Conference tecrus::mormonism

Well, the plant is closed and I'm waiting on a phone call, so I have a little
time to respond.  This seems as good a note as any for a reply.  Mr.
Moderator, feel free to move this note if you see fit.

A lot of activity is going on here.  There is a lot of touching personal 
testimony, some good scriptures and thoughts, and some fighting going on.  
There's a point that I think is good to be made for anyone that finds the 
arguments to be persuasive on either side and is troubled.  This point is in 
the form of a thought experiment.  

	1. Assume that there are 100 churches that believe in the
	   Bible.

	2. Assume that each church has some fundamental disagreement with
	   every other church.

	2. Assume that each church has at least 100 members.

	3. Assume that at least one of the members for each church
	   has a completely logical understanding of his/her church's
	   doctrines and beliefs.  Further, this person is capable
	   of justifying everything his/her church proclaims using the Bible, 
	   and his/her logic is sound and without conflict with his/her
	   understanding of the Bible.


These are not unreasonable assumptions, in my opinion.  And, I assume these
to be good assumptions.  So, I may be able to whip you around with the 
scriptures or you may be able to whip me around with the scriptures.  But, 
sooner or later one of us can probably find somebody in our own church 
that can help us to understand things better in terms of logic that is 
consistent with the church's beliefs, logical, in harmony with our 
understanding of the Bible, etc.  Most of us have probably had this kind of 
experience after a 'bash' with somebody from another denomination.

This thought experiment has some interesting results.  For example, it is 
pointless for me to try to prove to you that the beliefs of your church are 
illogical, not based in the scriptures or inconsistent with the scriptures.  
This is because you should be able to find somebody in your church that can 
prove me wrong or prove you right, logically.  Granted, I may be able to point 
out problems with your own personal understanding.  But, if you understand the 
beliefs of your church you will be able to counter my arguments or find 
somebody from your church that can.

Another result is that with all these churches in disagreement in the 
fundamentals, they cannot all be true, unless one assumes that truth can
be inconsistent.  So, the churches are all logical, but they are not all
true.  In fact, it is quite possible that none of them (including the 
Mormons) is true, from a logical standpoint.

I believe that if something is true, it is also logical.  I do not, however,
believe that if something is logical it is necessarily true.  Logic is
something I expect to find in my own church.  If it is not there, I know my
church is not true.  But, chances are that if I join any of the 100 churches
I will find this logic.  So, to join a church for strictly logical reasons is
fine, if I don't care about truth.

If I care about truth, I have to look for more than logic.  The logic is 
necessary, but it is not sufficient.  So, what other criteria are there?
I believe that for most, there is a deep-rooted, personal set of feelings about
what a church should believe.  I believe that it is this set of feelings that
a person should base their beliefs on, in addition to logic.  So, it seems
quite natural for me to want to search for the best feelings that I have deep
inside of me whenever a question about doctrines, beliefs or decisions comes 
up.  In other words, I have to be very sensitive to my feelings when 
considering things of a spiritual or religious nature.

I believe that this listening to personal feelings is key to the doctines of
the Mormon Church (Luke 24:32, Moroni 10:3-5, D&C 8:2-3, 9:7-9).  It is 
necessary to show the logic (Isaiah 1:18, Acts 17:2-3), but to be sufficient
there must always be an appeal to and respect for the feelings of the heart.
This is a place where where the Lord can speak to you.

So, to anyone who might be troubled by all the arguments going one way or 
another, do investigate the logic of the arguments.  But, remember that there
is probably plenty of logic to justify both positions.  The real place for
settling arguments will be in your own heart.


Steve
    

    RE:0
    
       That's true, there are many differant "Building" churches, with
    differant denominations (BELIEFS). But the Church that Christ is
    coming back for is the BODY OF BELIEVERS, the ones who endure till
    the end. There are many differant books in the bible that warns
    us about the false Teachers, Preachers, Prophets etc. It tells us
    to know the spirit God. Lets use an example} I'm apart of the Church
    Of God In Christ: Now, we could have 3000 members attending services,
    we all are praising and worshipping the same way, and we all are
    confessing to be "SAVED", but out of all those people that are there,
    only 3 or 4 REALLY have the desire to live for the Lord, THAT is
    considered to be the Church. It does not matter what "Christian"
    denomination you belong to *As long as you have the right spirit,
    and preaching the Gospel of Christ*. Word of advice to all you LDS
    members, Get your mind off of that Smith character that recieves
    revelations; and GET YOU HEARTS AND MIND ON JESUS the auther and
    finisher of our faith. Keep in mind that there's a whole bunch of
    preachers that are NOT called by God, they just went!! They had
    a desire, so they went to school and differant seminars to learn
    how to preach, but they don't have any power (HOLY GHOST) to back
    up what they are saying; also, you don't need another Bible, the
    HOLY BIBLE is just fine:-) "Study to show thy self approved unto
    God" , then pray and ask God for an understanding. GOD-BLESS
    
    LORENZO
    

    Re: Note 52.2 by USRCV1::JEFFERSONL "Jesus is Lord"

    Hi Lorenzo,

>                         -< 1 LORD 1 FAITH 1 BAPTISM >-

    This is the way Paul said it *should* be, but it is not that way today.
    There are many Christian faiths, disagreeing with one another. There
    are many "baptisms" in these churches. For example, some immerse, some
    sprinkle, and some don't think baptism is needed at all.

>   It does not matter what "Christian" denomination you belong to *As long
>   as you have the right spirit, and preaching the Gospel of Christ*.

    Ok. Either it "matters" or it doesn't "matter" what denomination one
    belongs to. What is important to know is, does it "matter" to God?

    Joseph Smith prayed to know which church he should join. In answer,
    God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to him and said
    that he must join none of them, and that Jesus would restore His
    church again, as it was in the Bible.

