SeattleTruthSeeker

And this is the point I attempt to make. It is a cliche of convenience. When someone disagrees and is outside the faith (or established organization) then it doesn't matter if what they present in the discussion is substantiated and evidentiary the card pulled out is "anti" whatever your particular flavor is. This is not just within the LDS Realm, or even the religious realm. "Anti" is not a negative term. For instance, those who claim Pro-Choice are nothing more than those who are advocates for Pro-Abortion. Mormon's (among mainstream Christianity) is "Anti-Abortion" in that one is against the Pro-Abortion and Pro-Abortion Agenda. Even in the political arena, there has seemed to arise an "Anti-Bush Administration" movement. "Anti-War" plagued those who were contemparies of the Vietnam War and now against the Iraq War. Certain belief systems (Take for instance the Word of Wisdom) is anti in its basic definition and essence. So, being "Anti" is not merely something that conjures up negative, despiteful, misconception and dishonest dialogue, but a particular position one takes against another position. Another way of looking at this is with the movement of the Homosexual movement. It can be broken down with Those who are Pro-Homosexuality, making their stance and agenda "Anti-Heterosexual" and those who are Pro-Heterosexual are "Anti-Homosexual". In this sense, one who is Pro-Mormon is essential Anti-Mainstream Christian. One who is Pro-Orthodox and Mainstream Christian is, in essence, Anti-Mormon. Yet, going back to the original point of discussion, the fact is, most members of the LDS church erroneously come to the conclusion that when someone disagrees and questions the validity of doctrines and examines are called out as "anti-mormons" and then are demeaned, ridiculed and treated with disrespect. This is where I have the issue with the term "Anti-Mormon". It is the abuse of the term that I am against

I have been to Granite Falls and Arlington area.... Bellingham is nice too lol....... I would agree to some extent with you on that. The part I would disagree is that the purpose and mission of any religion is to dissuade current and potential members in rethinking and reexamining their set beliefs and faith. Provide information to the investigator that is not provided from the particular religion. Within the LDS Religion, it is every member that is a missionary. "Why is the Mormon Church considered the only true church of God?" Simple Answer: Because there was an apostasy of the original primitive first century christian church and we are a Restored Gospel of God's true teachings and we believe in modern day revelation. In a sense this statement is making the LDS Church superior to that of a protestant, evangelical and/or catholic faith. In this sense, it could be construed as an LDS being "Anti-Christian" in a sense. That is why I believe we ought to be careful and learn to discern those who are aggressive just because they are miserable from those who are true and sincere in their convictions and stance.

I used to have that book and lost it somehow and have been trying to find it...

What do you mean by "tearing down.." as being equated with becoming "Anti"? From what I am gathering you are attempting to mean is that any person or individual that may criticize, scrutinize and pose questions that are of a sincere but examinatory nature being construed as "tearing down" and thus being "Anti". If this is the case then LDS Apologist are essentially "Anti-Christian" in that there is a sense of critically examining certain doctrines and teachings of Creedal christianity that LDS members disagree with. I am sure that this is something that most LDS Apologist and Members would say "now wait a minute." Now, I can understand that those who blatantly disrespectfully have strong reasons to disagree and use tactics that are dishonest, negative and blatantly accusatory would earn the term "Anti". I think the term "Anti-Mormon" has become more of a terminology that is abused than appropriately used.

From what I have gathered, Cyril of Jerusalem was not a pleasent person to begin with, but a very educated and acedemic leveled individual who became a monk and a theologian. My curiousity is of the washing and anointing aspect described here and how it may or may not relate to the temple washing and anointing.

