JohnsonJones

If you are Roman or Greek, quite a bit, and it depends on who you are talking about. With your spouse, the difference is that of FAMILY. You have a LOYALTY to your Father, to your wife, and to your son that surpasses all other bonds. They took the honor your father and your mother VERY seriously. A FATHER could kill their son for disobedience (it very RARELY happened and the laws were changed later in Rome to make it so it was not so easy to do so), and a son was to defend their Father's household to the death. Then there was the love between men. There was comradeship, but then there was the deeper relationship between men (and there were several different types, some of which I won't get into here as it probably disturbs western ideals to a degree even to discuss some of them). One of the most treasured was that of two who were not just friends but lovers and hence the idea of dying for each other in battle takes on a totally different meaning to a degree. Ironically, today people might say those individuals were BFF with benefits. However, that was more of the idea of love that some may think of romantic love today (without the flowers and such, it was far more manly one could say) than that between a husband and a wife. Marriages were arranged, they were NOT done out of love or lust. If a man was that in lust, he could hire the women of the night. Marriages were done in regards to FAMILY. Family love was something entirely different than that of friends or comrades in arms or any other type of love. It was loyalty to a family, they were your identity and you were part of theirs. You see this idea still in Muslim nations and some Asian nations. If there is to be lust and attraction, or even that of friendship and love, it is something the children will grow into rather than something that they start with. What is expected is the loyalty and love of family. In that light, at times, the love is more akin to that which you would feel for your own family, and the loyalty you have to provide for your kids or protect them (from both the wife to the husband in protecting him, and the husband to the wife in protecting her) than what we view of as love or romantic love today in the West. They also have a MUCH LOWER divorce rate than we do, typically.... Edit: So, to answer your question, in those societies, love takes a very different meaning in various ways. They are not taught that a marriage requires attraction (though they are normally required, or at least heavily pushed, towards having children) or even anything close to romantic love. It requires obedience to your parents (as they are the ones setting you up with whoever you get married to...and the expectation is that they will make a wise choice), and absolutely loyalty to your spouse and family. It takes commitment to the marriage, and a recognition that it is part of your extended family and your identity. In these cultures, when they say they give the Bride away, they literally mean it. The bride is now counted as part of the husbands family, and that family has a bond that is supposed to be tighter and more loyal than any other bond you ever make. Hence, it is to the bride to be as loyal to her new family, as she was to her original family, it is her new identity and what makes her own personal. Of course, that brings problems of it's own (bloodfeuds and other things, where if a family member gets hurt or killed by another, it is the family honor to avenge that death. Obviously, once this starts...it can keep going back and forth until one, or the other, family is dead...so that's a pretty big downside of loyalty strong enough on this point that family supersedes all else).

I think it is the same problem with Christianity and history. Christians NORMALLY do not say that Christianity is messed up, does that mean it's a problem?. Part of it is also the validity one gives to another sides claims, or their faith in such. Some of it depends on what one believes and thinks. However, I think it is not Faith that is the troubling thing for you, but what you perceive the FACTS are. The question is...where are you getting your facts from? For example, I am a Historian. As such, in the history books I have pretty strong evidence against the Bible and Christianity. History could probably win a court case in an unbiased court, using our current evidence that we possess, that most of what the is found in the Bible never happened. This includes the New Testament. We have STRONG archeological and geological evidence in our current understanding of science that many of the events in the first 15 chapters of Genesis did not occur or could not have happened as written. So, what do I believe? I am a Christian. I believe STRONGLY in the Bible. I am actually what many would call a literalist. I believe what the Bible states LITERALLY happened, that includes the creation of man in Genesis, six days of creation, the flood over the entire earth, and all the rest of it. I suppose I do this in two ways. The first is I separate my professional ideas and work from my Faith. What I say in regards to faith in many instances are not things I'd say in regards to History, and what I hold true as per History may not be what I hold as truth for my Faith. I know, it's weird. In this way, I suppose I see it very similarly to me, as a Historian and what I know about the evidences of the Bible...and yet, my belief in it. People might use things I've discussed in an atheistic pamphlet...but I, the originator of some of that...in a twist of irony, STRONGLY believe in the Bible. I don't just believe, I'm even a literalist on top of that! So, where am I getting my facts? Why is it that my facts that I have, are utilized in such a way by those who oppose Christianity and the Bible in some instances, which seems at extreme odds and opposition to what my own beliefs are? The biggest irony, because I believe in the way I do, some of those who are Anti-Christian would call me uneducated on the very facts I wrote...and ignorant on the very theories I talked about as a Historian!!! Which brings up the question...where is one getting their "FACTS" from? Is it from the people who actually did the stuff, or is it from others who are saying certain things in that regards? I have no solution for you in regards to FACTS or anything else, except to advise you to see WHERE those facts are coming from. However, as you probably are not a Historian, that idea may be meaningless anyways. I agree with the idea that you should question. I am one that feels if you cannot question what is in a religion, then that religion is not one worth being a part of. One should be allowed and open to question things within that religion. In that light, I can understand why you are troubled by these things. I also don't have any solutions for you in the way you are going about it. As long as you continue to get your facts in the way that you are proceeding...I don't see any solutions via that method...at least if positions were reversed and it was me proceeding personally in that method. Thus, the only advice I can come to is that if you want to find if the gospel taught in the LDS church is true, is to continue to study and pray about it. If you can get an answer from the Lord, I think it can change one's perspective. With enough faith, we can see angels. That may not necessarily happen with you, or be how you get your answer, but it is possible. If that occurred, and an angel came from heaven...and told you that the something was true...how would our approach change in what we thought and how we think. I'm not saying this will happen to you...but I do think you can get an answer through prayer. If nothing else, even if you do not join the LDS church, I think your own faith in Jesus Christ can be strengthened by Prayer. That is what is really the difference in my life, I think. When I talked about the Bible above, the biggest reason I can give for my continued belief is not because of the FACTS found in history...but due to answers I've gotten personally. Because of that, my faith in the Bible and the Lord have increased. I KNOW Jesus Christ is our Savior and that he lives. I know that you can find this through prayer if you have not already. In that same light, if you want answers, perhaps the best place to turn to at times is the Lord. I can't guarantee you will get all the answers you desire, or even the answers that many hope you will get on this forum...only that turning to the Lord may be the best place for you to turn to at times. Sorry I don't have a better answer or thought to that. I can acknowledge that you have doubts and problems with the Book of Abraham and many other things in regards to the LDS history. I don't have a solution for you. It may be others do, or it may be something that the Lord can help you through.