    Either this happened, or it didn't happen. If it *did* happen, then we
    know that it "matters" to God which denomination we belong to. If it
    didn't happen, then you could well be right. It may not matter to God
    which church we join.

>   Word of advice to all you LDS members, Get your mind off of that Smith
>   character that receives revelations; and GET YOU HEARTS AND MIND ON
>   JESUS the author and finisher of our faith.

    Yes, our hearts must be with Jesus. That is also what we believe.
    Why do we speak of Joseph Smith at all? Because we believe that
    this Jesus, in which our hearts are centered, called Joseph Smith
    to restore His Gospel. Now this either happened or didn't happen.
    If it *did* happen, then it is important to know what Jesus revealed
    to Joseph Smith. If it didn't happen, then Joseph Smith was a false
    prophet.

>   also, you don't need another Bible, the HOLY BIBLE is just fine:-)

    I assume you are talking about the Book of Mormon as "another Bible".
    Maybe we need it, maybe we don't. What is important to know is, does
    God think we need more than the HOLY BIBLE? Joseph Smith said that a
    messenger from God gave him the gold plates, that he translated them by
    the power of God, and that they contained the Word of God. Again,
    either this happened or it didn't. If it *did* come from God, then we
    *do* need to have the Book of Mormon. If it didn't, then perhaps you
    are right, the Bible is all we need.

>   "Study to show thy self approved unto God" , then pray and ask God for
>   an understanding.

    Yes. That is how one can know if these things are true. Study and pray.
    We say, find out if these things are true or not. How? God is all
    powerful. He can reveal it. He *has* revealed it to many.

>   GOD-BLESS

    You, too.

    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

    To Lorenzo:
    
    Your last message on the Body of the Church of Christ recalled my
    own conversion to Christ story.  With it, I remember, however, 2
    others, which I will briefly share with you.  The reason is to ask
    you if you can give me an answer I have wrestled with.  So here goes.....
    
    In this story there are 3 people, Rick, Don and myself.  We are
    all alike in that at one point in our lives we had no relationship
    with either God or Christ.  We were living lives according to the
    world's standards, and feeling like something was wrong.
    
    There was deep within each of us a hungering for knowing God and
    Christ, finding the truth and embracing it.  Each one searched, prayed,
    studied, fasted and begged God for guidance and direction to the
    Right Way.
    
    We all used the same process, but ended up in different places.
     Rick is a Born Again Christian, Don established his own church
    in which he is its pastor, and I, after studying many religions,
    joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
    
    I have had discussions with these men and found that we, all three,
    differ from each other's belief system.  Yet, each of us is ABSOLUTELY
    CONVINCED of having found the TRUTH, testifying that the Holy Spirit
    has witnessed to us the truthfulness of our chosen paths.
    
    How can this be?  If God is not the author of confusion, then each
    person who asks would be led to the one and only one way.  Yet,
    each person seems to find their own unique path.
    
    Could it be that there are Higher Laws that are in operation that
    we do not know about or that some principles are more important
    than others?
    
    What I mean is illustrated by an analogy?  A few years back I rushed
    my pregnant wife to the hospital at 3 in the morning.  In so doing
    I disregarded practically every traffic law to get her there on
    time.  The baby was born 5 minutes after arriving at the hospital!!
    At the time her and the baby's safety was of more importance than
    traffic laws. So without hesitation, I went through red lights,
    stop signs, speeded, etc.
   
     Could it be that certain principles are of more importance to God
    than others?  I propose that one such principle is free will.  God
    cannot force us to do anything because he has given us our free
    will.  WE can chose him and his son or not.  We can chose good or
    evil and the resulting eternal consequences.  He will not force
    us one way or another, to be either good or evil, even though his
    fondest hope is that we will chose good and enjoy eternal life.
    Thus, he allows the principle of free will to take precedence over
    the principle of salvation.                        
    
    How about another one?  Faith.  I believe that faith is another
    principle that may be of more importance than others.  Why?  When
    a person exercises faith in something larger than him/herself (we
    call it God, others Buddha, Allah, etc.), we are expressing
    the greatest hope of humanity that there is a Great Spirit who hears,
    cares and responds.  With this expression of faith, we place ourselves
    in a position to be taught, to be drawn towards truth.  Without
    faith, nothing can be done. 
    
    Remember when Jesus left his home town saying that he could perform
    no miracle, because the people lacked faith?
    
    Well, then could it be that God looks down from heaven, sees people
    exercising faith (even as small as a mustard seed), and says to
    himself "Here is faith.  Here is someone I can teach". And so faith
    is rewarded in the same measure it was exercised.  Even when I did
    not know God or his son, when I used another name for him, when
    I believed strange things about him, he was always there to answer
    my prayers of faith, lead, guide and teach me.  In this case he
    was willing to let the principle of faith take precedence over other
    principles (such as having a correct understanding of ghe Gospel).
    
    That brings me to my last thought.  I have noticed when I have
    discussions with my friend Rick and Don, they feel uncomfortable
    with what I believe, as I also feel uncomfortable with what they
    profess.  WE all feel that each other is practicing some kind of
    false gospel and resist when anyone tries to teach the other.
    
    Could it be that another super-ordinate principle is in effect here.
    What I mean is that as each person uses his/her free will to chose
    (or not chose) God, and as they exercise a degree of faith, that
    God in his wisdom and knowledge of that person's heart, gives him
    or her a measure of light and truth that they either need or can
    withstand.  Thus, as each person grows and develops their faithfulness
    God sees our spiritual evolution and imparts to us deeper insights
    and understandings of his truth. What I mean is that God does not
    give us the whole truth all at once, but rather a little bit at
    a time, according to our readiness to accept and live that truth.
    Thus, he is willing to hold back an understanding of the fullness
    of the gospel to he can spiritually nuture us according to our own
    ability to handle new truths.
    