I have been looking for this information for the longest time. I had some years ago had a book about Early Christian teachings and practices (non lds related) and could not remember the title of the book. In this book, there was porported to be an evidence of an Early Christian baptismal rite of the Euchemen where they were washed and anointed with oil in an ordinance and ritualistic manner that was not just a mere baptism of immersion. I have just recently come across this and found the information contained in Cyril of Jerusalem. Chapter IV.—Ceremonies of Baptism and Chrism. If this has any similarities to that of Temple Endowment ceremonies, then I have more reasons to reconsider the LDS Faith as being what it claims to be. I am interested in thoughts and discussions on this and how this is similar or different from the LDS Perspective. Here is the most interesting part of this: First ye entered into the outer chamber of the Baptistery, and there facing towards the West (as the region of darkness) ye heard the command to stretch forth your hand, and as in the presence of Satan to renounce him167167 Myst. i. § 2..” For the formula of renunciation in the Apostolical Constitutions, see note 2 on Mystag. i. § 8; it corresponds closely with Cyril’s, except that this is addressed to Satan as if personally present: “ I renounce thee, Satan 168168 § 4., and all thy works169169 § 5., and all thy pomp170170 § 6., and all thy worship171171 § 8..” § 2. Profession of Faith. After the renunciation of Satan the Candidate immediately turned to the East and said, “And I associate myself (συντάσσομαι ) with Christ.” Cyril does not give the words, but seems to allude to the custom, when he speaks of the Candidates “turning from the West to the East, the place of light172172 § 9, note 3..” Then, still facing the East, the Candidate was bidden to say, “I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one Baptism of repentance173173 Compare xviii. 22: “One Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”.” We have seen that in Cat. xviii. 22, 32, Cyril intimated to his Candidates that they would be required to profess publicly the Creed which he had delivered to them and which they had repeated after him. This public profession of faith (῾Ομολογία, “Redditio Symboli”) was in some Churches made on Holy Thursday, according to Canon 46 of the Synod of Laodicea: “Those to be baptized must learn the Creed by heart, and recite it to the Bishop or xxxPresbyters on the fifth day of the week.” But in the Apostolic Constitutions, c. xli., Candidate is required to recite the whole Creed immediately after the Renunciation: “And after his renunciation let him in his consociation (συντασσόμενος) say: ‘And I associate myself to Christ, and believe and am baptized into One Unbegotten Being, the Only True God Almighty, the Father of Christ,.…and into the Lord Jesus Christ.…and I am baptized into the Holy Ghost,.…into the resurrection of the flesh, and into the remission of sins, and into the kingdom of heaven, and into the life of the world to come.’ And after this vow he comes in order to the anointing with oil.” Such appears to have been the custom of the Eastern Churches in general and of Jerusalem in Cyril’s time, although he mentions only those articles of the Creed which were commonly held to be indispensable to a valid profession of Christian belief. Dr. Swainson174174 Creeds of the Church, p. 17. represents the matter somewhat differently: “When we come to the profession of his own personal faith which was made at Jerusalem by the Candidate for Baptism, we find that this was far briefer not only than the collection of ‘necessary things’ (Cat. iv.), but also than the Creed of the Church of Jerusalem.” Then after quoting the short form in Cyril, Myst. i. § 9, “I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one Baptism of repentance,” Dr. Swainson adds: “The words are clear and definite. In these words each answered the question of which we read elsewhere, ‘Did he believe in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?’ In this his reply the Candidate ‘confessed’ what Cyril called ‘the saving confession.’” It is evident that two separate parts of the Baptismal Service are here confused: the question to which Dr. Swainson alludes, and “the saving confession” of which Cyril speaks in Mystag. ii. § 4, belong, as we shall presently see, to a later stage of the ceremony. § 3. First Unction. On passing from the outer to the inner chamber of the Baptistery, the Candidate who had made his renunciation and profession barefoot and wearing his tunic (Χιτών)175175 Pseudo-Dionysius Areopag. Eccl. Hierarch. iii. only, now put off this inner garment also, as an emblem of putting off the man with his deeds176176 Mystag. ii. § 2.. A further significance is ascribed by Cyril to this unclothing of Candidate, as being an imitation both of Christ, who hung naked177177 This passage has recently (1891) acquired a special interest from the controversy concerning Mr. Calderon’s picture, representing St. Elisabeth of Hungary as kneeling naked before the altar. The word “naked” (γυμνός, nudus) is not in itself decisive, but here in St. Cyril’s account of Baptism absolute nakedness seems to be implied; for though women sometimes wore an under-tunic (χιτώνιον), men had nothing beneath the tunic proper (χιτών), which is here said to be put off. According to Theophylact, on Matt. v. 40, the chiton was properly τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν λεγόμενον ὑποκάμισοε. See Dictionary of Biblical Antiquities, “Baptism,” § 48. on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and the powers, and “of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed.” “Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs your head to your feet178178 Ib. § 3..” The consecration of the “exorcised oil” is thus described179179 Const. Apost. vii. c. 42.: “Now this is blessed by the chief-priest for the remission of sins, and the first preparation for Baptism. For he calls thus upon the Unbegotten God, the Father of Christ, the King of all sensible and intelligent natures, that He would sanctify the oil in the name of the Lord Jesus, and impart to it spiritual grace and efficacious strength, the remission of sins, and the first preparation for the confession of Baptism, that so the Candidate for Baptism, when he is anointed may be freed from all ungodliness, and may become worthy of initiation, according to the command of the Only-begotten.” Bingham’s observation, that Cyril describes this first unction