[I've decided not to investigate the Church any longer.]

For anyone interested, here is a source listing of many good articles dealing with the issue of Joseph's supposedly false propecies.

FAIR "Failed Prophecies" links

LM

[What you said isn't quite right]

"Alot" isn't a word - it's a way people prove they didn't pay attention in third grade.

[Lunar Eclipse tonight]

My little girls and I pretended we were living in the middle ages, and ran around screaming about mother moon hiding her face, and how plagues and locusts would soon come.

[I need a good advice...]

What can I do?

I favor complete transparency in such situations. I would find a way to communicate the following to the guy, his wife, the branch president, and anyone else involved:

"I am not interested in any sort of relationship with anyone disgusting enough to get married and then let his eye wander away from his wife. I mean really - why on earth would I wish to be involved with someone who acts in ways that prove he cannot be trusted to keep the most sacred and important vows a human being can make?"

I might consider shouting this from the church roof, hiring a sky writer, or taking out a full-page ad in the local newspaper. Whatever it takes to leave absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind exactly where I fit in someone else's marriage.

LM

[Did You Know?]

Letters 'a', 'b', 'c ' & 'd' do not appear anywhere in the spellings of the numbers 'One to Ninety-nine' (1-99)

It does if you're a redneck!

"Quick ma - pa shot hisself in tha foot again. Go call nine-hunnert-elebben!"

[infidelity]

So let me see if I have this right.

You were shacking up with your girlfriend, who has cheated on you not once, not twice, but three times. The third time, you finally told her to move out. There is no marital committment, but you expect her to remain solely yours. Every time she sleeps around, she tells you it was a one time thing and she wants to come back to you.

Is that right?

Well, my answer to your question is the same as Jason's. Forgiving someone is always the right thing to do. But forgiveness doesn't mean exposing yourself to the possibility of her giving you a disease the next time around. Forgiveness doesn't mean ignoring character flaws or patterns of behavior.

god gives us our whole life to change and become better

God also gives children to people who have nookie. Kind of a permanent consequence to such an uncommitted and temporary relationship driven by lust masquerading as love, don't you think?

Look - I'm not pretending to be any kind of sinless perfect person. I'm giving you the same advice I wish someone would give me if I were in your shoes. If you have sex with people without some sort of meaningful marital commitment, you're basically admitting that it's temporary. So when you find out she's thinking the same thing and acting on it, you do yourself a disservice by getting all shocked and hurt. You got three choices:

* Ask her to marry you, with the understanding that both of you expect complete fidelity to each other for the rest of your lives.

* Break up with her and find someone you can see yourself making babies with.

* Take her back, knowing that you will never be the only person that keeps her warm at night.

im so in love with her but i just dont know what to do anymore

Love is not enough. That's true for married people too.

LM

[Ours is a complicated situation... thoughts?]

Who's Pete? I thought he was in love with Jess?

I thought we all knew - Pete was the guy who fell out of the boat.

LM's Kid #1: "Pete and re-Pete were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?"

LM's Kid #2: "Re-Pete!"

LM's Kid #1: "Pete and re-Pete were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?"

LM's Kid #2: "Re-Pete!"

LM's Kid #1: "Pete and re-Pete were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?"

LM's Kid #2: "Re-Pete!"

LM's Kid #1: "Pete and re-Pete were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?"

LM's Kid #2: "Re-Pete!"

LM's Kid #1: "Pete and re-Pete were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?"

LM's Kid #2: "Re-Pete!"

LM's Kid #1: "Pete and re-Pete were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?"

LM's Kid #2: "Re-Pete!"

LM: "Knock it off or I'm selling you both to the gypsies again!"

[New and old Revelation...]

Have you read Matthew, Chapter 5? This is the crux of the chapter: Moses (and the other prophets of old) said one thing, but it's wrong, incomplete, or obsolete, so here's the truth. Take these excerpts for example:

Now, I see in your examples, evidence of incomplete or obsolete, but not wrong.

LM

[What do Mormons think of Catholics?]

Daniel stated that a book, implicitly understood to be Mormon Doctrine, was refuted by the First Presidency. This is a statement of fact that does not hold up under scrutiny as there was never any sort of public refutation because as the quote that LM provided, the Brethren were concerned "and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church."