    
    Can you remember reading scriptures that suddenly you understand
    whereas before you had not?
    
    So what does all this mean?
    
    I belive that there may be a prioritization of eternal principles,
    such that some may be more important than others. The 3 I dicussed
    above, Free Will, Faith, SPiritual Evolution, may account for the
    many Christian Churches, many teaching different doctrines, but
    all claiming to be true.
    
    I would sincerely like to hear your reply (or anyone else's) to
    this hypothesis of mine which helps me explain why we humans who seek
    spiritual life all use a similar process, but end up in different places,
    and feel uncomfortable or threatened by what someone else has or has
    not found as a result of their searching.
    
    I would like to end with a favorite saying of my mother:
    
          We are, after all, all God's children.
    
    Hoping to hear from you (or anyone),
                                                              

    I agree with that Paul.  Makes a lot of sense to me.
    
    I like to study organizations.  One thing I have noticed is that
    in general there is no such thing as the perfect organization for
    all business, government or whatever.  And organizations are not
    fixed for time and eternity.  They tend to conform to the needs
    and desires of the people at any point in time.  Take for instance
    governments.  As much as we in the US would like to believe, all
    people would not do well under the governmental organization we
    currently have, nor would we do very well under the organization
    as it was constituted in the late 1700s.  Our government has grown
    and changed to conform to our needs as we have grown in our ability
    to do more and more.  The same is true of all things, including
    religious organizations.  I personally believe that an example of
    this is found in how Christ taught and organized the first twelve
    apostles.  He did it over time, precept upon precept, and as they
    learned more and were capable of more he led them away from the
    masses to give them further knowledge and instruction.  But a great
    transformation took place in those men after the resurrection. 
    I look at Peter before that time and after and see a different person
    in organizational skills.  I think the Savior taught him much more
    of what he needed to lead the new church in the forty days the Lord
    spent on earth after the resurrection, much of which Peter probably
    was not ready to understand before that time.
           
    Today we can find a wider range of disparity in the world than ever
    before.  Therefore it is no wonder to me that we find many disparate
    religious organizations, even in the same basic church.  
                          

    
    re: 52.0 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI>
    
    >When Jesus was on the earth, He established His church, and placed at
    >it's head twelve apostles, who led the church by revelation. When one
    >apostle died, a new one was chosen to take his place. Eventually, this
    >pattern was broken, and there was an apostasy. Men began to teach
    >their own doctrines, and set up their own churches.

    >In modern times, Jesus Christ restored His church again, through the
    >Prophet Joseph Smith. Jesus sent Peter, James and John to bestow again
    >the same authority upon Joseph Smith to reestablish the church that He
    >had given them, as apostles, when he was upon the earth. There are
    >living apostles today, with authority from God. They lead the church
    >by revelation, just as the apostles did anciently.

    	Concerning the apostasy:  If the church was in apostasy until
    Joseph Smith restored the church, than what about the churches of
    today?  Do Mormons believe that the churches of to day are apostate
    churches and therefore not true churches?
    
    	Taking it a step further:  Do Mormons believe that unless one
    converts to Mormonism that they are not true Christians?

    In Christ,
    Tony
        

    
    
    re: Why there are so many different Churches
    
    	The reason that there are so many Christian Churches is because
    men have tried to conform the Bible to their particular beliefs
    rather that form their beliefs around the Bible.  It is not the
    Bible that is at fault!
    
    	Look at it this way.  How can the Boston Celtics and the Utah
    Jazz play the same game of basketball in unity?  They go by the
    same rule book.  Larry Bird has no problem working with Dennis Johnson
    because they are both playing by the same rules and their for they
    both have the same knowledge of the truth and can work/play in unity.
    There is no interpretation of the rules.  They are straight forward.
    I believe the same for the Bible.
    
    In Christ
    Tony

    
    Hmm. The Mormon Church is the restored version of the Church that
    the Apostles set up. Does this mean then, that the Church celebrates
    Jewish festivals, that male members wear yarmulkas and tefillim,
    that some prayers are said in Hebrew, that the Church preaches the
    gospel to the Jews first, that Old Testament readings are from a
    scroll...... ??
    
    I only ask, because it appears to me, that for a church to be like
    the Apostles' Church (by Apostles, I mean the original 12 Jews who
    Jesus picked), then it must be Jewish in flavour and character.
    Is the Mormon Church Jewish in such respects ? For after all, the
    Apostles were Jewish and would thus worship in the way they had
    been brought up, ie much like any other synagogue service but with
    the added bonus of preaching the gospel of Yeshua ben Yosef.
    
    God bless,
    Paul V who's trying to get back to Christianity's Jewish roots.

    RE:4
    
      Simple! It depends on where your heart and mind is, also whats
    happening in your life. The scriptures says: "Faith is the substance
    of things hope for, and the EVIDENCE of things NOT SEEN". Some people
    prefer a God that they can see, such as Buddah; then, other people
    uses their skin color, they feel that they are the chosen pepole
    because their skin is either black or white etc. Example: Theres'
    moslems,and yaweh (spelled wrong) think that the "White man" IS
    the devil; and the thoughts go on. I believe if you and your 2 friends
    get together and ask each other questions about what made you choose
    the belief that you're in, I guarntee that you will find the reason
    for you three going in differant directions. The Book of Romans
    Quotes: "IF YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART, THE LORD JESUS AND SHALT
    BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART THAT GOD HAS RAISED HIM FROM THE GRAVE; THOU
    SHALL BE SAVED. FOR, WITH THE "HEART" MAN BELIEVETH UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS
    AND WITH MOUTH "CONFESSION" IS MADE UNTO SALVATION." (Confessing
    your SINS before God!!) After you do that, study your Holy Bible,
    stay prayerfull,most importantly,Get out of the SIN business. Then
    when you pray and ask God for direction, HE WILL LEAD YOU IN THE
    RIGHT DIRECTION!! But PLEASE, DO NOT patterern your salvation after
    "MANS" doctrine!!
    