as used “between the renunciation and the confession180180 Ant. XI. c. 9, § 1.” is not quite accurate: in fact it came between two confessions, the one made, as we have seen, immediately after the renunciation in the outer xxxichamber, the other at the very time of immersion. Chrysostom181181 Ephes. i. Hom. i. § 3. clearly distinguishes two Confessions, but places one before Baptism, and the other after: “What can be more beautiful than the words by which we renounce the devil? Or those by which we associate ourselves with Christ? Than that confession which comes before the washing? Or that which comes after the washing?” This first unction is not mentioned by Tertullian, nor in any genuine work of Justin Martyr, but in the Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, a work which though still early is regarded as certainly spurious, we find the question put, “Why are we first anointed with oil, and then, having performed the before-mentioned symbolic acts in the Laver, are afterwards sealed with the ointment, and do not regard this as done in opposition to what took place in our Lord’s case, who was first anointed with ointment and then suffered182182 Quæstio 137.?” And in the answer it is stated that “We are anointed with the simple oil that we may be made Christs (Χριστοί), but with the ointment in remembrance of our Saviour Christ, who regarded the anointing with ointment as His burial, and called us to the fellowship of His own sufferings and glory, typically in the present life but truly in the life to come.” Cyril attributes to this “exorcised oil” the same power as to Exorcism itself, “not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sin, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one183183 Mystag. ii. § 3..” According to the directions concerning this first unction in the Apostolical Constitutions184184 Lib. iii. c. 15., the Bishop was first to anoint the head only, the anointing of the whole body being then completed by the Deacon or Deaconess. § 4. Baptism. After this anointing the Candidates were “led by the hand to the sacred pool of Holy Baptism185185 Mystag. ii. § 4..” This pool (κολυμβήθρα) was supplied with water raised from the reservoirs, of which, as we shall see, the Bordeaux Pilgrim speaks in his description of the Basilica. As great multitudes both of men and women were baptized at the special seasons, the Baptisteries were large buildings outside the Church, such as the Baptistery of the Lateran, said to have been originally built by Constantine. The font itself also was large enough for several persons to be baptized at the same time. In some places the men were baptized first, and then the women: in others different parts of the Baptistery were assigned to them, and curtains were hung across the Font itself186186 Bingham, Ant. VIII. c. 7, § 2; XI. c. 11, § 3.. The consecration of the water is not mentioned in the Didache or Justin Martyr; but Tertullian thus describes its effect: “The waters after invocation of God acquire the sacramental power of sanctification; for immediately the Spirit comes down from heaven upon the waters, and rests upon them, sanctifying them from Himself, and they being thus sanctified imbibe a power of sanctifying187187 De Baptismo, c. iv..” In the prayer of consecration given in the Apostolic Constitutions the Bishop is directed first to offer adoration and thanksgiving to the Father and Son, and then to call upon the Father and say: “Look down from heaven, and sanctify this water, and give it grace and power, that so he that is to be baptized, according to the command of Thy Christ, may be crucified with Him, and may die with Him, and may be buried with Him, and may rise with Him to the adoption which is in Him, that he may be dead to sin, and live to righteousness188188 VII. c. 43..” Cyril ascribes the like effect to the consecration of the water, as imparting to it a new power of holiness by “the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ, and of the Father189189 Cat. iii. § 3. See also Introduction, ch. vi. § 2..” While standing in the water the Candidate made what Cyril calls “the saving conxxxiifession190190 Mystag. ii. § 4..” The whole Creed having been already recited (Redditio Symboli) in the outer chamber immediately after the Renunciation, a short form was now employed containing only the necessary declaration of faith in the Holy Trinity, and in the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins. § 5. Trine Immersion. This short confession appears to have been ‘made by way of question and answer thrice repeated. “Thou wast asked, Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? Thou saidst, I believe, and dippedst thyself, that is, wast buried. Again thou wast asked, Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His Cross? Thou saidst, I believe, and dippedst thyself; therefore thou wast buried with Christ also: for he who is buried with Christ, rises again with Christ. A third time thou wast asked, Dost thou believe also in the Holy Ghost? Thou saidst, I believe, a third time thou dippedst thyself; that the threefold confession might absolve the manifold fault of thy former life191191 Pseudo-Ambros. de Sacramentis, II. c. 7..” But Cyril of Alexandria, as quoted by Bingham192192 Ant. XI. c. 7, § 11., “makes these answers not only to be a confession of the three Persons of the Trinity, but a triple confession of Christ; which implies a repetition of the Creed (the shortened form?) three times over.” In which of these ways the threefold interrogation (“usitata et legitima verba interrogationis”) was made at Jerusalem, is not quite certain from Cyril’s words: “Each was asked, Dost thou believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and ye made that saving confession, and went down thrice into the water193193 Mystag. iii. § 4..” The Didaché194194 Cap. vii. enjoins baptism simply into the names of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Justin Martyr195195 Apolog. I. c. adds a few words only to the names “of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit;” and Tertullian196196 De Baptismo, c. vi. observes that “Wherever there are three, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is the Church, which is a body of three.” The trine immersion had reference not only to the Trinity, but was also a symbol of the three days of our Saviour’s burial197197 Mystag. ii. § 4, note 3.. The use of the three Holy Names was made more strictly indispensable as heresies were multiplied: thus the 49th Apostolic Canon, which, Hefele says, “must