rameumptom

I think we sometimes view things in the scriptures as black and white, good vs evil, etc. In the case of Ishmael and Hagar, I think we can see it in a shade of gray. Ishmael also was a child of the covenant, being born of Abraham. He was, however, not the child with the birthright, being the child of a slave. First born and birthright issues were very important anciently in the Middle East, as they helped determine which of the children would have seniority over the others when the parents passed away. It also determined inheritance issues, with the first born receiving a double portion. Hagar and Ishmael, as in many of the Biblical stories, were fighting for what they felt was their "right" to the inheritance and respect of a first born. Hagar made a power play, and lost. In such times, in a place as harsh as the Middle Eastern deserts, in a period of time fraught with severe droughts, there had to be discipline and a formal family structure. For Abraham, he had little recourse but to choose one of his wives: the wife of God's promises, or the slave of his wife. The harsh terrain forced difficult decisions. Abraham was forced to part with his nephew (who in those days would have been treated and considered a son), because their flocks were to great to remain together. Later, for those who study the scriptures, one sees that Ishmael was not fully forsaken by Abraham. Ishmael and Isaac have contact as adults, and both are in attendance at the funeral of Abraham.

Good article. Mike always provides an excellent talk for FAIR, and his books are good quality scholarship, as well.

I'll leave my rebuttal primarily to Snow, as he did an admirable job. No, he didn't "kick my butt", but actually supported several of my statements. Rather, I think Snow was kicking your (Elphaba's) butt. Opinions are okay for self-expression, IMO. But if someone begins to establish their opinions as self-evident proofs, then there is need for evidence to back up those statements. Snow was attempting to have you back up some of your statements, which you refused to do. Herein lies the rub: you are still welcome to your opinion, but please do not pretend it is proof, nor necessarily scholarly. As for name-dropping, I've also known many LDS scholars for many years. It doesn't mean anything to me, except insofar as I can say something about the person's character and scholarship. Richard Bushman's book IS excellent, and I have no problem in recommending it to anyone. I do have a problem with Brent's writings. Bushman sought a balanced and scholarly work, and for the most part succeeded. Brent has never attempted to bring forth a balanced work, but has always sought to shoot holes in the Church, with the desire to help others find their way out of the Church, as he did. How do I know this? Because he's told it to me various times over the years. Do I have an agenda? Of course I do. It is to do quality research and find quality scholarship and report them as best as I see fit. I also believe in doing quality defense of the LDS Church, which I've done online for 20 years. As it is, I do see the weaknesses in the man, Joseph Smith, as does Richard Bushman. Neither Richard nor I see it as precluding Joseph from being a prophet of God, however. As for my being "vapid and lacking substance", I suppose you are welcome to your opinion. I don't suppose it would do any good to ask you for evidence supporting this opinion, would it? BTW, the word "snitty" comes from the word "snit", which means: a state of agitation or irritation. And I believe that I used the word properly, as you seem to have been irritated enough to call me "vapid and lacking substance."

Elphaba, I must admit that Snow has the more compelling argument. You made claims, and then have dismissed Snow's request for you to back up those claims. Now, you are using snitty comments in various languages in an attempt to show superiority. News for you: it ain't working. I've known Brent Metcalfe for almost 20 years online, and while he isn't an idiot, he does have an agenda, but not the college background that many LDS scholars have (John Gee included) to show he does quality research. I've read many of his articles and writings, and emails over the years, and while they do have some thought process behind them, they tend to do two things: first, show his intent to destroy the Church; and second, how he takes a small disputable event and blows it up, while ignoring other evidences. You will not see Brent discuss some of the key issues that LDS have shown to be correct about the Book of Mormon or BoA, for example. He dismisses it all with a coincidental wave of the hand, and then goes onto the attack on his limited repertoire of issues. BTW, Brent can be a nice guy. But his agenda has jumped forward many times over the years. He was a key individual that sought a meltdown of Bill Hamblin's original LDS antiquities email list: Morm-Ant. He was the key to its demise. Then, when it was replaced by SAMU-L (Studies in Ancient Mormonism, Uncontentious), he tried to destroy that list also. The only thing that saved the list was a variety of us demanding him being removed from the new list, or we would go elsewhere. We were serious about Mormon scholarship in a non-contentious environment, and Brent refused to allow it. He was quickly kicked off SAMU-L, and it continued for several years of quality discussion. Since then, Brent has learned to play much nicer in the sandbox. But then the Internet sandbox has expanded exponentially to include a lot of others that are less scholarly than he, and more anti-Mormon than he, as well.