    LORENZO
    

    Correction to .9
    
    "If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord jesus, and shall believe
    in thy heart that god has raised him from the dead: thou shalt be
    saved"
    
    Also, I would like to add, that, Not only we can be lead astry by
    false teachings, but, we can be lead away by false propheties,
    revelations, and miracles performed: there's times we don't see
    the deception that the advisary (DEVIL) had put there, because we
    took our eyes off Jesus and started looking at the miracles being
    performed, and the propheties, and revelations being heard. A lot
    of us are being led by "A" spirit and not the the spirit of God.
    Look at Jim Jones how he led all those people to hell by his beliefs,
    but I hear THE spirit says " If we confess our sins, he (Jesus)
    is faithfull and just to forgive us of our sins, and cleanse us
    from all unrighteousness".
    
    FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON,
    THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH ON HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH; BUT THEY SHALL
    HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE!!
    
    LORENZO
    

    Re: Note 52.6 by NRPUR::BALSAMO 

    Hi Tony,
        
>   re: 52.0 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI>
>   
>   >When Jesus was on the earth, He established His church, and placed at
>   >it's head twelve apostles, who led the church by revelation. When one
>   >apostle died, a new one was chosen to take his place. Eventually, this
>   >pattern was broken, and there was an apostasy. Men began to teach
>   >their own doctrines, and set up their own churches.
>
>   >In modern times, Jesus Christ restored His church again, through the
>   >Prophet Joseph Smith. Jesus sent Peter, James and John to bestow again
>   >the same authority upon Joseph Smith to reestablish the church that He
>   >had given them, as apostles, when he was upon the earth. There are
>   >living apostles today, with authority from God. They lead the church
>   >by revelation, just as the apostles did anciently.
>
>   	Concerning the apostasy:  If the church was in apostasy until
>   Joseph Smith restored the church, than what about the churches of
>   today?  Do Mormons believe that the churches of to day are apostate
>   churches and therefore not true churches?
    
    In order to be have a church that is Christ's church, the church
    must have authority *from* Christ. We believe that this authority
    existed in His original church, that it was lost, due to apostasy,
    and that it was restored by heavenly messengers to Joseph Smith.
    While other churches may be very sincere, and have faith in Christ,
    they do not have authority *from* Christ, as did his ancient church.
    
    It is this authority *from* Christ that puts the apostles in a position
    to speak authoritatively, to authorize others to perform baptisms and
    other necessary ordinances and to receive revelation for the church.
    This was the New Testament pattern. Without apostles with authority
    from Christ, the church is torn asunder by conflicting "opinions" and a
    host of new churches result. 
    
    This is why Paul taught:
    
         Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners,
         but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household
         of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles
         and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner
         stone;  Eph 2:19-20           
    
    If the household of God is built on the foundation of the apostles and
    prophets, what happens when the foundation is removed? Just as the
    foundation holds a building together, the apostles function is to hold
    the church together. When the apostles were taken away, during the
    apostasy, the foundation was gone, and the church began to fragment
    into many churches. 
    
    Allen Leigh has done an excellent job of explaining these things
    in greater detail in the following notes:
    
	4.8  The New Testament Church
	4.9  New Testament Church Guided By Revelation
	4.10  Authority From God
	4.11  The Great Apostasy Begins
	4.12  The Great Apostasy Continues
	4.14  The Restoration Begins
	4.22  The Restoration Continues
    
>   	Taking it a step further:  Do Mormons believe that unless one
>   converts to Mormonism that they are not true Christians?
                                          
    In my view, to be a true Christian, one must believe in Christ and
    follow His Gospel. There are many people who have a sincere belief in
    Christ who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
    Saints, and perhaps have never heard of the church. Are they
    Christians? Yes they are, to the degree that they follow Christ's
    gospel. We believe that those who sincerely follow Christ will accept
    the teachings of the church, when they come to understand them, since
    those teachings come from Christ. 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

    Re: Note 52.7 by NRPUR::BALSAMO 

    Hi Tony,
        
>   re: Why there are so many different Churches
>   
>   	The reason that there are so many Christian Churches is because
>   men have tried to conform the Bible to their particular beliefs
>   rather that form their beliefs around the Bible.  It is not the
>   Bible that is at fault!
>   
>   	Look at it this way.  How can the Boston Celtics and the Utah
>   Jazz play the same game of basketball in unity?  They go by the
>   same rule book.  Larry Bird has no problem working with Dennis Johnson
>   because they are both playing by the same rules and their for they
>   both have the same knowledge of the truth and can work/play in unity.
>   There is no interpretation of the rules.  They are straight forward.
>   I believe the same for the Bible.
    
    This is an excellent analogy, and I think it is true. 
    
    I would take it a step further, however. As the need for new rules has
    arisen in the NBA, the rule book has been updated, by those who have
    authority to do so. When there is a disagreement on what the rules
    mean, an appeal is made to those who have proper authority. The Jazz
    nor the Celtics have the right to make up the rules as they go (they
    cannot take this authority unto themselves), but they must abide by the
    rules of those who do have the authority. 
    