I see the Mormons as portraying the Lord as a very merciful and loving individual, even in the OLD Testament...but part of that is perspective. We see our life on earth as the beginning and end of things, but to the Lord it is but a single step...an instant where we are learning things. For an example, imagine a child who is in the first grade. That can be a very long year to them. It seems that the end of first grade is a great ways off when they first start it. They may not even be able to imagine what happens if it ends, or what happens when it does so. Now lets say you had a child that was not able to learn in first grade and was flunking out. You determined that they needed another way to learn, and so you decided to take them out of their grade and put them into a special education school. They may think that was the end of the world from their viewpoint. All their friends are still in the first grade, and all that they know about school is still there. They do not see how putting them elsewhere may be to their benefit (and maybe to their classmates as well). However, you as a parent are doing this because you love them and want them to learn. To the child it may seem a very painful experience, and their emotions could be very high. In the same manner, though you see this, you are doing it, not because you want to see them in pain, but to help them. In this way, the Lord has a greater view of our existence on this earth. He knows that this is but a VERY small part of eternity. Death is not to him as it seems to us from our perspective. Other things are seen as very short events (for example, your child is hungry for 15 minutes before lunchtime one day...is that a harsh punishment? It could be hard, but if it is what others are also doing, is it really a punishment or just part of the school experience for that child?), and in the long range scheme of things...not as harsh as it probably seems to our short range of thoughts. That said, I'd rather NOT go through such things, because from my perspective, illnesses, ailments, and other things are ESPECIALLY harsh to me. The LDS religion though, as I said, shows an extremely MERCIFUL Lord. Almost all are saved. Think about that, almost ALL are saved from hell in the end. Some may end up there, but eventually, even they can get out through the Lord's atonement. The Lowest degree of heaven as we talk about it, is very close to what many people would consider heaven already (and it IS heaven, just the lowest degree of heaven). It is said Joseph Smith said a man would die just to get there if they knew how wonderful it was. The best idea I have about it is that it is a place very much like our earth, but like an eternal garden where things are in continual bloom. In this place there is no death, no illness (and no allergies), and if there is any injury they are healed instantly (perhaps to the point you do not even realize they occurred). It is a wonderful place of peace and happiness. And that's for those who are in the lowest degree of heaven. It just gets better from there. In otherwords, even those who are in the lowest degree experience what many would consider what heaven should or is like, and call that the heaven they are aiming for! That, to me, shows love for all men, even those that have hated him and sinned in this life to the point that they would go to Hell. Even those...as long as they do not totally forsake him and will accept his sacrifice at some point (meaning they do not completely fight against him and reject him for eternity, thus denying him the ability to save them) will go to such a place. To me, that speaks of a great LOVE for us, even those of us who are far from perfect.

When I was young, which I admit was MANY MANY DECADES ago, Common Law marriages were an accepted form of marriage in many states. It was not an uncommon occurrence. If they were together for so long, legally, they were recognized as married if they presented themselves as such. No legal paperwork was absolutely necessary...UNLESS they decided to split up. At that point, it would require paperwork to actually separate as it was then considered a divorce. However, that probably made a LOT of sticky situations, and so over the years I think most states did away with Common Law marriage. Even those that kept it changed how it was recognized legally. I'm not sure how it is today, but I know when I was growing up, a LOT of these couples that are living together today...would have actually been considered married under the common law practices of yesteryear. It is not so today, but much of that is because the laws pertaining to it have changed. I wonder, now that I think about it, if the laws had remained the same, if immorality would not be so rampant?

It can. I've seen it work. The thing is that it depends on WHAT that marriage is built upon. People today base their marriage off of lust and the idea of romantic love as per the Hollywood portrayal of it. However, Marriage has been around a LOT longer than the idea of Hollywood's idea of Romantic love. Greeks (though we'd see them as a bunch of homosexuals today) probably had the right idea of marriage itself in regards to what it should be built upon. They had MANY homosexuals who also were married. In this idea in some Greek society it would be for some, especially the more manly types, that your closest friend, your lover, and companion would be a homosexual relationship. HOWEVER, you would ALSO be married. In this, you would be committed to the relationship. A wife would not cheat (ideas regarding men were different in this regard at that time in many of these societies), and would be loyal regardless. Her Husband would provide for her and stick with her through thick and thin (even if she was kidnapped and taken off by a foreign prince...in which case you'd build up your armies and invade that foreign princes land, build a wooden horse and conquer their city...etc...etc...etc). The concept of marriage was NOT one of romance, but one of loyalty and respect. The Father and Mother were a team with different roles, and they were supposed to fulfill those roles. They were together NOT because of sexual attraction, necessarily, but because of commitment. It was a commitment (and a contract) between themselves, their PARENTS, and their Deities. Family was VERY important, and to simply disregard one's spouse...was to disrespect your parents. In otherwords, though you were expected to have children, sexual attraction normally was NOT seen as the center of Greek marriage. If you wanted that, MEN had other outlets...and women...well...women were expected to remain loyal regardless. Now, in the Mormon church we would NOT follow the Greek idea in that regards. Men should be as loyal to their wives as wives are to their husbands, meaning BOTH follow the law of chastity. However...the idea that marriage should be one of commitment, family, loyalty, and respect are the building blocks of a successful marriage. A commitment to NEVER leave your spouse. Loyalty to always STICK with your spouse. Loyalty to the FAMILY as a unit, that it is the FAMILY that is important above all else, even your own personal happiness or satisfaction. Finally, respect for your spouse and your children. For those couples who put aside their worldly lusts, and focus on these aspects, I have seen accomplish successful marriages. I've seen this with those who have had homosexual partners in a heterosexual marriage. HOWEVER...this MORE OFTEN occurs in HETEROSEXUAL marriages. It seems that there are MANY who get disillusioned in this life with their spouse. They have bought into the Hollywood idea of romance and lust, hook, line, and sinker. They become bored with their spouse, and this can lead to terrible things. Some divorce, but some can reanalyze their life and figure out what IS important. For those who recommit into a more serious commitment to their marriage, I see that building on these things creates a better marriage for them in the long run. These building blocks are NOT something utilized in the West all that often today, however, when I go to Asia and the Middle East I see this principle practiced a LOT in many cultures. They still believe in arranged marriages there, and those marriages are more often built due to family connections than anything dealing with Hollywood romance. In order for these marriages to work they have to utilize these types of building blocks. It is respect for their parents (why they even are in the arranged marriage in the first place and go through with it), and a commitment to whoever their parents set them up with. It is LOYALTY...not just to that spouse, but to their entire family (parents, and when they come, children). It does NOT matter about their personal lust, desires, or anything else in this...as they put FAMILY and LOYALTY above that of themselves. It is the FAMLY which is important, not what one lusts after or desires. Many in the West probably consider this a barbaric practice, but I see many successful marriages in these cultures. It is mainly in these cultures that I have seen this, where you have a partner (and yes, even both at times) who is homosexual but has a successful marriage. As I said though, I've seen this type of principle put into practice MORE often among heterosexual couples who may have NO ATTRACTION to each other at first, or have gotten to a point in their marriage where such attraction seems to have died. In these types of marriages (not so much in those who are homosexual but are in a heterosexual marriage), over time this type of commitment and loyalty as well as respect can grow into something else for their spouse. It can bring about sexual attraction for their spouse when they apply these building blocks in their marriage, as it also can be an expression of love. However, it is NOT the ONLY or most IMPORTANT aspect of marriage or expression of it. I think much of why we do not see this type of success in the West at times in regards to marriages (and once again, this is more with purely heterosexual marriages to be honest...of course, almost all heterosexual marriages today are between two of that relation, whereas those where homosexual members are married into a heterosexual marriage is a very SMALL minority) is that our concept of the reasons for marriage have changed so drastically over the past few hundred years, that our marriages most times are based off of worldly things rather than other things. I was one of the lucky ones. I married a gorgeous woman who has remained gorgeous. Even then, I would say if I had not built up our marriage on similar thoughts of loyalty and respect, it would have been all to easy to do as many in the West do which is to separate from their spouse. I think there comes a point in every marriage, no matter how strong that attraction, that you have to recognize that in order to be successful you must have that idea of loyalty and commitment. It may not be as strong a concept in our successful marriages that go from marriage until we die in the West, but I think it is still something that eventually becomes an important factor for any successful marriage, even in the West. Yes, I was longwinded again.