No, he said that he did not believe in the God of the Creeds of modern Christianity. That's a major difference. BTW, Baptism for the Dead WAS practiced by a few early Christian groups. Paul mentions to the Corinthians that some Christians were baptizing so that they would rise again (1 Cor 15:29). Among the early Christians that baptized after Paul are the Marcionites. One Pauline church in Ephesus that still stands and is cared for by Eastern Orthodox priests has back-to-back churches. Both sides have benches and a baptismal font. One side is for all people, and the other is only for members. Why have a baptismal font in a members-only chapel? The EO priest will tell you that they performed baptisms for the dead. This still is part of the Eastern Orthodox Church's belief, though they do not practice nor teach it anymore. I would hope those making firm claims on this list would first do their homework and research beyond what their pastor tells them. It would greatly reduce the amount of clutter in the discussions based upon wrong claims. While people can still disagree as to whether the current Christian church should practice baptism for the dead, it is ridiculous and/or ignorant for anyone to claim that it was not practiced by early Christians.

I also dislike imprecise language, which is why I've discussed the problem of asking if something is "true." The Church website's newsroom has an article on what is and isn't doctrine. Basically, singular statements are to be considered, but are not considered doctrine. Only things found in the scriptures, official declarations and pronouncements, are considered doctrine. Of course, then there's the issue of core doctrines versus auxiliary doctrine. Approaching Church Doctrine

In this instance, it means to have a certain knowledge of Jesus Christ as Savior. This can only happen by having the heavens opened and seeing Jesus face to face as the Second Comforter. D&C 93:1-25 explains well our moving from grace to grace, receiving grace for grace. And when we have achieved enough grace in our lives, we can see the Savior face to face. If not in this world, then in the world to come.

I suppose they could have built the house for her, anyway. But for me, the miracles come after the trial of faith. The issue is, God began to bless her and open up doors for Cleotilde when she did live the law of the Sabbath and the law of tithing. We don't pay tithes to pay for what we get back from it. At least, I don't. I do it because I believe it to be a commandment of God, and I wish to obey Him. I'm glad you are at peace and happy with your life. I hope that the day will come when you will feel the need for something greater. Putting God first, rather than oneself, is not an easy thing to do. It was even hard for Jesus to do in Gethsemane. I do not worry about every little sin in my life, and that is often a reason many leave the Church - because they are trying to save themselves, earning salvation. It doesn't work that way. We are saved through the grace of Christ's atonement. I keep commandments, not because I am trying to earn his acceptance, but because I have faith. It pleases me to stretch myself in trying to become more like Jesus. But I do not pretend that my efforts do anything for me. King Benjamin taught that we could serve as hard as we can, and we'd still be unprofitable servants. All I can hope to do is become more like Christ, and in so doing, be able to stand/kneel in his presence. I keep tithes, because I know it is what God would have me do. I attend the temple, because it helps me approach Him and stand in His presence. I learn something new in the temple every time I go, and I've gone for over 30 years. I also learn something new in Church almost every week - usually not from the speakers, but from the Spirit, as I seek to understand God's will for me in the events going on during the meetings. It is a matter of faith and personal revelation. For the person who removes all spiritual responsibility, there will be an easier course. But the easiest course is when we love the Lord so intensely and so completely, that keeping the commandments are a pleasure, not a trial. Studying the scriptures is useless, unless it leads us to personal revelation and insight. Faith is useless, unless it moves us to greater joy and happiness. Jesus taught the Nephite disciples that there are works of God, men and Satan. The works of men and Satan will bring pleasure for a season, but then comes the weeping and wailing (3 Ne 27). Why is that? Imagine the pleasure and happiness if someone were to give you a brand new Porsche. Then, imagine the frustration and misery when that Porsche gets wrapped around a telephone pole by your teenager. The things of this life are not necessarily bad. They just are temporary and only can provide a temporary happiness. Only in embracing God fully can we find a true and everlasting joy.