    Christ's church is the same. He gives authority to his apostles. As the
    need arises, he gives them revelation, and they direct his church and
    resolve controversies. Individuals cannot take upon themselves
    authority to act for Christ, but they must receive it from a duly
    authorized representative of Jesus Christ. It was so in the Bible, and
    is so again today. 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
    

    Re: Note 52.8 by IOSG::VICKERS 

    Hi Paul,
        
>   Hmm. The Mormon Church is the restored version of the Church that
>   the Apostles set up. Does this mean then, that the Church celebrates
>   Jewish festivals, that male members wear yarmulkas and tefillim,
>   that some prayers are said in Hebrew, that the Church preaches the
>   gospel to the Jews first, that Old Testament readings are from a
>   scroll...... ??
>   
>   I only ask, because it appears to me, that for a church to be like
>   the Apostles' Church (by Apostles, I mean the original 12 Jews who
>   Jesus picked), then it must be Jewish in flavour and character.
>   Is the Mormon Church Jewish in such respects ? For after all, the
>   Apostles were Jewish and would thus worship in the way they had
>   been brought up, ie much like any other synagogue service but with
>   the added bonus of preaching the gospel of Yeshua ben Yosef.
    
    While we do not have many of the "trappings" of ancient Judaism that
    you mention, perhaps it is worthwhile to mention that we do consider
    ourselves to have a great deal in common with Judaism. Many of the
    prophecies of the Book of Mormon, for example, discuss the gathering of
    Isreal. Jewish people who have joined the church have commented on the
    astonishing similarity of many of the beliefs.
    
    To us, the important thing that the apostles had was the authority
    from Jesus Christ to act in his name, and to administer over the
    affairs of his Church. It is this authority which Peter, James and
    John bestowed upon Joseph Smith, as heavenly messengers.
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
    

    Dear Vickers:
    
    You bring up a good question;  Is Mormonism like Judaism?  The answer
    is in some ways yes:
    
          We build temples, trace lineages according to the 12 tribes,
    believe in the Patriarchal Order.
    
    	In some ways no:
    
           Do not observe Old Testament holidays, require knowledge
    of Hebrewe, worship on Saturday, and accept Jesus as Lord.
    
    While at BYU, I took a class called Bedoins of Nege, which was given
    by a visiting professor, Josef Ginat, Deputy Minister of Defense
    from Israel.  He is also an anthropologist, who had made the hypothesis
    that the American Indian and ancient Hebrews had much in common.
     He searched for years trying to find the missing link to show that
    some Indian tribes (those of the Utah, Arizona area) had Hebrew
    roots.  In his search he discovered the Book of Mormon, and even
    though not a Mormon himself, was absolutely convinced that the Book
    of Mormon was the missing link.
    
    He shared much with us in showing how the Indians of the Southwest
    were similar to the Hebrews.
    
    Mormons have and still do hold a special relationship and kinship
    for Jews.  For we feel that the Jews will play a key role in the
    SEcond Coming of Jesus. 
    
    Perhaps some one else can add more on the special relationship that
    Mormons feel for Jews.

    
    To Lorenzo:
    
    RE: .9
    
    You suggest a process of studying, praying and getting out of sin
    and God will direct you.  That is exactly what my friends, Rick,
    Don, and I did.  Yet, we all ended up in a different space.
    
    I do not understand your reply?
    
    Regards,
    

    Given that the LDS Church teaches that they are the "true" church
    and all others are an "abomination", how does the LDS deal with
    other churches in their current doctrine? Are those churches part of the
    less-than-perfect here and now which eventually will fade away?
    Do LDS'ers when they drive by other churches say, "Tsk, Tsk we better
    pray harder for those apostate whatevers?"
    
    I ask this because I don't see the LDS fitting into the mold of
    Reformation churches (with a zillion spinoffs) or the Catholic Church.
    Maybe this is as a result of my view that Christianity comes in
    either Protestant or Catholic varieties or none of the above.
    
    Just curious.
    
    Regards,
    
    Mark

    Aaaah.  Good question, and a very sensitive issue.  The LDS Church
    has not changed its position about other churches having creeds
    that are an abomination in the sight of God (J.S. 2:19).  A
    popular phrase in the Church is that we should love the sinner
    and not the sin.  This theme was, for example, used in a recent
    (last October?) conference talk by a Church leader with reference to
    how we should support AIDs victims.  An underlying theme is
    that we should love one another regardless of race, creed, and so
    forth.  In light of this, we love all men, regardless of religion.
    And, it is our position to allow religious freedom (11th Article
    of Faith) to all to worship Almighty God however they choose.
    
    So, we love all people and encourage them to worship Almighty God.
    As I've pointed out in other notes, we encourage all to be obedient
    to God and condemn acts of sin, but we do not 'condemn' individuals,
    reserving that judgement to God.  Even when one is excommunicated
    from the Church, it is with the hope that they will return to the
    fold.  (Part of the purpose of excommunication is to relieve from
    individuals the responsibilities to obey the commandments of God
    that they took upon themselves at baptism.  It does not necessarily
    mean that an individual is 'going to hell'.)  Any creed that departs
    from the truths that God has revealed through His prophets is an
    abomination to God.  Any church based on such creeds is not of God
    and is of man.  So, we are not encouraged to join such churches.
    
    Another point is that the Mormon Church (improper name, but
    you know what I mean) is a temporary church.  It is a restoration
    of the original Christian Church.  And, its organization will be
    eliminated when Christ returns (D.&C. 13, though there are
    probably better references).  Keep in mind that I'm referring to
    the Church here as an organization or as a vehicle by which the Lord 
    may address the needs of individuals.  
    
    As pointed out in another note, a church can also mean the
    individuals themselves or societies rather than the organization.  
    I think some take offense because of the LDS Church's strong stand
    about other churches.  They suppose that the Church also rejects or 
    condemns individuals or their freedoms to worship as they will.
    Exactly the opposite is true.
    
    Steve

    Another (hopefully) good question then logically follows......if
    Joseph Smith says any church, other than the LDS church of course,
    is an abomination in the sight of God, then how do you square that
    with the 11th Article of Faith? It seems a little inconsistent.
    