be reckoned among the most ancient Canons of the Church,” orders that “If any Bishop or Presbyter does not baptize, according to the Lord’s command, into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but into three Beings without beginning, or into three Sons, or three Comforters, he shall be deprived.” We see here that the power of administering Baptism was not restricted to the Bishop: and Cyril speaks of it as possessed by “Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons,” assigning as the reason the great increase of believers, “for the grace is everywhere, in villages and in cities, on them of low as on them of high degree, on bondsmen and on freemen198198 Cat. xvii. 35..” Thus the rule of Ignatius199199 Ad Smyrn. c. viii., that “it is not lawful either to baptize or to hold a love-feast apart from the Bishop (χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου),” must be understood to mean “without the authority and permission of the Bishop.” Of certain minor ceremonies connected with Baptism, such as the “Kiss of peace,” and the taste of milk and honey administered to the neophyte200200 Bingham, Ant. XII. c. 4, §§ 5, 6., no mention is made by Cyril. § 6. Chrism. The custom of anointing the baptized with consecrated ointment is regarded by Cyril as a sacramental act representing the anointing of Jesus by the Spirit at His Baptism. “As the Holy Ghost in substance lighted on Him, like resting upon like, so, after you had come up from the pool of the sacred waters, there was given to you an unction the counterpart (τὸ ἀντίτυπον) of that wherewith He was anointed, and this is the Holy Ghost201201 Mystag. iii. § 1..” As “He was anointed with a spiritual oil of gladness, that is with the Holy Ghost, xxxiiicalled oil of gladness, because He is the author of spiritual gladness, so ye were anointed with ointment, and made partakers and fellows of the Christ202202 Mystag. iii. § 2..” The ceremony was very ancient: there is probably a reference to it in the words of Theophilus of Antioch203203 Ad Autolycum, i. (c. a.d. 170): “We are called Christians, because we are anointed with the oil of God.” Tertullian, a little later, after speaking of Baptism, says: “Immediately on coming out of the Laver we are thoroughly anointed with a consecrated unction204204 De Bapt. c. 7.;” and again, “After that, the hand is laid upon us in benediction, invoking and inviting the Holy Ghost205205 Ib. c. 8..” In another passage206206 De Resurr. Carnis, c. 8. he mentions also the sign of the Cross: “The flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated, the flesh is signed [with the Cross] that the soul also may be guarded; the flesh is overshadowed by imposition of the hand, that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit.” The consecration of the ointment is compared by Cyril to the consecration of the Eucharist; after the invocation of the Holy Ghost it is no longer simple or common ointment, but a gift (Χάρισμα) of Christ, and by the presence of the Holy Ghost is able to impart of His Divine Nature. And this ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead, and thy other organs of sense207207 Ib. § 3..” The ears, nostrils, and breast were each to be anointed, and Cyril explains the symbolical meaning in each case by appropriate passages of Scripture208208 Myst. iii. § 4.. The consecration of the chrism could be performed by none but the Bishop, and he alone could anoint the forehead209209 Apost. Const. iii. § 16: “Let the Bishop anoint those that are baptized with ointment (μύρῳ).”, Presbyters being allowed to anoint the breast, but only with chrism received from the Bishop210210 See the authorities in Bingham, Ant. xii. c. 2, §§ 1, 2.. The several ceremonies are thus explained in the Apostolical Constitutions211211 iii. 17.: “This baptism is given into the death of Jesus: the water is instead of the burial, and the oil instead of the Holy Ghost; the seal instead of the Cross; the ointment is the confirmation of the Confession212212 Const. Apost. vii. c. 22..” In like manner the chrism is explained again, “The ointment is the seal of the covenants213213 Ib. vii. c. 43. Cf. Cat. iii. 17.,” that is, both of God’s promises, and of the Baptismal vows. The members to be anointed were not the same in all Churches, but everywhere the chief ceremony was the anointing of the forehead with the sign of the Cross. This is what Cyril calls “the Royal Sign214214 Cat. iv. § 14.,” and “the Royal Seal to be borne upon the forehead of Christ’s soldiers215215 Ib. xii. § 8.,” and again, “The Seal of the fellowship of the Holy Ghost216216 Ib. xviii. 33..” These last were probably the very words pronounced by the Bishop in making the sign of the Cross on the forehead, for by Canon 7 of the Second General Council at Antioch (381), converts from heretical sects were to be “sealed or anointed with the holy ointment on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears. And in sealing them we say, ‘The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.’” An additional prayer to be said by the Bishop is given in the Apostolical Constitutions217217 vii. c. 44.: “O Lord God, the Unbegotten, who hast no Lord, who art Lord of all, who madest the odour of the knowledge of the Gospel to go forth among all nations, grant also now that this ointment may be efficacious upon him that is baptized (βαπτιζομένῳ), that the sweet odour of thy Christ may remain firm and stable in him, and that having died with Him, he may arise and live with Him.” The whole ceremony was called by the Greeks “Chrism,” the “Unction” being regarded by them as the chief part. In the Latin Church the name Confirmation is of later date, and indicates that greater importance was then attached to the “Laying on of Hands” with prayer. xxxivAnother ceremony, not alluded to by Cyril, was the saying of the Lord’s Prayer by the neophyte, standing up, and facing towards the East218218 Const. Apost. vii. c. 44., after which he was also to pray, “O God Almighty, the Father of Thy Christ, Thine Only-begotten Son, give me a body undefiled, a clean heart, a watchful mind, an unerring knowledge, the influence (ἐπιφοίτησιν) of the Holy Ghost for attainment and full assurance of the truth, through Thy Christ, by whom be glory to Thee in the Holy Ghost for ever. Amen.” It appears that the Baptismal ordinance here is very involved and very ritualistic than what modern Christians and Mormon's relegate it to. What are your thoughts on this and what similarities and differences does this have in the Temple Ordinances?