This is true. Most churches have a way to claim authority, and many Christian religions have claims of why they can be the only true church on the earth. Most of the time these claims can be explained away by the Catholic teachings, whether they are accepted by others or not. The ONLY way I know of to find out if the LDS church is it or not is to receive that answer from heaven itself. It is to pray and ask for an answer. For me, it has nothing to do with the "FACTS" found with in it. For many Catholics in the same field as me, their Catholic faith is not founded upon "FACTS" as it were, because facts can be a VERY HARSH thing at times. It takes either balancing them out and reconciling what you think the facts are with what your faith is, or seeing facts on one side and faith on another. I am interested in various facts and opinions though. I would like you to get an answer to your question, but the only way I know that you can get an firm and positive answer in regards to the LDS church is through prayer and to have it answered. I believe it took Brigham Young 2 years to actually get his answer, so it is not always a fast or immediate thing. WE can tell you our own experiences, or what we have done that convinced us, but the only person that really can find out for themselves in this case is you. I feel it is more a matter of prayer than one of finding out facts. This is probably the primary difference in MANY instances (but not all) in regards to many who see the CES letter that you brought up previously or any of the issues it tries to bring up. Those who base their faith upon facts and not faith from knowledge can have a HARD time reconciling these things. Those who have had the Lord tell them that the LDS gospel is true will not be shaken by it as theirs is a faith born from being told it is true from the Lord, rather than something they justify by the facts the world gives them. I agree though, it can be hard. If I did not receive answers in the way I told you, I would probably favor the Greek Orthodox Church in regards to authority, the Catholic Church in prominence, and the Baptist church in doctrine.

You should understand I am NOT catholic because I disagreed with Catholic Doctrine. I have, at times, defended that doctrine. I am LDS because I gained a testimony of the LDS church and knew it to be true. Thus, I am saddened when one states that they are thinking about leaving the Catholic church over problems and such. If one chooses to not become LDS, and are Catholic instead, I would rather that they remain a strong believer in their faith than to leave the Catholic Church...but that is my personal opinion.

I know what it is based upon, but we are not discussing specific LDS doctrine here, we are discussing a history of the LDS church. I am trying to give Catholic examples to help you better understand my point of view. In some documentations of Francis of Assisi, there are things that are stated that go contrary to things you would find in Vatican 2 I think. Vatican 2 itself was somewhat controversial when it first came out among some groups. I think it is a decent parallel because we are discussing an older document vs. that of a new statement by the LDS church. It helps me understand your viewpoint to help me better consider what you are saying.

If we want another thread to discuss problems with the Catholic church I suppose we could. On the otherhand, I would imagine a Priest who takes his role seriously could be someone better to answer this as they would be personally there to talk with. I would say that this would be a very good reason to not jump into another faith that does similar types of things. Personally, I would only want you to join the LDS church if YOU KNOW it is true. If you choose not to join the LDS church though, I would be a grieved to find you leaving your Catholic Faith. I feel it is important and think that much of what the Catholic church does is very defensible and there is good reason behind it.

And why is that? The LDS church's official explanation is that the source document was discovered. It was never stated directly by Joseph Smith. It was something written down by Clayton. In history we have primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. In a direct quote, if it was written down by Joseph Smith it is considered a primary source. However, this is someone else claiming something was stated by him but not by him, which is what we call a secondary source typically (though if it was something they directly experienced, it could be considered a primary source). However, to make it worse, it appears the LDS church is claiming that the Church History is actually a summation written by somebody else taking the words of Clayton and transposing them as if said by Joseph Smith which makes it a tertiary document and in the way it was done, hence an unreliable document (not something I would actually want to hear as a historian who would use the Church history as a primary document). This raises all sorts of questions in regards to the validity of Church History as a valid source. Is it just this particular episode, or is it far more than that? In that light, what makes you disregards the LDS church's official statements in lieu of the Deseret Books statement? To help understand the question, does this mean I should take official Catholic Doctrine from that written by documentations of other authors about Francis of Assisi over that written in Vatican II?

That IS pretty strong language, but my opinion differs...for better or for worse. My take on the LDS ideas is that all religions (at least Christian ones) have a part of the truth, just not the entirety of it. On this though, see it as trying to convince me. You are asking questions, but your line of thoughts can also be something others are reading. Look at me as someone who is willing to see your point of view, if you can convince me why I should see it that way. Right now, though, the ones that have been telling you that this is actually NOT something the LDS church believes and have an explanation of why it states what it does is pretty darn convincing to me. You state it is not to you, which is why I am trying to understand why it is not. Hence, make me understand your point of view, after considering what the other people have said in this thread and reading the link (and I posted quotes from it on what I thought were actually the most relevant to convince me of their position in the passage you stated).

You have actually done that in this thread. I thought perhaps its because I brought it up the wrong way, which is why I'm approaching it differently now. Instead of viewing me as someone saying you have no right...instead address the things I brought up and convince me of what you are thinking. As someone who is not all that knowing of the Kinderhook plates I read what you wrote and what others wrote and gave my honest assessment of what I thought the things were (I even bolded them) as presented from both sides. I would normally accept what the LDS church history states as being very valid (as such I normally would be in the same boat as you), but when I read links and things others posted in this thread, the very links that were officially from the LDS church seemed to explain the very causes of your questions... So, at this point I'm trying to understand the rest of the justifications.

You have to realize what the arguments you are utilizing are doing. Your arguments are trying to attack the founder and foundations of the LDS church. NO protestant religion or even the Eastern Orthodox religions do this against the Catholic Church because to attack the foundations of it and the founders stand a strong chance of invalidating them as well. Thus, the only equivalents of what you are doing come from religions that are bent upon destroying the Catholic church by destroying it's founders, it's foundations, and it's motives. In history one learns it is almost impossible to be fair and balanced. However, if one is comparing something, it means you take apples to apples (in otherwords, other documents that attack the same principles as other ones) rather than apples and oranges (or, if one is going to attack the foundations of Mormonism, one does not simply just talk about the problems that the Catholic Church had from tenth to 19th centuries). That said, if you want one to bounce ideas off of, I am willing to have ideas bounced off of in this manner. However, you are trying to convince me, and as I presented above...I do want valid sources (the CES letter is not considered a valid source by just about anyone except Anti-Mormons, which I think I tried to point out...but your church history source I DO accept as a valid source). The particular point you brought up though was answered officially already by the LDS church site...which is where I got my information after reading your items...which means I would like to hear why you accept the Deseret Book version but not the LDS church's version. I'm open to hearing it.