This is without meaning. Most of the cities of Israel were still known throughout history, and weren't lost. And even with this accuracy, it does not prove the prophecies or miracles in the Bible. Nor does it prove Jesus' godhood. They've found "proofs" of the Book of Mormon, as well. The location of Nahom has been found, as well as the Arabian Bountiful. These were lost for centuries, and not easily known in Joseph Smith's day (if at all). But we're aware of them today. That's more impressive than saying, "here's Jerusalem exactly where the Bible says it should be", when Jerusalem has always existed and been known to men. The Bible prophecies of prophets working in the last days. The only question is whether Joseph Smith is a prophet of God or not. If he is, then your arguments over priesthood are moot.

Shadow, can you tell me how Jesus, who did not possess the Aaronic Priesthood, was able to baptize and perform many of the works he did? It is because God called him as a priest after the priesthood of Melchizedek. God chose how he was going to establish His order. Why doesn't the Bible tell us? Because the Bible doesn't have all the answers. It does tell us that God reveals his secrets through prophets (Amos 3:7), which is exactly how he did it in Jesus' day, and in our day, as well. The key is finding out whether God can change things through a prophet. The Bible shows time and again that He can. Prior to Moses, many performed priesthood functions. Originally, God planned to take the first born male of Israel to make a priest, but gave the function to the Levites, instead. Given this change, it is clear that God could change it as often as he wishes. It is, after all, His priesthood and authority. We learn in the D&C that the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and its purpose is to prepare the people to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. That's how it worked in Moses' and Jesus' days, and that's how it works now.

Tires were not defective. Somehow, I found 4 nails on 4 different occasions during that timeframe. All hidden under the snow - it was a very snowy winter that year. And yes, Columbus on a blizzardy winter's night is not a very exciting place to be. Oh, and I moved up here because my wife was tired of the heat, and wanted something more moderate in temperature. Personally, I would have settled for northern Alabama or southern Tennessee for cooler temperature.

Rameumptom: Ahhhh! But there's a difference between whether something is correct and whether something is true. And then there is a difference on the level of correctness and truthfulness. If a person is sola scriptura, God-breathed, perfect Bible believer, and asks if the Book of Mormon is "true", how should God answer it? If the Book of Abraham has one grammatical error in it, is it no longer "true"? Or how about if the BoA is inspired, but taken from a sen-sen manuscript that God chose to "translate" in a different manner for the benefit of mankind? Is it still "true"? But, if I ask if the precepts, doctrines, and teachings are correct and inspired, THEN I have a different possible answer that God can give me. Ram: And so do I. But since our version of truth is very different from God's all-encompassing version of truth, we are left with baggage of criteria to sort through first. This, BTW, applies to the Bible, as well. Archaeologically, the walls of Jericho came down before Joshua showed up; does this mean the Bible is "untrue"? Only if one is sola scriptura-minded. Ram: While I do not believe a prophet must be perfect, can you name the doctrinal teachings and beliefs wherein you believe he was wrong? Note, Joseph said many things as a man, and not all things done as a prophet. So, in his context as prophet, where did he misspeak? I note that in your testifying, you have also hedged your testimony by establishing what it means to say "the Church is true." That has been my point on not insisting on what is "true." Because even the Church and the gospel of Christ as we have them, are not perfectly "true." They are, however, good enough to get us exalted. This isn't a sola scriptura experience for you (or me) as it would be for some traditional Christians, and some hard core Mormons, as well. And that is good.

Another concept comes from Isaiah and Peter: spirit prison. Peter stated it is where Jesus preached the gospel to the dead. Why do this, if the dead did not need to be preached to? The early Christian writing, Gospel of Nicodemus, expresses clearly the paradise. Yes, Jesus did break down the door of death, but the understanding is that not all left at that point. You'll note that when Jesus resurrected, the Bible tells us that the righteous also arose and entered into the city. Finally, Paradise and heaven are two separate places. Paul establishes the difference in 2 Cor 12:1-4.

Glad to share it. When we begin to understand the atonement as taught in the Book of Mormon and latter day scriptures, we get a bigger understanding of the whys and wherefores of this world. It really is a classroom for us.