Here are a couple of questions I have after reading your post. 1) What do you mean by this? Essentially, what is it you are saying and what is the meaning and intent behind this particular post and reasoning of what you have embraced as "doctrine" and "truth". This is so that not only I, but others have a clearer understanding of where you are coming from and why. 2) How did you come to this conclusion? Essentially, what brought you over to this particular doctrine, understanding, teaching and what you consider to be doctrine? Curious to know how such a conclusion is arrived to, the process involved, study references etc. Thank you kindly,

The vision of the tree of life is one of the more profound aspects contained within the book of Mormon. There is nothing that pales in comparison to it. It is interesting that the Mayan Culture centers their religious belief around the Ceba Tree.

Thinking about this, the way I believe and have come to understand the true heart of scripture is this: It isn't after all that we can do that we are then saved and the atonement is applied to us, but it is the Atonement that empowers us to do that which we can never be able to do. It is granted by God himself to give us the strength, the power, the agility, the true nature to accomplish and walk according to His will in obedience. Not after all we can do, but before we can do anything.

I am more of the Reformed Theologian type. Currently, I am listening to the "Doctrines of Grace" by John McArthur on Grace To You. It is a series of sermons which discuss the more hard core doctrines of Eternal Election, Perseverance of the Saints and the nature and purpose of the atonement. I have found that when talking about reformed theology with members, they seemed to not understand what I am talking about. For those who are not familiar with Reformed Theology (this is for introductory purposes and not in comparative reasoning) it is the doctrines where the Atonement of Christ is sufficient to save "all" of mankind but only Efficiently effective to save those whom God calls out of mortal men. Such scriptures are those of Romans 1-11 (specifically Romans 3-8 and Romans 9, John 6). In such, there are two calls to repentance. The outer call where we are called to preach the redemption of Christ and the need for a Redeemer. The second being the inner call to repentance where it is the Holy Spirit that actually convicts sinful man of his true nature and births within him the power to come to God with humble realization that he stands deserving of condemnation and the wrath of God. The true nature of Born again is that which is spiritually born of God and not of Man's own will. It is the empowerment that Begins with God and completed by God, the faith that was began in the heart of man is sustained by God himself. It is the process in scripture known as Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification. Justification being the process that happens at the point of Saving Grace. Sanctification is a process where we grow in our faith. While we may stumble, while we may give into the temptations of the Adversary (some minor, some grievous) we are not outside of God's Grace and we come to him for repentence, forgiveness, and strength. Glorification being the last when after all is said and done, we enter into the true nature of Heavenly realm and reality. It is one of the most pure doctrines of True Grace and Atonement that I have found to be scripturally sound and the only corruption comes from those who do not truly understand such doctrines and teachings.