I can understand that, but that's not what the LDS church history states. It's what a book published by Deseret Books labeled as Church history states from what I understand what various individuals have been stating here. I followed their link and it states something entirely different than what you stated. As such, I presented what we knew and what we did not know apparently. The link presented by others and which I reposted also explained why this happens. Here's another way to look at it. I'm a historian, I do NOT know that much about these plates. I am willing to look at authentic sources from both sides. Thus, using me as the target, convince me one way or the other. Thus far, I have seen the evidences put out by you and by others. I have stated what I've read and understood. Sometimes the best way to run through things is to try to convince the person who doesn't really know a LOT on the subject. I've listed what I understand has been stated thus far. I have a copy of the LDS church history, thus far the other side, by pointing me to the official LDS version of the Kinderhook plates have done far more at convincing me thus far. Their explanation does a LOT to state WHY the church history states what it does, while at the same time letting those volumes of church history actually still stand as being somewhat valid. I will relate my main doubt is that the story I HEARD of the Giant found was VERY different than the one that's been related in this thread. It had to do with the Giant actually being a Nephite, rather than a relation of Pharoah...which raises even more questions in my mind.

Thank you. If you note, I am NOT listing the Catholic documents (first, because I would find them offensive as a Catholic, and secondly, I am not going to be responsible for destroying someone's faith). However, as one who is not all that knowledgeable about the Kinderhook plates, I have easily been able to discern from the various postings what the actual LDS position is. I'm was not necessarily making any judgments of what the official LDS position was until I read through the evidence that others had presented. In that I am in a similar boat as @Blossom76 but relied on what the LDS church says it believes, rather than some letter which is by someone who sought the destruction of the faith and has tried to misrepresent it's beliefs. I understand that, and I also understand what is taught at higher levels at the Catholic seminaries. They discuss far more then just the reformation and it's causes. I am not discussing those subjects. These are things that Catholic Priests DO discuss. Members of the Catholic church find out about it. I'm discussing the same type of attacks against the Catholic Church that are made against the LDS church in regards to trying to discredit the founders of the LDS church in order to prove the LDS church false. In this, most of the attacks against the actual foundation of the Catholic church are not done by Protestant religions (as they have the same foundations...if one proves the Catholic Church to be false, it also has a huge implication against themselves), but by other world religions (most of what I have argued against in defense of the Catholic church have been Muslim and Hindu religionist). Normally these arguments from other world religions are not addressed by any Catholic Priest that I've met in a serious manner. However, in attacks against the very leaders of the Catholic Church and it's foundation, the only real parallel to that which occurs to Mormons is that found in these types of attacks worldwide. I'm giving my honest assessment of what it appears to be in regards to the arguments stated and the problems given. Maybe I'm being too honest in my thoughts here

You may have seen Anti-Catholic Material, but I'm pretty certain if he has, he is NOT utilizing it in an even basis. I KNOW the arguments and normally what is addressed and what is NOT addressed. When has he seen the Islamic Pledge against Christianity and can he state the 1000 historical facts found there in (and these are things normally accepted by Historians and known, rather than minute and miniscule things like the Kinderhood Plates you have brought up) I might think he has some problems that need to be addressed as a Catholic as he's basically committing apostasy (against the Catholic church) by bringing that document up? Yet, he goes and gets the equivalent and uses that against Mormons? This is not a hissy fit, it's actually being very nice. Using the CES letter as your starting point you basically (and your husband) did the equivalent of someone using the KKK manifestos as a key document for justifying racism and discrimination in our day, except in this case it is against the LDS church. That document is from an avowed Anti-Mormon with the objective of destroying the LDS church outright. It is utilized today as an anti-Mormon tool to destroy the LDS church. It is NOT used by Historians. It is not used as official Canon by any religion or church. It is solely an Anti-Mormon tool and normally is used to identify those who are Anti-Mormon or those who are their targets. It is used as an insult to the LDS community and LDS thought. Considering HOW offensive it is in regards to LDS, it is actually rather amazing how considerate people have been in this thread in that regard. I think it is because people accept that you are NOT trying to be offensive, but I do not think you understand just how offensive that document of some of it's arguments are or how insultive it is towards Mormons in some of the misrepresentations it presents. I'm willing to discuss it, as I hope that you are honestly asking questions. However, when you are insisting the LDS church is saying something that it does NOT say...it makes it difficult to actually discuss it. I'm not an expert (as I have stated repeatedly) in regards to the Kinderhook plates...but I have at LEAST LOOKED at the different references given in this thread and found the official LDS statements in regards to them. When you disregard this, it makes one wonder why you are disregarding the OFFICIAL LDS church and instead utilizing something that is NOT official to the LDS church as far as I can tell. I have tried to be as honest as possible with you. I am not here to mislead you or misdirect you, but I am telling you, someone who is using the CES letter is NOT being non-biased. It is one of the biggest tools used to destroy the LDS church today, and used in many ways as an insult to the church and it's members.