Almost 30 years ago on my mission, in Cochabamba Bolivia, I went with a member of the branch presidency to visit an inactive sister, Cleotilde. She explained that her husband had left her for a younger woman. She had 7 kids, with another on the way, and also taking care of her mother-in-law. All of this in an adobe shack about 12' x 12'. No electricity or plumbing. Dirt floors and adobe mud walls. She said that she made a living selling toothpaste and shampoo off a cart. While working, her smallest children had to be in daycare. Her best selling day was Sunday, and that day's earnings paid for the daycare. I explained to her the Law of the Sabbath and that we are not to work, but to dedicate it to God. I promised her in the Lord's name that if she would live the Sabbath, the Lord would make it up to her in other ways; otherwise, I would pay for the daycare out of my own pocket. She began to attend Church. Soon, she asked me how to pay tithes. Her business increased on the other days of the week. The person washing the missionaries' clothing quit, so suddenly we were able to have her wash our clothing for a fair wage. Then the elder's quorum stepped up and built her a new adobe house, twice the size of the original, and installed electricity and a stone floor in it. The blessings continued to flow to her. A year later, one of her children (nicknamed "Gringo") died when bitten by a rabid dog. I wrote to her, and she answered saying that Gringo had been taken to heaven and she only hoped she would continue faithful to be with him and the rest of the family someday. What faith! Right after my mission, I hometaught a new member. He was living in a basement apartment and attending school on the G.I. bill. He asked me on one occasion how to handle a problem he had. He had enough money to pay his tithes or his rent, but not both. I was unemployed, thanks to Jimmy Carter's economic efforts, but believed in God's promise enough to tell him to pay his tithes. I told him that the Lord would make up the difference, and if he didn't, I would pay the rent. He paid his tithes. Two days before the rent was due, he received a letter from his mother (Oklahoma, and not a member). She told him that she was always putting money in a cookie jar in the kitchen for a rainy day. Something told her that he needed it, and so she sent it to him. It was exactly enough to pay the rent. These are just two of the miracles and blessings I've seen from people being diligent in following Christ. I was able to make the promises I did, even though I didn't have the money to do it myself, because I know that God's promises are certain. I don't mind testing him through obedience, especially where he has made promises to the obedient. D&C 82:10 states: "I the Lord am bound when ye do as I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." I have lived by that premise since before my mission. And I know it to be true.

One of the temple recommend interview questions is: are you paying an honest and complete tithe? If you say, "no", then you will not receive a recommend or enter the temple. Malachi 3 tells us: This blessing is not necessarily material blessings, but many spiritual ones that are lost to those who do not obey it. I personally have seen many miracles and blessings occur, and I'm certain that obedience to tithing and other commandments is tied to it. D&C 130 states: D&C 64 says: Those who are burned at Jesus' coming are ONLY the telestial people. Remember how Jesus told the rich young man, who had kept the 10 commandments from his early days, to go and sell all his riches and give it to the poor and follow Jesus, and then he would have riches in heaven? The young man walked away sad, because he had many riches. He wasn't willing to give up all for the Lord, and so the Lord commented how hard it would be for the rich to get into heaven. He stated that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven. He also told the Pharisees to not neglect their tithing, but also ensure they were concentrating on the "weightier matters" that they were not taking care of. Yes, there are more important doctrines than tithing, but it still is important enough for us not to ignore it. Why? Because where our hearts are there also is our treasure. Jesus did not jest when he said, "seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and its glory, and then all others things shall be added unto you." As I said before, too many Christians (LDS and other traditional Christians) sell their birthrights cheaply. And not just in refusing to pay tithes and offerings, but also in not taking up their cross and following Jesus on a daily basis. Testimony of Jesus, for many, is based upon a thin veneer of belief that vainly attempts to cover up sins and worldly desires. But Jesus' call for the world to repent goes on. In latter days, he has commanded us to repent or suffer even as he suffered (D&C 19). Spirit prison hell is not a thing to trifle with, as the pain there is as exquisite as the pain Jesus suffered in Gethsemane and on the Cross. So, just because a person has left the Church, does not mean that tithe paying is no longer an issue. It means we have accepted a bowl of porridge in place of a true birthright, and we'll have nothing to complain about later, as we were the ones that chose the lesser part - an earthly treasure that can rust and corrupt and thieves can enter in and steal. But when it comes time for the Lord to make up his jewels, those who did not pay the price of obedience and faith will be like the 5 unwise Virgins in the Lord's parable. At the time the Bridegroom comes, he will tell them to depart, for he does not know them. It's our individual choice. Tithing is just one minor issue. Faith and obedience to God is the key issue.