I missed where someone claimed the book was publicly refuted. It was not. It was just that the entire quorum of 12 wished it had never seen the light of day and hoped there would be no reprints. They certainly made their refutation clear to each other, and seemed quite united in their opinion.

...this was a popular and widespread belief (I grew up in Southern California), the belief being what McConkie wrote in the First Edition of Mormon Doctrine with regards to the Roman Catholic Church, it is a fair and accurate (if unflattering) description.

Your experience mirrors mine - although probably my experience occurs a decade later. Some folks seem to think of it as "the book of Bruce" - an additional set of scripture.

To be sure, I think once the revisions were made, it was a mostly-correct book, and 95% of what's currently in it reflects accurately on what I believe. I used to use it when teaching Gospel Principles. When preparing the lesson, it was a handy book to have because it's organized by topic. I'd read what the book said, and if it had scriptures to back it up, I'd use it. If not, I'd usually not use it, or at most, identify "a lot of us believe x", and then ask the class what they thought.

And of all the churches that are out there, the LDS and Catholic are two of an ever dwindling number that believe in truth, BIG "T"...that is, the truth that does not change to appeal to modern sensibilities.

Hey man, if we mormons aren't right, Catholicism is the only other viable option IMO. And you can add me to the list of people who felt a loss at JP's death.

LM

[A friendly hello, from an ex-Mormon]

Hi there, and welcome!

LDS history is fascinating. I can understand wanting to learn about it even if you're no longer a believing member.

For example: Did you know that Utah and Idaho led the nation in the women's sufferage movement? Utah was the first to grant it, Idaho came second, but was the first to actually have an election where women voted.

I can't be sure, I've seen people make a pretty good case that polygamy was a big driving force. Pro- and Anti-polygamy forces both had problems getting the public to vote their way. Both thought "hey, let's give women the right to vote - they'll agree with us!"

So they did, and from what I can tell, the Pro- forces in Utah were right.

Welcome again,

LM

[Ours is a complicated situation... thoughts?]

I'm very eager to hear your opinions.

Any thoughts?

Please let us know your opinions.

My opinion: Follow everyone's advice about how to not fall prey to temptation while you are together.

Then, go on your mission and serve your two years. If you two are still communicating with each other after that, feel free to pursue a relationship. But for the love of pete, spend a year in the same town as her before you get married.

LM

[The Music Scene]

Starting today or tomorrow I will start to get rid of my tasteless music

Congrats! I don't know if doing so will be as hard on you as it was for me, but I can certainly testify it is worth it. I got rid of stuff 11 years ago, and then a second round of stuff 2 years ago, and I never really missed any of it, because I had new stuff.

I don't really have anything to suggest though, because I'm told my stuff isn't what most people like.

Ever hear of Hacidic Reggae?

LM

[Not LDS, but here to learn]

I've moved to Utah recently and don't really know much about the LDS faith that I have been plopped down in the middle of.

Hi Pammy!

Welcome to Utah - the state I left almost ten years ago! Let me apologize in advance for any LDS jerks you may happen to meet. We do have them.

You'll know you're getting a hang of Utah culture when the following things make you laugh:

In celebration of Barbie's 40th birthday, Mattel has created a series of Mormon Barbies for those folks in Utah. The most popular, Celestial Barbie, comes with 8.4 children. She wears a mid-calf flower print Laura Ashley dress with conservative flats (no heels), a bow in her flowing, shoulder-length hair with puffy bangs. This model wears a permanent smile, can bake bread, store wheat, feed a family of 12 on $200 a week, make "funeral potatoes" and green Jell-O salads. She comes with a miniature Dodge/Ford/Nissan/whatever mini-van, otherwise known as a MAV (Mormon Assault Vehicle). When you pull the cord on her back, she becomes teary and says "You're so special."

The first Celestial Barbies said "Oh my heck!" These are rare, having been recalled by the manufacturer soon after they were released due to complaints that Celestial Barbie would never use such language.

You can buy a Celestial Ken to go with Celestial Barbie, but he's hard to find. Requests to the manufacturer receive a response like "There are never enough Celestial Kens to go around."

The other LDS Barbies are:

RM Barbie- comes with BYU or Ricks sweatshirt and laptop computer.

Homemaking Leader Barbie- comes with all necessary baking equipment.