They don't use evidence of the Koran, they use historical evidence which, as I said, I am not going to go into here. It is historical evidence that is accepted worldwide currently as facts. It is FAR more proven as historical fact in this regard than just about anything in relation to most other religions. It is only after proving this via fact that they offer their religions as not being fallible in the same manner (which, at least in the case of Islam, a Catholic apologist that is aggressive could probably make a similar case against them). It includes VERY similar claims that you find against the LDS church ironically. No Catholic Priest normally addresses these unless it is either accept the historical facts as true, OR to do a Capernicus/Galileo which is to claim that all science and history is false except that endorsed by the Catholic church. Normally, they choose the option just to ignore it completely and not address it. This is why, when you get down to religions in this regard, it is not normally a matter of simply accepting facts from the opposing side, but that of FAITH. When getting information about a religion, you do NOT get it from those set upon the destruction of that church, but normally from the church itself. This applies to the Catholic Church just as much as the LDS church. I did not learn about the Catholic church from those who oppose the Catholic Church, I learned it directly from the Catholic Church and the various items which discuss it's canon and literature. I think there is a great deal of good in the Catholic church, but they have their own "CES" type of letter which I imagine you have not read, nor that your husband has heard of, or if he has, is not seriously even looking at. As I said, if he is using the CES letter, he is NOT being fair, nor unbiased in his approach. Let's use a less offensive way of elaborating this example. We landed a man on the Moon. There are people who say that we did not. They use all sorts of excuses and examples of how that was impossible. They take things WAAAAY out of proportion, take things out of context, and a multitude of other examples of why we could not land on the moon. When wondering about the history of man in space, do you look to these individuals and say...hey...this is correct? They take much of what they have directly from NASA accounts and history, but they way they present them is flawed. ONLY THOSE who are in this group that believe men never went to the moon even take them seriously. It is because their logic is so flawed and they take things so out of context and twist things that it's not really something to take seriously. Instead, you read the accounts of the moon, see the evidence presented (for example, looking through a telescope strong enough to see the flag's shadow on the moon) and other things. So, let's look at the evidence presented in this thread from what I've seen. 1. I checked my copy of Church History and as some have pointed out, my copy is NOT printed by the LDS church. It is NOT by the LDS church. It is published by Deseret Books. I do not know if yours states it is published by the LDS church, but mine shows that they are NOT. 2. A check of the official LDS position on this seems to indicate the following In which they appear to state it is actually NOT an account from Joseph Smith and in fact, except for that single item state... It states here that the comment you are saying is held up by the LDS church as being stated by Joseph Smith is in fact, NOT what the LDS church states on this matter at all. 3. Joseph stated his official translations in relation to the gospel and his revelations in regards to the actual Gospel as opposed to those of his opinions. These are currently found either canonized in the LDS scriptures, OR found as a part of them elsewhere. This supposed translation that Clayton talked about is NOWHERE to be found, had NEVER been affirmed by Joseph Smith or the LDS church I know. I am no expert on these plates, but at least attribute to the LDS individuals in the thread that they are NOT lying to you, they are stating the official LDS positions as found on the LDS site as has already been listed previously in this thread if you want to know what the LDS church officially has stated on this matter in our times. LDS link about Kinderhook plates What this is akin to is taking a document from an avowed group that has pledged to destroy the Catholic Church and using those documents as proof against what the Catholic Church states and what apparently history (at least from what I can tell in regards to these, once again, I AM NO EXPERT on this subject itself) shows as well.

This is not meant to be offensive...but point blank...if he is giving you the CES letter he is NOT being a fair man. That's like me utilizing the Koran and the Hadiths as well as current Islamic study texts in regards to Christianity and saying that this is being FAIR. If I did that it would be a distinctively anti-Christian affair. The CES letter takes things out of context, twists many items around, and was written expressely from an Anti-Mormon view, utilized expressely by Anti-Mormons to try to destroy the LDS church. To put it in context, it would be as if I utilized the arguments of the Islamic faith in Saudi Arabia against Christianity as the standard to what I should or should not believe in regards to the Catholic Church or Christianity. They take things out of context, relay things that sound reasonable and based on reality completely out of what it should be in relation to the Catholic church, and many other things. One could reasonably ask, why I would use something so Anti-Christian and Anti-Catholic in my study of Cathlicism when the real beliefs of Catholics can easily be found in things such as the Vatican II and other writings that more accurately portray Catholic belief and ideas. Utilizing Those are far more useful in understanding Catholicism and building Catholic faith than something that is utilized to destroy and condemn Catholics in a nation that is basically very avidly against them and the faith of Christians in general. If you decide not to join the LDS church...I would URGE YOU NOT TO ABANDON YOUR OWN. Even if you do not become Mormon, I would rather you stay strong in your own belief in Christ than to lose hope and faith in both to that degree. That my personal thoughts (and thus maybe, or probably not agreed upon by most here), but I would rather have a fellow believer, even if it is of another faith, than one that has had this make them lose their faith overall.

No offense, but I have NEVER seen a Catholic Priest actually show the real anti-Catholic messages. Most of these are based upon some pretty accurate historical facts. Many of these are not just anti-Catholic, but Anti-Christian spread by Islam and Hinduism. As Catholicism is one of the Older Christian religions, this is what these other religions can attack in order to invalidate it and validate their own religion. These guys are VERY EFFECTIVE in their own sphere of influence. Catholic priests may try to talk about the lesser issues, but when one gets into the major issues proclaimed world wide by other Religions (Islam and Hinduism), they flat out don't address these items that I've seen. Christianity and Catholicism is CRUSHED in most Islamic nations and Hindi nations because of this (This ALSO INCLUDES MORMONISM IN THE CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS DEALT THIS WAY). This is NOT something to attack Catholic with, but it is interesting that one claims that Catholic Priests do this. Normally the Catholic Apolgetics that I've known and discussed items with (and I am occasionally ONE of those, even if I'm not Catholic. Much of this is because an attack on Catholicism many times is an attack on Christianity itself) are dealing more with things directly from other Christian sects (normally the Protestant religions) rather than the accounts raised by other religions (non-Christian) that are trying to destroy the very foundations of Catholicism and thus Christianity itself. To answer the true anti-Catholic messages, well...most Catholics don't know about his type of stuff either. I've dealt with it in my travels to the Middle East, but thus far, when you boil everything down to the base arguments and basic ideas expressed, I have yet to meet a single Catholic priest who actually can refute the MAJOR anti-Catholic claims other than to say that the Catholic Church is real church. I'm not one who wishes to post anti-religion messages against any Christian religion, so I am NOT going to post these things here (plus, if anyone actually relied more on FACTS rather than faith...this stuff probably could make an atheist of someone and I do not want to lose my immortal soul because I convinced someone to lose their faith inadvertently). I am one that has actually argued in what some would see as the Catholic view of things in some of those instances. That said, from Facts I can prove to the satisfaction of ATHEISTS that the Book of Mormon is false, that the Bible is False, that Mormonism is a false religion and that Catholicism is False. In the end, even my arguments in that arena...it boils down to the same aspects for Catholicism as it does Mormonism, it is a matter of faith. There may be things that people can say or talk about in regards to historical "FACTS" that can refute each religion...at which point one needs to ask whether they are basing their faith on perceived FACTS...or FAITH. Perceived Facts or what many would call facts is something Historians do constantly. There are some that lose their faith in view of what we view as facts. There are others that see how we view history, and how religion is seen and find their own way between the two. In regards to the Kinderhook plates...it is not something I have studied in all that much depth. It seems many know far more than I do. I DO know the following is claimed 1. Joseph Smith translated ancient records. These have either been canonized or are available in the LDS printing of scriptures. 2. There is no Kinderhook translation included in the LDS scriptures (I know they are not there now, as far as I know...they have never been in them). Postulation...since we include all his translations that I know of in the LDS scriptures in some fashion...if he actually did a translation...why was it never included? 3. We KNOW that the Kinderhook plates are NOT considered canon nor anything close to it. It is not accepted by the LDS church...and apparently...never was. 4. This story may be found in LDS materials...but the translation, if there ever was one, appears to NEVER have been stated as a TRUE translation by Joseph Smith (there are those that are divine translation as proclaimed by him or other apostles, which are the ones which we have in the LDS scriptures...and those that are basically not considered so). My guess is that, even if Joseph Smith said something at the time, it is NOT nor ever was considered by him or anyone else something official or given by the Lord as revelation for us in our time. The same could be said of some of Brigham Young's opinions that have been stated as facts or even worse...as revelations to him or others such nonsense. I HAVE heard the story of the giant discovered and talked about by Joseph Smith. The STORY was DIFFERENT than the one told in this thread...which is interesting. This one was about another individual completely. 1. Is it possible that there were two giants discovered? 2. Is it possible that someone got confused and connected two different stories together? 3. Is it possible that this is similar to the History of Lucy Mack Smith and half of it is a fabrication put together by overzealous Mormons later on? (as some have suggested in this thread) I do not know, to be quite honest in any of those. In reference to #3, we have found out that some church histories were NOT first hand accounts or even accurate (and ironically, anti-Mormons who say they are zealous about seeking things out will eagerly use quotes that have been shown to be false in these histories...and not admit it while claiming they are doing research and such). We now have many of the original accounts (many located on the Joseph Smith papers online I believe), and have found that there was a massive editing type process by Mormons in the early church in regards to records where they would change what someone stated to be more in accordance with THEIR ideas and understanding rather than the actual words that individual stated or wrote. We find it in the above history I stated, we find it in the Journal of Discourses, and we find it in other writings from the early church until as late as at least the 1930s and sometimes later. I don't have your answer for you here. If you keep you Faith in Christ, even if you remain Catholic, that is important to me. I know that eventually most have to come to the choice of whether they will keep their FAITH, or whether they will let what the world perceives as FACTS dissuade them. This probably will hit anyone who extensively studies the things about certain religions...and it becomes a choice at times that one can see as one between what they think Fact are or their Faith. I did list Four things above in regards to the Kinderhook plates. I am NO expert on them. However, the fact that they (as far as I know) never have had a verified translation published and verified/vetted by Joseph Smith (unlike his other translations) is something that I find very remarkable and interesting about it, and why it probably does not affect my faith or opinion of Joseph Smith at all. It would be similar to me and books. I have written papers in regards to history. All of them that are published are out there with my name on it. It is possible someone could claim that I wrote something that was never published (for example, what I wrote here, today, except even this is still publically available). However, if I did not consent to it's publishing and was never made available to the public and I never personally made the claim to have written it, but one of my acquaintances at the university did...should that actually be considered something I officially did in my job as a Historian or even any of my academic endeavors? Personally, I'd be VERY upset at someone who tried to claim this...but that is Me. Once again, I do not know much about the Kinderhook plates. It is NOT something I have studied that extensively, nor am really interested in. However, it appears some have a LOT more information than I do on the subject. I hope that you find your answers and whether they are something that deters you from the LDS church and you remain Catholic, or you find your own way and answers and grow your testimony in the Book of Mormon, I hope we remain united in our Faith in the Lord.