I don't think there is ever a mention of such a concept in the Coptic Version of Enoch or the Syrac Version of Enoch.

Books that I have enjoyed. The Great Angel: A study of Israel's Second God. The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwahisms to Judaisms - Edited by Diana Vikander Edelman God Against the Gods: The History of the War between Monotheism and Polytheism by Jonathan Kirsch Classic Christian Theology and Sermons: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God (Sermon given by Johnathan Edwards). The Pilgrim's Progress (Very good classic literature) by John Bunyan The Parausia: A study of the Coming of Christ by James Stuart Russell (I think that is the title - a very good historical perspective on a forgotten doctrine of Christianity). The Last Days according to Jesus - R.C. Sproul (Reformed Theologian). Bondage of the will - Martin Luther. City of God by St. Augustine The Mutulation of Mark's Gospel by N. Clayton Croy. The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration by Bruce Metzger (one of the best Biblical Scholars pertaining to New Testament Studies - and if you are wanting to, acquire the Greek New Testament with the Textual Variants to the Greek New Testament - It is all greek with all the textual variants in a companion volume) I hope this helps.

Very True and a very good valid point. Personal attacks and character assassinations (which I am guilty of myself at times) is not the best way to engage in any good form of discussion.

Wrestling with various idealogies and attempting to approach certain things with an open mind and objective manner can sometimes be difficult. This may be because of certain things we have incorporated and have come to believe and when change comes, we have a hard time assimilate new information and change. While not making any excuse for any "Anti-Mormon" reasoning, the issue is much more deeper than what some think it to be. It is always said, the best defense is the a good offense. Sometimes this is good, other times this is not so good. In saying this, there are some good honest questions from those who are called "critics" of the LDS Faith (much like there are Members of the Church who are "Critics" of say Calvinism, or any other faucet of Christianity). Some of the more objective and honest questions center around Archaeology support for the Bible. Biblical Archaeology is a more seasoned given scientific field. It is from Biblical Archaeology that we have a firm understanding of the nature of the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament has the LXX (Septuagent from the Hellenistic period of Judea), collaborated with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Great book of Isaiah, the Masoretic Text having come along in the 9th and 10th. Support for the New Testament because of the 3,000 plus manuscripts that verify the Epistles of Paul, the Synoptic Gospels and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles. Biblical Cultures, civilizations, kingships, rise and fall of empires. With the continual growth of Biblical Archaeological Discovers, MesoAmerican Archaeology is still in its infancy, if not in its childhood. There are still things that have yet to be discovered and what has already been discovered in MesoAmerican History seems to point away from any verification of the Book of Mormon (scientifically speaking and from an archaeological standpoint in comparison of Biblical Archaeology and the Ancient Near Eastern Religious thoughts than that of MesoAmerican and MesoAmerican Religious thoughts). The other faucet is deciphering true historical evidence and reason for the LDS Faith. From the LDS Perspective, there is no question that the LDS Church is the True Church and that Joseph Smith truly saw God and became a True Prophet. From the Orthodox and Traditional Christian Perspective, there is the sense of new ideas, teachings and doctrines that seem foreign to the already established norm. When Orthodox and Traditional Christians question the doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church and faith, the LDS believer and LDS Member quickly and defensively says "Oh, you must be Anti-Mormon" or "You have read some Anti-Mormon Literature." When it could be someone bringing up a valid honest question that is quickly dismissed and pushed aside without any effort of understanding why and how they come to the conclusion that they come to. This is not the LDS issue, it is also from the Orthodox and Traditional Christian Issue. When LDS Believers question Traditional and Orthodox Christian Doctrines, there is the tendency to lump all Christians under one umbrella and accuse all Christians of believing the same thing. Yet, a closer look will reveal that there are even false teachers within the Christian believing Community of Orthodox, Traditional and Evangelical Christians. The Word of Faith Movement and the Health and Wealth Prosperity Gospel Preachers (Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Charles Capps, Frederick Price, and the many supporters of the Trinity Broadcast Network - known as TBN) who preach that God wants all his children to be Healthy and Wealthy and if you are not Healthy, or subcuumb to some form of Illness (even the common cold) then you are not in God's Will and have some secret sin in your life that you need to confess. Or, if you are not wealthy and prosperous, then you are not in God's will and have sin that is blocking His blessing upon the believers. In recent years, Homosexuality has invaded the Christian community that some Pastors and preachers who speak out against Homosexuality are considered to propogate Hate and Bigotry and some Christian denominations have allowed same Gender, or support for Same Gender attraction and those who condemn such doctrines and acceptance (according to Romans 1) are closedmindedness and against the freedom of expression. A long standing debate between the Arminians and Calvinist (Which most LDS Believers may or may not be familiar with started with James Arminius when he approached the Dutch Church to accept 