Relief Society Barbie- knows almost everything that is going on with all the other Barbies in your collection. Looks older than other Barbies.

Primary President Barbie- not very popular, this one has no hair.

Nursery Leader Barbie- again, not very popular. On Sunday after church, all this one wants to do is sleep.

YW Leader Barbie- comes dressed for camp with all necessary equipment.

YW Skippers- Laurels, Mia Maids and Beehives, all cute as buttons, dressed in flannel nighties for the sleepover.

Organist Barbie- Has rimmed glasses and very long fingers.

Chorister Barbie- right arm permanently raised to a square.

Visiting Teaching Barbies- sold only in a set, but a true collector's item as each set has its own recorded message.

Stake Leader Barbie- comes with a miniature set of leadership manuals.

Salt Lake Leader Barbie- has white hair and a hurricane hairdo.

Notice that there's no Home Teacher Ken. At least not available around here.

you know you're from Utah when...

Green jell-o with carrots mixed in doesn't seem strange.

You can pronounce Tooele.

The U is not just a letter - Neither is the Y.

You have actually eaten funeral potatoes.

You've gotten both heat and frost burns off your car's door handle in the same month.

You are not surprised to hear words like "Darn, Fetch, Flip", "Oh, My Heck" and "Shoot".

Your tulips get snowed on three times after they come up and twice more after they bloom.

Hunting season is a school holiday.

The largest liquor store is the state government.

You can go skiing and play golf on the same day.

30% humidity is muggy and almost unbearable.

Somewhere in your family tree is a polygamist.

You know the difference between a 'Steak House' and a 'Stake House'.

The elevation exceeds the population

You've broken down on the highway and somebody stops to help you

You can see the stars at night

You have a bumper sticker that says "Families are Forever."

You were an aunt or uncle before you were three.

Your spouse's mother was pregnant at your wedding.

You have more children than you can find biblical names for.

Your family considers a trip to McDonald'd a night out.

Your first child was conceived on your honeymoon.

You feel guilty when you watch Monday Night Football.

Your kids believe the deer hunt is a national holiday.

You drink Coke from a brown paper bag.

You consider a temple recommend a credit reference.

At least two of your salad bowls are at the homes of neighbors.

You believe that you must be 18 or older to order coffee at a restaurant.

You wonder why fire truck drivers honk when you drive 35 mph in the left lane on the freeway.

There is a similarity between a ward basketball game and the L.A. riots.

You think Jack Daniels is a country western singer.

You negotiate prices at a garage sale.

You can make Jell-O salad without the recipe.

You've heard about BYU football in a spiritual talk at church.

You have two gallons of ice cream in your freezer at all times.

Your father-in-law thinks Ronald Reagan was a liberal.

A member of your family wrote in Lavell Edwards for president in the last election.

Cars in the slow lane are traveling the fastest; cars in the fast lane are traveling the slowest; cars in the middle lanes are always trying to exit.

Sandals are the best-selling shoes.

You have to ask for the uncensored version of "Titanic."

You buy your wardrobe at the local grocery superstore.

You learn about the Mormon Church by taking history in elementary school.

You live in a state where Democrats always come in third place, unless a zoo animal is running. Then they come in fourth.

You're on your own if you are turning left.

Schools stay open, even if two feet of snow falls overnight, but close for the opening of hunting season.

People wear shorts and T-shirts if the temperature rises above 32 degrees.

There is a church on every corner, but they all teach the same thing.

The most popular public transportation system is a ski lift.

People drive to Idaho (or Arizona) to pick up a gallon of milk so they can play the lottery.

In-state college football rivalries are bigger than the Super Bowl.

Beer drinkers don't shop on Sunday.

Every driveway has a minivan and a pickup truck.

When you buy a new vehicle, cigarette lighters are optional equipment but gun and ski racks are standard.

Every time a new family moves into your neighborhood, the local elementary school has to hire a new teacher.

Your paycheck has an additional 10 percent deduction.

"Temple recommends" is acceptable identification for cashing a check.

More movies are filmed in your town than in Hollywood.

You've never had a Mormon missionary knock on your door.

Your neighbors complain about where they live, yet refuse to return to the state they moved from.

You make a toast with red punch at your wedding reception.

You have more raw wheat in your basement than some Third World countries.