Most of the people discussing this stuff are anti-Mormons who don't know what they are talking about in the first place. They will quote one or two Egyptian "scholars" that tend to think the way they do, but ignore the other 99.9%...which personally, I find a little infuriating. As a HISTORIAN, I have a very different slant. However, sometimes it's not even worth discussing it, as anti-Mormons normally are not going to listen to anyone but anti-Mormons. Any scholar, Mormon or non-Mormon that does not agree with their slant on things is normally considered...all sorts of bad names. They are NOT objective in their criticism, and normally thus, not in any of their analysis. They jump to conclusions. That said, I have seen copies of the facsimiles (in otherwords, more than what is on the pages of the LDS scriptures, these were actual copies of them including the additions made to them, which is more than 99.9% of those of the anti-Mormons can even claim, much less discuss in all honesty). I've also seen notes written by Joseph Smith in regards to the translation. The fragments themselves appear to be from a common funerary text that was utilized by Egyptians. It is common enough that we can even identify the figures and shapes of the various deities and other items in the facsimiles in our current historical understanding. They do not appear to correlate to what Joseph Smith identified them as on the surface. What is INTERESTING, is that Joseph Smith appears to have tried to write out an alphabet or other items in trying to translate...HOWEVER...these do NOT CORRELATE to the pages EITHER. This means that these words that Anti-Mormons sometimes try to point out as his translation...IS NOT his translation as it does not even correlate to what he wrote in the Pearl of Great Price (from what I can tell). In truth, they do not appear to have any correlation to show us how he did his interpretation, or whether his interpretation of the Pearl of Great Price came from anywhere on these fragments, or if there were other parts of them that they came from. Anything he did (including the words he has written on the margins) do not correlate to either the Pearl of Great Price that we have, OR the scroll (at least the portions I saw, I do not know about parts I did not see). They correlate to NEITHER. In regards to the names, an interesting thing about Egyptian is that we have only GUESSES as to how these names or words sounded. We got our original Egyptian from the integration of utilizing the Coptic of the Rosetta stone and transliterating it (I think that's the correct word) to Egyptian. Hence our Egyptian words are actually the Greek sounds that we estimate from the Greek...we do not actually know how ancient Egyptian sounded. Hence, the ONLY parallel we MIGHT have of Joseph's Translation in a connection between the manuscript and his Pearl of Great Price would be those facsimile's...in which if he had a clue of how Egyptian sounded, he most likely had NO idea how to spell it. On the otherhand, we may know how to spell words from a Greek perspective of Egyptian, but we do not know how they actually sounded. NOW, the following IS Bias on my part. It is taking the opposite slant of that of the Anti-Mormons, but it isn't necessarily what other apologists may think. It is a PERSONAL slant, meaning this is NOT a professional statement and would NOT go on any professional papers or even amateur papers on the subject. In otherwords, what I'm talking about now is NOT going to be an unbiased thing, but more similar to what the Anti-Mormons do when they get all biased. These are MY thoughts from It is possible that Joseph knew how the words of these characters sounded out the names of certain figures and tried to spell them out...which is where they seem so odd and out of place to us in regards to the Facsimile's. Another thing in regards to this, is that the Pearl of Great Price itself does not seem to correlate to anything we have in the texts...so this could mean several things. First, it could mean that the portions he took the translation from were not found. I tend to not favor this opinion. I tend to think that the texts he had were the common funerary texts...but that they had hidden meanings that were common then, but maybe not so understood by us. Prime examples of this today is when we have a funeral, we say dust to dust. This is a common phrase from Genesis 3:19, but many may not realize that this is what this phrase is from. Other common things we may use that have secondary meanings that we may not even realize are from the Bible would be things such as "spare the rod, spoil the child...or when we talk about the phrase the second coming or other common items straight from the Bible...but which we may not understand if we are not from our culture. The secondary thing that I think is that this is symbolic. That this was actually written by Abraham in by his own hand (though this would be more figuratively in our time) but as a parallel or type and shadow. This is done very commonly in both Egypt and other Ancient Societies. We see it among the Hebrews and Jews and know that they favored these. We see it with the Lord. He used stories often that seem common but had a higher or hidden meaning. We often cite these as parables (for example, the parable of the prodigal son, or the parable of the Good Samaritan). What is even more interesting on some of these parables is that they had a second hidden meaning, but then often had an even deeper hidden meaning, or tertiary meaning which only those who truly understood would understand. For example, the Good Samaritan is one that we commonly understand is talking about us and being good to others...however it also can be seen to have a deeper and more specific meaning directly relating to the LORD and his role in our lives. In this, I think that it is probable that Joseph saw the hidden meanings or hidden text in a common funerary text, and translated it to bring that out to the obvious forefront. What I also think is that there is a strong parallel between the criticisms of the Pearl of Great Price and criticisms of some of the works in the Bible. Of note, the book of Genesis and some parts of it differs greatly in some regards with other ancient texts that we have discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other items. AS Christians we accept the Book of Genesis as written, but from a scholarly viewpoint, the Book of Genesis would have about as much weight in reality as the Book of Abraham. In this we can see that the things of God are NOT necessarily the things of the World. This is my OWN thoughts on it though, not something that I'd ever utilize professionally (most likely it would be laughed out of the arena). More on a Historian type level rather than my personal views...so going back to the more non-biased view again... We do not have any evidence that really connects Joseph's translation to our current understanding of the common funerary texts we think he took his translation from. None of his notes really correlate to the Pearl of Great Price...but all that means is that whatever he was writing in the Margins, was NOT the actual translation he was making. They were notes of some sort, and at times they seem to correlate to some of the words he used, but they do not really correlate to his actual claimed Translation in the Pearl of Great Price. Because of this, we do NOT KNOW where he got the Pearl of Great Price from...academically speaking. It would appear that he did NOT get it from the fragments that we have now. In the Facsimile's, we have a pretty good guess as to what they appeared as from their similarities to other common texts of the same sort. His statements in regards to what they mean do not seem to correlate to what we understand them to be showing. This is the ONLY thing we have that we can show a big difference between what he wrote down, and what we currently understand them to be showing. That SAID...EVERYTHING WE THINK THEY SHOW IN THE FACSIMILE'S ARE STILL OUR BEST GUESS. That means, this is what we are assuming and guessing they mean. These documents are common but NOT THAT interesting to be honest. You have very few scholars that actually study this specific thing, and many of those are actually Mormon. The few that do not...well...we have some pretty good educated guesses...but they are that...educated guesses based upon other things that we have seen in relation to them. Anyone who thinks we have all the answers is kidding themselves...and whoever says that science knows everything about this is flat out lying. As a Historian, I probably would professionally trust more in what the science says, than a religious figure...speaking from a non-bias. We don't know everything there is about the facsimile's, and most don't actually care about them. It means a LOT MORE to Anti-Mormons than probably Mormons, and more to Mormons than the rest of the world. As such, only a few have even bothered to even look at them and try to decipher what they are. Thus far, those Egyptologists findings do NOT seem to correlate with what Joseph identified...but we do not know what tomorrow holds. Our entire understanding of them could change tomorrow (not necessarily to what Joseph thought they were, just to be clear, but our understanding of ancient cultures IS constantly changing as we discover new things). Because it is such a trivial thing...except for the Mormons and Anti-Mormons, not a Lot of people have studied, much less even seen, the surviving fragments (though I believe there are electronic copies of them on line today if someone actually cared about it...I think there's about exactly one to three non-Mormon Egyptologist that actually MIGHT, but most are concerned with things they actually can access more easily and are less common in appearance). AS for the Book of Abraham itself, we have nothing currently that connects what Joseph called the Book of Abraham and the texts we think he took it from. In the fragments, nothing shows the actual translation there. We have some words, but they do not follow as a translation (more like he was trying to create some sort of lexicon or something instead). They do not seem to correlate with the actual text there either...from what I can tell. This means, we do not KNOW where Joseph got the Book of Abraham from. It does NOT appear to have come from the fragments that we possess. The Anti-Mormons use this to jump to a conclusion (without really evidence to back it up) try to claim he made it up, but we have no evidence of WHERE he got it from. That could be an explanation, but there could be many other explanations as well. Currently, due to lack of evidence, no one really knows where it came from...from a scholarly viewpoint. Edit: Sorry for the long reply, but this is about as comprehensive in a very short brief (yes, this is a short brief on a very complicated subject)...and as many already know...I am long winded.