5 points of doctrines that he claimed to be biblical and as a response, the Dutch Church assembled themselves and examined the 5 points of what James Arminius claimed should be accepted and came out with what is now called the 5 Points of Calvinism). Yet, the debate was not just with James Arminius and culminated in what is now called the Synod of Dort, but between Pelagius and the Pelagian Doctrine and theology and debated with Saint Augustine of Augustus. Martin Luther even wrote a book entitled "The Bondage of the Will" as a response to Erasmus. Even within the last several years, I have personally been engaged in a debate regarding the Dating of Revelation. There is one side that states that Revelation was actually written by John, the Apostle on the eve of the destruction of Jerusalem and in its historical context of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity in the first century prior to 70 AD and during the Reign of Nero, Revelation is not so "mysterious" after all. This is known as Preterism and Partial Preterism wherein that when Christ said "This Generation shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled" and likewise "when you see the abomination of desolation that the Prophet Daniel was talking about" was literally fulfilled in 70 AD when Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed by Titus. Roman Historian and Josephus wrote the nature surrounding the Destruction of Jerusalem. To the First Century Jews and Christians, the coming of the Lord was expected to happen in their lifetime. In fact, one of the passages (2 Thessalonians) where it talks about there must come a falling away first and the man of sin is revealed is talking about the falling away of the Judaic Faith and religion and the man of Sin being Nero whose name in Hebrew was 666 and in greek 616. With much history and much debate, it is difficult to understand if someone is coming from an objective viewpoint, or one who read some statement made by some author who claims to know more than what another person knows. I myself have been called an "Anti-Mormon" yet, unlike some people like Ed Decker, I have the ability to verify some of the reasons why I believe the way I believe. Ask me about the providence of Divine Election, there is more scriptural support for Predestination and the doctrine of Sovereign Election than there is for Free will. Now, am I a hyper calvinist? No, do I deny human free will? In a sense because I don't believe in Free will or Free Agency, but I believe in limited will and agency because Limited will and agency is self-evident in our own life and our own communities (which is for a different discussion altogether if anyone is interested in discussing such things). The whole point I am making is that a label is a label and without understanding where the other person is coming from and understanding the other persons position and being able to attempt to see how and why they would draw to such conclusions that we may disagree with, then we may miss an opportunity to honestly engage in decent dialogue and see whether or not there is compatibility between the LDS Faith and Traditional Christianity. There are evidences I can't ignore about the Church, however, there is evidence about the Church that I can't ignore either that I feel the Church itself and the Leaders have ignored and haven't outright come out and discuss such things. I believe there is geological support of 3 Nephi and that it was a perfect description of a volcanic explosion. I also believe there is evidence about the history of the Joseph Smith First Vision account that brings into Question the actual date of when it occured (being later than what the History of the Church claims it to be) and the descrepencies when comparing the 7 varying accounts of the First Vision accounts given. (not saying that it is right or wrong, just making a point of observation). The best thing we can do is be careful on how we label someone "anti" something. Because saying that someone is "Anti" is a very strong claim to make and if one can't back up that claim (meaning if you can't provide the burden of proof to prove that someone is "Anti") then you are very well mislabeling someone something they are not. It would be like me or a Traditional Christian, or an Evangelical Protestant coming around and saying that Mormons are "Anti-Christian" because it is employeeing the same logical reason and conclusion that an LDS believer would say to an Evangelical or Traditional Christian believer that because they are presenting information that questions the doctrines and tenents of the LDS Faith that they are Anti Mormon. We live in a society today that political correctness has everyone walking on eggshells and any person who comes to speak the truth is brandished as someone who is promoting bigotry and hatred without being acknowledged that they have a valid response. I hope this makes sense.

When confessing and seeking forgiveness, especially if it is a grave transgression sometimes is not good to go to the other person whom you offended for the reason that it might cause more hurt and pain rather than what its intent and purpose is. I do agree, though, that we ought to confess our sins. In fact, it is the specific point where Christ made in the Lord's prayer. Forgive our debt as we forgive the debt of others. It is a simple principle that alot of people do not realize they stand in need of. It is humbling one self and it is acknowldeging that we still battle with our own desires, our own lusts and have our own humanity to deal with. Confession is not a once in awhile thing where when we walk into temptation and then realize we need to confess, but it is an every day thing. Husband and Wife gets into an argument. There is a need to confess to one another and ask forgiveness for. Brother and sister cybling rivalry, confession. Ladies at church talking (more like gossipping like hens in a chicken coop) about someone in a derogatory way, requires the need to confess. It is a daily thing we must do along with our scriptures, prayer and devotions.