Your idea of a good time is playing Pictionary in the cultural hall.

Your idea of a wild party is a six pack of Pepsi and a PG-13 movie.

You and all your friends come to your mother for a haircut in her kitchen.

You measure Kool-Aid by parts per million.

You think "You're a 10 cow wife" is a compliment.

If you won't drink ice tea because the Word of Wisdom cousels avoiding hot beverages, you might be a Mormon.

If you think forty-five members is about right for a Quorum of Seventy, you might be a Mormon.

There's a Mormon, by Jeff Foxworthy:

This is to all of you that may be a Mormon, that may know a Mormon, that may live in Utah, that may have lived in Utah or have heard about Mormons.

If all your dishes have your name written on them with masking tape... You might be a Mormon.

If you postdate your checks while shopping on Sunday... You might be a Mormon.

If you believe Heck is the place for people who do not believe in gosh... You might be a Mormon.

If your Mom was pregnant at your sister's wedding reception.. You might be a Mormon.

If you pray that your food might "nourish and strengthen your body" before eating doughnuts... You might be a Mormon.

If you think Jell-O is one of the basic food groups... You might be a Mormon.

If at least one of your salad bowls is at a neighbor's house... You might be a Mormon.

If you've ever written a "Dear-John" to more than two missionaries on the same day.... You might be a Mormon.

If you were frustrated when your son "only" got accepted to Harvard... You might be a Mormon.

If you have one kid in diapers and one on a mission... You might be a Mormon.

If you have never arrived at a meeting on time... You might be a Mormon.

If you have more wheat stored in your basement than most third world countries... You might be a Mormon.

If you've already got your order in for volume 50 of "The Work and The Glory"...You might be a Mormon.

If you think it is all right to watch football on Sundays as long as a direct descendant of Brigham Young is playing... You might be a Mormon.

If you have to guess more than five times the name of the child you're disciplining... You might be Mormon.

If you automatically assume that BYOB means, Bring Your Own Burgers... You might be Mormon.

If you go to a party and someone spikes the punch with Pepsi.. You might be a Mormon.

If you arrive to an activity an hour late and are the first person there... You might be a Mormon.

Hope these help!

LM

[New and old Revelation...]

I would also challenge either of you on one point: did Jesus really overrule Moses or any prophet, if so on what point? Yes, He certainly ushered in a new covenant making the old obsolete (as prophesied in Jeremiah 31) but did he ever say anything to the effect: "Moses said this but now I tell you..." ?

I don't think anyone can come up with anything there. I would go the next step and challenge anyone to come up with an instance of one prophet overruling another prophet. I'm not talking the realm of opinion here, I'm talking about actual prophecies.

LM

[New and old Revelation...]

I good talk about this subject can be found by Pres Benson Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet

I think I see what President Benson was trying to get at with these 14 points, but I must say I don't like the presentation very much. Too easily taken out of context and used to support notions that we LDS all march in unthinking lockstep to the beat of whatever whim comes from the prophet, or that we buy whatever newspeak contradicts last year's newspeak.

Of course his talk does none of these things, but unfortunately, a quote out of context here, a little stretch there, and it becomes what it isn't.

I much prefer quotes like these:

-------------------

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150

-----

Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God. We are the sons and daughters of God, willing followers, disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, and "under this head are [we] made free." (Mosiah 5: 8 )

Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel. There is an obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any external form of control. We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see.

Boyd K. Packer, "Agency and Control," Ensign, May 1983, 66

-----

Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.

If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know[ing] that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil

Josehp F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992)

-----

It is a mistaken idea, prevalent in the world, that the perpetuity of this work depends upon the authorities keeping the masses of the people in ignorance. The truth is the direct reverse, else why have we all these auxiliary organizations and quorums of priesthood in the church, for the education of the rising generation. Their being established in the faith depends upon their knowledge of the Gospel. Our greatest fear concerning our children in Zion is the possibility of their growing up in ignorance of the everlasting Gospel...As a matter of intelligent obedience--not blind obedience--we should observe to keep the word of wisdom. For the same reason we should observe to keep holy the Sabbath day, and the name of our Father in Heaven, and His Son Jesus Christ, and intelligently yield obedience to every requirement that is made at our hands

George F. Richards, Conference Report, April 1907, Afternoon Session, 15-17

LM

[What do Mormons think of Catholics?]