Yes, I believe I addressed that, and that is the crux of what I stated. However, that verse in itself can be read in various ways. One, in how I utilized it to demonstrate the two commandments that I believe are exactly how you interpret them...but one cannot say that theirs is the ONLY way to interpret it. As such, it is not conclusive evidence. It can also be read, starting in verse 22 that if Adam had not fallen he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. Eve, on the otherhand, would have been cast out. As she was cast out, and Adam remaining in the Garden, nothing would have changed. No children would have been able to come about. Because he fell, he remained with Eve. A reading of it in this way indicates that Adam KNEW that if he did not fall, there would be no children. Thus, he chose to partake of the fruit after Eve, because he realized that he must do so if Men might be...as verse 25 infers. This is probably just as valid an interpretation as the one that indicates that there were conflicting commandments. I think the strongest strength of using this set of verses if found in verse 23. In this, it utilizes the words they, rather than he, and indicates that when it is speaking of Adam, it is speaking of Adam and Eve collectively rather than singularly. However, it does not negate the other interpretation, merely strengthens the interpretation you favor that is of the idea that they were in a state of innocence in the garden and were unable to have children in the state that they existed in the Garden. Unfortunately, both interpretations (and others) can all be utilized or seen in those verses. I'm not arguing they are the correct interpretation, but I cannot say that mine is right and theirs is wrong conclusively, as there is not conclusive evidence. You could say it is similar to the theory of evolution...a Non-Religious idea. In this, we have bones that we can trace (and now, DNA evidence even) the history of men and the status of evolution. We have the slow changes that evolved through time. One could say, the hundreds of pieces of evidence showing this evolution is all circumstance, but the strength of it shows that the DNA and skeletal evidence supports the scientific theories of evolution...at least for the past 50-60 thousand years. Of course, this is also up to one's interpretation. One could say that each step that they uncovered are related species, but are NOT part of an evolutionary chain from a kind of species of Ape to Mankind. There are also alternate explanations of evolution, or even how men were created or came to be. In this, there is no conclusive evidence either, despite what one side or the other may say about the matter. The evidence in both these instances can be used to support multiple ideas and multiple theories. We can think as we desire, and we can express our opinions (as I did above, and as I expressed as opposing opinion that interprets the same scripture completely differently in this post).