Thank you... I have honest questions that I hope I can find answers to and not be attacked personally. I had to grow up (thanks to the wonderful lady in my life).

I am actually a member who had stopped attending the Church because of personal issues that my now girlfriend (who is a member) is helping me work through.

I used this line of reasoning with a friend of mine the other day and he put it this way: "Okay, I will agree with you on that. There are various different teachings and a variety of different churches. So, why are their many different "Mormon" Churches that are based on the same Prophet and Book - meaning Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon"? and then he listed several "Mormon" religious groups. SLC Based Mormons Community of Christ "formerly Reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" FLDS The True Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. He gave me a reference of about thirty different religious groups claiming the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as their founding prophet seer and revelator. Each one declaring the other apostate. The most popular one is Warren Jeff and FLDS being in the news regarding Polygamy and a young lady forced to marry her cousin... I didn't know how to answer such a question and read the news articles and have to say that with such questions, it isn't any more of a vigilante prayer, but I know feel there seems to be things that I have to come to terms with and understand before I say "Yes, this is God's True Church" and honestly praying and seeking, reading both sides of certain issues and doctrines, doing more study and prayer and asking questions that seem to merely just gets passed off... I am curious to know because either the Church is True or it is Not true... and that is where I seem to be at. I don't know why God called Joseph Smith. Part of me believes it, part of me believes that there may not have been any calling of Joseph Smith as a prophet and when I go to prayer, when I read the Book of Mormon, I find I am still hungry and I find that I am not completely satisfied. In fact, the other night, I prayed almost the whole night, crying, expressing my frustration sitting and listening and I feel nothing, I hear nothing and I turn to the scriptures and read and read and then pray, seeking God. I am thinking that maybe God isn't listening to me or there is no God... I don't know....who to believe anymore.

Thank you all for your comments here. I am going through and reading some articles at the lds.org website and it is good to have access to the church magazines online.

Are you asking who as in who I am listening to and admire and enjoy hearing what they have to say? Or what are you referring to regarding your question Who? Could you elaborate?

Like Charles Stanley, John McArthur, read books by Chuck Swindoll and RC Sproul? I ask this because I find that some of their teachings and topics they talk about have real value and relevance of truth in them. They talk about things that I have not heard any General Authority talk about. For instance, I was listening to a radio program that someone referred me to listen to and it was about Confession of Sin and it is interesting how such people truly talk and share about what they are talking about. I am curious because as I am struggling to return back to the LDS Faith, I am curious if I have to give up listening and reading such great men of God.

Look up the Documentary Hypothesis (or J, D, E and P Theory. J = Jehovah; D = Dueteronomist; E = Elohist; P = Priestly). There is also a debate about the flood not being universal but local. However, majority of cultures have their own flood stories where a Godlike being came down and spoke with one man and commissioned him to save his family and animals. Also, Genesis 6:1-5 is a partial of the coptic Enoch ch. 6 about the watchers and the rebellion in Heaven between the adversary and angelic hosts and why God destroyed the world by a flood. Also, majority of the English translations of the bible rely solely on the MT (Masoretic Text) which was compiled in as early as 90 AD and completed around 900 AD (that is a generous span of time and don't recall the exact time frame). The more accurate translation is that of the LXX or the Setpuagint. However, there is more and more evidence supporting the Old Testament. The only other dispute that I know of is that of the Book of Daniel is said to be a canonized Psuedipigraphal work.

The weirdest dream I have ever had was walking along a path. It was one of those misty early september mornings where it is overcasted, daylight broaching upon the scene and I kept walking down this dirt path. As I walked along this dirt path, people started calling out after me, and I found myself hurrying along the path. I felt something warm in my hands and when I looked it was raw meat, blood dripping profusely and as I hurried my pace into a steady run, Lions and tigers would come out from the woods, attack any person chasing after me, but these carnivorse wouldn't chase after me but run up ahead and then disappear into the woods, only to emerge attacking people coming from all directions. That was the weirdest dream I ever had.

My favorite Book of the Bible is the Book of Romans. My favorite passage is Romans 12:1-2 "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to the world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."

The other question that was posed to me was this: If Christ is the literal begotten spiritual elder child of God the father in a spiritual realm, then was there a time that Christ did not exist before his spiritual begetting? I had to turn and walk away because I honestly did not know how to answer this persons question and it is still troubling me for the past couple of months.