The book in question, Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, is still in print (both hardback and paperback, and it has *never* been refuted by the First Presidency (though there was an effort to do so, but McConkie's father-in-law, Joseph Fielding Smith was rumored to have put the kabosh on such an effort).

Aquinas has a rather, shall we say, selective view of the issue. Here is some source material, bolding added by me. You decide for yourself if Aquinas' take on the issue is sound or not.

The attached items are entries from Pres. David O. McKay’s office journalduring the period following Mormon Doctrine's original publication.

March 5, 1959: Elder Mark E. Petersen and Elder Marion G. Romney called at my request. I asked them if they would together go over Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book, “Mormon Doctrine” and make a list of the corrections that should be made preparatory to his sending out an addendum to all members of the Church who have purchased his book.

--------------------

Jan. 7, 1960: 10:15 to 12:45 p.m. RE: The Book--”Mormon Doctrine”. The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. They submitted their report upon their examination of the book “Mormon Doctrine” by Elder Bruce McConkie. These brethren reported that the manuscript of the book “Mormon Doctrine” had not been read by the reading committee, that President Joseph Fielding Smith did not know anything about it until it was published. Elder Petersen states that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that no book should be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency. I stated that the decision of the First Presidency and the Committee should be announced to the Twelve. It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be announced to the Council of the Twelve before I talk to the author. Elder Petersen will prepare an editorial for publication in the Improvement Era, stating the principle of approval of books on Church doctrine. A rough draft will be submitted to us for approval.

--------------------

Jan 8, 1960. The First Presidency held a meeting. We decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, “Mormon Doctrine” recently published by Bookcraft Company must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections in his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition. We decided, also, to have no more books published by General Authorities without their first having the consent of the First Presidency.

--------------------

Jan. 27, 1960: Conference with Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith re: Bruce R. McConkie’s book, “Mormon Doctrine.” At the request of the First Presidency, I called President Joseph Fielding Smith, and told him that we are a unit in disapproving of Brother Bruce R. McConkie’s book, “Mormon Doctrine,” as an authoritative exposition of the principles of the gospel. I then said, “Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the Temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie’s book is not approved as an authoritative book, and that it should not be republished, even if the errors (some 1,067 of them) are corrected.” Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, “That is the best thing to do.” I then said that Brother McConkie is advocating by letter some of the principles as printed in his book in answer to letters he receives. Brother Smith said, “I will speak to him about that.” I then mentioned that he is also speaking on these subjects, and Brother Smith said, “I will speak to him about that also.” I also said that the First Presidency had decided that General Authorities of the Church should not publish books without submitting them to some member of the General Authorities, and President Smith agreed to this as being wise.

--------------------

Jan. 28, 1960: 8:30 to 9 a.m. Bruce R. McConkie’s book. Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency. I reported to my counselors that I had talked with President Joseph Fielding Smith about the decision that the book “Mormon Doctrine” should not be republished and about handling the matter to avoid undermining Elder McConkie’s influence. President Smith agreed that the book should not be republished, and said that he would talk with Brother McConkie. It was decided that the First Presidency should inform Brother McConkie before he learns of our decision from some other source, so Brother McConkie was asked to come into our meeting this morning. When he arrived I informed him of the desire of the First Presidency with reference to his book not being republished, to which he agreed. The recommendation was also made that he answer inquiries on the subject with care. Brother McConkie said, “I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want. I will be as discreet and as wise as I can.” In answering letters he said that he would express no views contrary to views which the First Presidency has expressed. He said that he would conform in every respect.

