. Also, I'm sure I already mentioned Scott Lloyd's recent article in the Church News on it.

-------Begin Sarcasm------- The Mission of the Church: Proclaim the gospel. Perfect the Saints. Redeem the dead. And the newly added fourth item: Increase Sunday's to five hours to accommodate history lessons. -------End Sarcasm------- In regards to doctrines, I don't think the Church "whitewashes" them and/or hides them. There are just some doctrines that one must discover on your own. There was a reason Christ spoke in parables. Now, as to history... There are basically three types of history. The first two types are easy to produce and are what are usually encountered: Type A: What the Church mainly produces in its manuals. Usually, if it isn't faith-promoting, it is omitted. Type B: What anti-Mormons mainly produce. Usually, if it doesn't demonize the Church, it is omitted. Type C: A "happy" median between the two. It provides the faith promoting information as well as the non-faith promoting and/or "colorful" aspects of the Church's history. Type C isn't completely non-existent (Bushman has produced some highly praised Type C history). It can be found, but you must do a bit of searching for it. This survey seems to me to be a longing for more Type C history. Unfortunately, with Type C history, it’s usually not faith promoting enough for some and too faith promoting for others.

Mark 9:24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

One more thought on this... I'd like to recommend to you Margaret Barker's book "The Older Testament" (and no, she isn't a Mormon). Also, http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/MonotheismProblem.pdf (and this guy isn't Mormon either, just in case you're wondering). And also, here's a short thing that talks briefly about Margaret Barker's book: Paradigms Regained (although this one is written by a Mormon, so you can summarily dismiss it if you wish).

This is also known as theosis or deification. The LDS just call it "exaltation." This is a Christian doctrine through and through (although LDS might differ on some of the specifics). Methinks you might want to research it a bit. I'd start with the Early Christian Fathers (expecially those who lived before the counsel of Nicea) Huh? And again... Huh? Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 page 315 (or maybe pg 316...)"I see no faults in the Church, and therefore let me be resurrected with the Saints, whether I ascend to heaven or descend to hell, or go to any other place. And if we go to hell, we will turn the devils out of doors and make a heaven of it. Where this people are, there is good society. What do we care where we are, if the society be good? I don't care what a man's character is; if he's my friend -- a true friend, I will be a friend to him, and preach the Gospel of salvation to him, and give him good counsel, helping him out of his difficulties." PS. The Greek and Hebrew words translated as "hell" do not necessarily support the Protestant redifining of it. Audience and context (as well as Ancient Near East beliefs during this time, and those of Jews as well) might show you that this doesn't quite mean what you're trying to make it out to mean. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." -- John 17:21

I just searched my "archives" and I couldn't find any LDS leader who has said "having multiple wives is the way to heaven." Did someone on the other message board claim Joseph said this? If they did, I'd ask them to provide a source (so that if [and from my perspective, it's a big "if"] the quote is accurate, you can read it in context).

LOL. Perhaps this could fix the problem: http://www.onlymormon.com/Suggest/

I know that several already commented on this (so please forgive me for beating a dead horse here my fellow doctor). But, a few examples that illustrate the conditional nature of prophecy (taken from The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy by John A. Tvedtnes)... • The Lord told David that the men of Keilah "will deliver thee up [to Saul]" (1 Samuel 23:12). This did not happen, however, because David fled from the city (verses 13-14). • Isaiah told king Hezekiah, "Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." (2 Kings 20:1) But after the king pleaded with the Lord, the prophet delivered a new message, saying that fifteen years would be added to his life (verses 2-6). • The Lord told Moses that he would destroy the Israelites and make of Moses a greater nation than they. When Moses protested that this would be wrong, the Lord changed his mind (Numbers 14:11-20). • The Lord said through Elisha that the combined armies of Israel, Judah and Edom would "smite every fenced city" of Moab and that he would "deliver the Moabites also into your hand." But one city, Kir-hareseth, was not taken. When Mesha, the Moabite king, sacrificed his son on the city wall, the Israelites left and went home. The prophecy was not fulfilled because the Israelites would not cooperate with the Lord's wishes. • Through Ezekiel, the Lord declared that the Lebanese city of Tyre would be destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar, never to be rebuilt (Ezekiel 26, especially verses 4, 7, 12, 14). Though Nebuchadrezzar laid siege against Tyre from 598 to 586 B.C., he was never able to take the city. The Lord then told Ezekiel that, in compensation for his not taking Tyre, Nebuchadrezzar would be given the land of Egypt, (Ezekiel 29:17-10). Its people would be slain and its rivers dry up (Ezekiel 30:10-12; 32:11-15) and the land of Egypt would remain uninhabited for forty years (Ezekiel 29:11-13). But though Nebuchadrezzar defeated an Egyptian army in battle, he never conquered Egypt either. • Isaiah, in his prophesy against Babylon (Isaiah 13:1), declared that the Medes would slay men, women and children and that Babylon would "be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation" (Isaiah 13:17-20). In 539 B.C., Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, took Babylon without bloodshed, and made it one of the principal cities of his empire. Babylon remained inhabited for centuries afterward.Of the above, I think the Ezekiel example is the best. There is also one that Mr. Tvedtnes left off this little list, and that is of Jonah. Jonah prophecies that Nineveh will be overthrown in "forty days" (Jonah 3:4). There is no condition in this prophecy (i.e. it isn't "Unless you do ______", it’s simply “you’re gonna die”). However, the people of Nineveh repent, and G-d changes His mind (Jonah 3:10). And then as we move into Jonah chapter 4, we find Jonah getting upset with G-d because of this (verses 1-3). There are several reasons why a prophecy might not have been fulfilled (i.e. timeframe, contingency, agency, etc.), and it is important that we try to not reject G-d's prophets because of what we ourselves may perceive as a "failed prophecy." --------------- Edited to add: In regards to the OP, read Ecclesiastes chapter 3.

I imagine it must be very difficult for someone to do a search for "Young Women" on google and end up getting anything remotely close to LDS. So... Ladies and germs, I present to you: http://www.onlymormon.com/ It is a search engine that only searches LDS-related websites. It is constantly being updated, and is always being refined. A must-have resource tool. -Stu