D&C 84 teaches us that Moses' initial goal was to provide the fulness of the Gospel to the Israelites, and have them, through the Melchizedek Priesthood, enter into the presence of the Lord on Mt Sinai. The Israelites refused to go with him on the mountain, and asked Moses to be their eyes and witness. Because of this and their sins, the Lord took the Melchizedek Priesthood away from them (en masse), leaving the high priesthood solely with Moses and a few prophets that followed after. The Aaronic Priesthood was then given as a terrestrial law and a schoolmaster, to prepare the slaves of Egypt for the day when they would be kings and priests under Christ. Sadly, most of the world struggles with a terrestrial law, much moreso with a celestial law. And D&C 88 tells us that we will receive a glory equal to the law we are willing and able to abide by.

You are better off financially Temporarily, you mean. Tithing is a terrestrial law and is required to be worthy of the terrestrial kingdom. D&C tells us that it is required to keep us from burning, or as some LDS seminarians will tell you, it is 'fire insurance.' The day will come when those that do not pay their tithes will have a reckoning with God. At that time, he will ask those who know better, why they robbed Him. There's no difference between us today and the Hebrews of 400 BC, when Malachi chastised the Jews for not paying their tithes and offerings. To not pay our tithes means a person is not worthy of their baptismal covenants. Brigham Young once said we should be excommunicating people for not paying tithes, but out of kindness we do not. It also prevents a person from entering into the temple, where the ordinances of exaltation are found. If having a few thousand more dollars a year is worth risking one's exaltation, then all the more power to that person. But for me, that is like Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage. And it is. The person who chooses creature comforts over obedience is sacrificing Celestial glory for a few treasures that will rust and corrode and will stain our hearts so we are only worthy of a lesser kingdom. Christ taught us to have our treasures in heaven, not here on earth. And tithing is a commandment that tests faith and obedience, not whether we can afford it. Of course, there are also issues of paying tithes for the right reasons. To do it so as not to burn is not as great a reason as because one is valiant in their testimony and love of Christ and His kingdom. Could I use the pay increase that would come from not paying tithes? Of course. But I dare not stop paying my tithes and offerings. My eternal nature and glory is of much greater importance to me than if I have a large LCD television and/or a new car in this life (I don't have either).

Paul taught that the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood was a schoolmaster brought forth to lead us to Christ. Jesus also said he had not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. We are taught in modern revelation that the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Its purpose is as a preparatory priesthood. Just as the ancient Aaronic Priesthood prepared the way for the priesthood Christ would bring; so it prepares us in the outward ordinances and commandments that we may be readied to receive the higher and celestial powers and authorities of God. As for it being "gone", why do you think this? Didn't Peter and Paul continue going to the temple after Christ's death? Didn't they honor the rites and rituals of the Law of Moses? Of course they did. Paul explained the difference between the two priesthoods in Hebrews 5-7, because both still existed. In ancient times, it was given to the Levites (and more specifically to the descendants of Aaron). However, that was caused by revelation, because technically the Lord expected to give it to the first born male children, but took the tribe of Levi instead. Anytime in the future, God can make changes to what he has purposefully done in the past. How does he do this? Through living prophets (Amos 3:7). So, while the requirement was 25 years of age and a descendant of Levi/Aaron to hold the Aaronic Priesthood anciently, God making a command through a living prophet trumps a command he made thousands of years ago. And if chooses to have the AP as a preparatory priesthood to prepare for the 2nd Coming, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Those born in the Millennium will be mortal, to be changed/translated when it comes time to "die."