10 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve in the Salt Lake Temple. At Council meeting I reported to the Brethren our decision regarding Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book “Mormon Doctrine,” stating that it had caused considerable comment throughout the Church, and that it has been a source of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published. I said that this book had not been presented to anyone for consideration or approval until after its publication. I further said that the First Presidency have given it very careful consideration, as undoubtedly have some of the Brethren of the Twelve also, and that the First Presidency now recommend that the book not be republished; that it be not republished even in corrected form, even though Brother McConkie mentions in the book that he takes all responsibility for it; and that it be not recognized as an authoritative book. I said further that the question has arisen as to whether a public correction should be made and an addendum given emphasizing the parts which are unwisely presented or misquoted or incorrect; but it is felt that that would not be wise because Brother McConkie is one of the General Authorities, and it might lessen his influence. The First Presicdency recommend that the situation be left as it is, and whenever a question about it arises, we can answer that it is unauthoritative, that it was issued by Brother McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must answer for it. McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must answer for it. I reported that the First Presidency had talked with Brother McConkie this morning, and he said he will do whatever the Brethren want him to do. He will not attempt to republish the book, nor to say anything by letter, and if he answers letters or inquiries that he will answer them in accordance with the suggestions made by the Brethren, and not advocate those things concerning which question has been raised as contained in the book. The Brethren unanimously approved of this. I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First Presidency be consulted regarding it. While the author need not get the approval of these Brethren, they should know before it is published that a member of the General Authorities wants to publish a book. I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say, “_I_ _only_ am responsible for it,” but I said “you cannot separate your position from your individuality, and we should like the authors to present their books to the Twelve or a Committee appointed.” I asked the Brethren of the Twelve to convey this information to the other General Authorities. On motion this became the consensus of the Council.

LM

[Heaven and polgamy???]

I will, however I can assure you that there are many!

...

I will get you all the sources that you need,

I'm waiting...

LM

[Heaven and polgamy???]

The only reason why polygamy is not part of our faith now is because of the political sway of the nation...

Please cite your source.

There is no LDS polygamy anywhere in the world - including the places where polygamy is legal. When the practice of polygamy was ended, there were members living in other countries where it was legal - and yet it was ended for them as well.

LM

[Small Change In Bom]

However, if one studies the critical text project of the Book of Mormon which tracts the changes from the original extent manuscript and printer's manuscript to the current edition, those changes actually turn into gems of evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed translate the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God...

And for those of you interested in what exactly this project is:

12 Answers from Royal Skousen

It's very interesting stuff.

LM

[Questioning doctrine]

If you don't share my concern then fine, but you don't have to belittle me for it.

Absolutely nothing in my post should be considered belittling or attacking. It's just a response, followed by my reasoning. When you accuse people of having an agenda, you are unrighteously judging them. You are saying "I don't know why you're here, I don't know your heart, I don't know how earnest you are in hearing what we have to say, but I'm going to assume you have an agenda - that you are not what you claim to be."

That's unrighteous judgement. And here's why I'm reacting so strongly to it: I hang out with evangelicals, non-LDS, even strong critics of my church. Many of them voice the same complaint: They decided to give us a fair shake and tried to talk with a real mormon about what they had heard about us. They got accused of having an agenda, of misrepresenting the true reason they were here, they were called liars, wolves in sheeps clothing. Basically, they were treated uncharitably. Now they've got their justifiable reason to never look any more. They've got their valid claim against the next mormon they run into. "Yes, I see you all smiling and happy and eager to be my friend - but I know what you people are really like - I experienced it firsthand."

When we end up kneeling before the judgement bar of God, who do you think will have more explaining to do? The uncharitable mormon, or the guy who honestly came with his hat in his hand and just didn't explain himself properly?

I really, really, really do think 1 Cor 13 should be used as the guiding principle when interacting with people of other faiths - be they critic, wolf in sheep's clothing, or honest seeker of truth.

LM

[Questioning doctrine]

The people I'm talking about ask "questions" that are more like accusations. They seem to be trying to prove something. They have an agenda. Contention is of the devil and I want no part of it.

You don't like contention, but unrighteous judgement is ok? Maybe some do come here with that in mind, maybe some don't. It seems a little uncharitable to assume negative motives when you're not sure. If you've got a clear cut case, use the "report post" button. Otherwise, 1 Cor 13 seems to apply. How about we thinketh a little less evil, and beareth and endureth a little more?

LDS.net, from what I can tell, is where people can come to mention church criticisms, and hear how LDS folks answer. There's a "Learn about the Mormon Church" forum that specifically states "Get your questions answered here." Again from what I can tell, people who are willing to listen to our answers are free to ask the questions. Obvious trolls, or those here to argue or advance their own understandings, get warned and removed.

There are LDS forums that might suit you more. Nauvoo.com rejects contention and does not allow questioning doctrines or scriptures. LDSFriends.com has a clearly stated rule NO bashing any church, leaders, doctrines or such..