    Until fairly recently, I had trouble driving by any of the numerous
    Catholic lawn icons without feeling a little uneasy (you know, "Thou
    Shalt Have No Graven Images"). But my Congregational zeal must have
    mellowed somewhat over 15 years and now I just look upon them as
    art (some better than others) while trying not to connect any Christian
    worship with them. In other words, while *I* believe that some
    Catholics need to review the Bible a little more closely, I have also
    come to the realization that for some people such icons are an
    expression of *their* Christian faith.
    
    I'm also curious about another point....what Biblical justification if
    any do LDS'ers have for equating attendance at other than an LDS
    church with "sin"?
    
    One last question: some fundamentalist Christians frown on their
    members belonging to any fraternal organizations outside the church
    (Elks, Moose, etc). What's the LDS position on that?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Regards,
    
    Mark
    have for 

  >  I'm also curious about another point....what Biblical justification if
  >  any do LDS'ers have for equating attendance at other than an LDS
  >  church with "sin"?

    I don't think we as a church equate attendance at non-LDS churches as
    "sin".  The first biblical justification that comes to my mind is
    discussed in Matthew chapter 7.  It talks about several things.
    
    1. The strait and narrow gate which leads to eternal life.  
       This is kind of related to #3.  I guess put another way, what's
    popular is not always right and acceptable to the Lord.
        
    2. The way to tell false prophets from true prophets.
       By the fruits of their labors we can tell the true ones from
    the false ones.
    
    3. Having the proper authority to administer to the affairs of the
    kingdom.  This means that baptism, and administration of the sacrament
    among other things are to be performed by those who have the proper
    authority (read priesthood). ;^)
    
  >  One last question: some fundamentalist Christians frown on their
  >  members belonging to any fraternal organizations outside the church
  >  (Elks, Moose, etc). What's the LDS position on that?  
    
    The church does not really frown on belonging to fraternal
    organizations outside of the church.  IMHO, if you are actively
    involved in the church and are magnifying your callings, whatever
    they are, there is not any time left over to belong to much else.
    With being good providers, spouses, parents and christians, there
    is not much time to do anything else.

    I'm sure there are other scriptures that can answer your questions,
    but I have to get back to work.  ;^).
    
    scott

    To Mark:
    
    Before we go down this road too far, I BELIEVE that the creeds
    (doctrines, dogma, beliefs and practices) are the "abomination",
    not the Church itself.  The only church that is an abomnination
    is the Church of the Devil. I, myself, would hesitate to say to
    anyone that their church was an abomination.  I cannot remember
    any of the current General Authorities saying such a thing.  ONe
    of the primary values in Mormonism is free will and choice.  We
    even have an Article of Faith, written by J. Smith, attesting to
    the fact that we believe each person has the right to worship as
    they see fit.  As a people, Mormons uphold with fierce patriotism
    the Freedom of Worship Right given to all Americans.  ONe of the
    first acts Brigham Young did when arriving in Salt Lake Valley was
    to set aside land (given at no cost) for the construction of other
    Christian Churches. 3 Blocks east from Temple Square on Salt Lake's 
    main street can be found a Catholic Cathedral, built on Brigham's
    donated land.
    
    It is the LDS belief that all churches contain "a measure of truth".
     Some Christian churches are the remnants of Christ's original church.
     The LDS Church, however, is preached as the Restored Church,
    containing the "fullness of the Gospel".
    
    Paul 
                                            

	These are good questions!  I hope I can provide good answers.

>    Another (hopefully) good question then logically follows......if
>    Joseph Smith says any church, other than the LDS church of course,
>    is an abomination in the sight of God, then how do you square that
>    with the 11th Article of Faith? It seems a little inconsistent.

	Nope.  There's a big difference between protecting the rights of
	a person to worship 'how, where, or what' he or she may and the 
	Lord saying that the churches of men are an abomination to Him.
	The first is a declaration of support for the preservation of one's 
	agency or freedom to make choices, good or bad.  The second is an 
	evaluation of what constitutes a good or bad choice.  In other 
	words, if you decide that you want to worship Almighty God as
	a <fill in the blank>, I have a responsibility to protect your
	right to make that choice.  I may believe that you are making a
	wrong choice and may encourage you to make what I believe to be
	the right choice, but I will defend your freedom to make the 
	choice.

>    Until fairly recently, I had trouble driving by any of the numerous
>    Catholic lawn icons without feeling a little uneasy (you know, "Thou
>    Shalt Have No Graven Images"). But my Congregational zeal must have
>    mellowed somewhat over 15 years and now I just look upon them as
>    art (some better than others) while trying not to connect any Christian
>    worship with them. In other words, while *I* believe that some
>    Catholics need to review the Bible a little more closely, I have also
>    come to the realization that for some people such icons are an
>    expression of *their* Christian faith.

	Ditto.  I saw a rerun of the old series 'Combat' a week or so ago.
	The Americal soldiers were dodging the Nazi's and came across some 
	French nuns.  One of the older nuns insisted on going back and 
	retrieving a statue, which put several of the soldiers in danger
	when they went back to get her.  They did get the statue back, 
	though it broke along the way.  I seem to recall that they
	glued it back together.  Anyway, I asked myself what I would have
	done in a similar situation.  To me, the statue represented a
	graven image, but to her it represented her link to Almighty God.
	In order to preserve her freedom (besides the fact that she was
	risking her life) I would like to think I would have supported
	her as the soldiers did.  By the way, in the show it was apparent
	that the soldiers didn't think much of the statue, either.  But,
	they had respect for the faith of the older nun.

>    I'm also curious about another point....what Biblical justification if
>    any do LDS'ers have for equating attendance at other than an LDS
>    church with "sin"?

	First, let me go over some Biblical references involving loving
	the sinner but not the sin.

	Perhaps some of the best Biblical references involve some of 
	the dealings of Christ with several sinners.  He loved them, but 
	not their sins.  For example, while on the cross, Christ said 
	(Luke 23:34), 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.'  
	Another example involves the stoning of an adulteress (John 8:3-11).  