I always pay my tithing and on time. But that didn't keep me from having 4 flat tires in 3 months once. Sadly, it was Jan-March, so I ended up changing them all in winter conditions. And I had just moved up to Indiana from Alabama and was already regretting the cold weather.... Sometimes I think it is just chance. And sometimes I think God has a cruel sense of humor....

Tree, Could God stop all the violence and struggles in this life? Yes, he could. But he won't. Why? Because these things are necessary for our eternal progression. We do not understand fully, but the idea is that growth comes through opposition (2 Ne 2). Without the Fall of Adam, there would be no reason for the Atonement of Christ. The two of these together give us our agency. IOW, without the tragedy, there would be no triumph, no hero, no salvation. Satan's twisted plan would have removed the trials and danger and opposition from our life. While this may have given us a life of simple bliss, it could never have given us eternal progression or joy. We would not have understood enough to appreciate the Atonement, for there would be nothing to compare it with. It's like trying to understand what a Ruth's Christ steak is like, when you've only ate hotdogs your entire life. Without something to compare, it is meaningless. Revelation teaches us that when Jesus comes in power, he will wipe away the tears of all he saves. And there will be many tears to be wiped away. Our days of struggle and mourning will be turned into a rejoicing so exquisite that we cannot imagine how wonderful it will be. We will gladly bow the knee and confess Jesus as Savior and Lord, because we will understand just what he has done for us in that day. This is why Ether and Moroni could live for years in the aftermath of total carnage and destruction, and still hope in Christ for a better world. That hope is an anchor to the soul (Ether 12:4), even in dire situations. Christ and Father are eager to forgive us. But they also want us to return to them in heaven and receive as great a glory as we are willing and able to receive. That can only come through experience and opposition. We have to trust them to fix everything and make everything all right. If this life was the end, then it would make sense to curse a God that would create such a tragic place for people to dwell in. But this is only a short time in our eternal journey. God has and does save almost all his children from eternal hell. And he's ready to wipe away our tears when we call upon him.

Irrelevant question. How many of us have prayed whether the Bible version we use is "true and accurate?" I would suggest that most versions are accurate and inaccurate, true and untrue, complete and incomplete. How can this be? It depends on the area of the Bible one wishes to discuss. Joseph Smith felt that the Songs of Solomon were uninspired. Yet, were they written by Solomon and perhaps true and accurate? The Book of Enoch was used for centuries by Jews and Christians, alike. Yet St Jerome eliminated it from the official Bible book list because he felt there wasn't sufficient provenance to ensure it's "true and accurate" place in the bible. Yet, it is quoted from 39 times in the New Testament! Obviously, Jesus, Paul, Peter and Jude all felt there was something inspired in it worthy of quoting. The real key is to ask if God inspired Joseph to provide us the translation of the Book of Abraham that we have. It is irrelevant if the translation was from lost papyri, from the current papyri translated in a unique way, or if the papyri were just a catalyst for a revelation. If God did inspire Joseph, then it is what God wished us to have. We have been told in D&C and Book of Mormon that God works through the weak things of the earth, and through men's weaknesses. So, while the translation may not be perfect (is any translation made by the best experts perfect?), it IS inspired and accepted of God. Moroni's challenge requires preparation to receive the spiritual answer. Studying the writing. Pondering the things of God since the days of Adam and God's goodness in answering. Then asking specifically with real intent and sincerity, with faith and hope of receiving an answer. Then awaiting the answer from the Holy Ghost. For me, I didn't have to pray specifically about the Book of Abraham. When I investigated the Church, I did pray if Joseph Smith and his successors are true and inspired prophets of God. Having received the answer, I knew I could feel confident in the writings - that they are inspired, and accepted of God as beneficial to us and our salvation.