As for contention, the devil ain't the only one who can use it as a tool.

D&C 71:7-11 "Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time. Wherefore, keep my commandments; they are true and faithful."

1 Peter 3:15: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast to which is good."

Jude 1:3: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

"Those to whom no problems occur are asleep at the wheel of truth."

John A. Widtsoe

"Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

Austin Farrer, "The Christian Apologist," in Light on C. S. Lewis , ed. Jocelyn Gibb (New York: Harcourt and Brace, 1965), 26.

LM

[A New Look at First Century Christianity]

What baffles me (and is probably an unanswerable question) is that Paul never was "officially" called to be an apostle, he took that authority upon himself, nor is there any substantial evidence to him actually being baptized.

Really?

This conversation is mostly above my head - I don't really have anything to contribute, but I think there's lots here for me to learn.

Does the Bible not record Paul becoming an apostle?

LM

[ever thought of leaving the church?]

Hi TBD,

I went inactive as soon as my mom got sick enough to not be able to make me go to church. I eventually came back 6 years later after taking a bit of a journey to find truth.

The way I see it, the only good reason to be Mormon, is you believe God wants you to be one. Anything else is just wishful thinking or social reasons or denial.

So, do you believe in God? If so, do you know what He wants you to do? Do you know how to find out?

LM

[Better relations with LDS?]

We have great relations with the community church across the street. They rented space for us when we were building our branch. We lent them our chapel when theirs was damaged by weather.

We do a yearly joint cantata, trading off which building it's held in. They got a new pastor last year and we didn't do it, which worried me. But we're doing it again this year - hooray!

LM

[A New Look at First Century Christianity]

In my current study and research, I have found support for the Latter-day Saint proposition that there was a "falling away" from the original teachings and foundations of First Century Christianity as understood by the intimiate disciples of Jesus Christ.

Again, any and all information would greatly be appreciated.

Here's a post from a guy named LeSellers over on the MADB board - maybe it will help. It's a little bit later than your Paul vs. Peter, James, and John notion, but it certainly documents a falling away.

Constantine called the 325 ad council at Nicaea (now in Turkey) when the Arians (now considered heretics, then, just another denomination of Christianity) and the Nicenes (who eventually won the war-cum-debate, now counted as orthodox – "history is written by the winners") appealed to the emperor for a final determination as to which would be the "acceptable" version of what had already become the apostate Church of Jesus Christ. No one denies, at least not I, that all the participants were sincere in their beliefs, and that each side was genuinely concerned for the other's welfare. (This concern had already resulted in horrific atrocities on both sides: the burning of buildings, resort to arms, massacres of women and children. Each felt so strongly that his interpretation of the scriptures — not the Bible as we know it, since it had not yet been compiled — was correct, that killing dissenters was preferable to letting the "false doctrines" they espoused promulgate.)

In his well researched and heavily footnoted book, Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance, H.A. Drake (Professor of History, University of California, Santa Barbara), Chapter Seven, "Consensus Politics" (p. 256~7), tells us:

From the letter [Constantine] wrote to the principals [the bishops he convoked to the council under the implied, and eventually realized, threat of imperial power] only months earlier, it is safe to say that the theological implications, one way or the other, would not have bothered him. But the whole purpose of the council, to his mind, was unity, and homoousios was chosen specifically to drive a wedge into the assembly.

Two considerations bring the dynamics of the debate into focus. First, it is necessary to discard the assumption of a clear divide between orthodox and Arian position, such as came to be perceived in retrospect, when positions had hardened and a more sophisticated theological vocabulary developed. At the time, not only were there compelling arguments on both sides, but also the technical language did not exist to bring into sharp relief the cause of the division. Both sides, for instance, were accused of "Judaizing"—in fourth-century Christian vocabulary the equivalent of of seeking regnum in the Roman republic or being a Communist or Fascist in twentieth-century American politics. The Arians were like the Jews because they minimized the divinity of Christ, the Nicenes because they emphasized the Oneness of the Divine Being. The reaction of any Jewish listeners can only be imagined, but a century later, Christians looking back on the charges and countercharges leveled during this likened the two sides to armies groping their way in the dark, neither side exactly clear what it was fighting about.[1] The majority of bishops at the council, it is generally conceded, were as confused by the theological intricacies of the question as a modern layperson is likely to be, and they were ready to support anything that was not patently heretical. Eusebius ... described the reaction of the bishops to the emperor's summons: "As soon then as the imperial injunction was generally made known, all with the utmost willingness hastened thither, as though they would outstrip one another in a race; for they were impelled by the anticipation of a happy result to the conference, by the hope of enjoying present peace, and the desire of beholding something new and strange in the person of so admirable an emperor."