	We are encouraged to love one another (John 15:12), but we are not 
	encouraged to love sin (defined as transgression of religious or 
	moral law) at any place in the Scriptures.  There is a parallel
	where we are encouraged to be friends with the wicked but to serve 
	God and despise unrighteous riches (Luke 16:9-13).

	Now, is attending any but the LDS church a 'sin'?  We haven't
	said that.  I've sometimes gone to another church with my friends.
	Did I sin?  Certainly not.  Did I or my friends worship God in
	those churches?  Of course.  However, as an LDS member I have made
	covenents to God that I will follow His commandments, which include
	recognizing and sustaining the leadership of the Church as His
	representatives.  Were I to make covenant with another church of
	a similar nature, I would be breaking my covenents with God.
	This *would* be sin, for me.  

	A similar question might be asked about those who are not LDS
	who are attending other churches.  Does this mean they are sinning?  
	Certainly not, from my point of view.  They have not made the 
	same covenants with God via Priesthood authority as found in the
	Church.  If one is an excommunicated LDS member, are they sinning
	by belonging and attending to another church?  No, because they
	have been excommunicated, meaning that they no longer are 
	responsible for the covenants that they made with God in the
	Church.  In fact, that was part of the intent with the
	excommunication - to relieve them from their covenants until a
	time when they might be resumed.

	A side issue is that of sinning and repenting versus doing good
	works and being valiant in the faith.  Though they cannot be entirely 
	separated, I believe that one cannot make it to the kindom of God 
	(or heaven, if you will) simply by being without sin.  One must also 
	be full of good works and faith.  So, even though one may not be 
	sinning and may be cleansed from sin, one must still work on faith and 
	good works to be 'saved'.  But, this could really diverge from 
	the topic, so I won't elaborate.

>    One last question: some fundamentalist Christians frown on their
>    members belonging to any fraternal organizations outside the church
>    (Elks, Moose, etc). What's the LDS position on that?

	Depends on what oaths and convenants are required of the individual
	and whether these are in conflict with those of the Church.  For
	example, if a fraternity requires that its members swear allegiance
	to Satan or to other men as prophets or representatives of God, 
	one could likely not remain in good standing with both the fraternity 
	and with the Church.  

	I know of several Mormons who are Masons.  The only conflict I have 
	seen them experience involved where to put their time in.  At one 
	time I almost became a Mason (I knew I was going to be invited 
	if I didn't go on my mission).  I checked with my Bishop.  He let me 
	know that there would not have been a problem.  I was shown some of 
	the Masonic lodge and some of a Masonic temple.  I was told a little 
	about what they are about.  I have a lot of respect and admiration 
	for the Masons and support the many good things that they do.

	Steve

    Paul,
    
  �   It is the LDS belief that all churches contain "a measure of truth".
  �   Some Christian churches are the remnants of Christ's original church.
    
    Is this your opinion, or official LDS doctrine?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ed
                                            

    Thanks for all the responses.
    
    Re .3 and .5:
    
    I'm a little concerned about the references to Priesthood in your
    responses - being a Congregationalist that would make sense. We
    generally get very nervous when anybody cites the Bible as a
    justification for Priests because of the problems we have had over
    the years with both the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church on
    that very issue. We Congregationalists don't see anything connected
    with Priests or a Priesthood that can be backed up by Scriptural
    authority. I might have overlooked references already made (my
    apologies if I did) but I would appreciate any you can muster.
    
    Another area of concern for us is Excommunication - probably because
    the Catholics and Church of England did just that to us! Our response
    was the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury were no different
    than any other men - they put their pants on one leg at a time just
    like everybody else. It was (and still is) our belief that they
    had no more authority to excommunicate some one than say Jimmy Swaggart
    as an example. What Scriptural authority does the LDS church have
    for excommunication? I'm sure Matthew 18 will probably come to mind
    except you also have to balance that against "Judge not lest ye
    be judged"; which has preeminence is a subjective human interpretation
    of the Scripture (from a Congregationalist point of view anyway).
    
    Re .4:
    
    I am curious as to which Christian churches are "remnants" of Christ's
    original Church and why. Scriptural references would be helpful
    here also.
    
    Thanks again.
    
    Regards,
    
    Mark

    There are other notes that deal with some of these other concerns
    that y'all may want to look at.  Note 212 discusses Priesthood and
    note 87 discusses the Apostacy.  Just tryin' to avoid diverting
    this note off the topic too much ...
    
    Steve

    Re .5:
    
    Almost forgot to mention one other point......
    
    Since we both seem to agree on the subject of religous icons, how
    do you view the painting of Christ ordaining a disciple (opposite
    the title page in the Book of Mormon)? Is that not a religous icon
    or did I miss something?
    
    Still curious.
    
    Regards,
    
    Mark

    I suggest we open up another note to discuss excommunication.
    Mr. Moderator, feel free to do with my notes as you please.
    Thanks!
    
    Steve

 >   I'm a little concerned about the references to Priesthood in your
 >   responses - being a Congregationalist that would make sense. We
 >   generally get very nervous when anybody cites the Bible as a
 >   justification for Priests because of the problems we have had over
 >   the years with both the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church on
  
    I don't mean to be sarcastic, but why do you get nervous when someone
    talks about priests and priesthood?
    
    This is kind of tough to talk about the priesthood and have a complete
    discussion without making references to other scriptures in addition
    to the bible.
    
    I think there are several notes in this conference which discuss
    the priesthood and document it with scriptures.  Maybe someone can
    provide a pointer to it.  If there is not a note or reply which
    discusses this then there ought to be.  True, church leaders do
    put there pants on one leg at a time, but they have different talents
    and responsibilities than other church members do.
    