LDS teaching is that those who become Sons of Perdition will be cast forever into Outer Darkness. The requirements for becoming a son of perdition are as follows: First, a person must receive the ordinances of the gospel, including the temple ordinances. Second, the individual must receive an extremely strong witness of the resurrected Christ, some LDS leaders have suggested it must be a perfect witness. Third, the individual must then totally reject Christ and become his total enemy. Of those who have lived on the earth, we are only certain of one person who has achieved this status: Cain. Prior to this life, we lived in God's presence as spirit children. When it came time to develop ourselves further by receiving a mortal experience, some rebelled against God's plan. These were led by Lucifer, a chief angel in the divine council. He and a third of the host of heaven were cast out of heaven, and will in the last day be sent to Outer Darkness as sons of perdition. During the Millennium, while Christ shall reign, we read that at the end, Satan shall be loosed for a season and gather up an army to oppose Christ. These shall also be sons of perdition, as they will all willingly fight against their perfect knowledge of Christ. We believe that the Atonement of Christ is a near universal salvation. It will save to a level of salvation and glory all those who do not become sons of perdition. God has prepared several levels of heaven/glory for his children that do not totally oppose him. This includes people of all religions, beliefs, races, and financial levels. How works fit into the mix is to help determine our level of salvation. The Book of Mormon teaches that all are resurrected through Christ and all are brought back to the presence of God through Christ's atonement. But then, the wicked will be miserable in His presence and seek another place that is more comfortable to dwell (Alma 11-12, Moroni 9). Therefore, Christ in his loving kindness has prepared lower levels of heaven for those who are unable to dwell in God's presence, because they have not become the type of individual that can stand in His presence unashamed. Now, there is a hell that awaits the sinner. After death and before resurrection, we shall all go to a place called the Spirit World. There are two parts to this place, paradise and spirit prison. Christ told the thief that "today thou shalt be with me in paradise", meaning this resting place for those who had accepted Christ, where we can continue to grow spiritually and prepare for the final judgment. The epistle of Peter tells where Christ preached to the deceased spirits in prison that they might be judged "according to the flesh." This included those who had died in the Great Flood, according to Peter. Part of the prison includes a hell or place of punishment for those who have sinned and not repented. Individuals will remain in the place of punishment until either they repent fully of it and embrace Christ, or they have personally paid entirely for it. For some, it could take centuries to pay for such sins. Alma describes his conversion experience to his son in what sounds like a near death experience (Alma 36-37). He tells of falling into a deep coma, where he is wracked with exquisite pain for 3 days. Only when he recalls the teachings of Christ, and pleads to God for deliverance through Christ's atonement, does the pain go away. He then describes the paradise he is now in as being as exquisitely pleasing and joyful as the pain was exquisitely painful. We are commanded to repent, or suffer even as Christ did (D&C 19), who bled from every pore and trembled under the pain. This is very representative of the pain one goes through in spirit prison. In this way, we can see how every "knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." All will turn to him to rescue them from such intense pain they've brought upon themselves in this spirit prison hell. Yes, this probably includes people as evil as Hitler, Pol Pot, et al. So, there is a hell. But there's also a deliverance for all but the most wicked who insist on being Christ's total and complete enemy. In this, there is greater hope and joy in the LDS teaching on heaven and hell than in any other religion I've studied so far.

John added it as a curse, a common practice in his day, as many pseudo books were created, or actual books were changed to fit a certain version of Christianity (such as Gnosticism). And when we look at which books were used by early Christians, we find the Book of Enoch (quoted 39 times in the NT) and several others that are not now in any Bible. So, even the Catholics would be guilty of John's curse in such an instance. Finally, when one translates from one language to another, there is much change in symbolism and meaning. What if anytime we make a translation of the Bible, there is something added or taken away from the original meaning? Do we suddenly have to be responsible for such changes, as well?

The reality is, much of what is taught in General Conference as practice, is focused on where the majority of the members live. The majority are still in America and Europe, and other nations that follow similar practices. There are few Celts alive that still dress as they once did centuries ago. There are few Maori that still dress and live as their ancestors did. I know several Celts and Maori, and you couldn't tell them from their dress, except during traditional ceremonies. I don't think the GAs would have a problem with someone following their local customs, as long as they fit within the LDS belief system. During the recent worldwide leadership training, Elders Oak and Holland discussed developing an LDS culture for all the members, that fits in with their local cultures. Sometimes there will be conflicts. For example, Arab nations still allow for polygamy, but our LDS culture does not. Some cultures include self-mutilation - we don't allow for it. So, ear piercing becomes a standard teaching that should apply to most people in most cultures, with perhaps some exceptions. From there, it becomes an issue on how closely we are ready and willing to follow the prophet of God.