Note [1] Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.23

... Constantine's motive is a bit harder to tease forth, only because it must be deduced from the scanty evidence that survives. His preparations for the council, and the outcome he desired, involved concessions to both sides. The outline of of his concessions to "the party of Eusebius" is fairly clear: he gave them the choice of venue and undertook to restrain the more virulent voices of the opposition. What had he given to bring the "the party of Alexander" to the table? Only one conclusion accords with the outcome. At the end of the day, they would have a creed that clearly branded Arius a heretic. Like all catchwords, homoousios was defensible only in the entire context of debate and study that led to its choice. But it had the one advantage of being a word that exposed and isolated Arius. When all the arguing and cajoling was [sic] done, only two bishops, both of them among Arius's original supporters, refused to sign. By imperial decree, they were sent into exile, along with Arius (who, as a presbyter, did not participate in his own condemnation) and a miscellaneous group of priests and students loyal to his cause.

Notice the recurring theme of imperial coercion, of a predetermined, political outcome. Notice, too, how, by their notorious absence, inspiration and divine guidance are screaming for our attention because the participants in 325 paid them no heed whatsoever. In all Eusebius's account (nor any other, for that matter) there is no mention of such guidance, and none at all that gives any indication that the council had any Celestial authority to dictate a creed, none to consign Arius to exile, none to define God. Yet all creedal Christianity (from the eastern, Coptic, English, and Roman catholics to the Holy Assembly of the Sacred Name and other Pentecostals, including all, or nearly so, protestant sects) accepts this travesty of a council as binding as to the nature of God, the relationship between the Father and the Son, and theirs with the Holy Ghost.

Finally, notice that "Christian theology" was non-existent in the IV, and that, even at that late date, the Gospel of Jesus Christ (however much altered by the traditions and philosophy of the Greek intellectual world it inhabited*) had not needed scholars and a "technical vocabulary" to interpret or understand it. This confusion and complexity came later as men added to, modified, and deleted the simple, plain words of scripture and denied contemporary revelation.

* See also Augustine of Hippo, A Biography by Peter Brown, Rollins Professor of History at Princeton University, for supporting data.

The Council of Nicaea (and all of the others before and since) is simply antithetical to the plain and biblical method God had used for 4,000 years when He had something to tell His children, or when they had strayed and needed setting right: In every case prior to this, He had called a prophet, sometimes more than one. There was never a case of a "council" of this sort, called by the political ruler to regulate (not "correct", just "normalize") His kingdom.

Let's recall that, in the ancient world, all political power and all ecclesiastical power were combined in one person: the god-king. To a certain extent, we have the same structure today: our Head is Christ Whom we recognize as "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" on the one hand, and as "Savior", "High Priest", and "God" on the other. Indeed, we frequently say, "O, Lord, my God" referring to Him. The tradition goes back at least as far as Shem/Melchizedek in the Salem of Abraham's day: he was the "Prince of Peace" and the "King of Righteousness", as well as the High Priest to whom Abraham paid his tithes. It goes back further in recorded time, too, since Pharaoh was a god, and so were most other kings. But I use Shem/Melchizedek to make the point that its origin is divine, however distorted it became over time.

Constantine saw himself as a sort of re-incarnation of Christ. Drake plucks this string on his harp in dozens of places. Eusebius, while never actually saying so, paints the emperor as both a regal and a celestial personage. Paintings and mosaics from the period show him with halo-like radiances emanating from his head. Constantine's world was one where political power was almost always cloaked in religious garb, and he used this tradition to its fullest extent to cement his own secular hold on the fracturing empire of decadent Rome.

People who claim the Bible is their only source of theology sadly neglect the fact that no scripture really says what it says: all scripture must be interpreted to have any meaning at all. And the filter or bias through which creedal Christianity reads scripture is that of Constantine's coerced council 1682 years ago.