This depends on your interpretation of the Bible in some instances. There are those that believe it was impossible for Adam and Eve to have children while in the state that they were in while in the Garden of Eden. As such, it was impossible for them to actually obey the Lord to have children. Thus, comes the great half-lies of the adversary. They need to eat of the tree of good and evil. The quandary, if they do so, they will be able to have children, if they choose not to, then they are unable to obey one of the lord's commands. Why would the Lord do such a thing? Because it creates a win/win situation. No matter which path they choose or what way they go, the plan goes forth. Of course, we have NO evidence that this is the case (some use the verse in the Book of Mormon which talks about Eve discussing children and the fall...but that in theory could also be discussing the idea that Adam choose to go with her or some other explanation one may come up with) conclusively, but it is a situation some have theorized upon. Another one may deal with the Atonement. The Lord had done nothing to merit punishment except for being born of Adam. He was sinless. As per the Laws of the Father, he could not be punished for any sins. However, we know in the Garden that he took upon himself the sins of the world...and hence, we see that he was punished. This is an apparent conflict of the Law vs. the Law. It had been proclaimed in the Law already that he would be the Messiah and as such, this would occur. This is also a conflict of the Law. It was necessary, in order for men to be saved.

I view it slightly differently in regards to some of the other Protestant religions. Think about our own thoughts on the afterlife. Upon death we actually gain a reward of sorts depending on whether we have been righteous or wicked. Those who are righteous (and thus we would assume those who believe in the Lord most likely) go to one place, while those who were wicked or directly rejected the Lord or his gospel may go to another. We call these places spirit prison and spirit paradise. Many religions stop at this point. They believe that we die and continue on as spirits. They do not go on into a physical resurrection where the physical body and the spirit are reunited as one. In this light, one could say they are pretty similar to our own belief. They believe that once you die and are a spirit, you go to heaven (or what we may say is spirit paradise) or hell (or what we call spirit prison). In fact, many of the biblical verses (such as the Lord going and teaching the spirits in prison) are utilized in their theology of heaven and hell. I also agree with your idea, though, that as we gain greater light and knowledge, our interpretations change. In this, I would say that those Protestants who believe in a heaven and hell like that are not wrong, but we have expanded upon what they believe. We believe that beyond this heaven (spirit paradise) or paradise or Hell (spirit prison) is a judgment where the we gain a resurrected physical body and go onto another reward...either greater or lesser. Even here, in some ways, the Protestant Christian belief still has elements that we believe. They do not believe in the Celestial glory as we do, but instead believe that those who go to heaven will be able to be where the Lord is. This is a pretty apt description of the Terrestrial Kingdom, for we know that the Lord will be able to visit there and they will be able to be in his physical presence. in that, I'd say that many of the beliefs of Protestants are actually what we believe, the difference is that with that greater light and knowledge we expand upon it (to a point and into areas which they do NOT believe and most probably reject outright). This is, as you say, most probably due to the assumptions we make when we have less light and knowledge.

My personal opinion is that what we do in the pre-existence directly impacts our conditions in this life. How this occurs, we are not certain, but have some ideas. I think that most likely, we had a hand in determining what condition we would arrive in this life in, and what our obstacles and tests would be. WE, were the ones that chose what our life would entail and be like. I think this makes it a LOT easier at judgement to determine who would have accepted the gospel in this life with all their heart if they had been given the chance. They already made choices in the previous life. For some, they may have chosen to not be offered the gospel on purpose, that they would rather make other choices in their life here on earth. It was obvious already that they had made this choice. Others probably wanted to come and receive the gospel in this life, but there was a task that someone go before hand. Someone had to be the genealogical link from the past to the present and so they agreed to live in a time when the church did not exist upon the promise that their ancestors who were in the church would find their ancestors and do their work. There are probably as many variables and choices in the pre-existence of what and why we came where we are in this life as there are people. In some instances it is probable that we agreed with a great friend that they would come down in a situation that was not so great for them. It was to try to help another person, their friend, learn a lesson such as compassion, humility, or some other item which they needed to learn and it would be easier to learn in this life than as a spirit. Others probably saw that they wanted to learn a great deal of stuff and chose many various trials to help increase their understanding and spiritual growth in this life. They chose a VERY tough earth life, knowing it is a brief moment compared to eternity, and through this challenge could learn more in that instant than many eons in spirit. This may account for many who are born into tragic circumstances in this life. There were probably others who said they didn't want so many tests, that they wanted an easier life and choose that direction for their life here. I've also heard (and I actually believe it though many do not feel that this is correct today) that some of the most valiant spirits in heaven would be tempted beyond what they were able in this life. As such, they are sent to gain bodies, to experience mortality, but they are disabled in some ways so that they are held above what the Adversary can tempt. Thus, though they are here, the adversary is unable to truly touch them as they are cleansed by the atonement in the state that they are. This may also apply to little children that die. It is an idea that they were so great in heaven, that the adversary would put so much pressure to destroy them, that they are spared this and taken. There are many ideas out there on this, what I said above is my PERSONAL opinion. As I said, I think our choices in the pre-existence are directly related to where we are in this life, and what we experience. This does not mean all those born into tragic situations are "earned" as we would put it, but, in my opinion, more related to our various choices in the pre-existence. As I also stated, this means that it may be related to one simply choosing it because they had no concerns for certain items, or it could mean they came into those situations to learn themselves, or it could be that they chose in hopes that they might be able to help a friend to learn valuable lessons in this life.

I am a Historian which is normally something of a craft more than a hard science. As such, my understanding of the Big Bang may be flawed...but here it is. Originally, there was a balance of matter, between matter and anti-matter. These items dwelt together...but where they existed our laws were not applicable. There was no time, there was no space... As such, we can say it was something infinitesimally small. Ironically, that means we could also say it was infinitesimally large. There was no measurement to measure it as we understand it. Then, for a reason we do not know why (but some scientists have hypothesized about it, which I might go into below), the matter and anti-matter collided with each other. They basically obliterated themselves out. In an instant, which is shorter than any measurement as there was no time to measure it...they collided and suddenly our universe was born. Exploding outwards from a single point of existence, our existence suddenly came forth. Suddenly where there was no time and space, there was time and space. Space started small, but as it exploded outwards, it increased in size, and time changed accordingly as space changed. They are connected and hence as one changed, the other changed. This is why we call it the big Bang. We then had very small particles of matter...not even protons or atoms...but sub-atomic energy. Eventually we had x-rays and other items which eventually came together to form matter as we understand it. There is a huge amount of space, with the surviving matter in between (and in theory, surviving anti-matter? as well?). Over time, this matter under the forces of gravity attracted other matter and combined into stars...and larger pieces of matter. Most of it was hydrogen, and so as hydrogen combined, and got massive enough, stars were formed which under their pressures and energies created other elements such as helium, iron, and so forth. These eventually exploded, and this denser and heavier matter was attracted via gravity and planets were formed. And here we are. Hence, the Big Bang didn't come out of non-existent material, but all the material in the universe we have currently was with in it. Some theories say that the universe is still expanding and that there is a LOT of hydrogen (and other matter which we cannot see, as it is not giving off light or reflecting it) out there that holds it together. Others say that it is, or eventually will contract, and will continue to contract until finally it all combines down again to where it is a single point in the universe...and then nothing where time and space do not exist...and then the entire process repeats itself. That this is a continuous process of expansion and contraction. I have never heard of any Big Bang theory that says that it was ex-nihilo...in fact, it is the exact opposite, that all matter previously existed and will continue to exist in our universe.