    As to excommunication in the church, I guess that should be out
    of the church, this too could be discussed here if it is appropriate.
    We just had a lesson on excommunication in priesthood meeting a
    few months ago.
    
    Basically, what it boils down to is whether or not one recognizes
    the Book of Mormon as being the word of God and a second testament
    of Christ.  If that is true then what it teaches is true.  If that
    is true then it follows that Joseph Smith did indeed restore the
    true church.  If that is true, then the authority we claim to have
    is the true authority from God and we are the people who are authorized
    to administer the affairs of his kingdom here on earth.
                                                      
    scott

>    I think there are several notes in this conference which discuss
>    the priesthood and document it with scriptures.  Maybe someone can
>    provide a pointer to it.


Notes 4.8 through 4.10 discuss our view of Priesthood from a Biblical
perspective.  Notes 4.11 through 4.13 are related.  Since note 4 is read-only,
note 212 is the primary note for Priesthood discussions.  We presently have no
note dedicated to Excommunication. Someone is welcome to start one.

Allen

    
Howdy, Mark!

re: .9

>    Since we both seem to agree on the subject of religous icons, how
>    do you view the painting of Christ ordaining a disciple (opposite
>    the title page in the Book of Mormon)? Is that not a religous icon
>    or did I miss something?

Per the definition in TAHD, it is an icon because it is an image.  It is
an image because it is a vivid representation.  It depicts a religious event.  
But, that is all.  It is just a picture because it is an image rendered
on a flat surface.  It is certainly not something that a person would
worship or pray to or through.  

Not all B of M's have the picture.  In fact, the B of M at my desk has no 
pictures at all.

If you go to a Mormon chapel, for example the Marlboro Ward building (:-)),
you may find lots of pictures in the hallways depicting religious events.
These serve as reminders of things in the Scriptures.  But, in the chapel
area where we have our worship services you will find no pictures, no crosses
or any such thing.  I believe this is to emphasize that these are not things
to be worshipped.  The pictures in our hallways and in our homes serve as
reminders of God, the Scriptures, the Gospel and so forth, but are in no way 
to themselves be objects of worship.


Steve

    Re .11:
    
    Well, your response was not taken as sarcastic if that helps.
    
    Martin Luther was the man who sparked a religous revolution which
    we know as the Reformation. One of the many reforms he instituted
    was that of equality among Christians; no one person was any more important
    than any other. In other words, he by large did away with a Priestly
    class with all their attendant privileges and trappings.
    
    The Congregationalists, inspired by somewhat more radical followers
    of Luther, went one step further and completely eliminated human-based
    hierarchies in any shape, manner, or form whatsoever. They believed
    that the *only* authority was the Bible - no other, save God Himself.
    This is why they got in trouble with the Church of England (and
    other so-called higher orders of Protestantism) because they regarded
    the Archbishop of Canterbury as no more than an English Pope!
    
    Hope that answers your question.
    
    Regards,
    
    Mark

    Re .13:
    
    Thanks for the info.
    
    The more conservative Congregational Churches also have renditions
    of events from the NT and OT in their hallways etc. but normally
    the only object normally allowed in the sanctuary is a *plain*
    unadorned cross (the only exception might be a locally-produced
    poster of Jesus with the Little Children from Matthew). The more
    liberal Congregationalists tend to follow the traditional view -
    no icons, paintings, posters or similar are allowed in the sanctuary
    (except for the previously mentioned cross) and the paintings and
    posters in the hallways minimize images.
    
    I'm surprised if the LDS is a Christian church that you don't at
    least have a cross in your sanctuary.
    
    Mark

    We don't have a cross in our church for several reasons.  The one
    that comes to my mind is one of the commandments given in the Old
    Testament saying "thou shalt have no engraven images...".
    
    An example I've heard my wife mention is that we don't worship the
    cross but the Saviour.  If the Saviour had been slain with a knife,
    would we wear a knife around our neck or hang a knife on a wall
    in remembrance of what he has done?  LDS people view the crucifiction
    as the time when Christ made it possible for all of us to be
    ressurrected and that is what we remember him for.  Not to downplay
    the crucifiction, but the greatest agony Christ suffered was not
    on the cross, but in the Garden of Gethsemane when he took upon
    himself our sins.  Besides, we have to sacrament to remind us of
    his sacrifice for us and our covenants we have made with him when
    we joined the church.
    
    scott

    Re .16:
    
    I can understand the concern about "graven images" but I know of
    *no* prayers in any Christian church to a "cross" or why any Christian
    would pray to a cross. Praying to an object is connected with paganism;
    just as you mentioned the pictures in the hallways of LDS churches
    serve as "symbols" of Christ and His ministry, then why couldn't
    the cross be a symbol of eternal life through Him? The cross is therefore
    a symbol of Christianity just as the Star of David is the symbol
    of Judaism - Jews don't pray to the Mogen David and Christians don't
    pray to a "cross" (that I know of anyway). It seems far more Scriptural
    to have a cross than a picture of Christ praying at Gesthemane. If that
    isn't a graven image, then what is?            
    
    Mark

    Re Re .16:
    
    The Congregationalists recognize only two sacrements: baptism and
    communion.
    
    How many does the LDS have?
              
    Mark

    
    Can anyone answer Ed Preston's question in .6?
    
    Thanks,
    Charlie

    Re: 226.6 by CASV05::PRESTON 
    
> �   It is the LDS belief that all churches contain "a measure of truth".
> �   Some Christian churches are the remnants of Christ's original church.
>   
>   Is this your opinion, or official LDS doctrine?

    Truth is truth where ever it is found. Many churches teach much
    truth, for example, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Lord
    restored a "fulness" of the truth in these latter days through the
    Prophet Joseph Smith, and corrected many incorrect teachings.
    
    When apostasy prevailed after the death of the apostles, the authority
    to act in God's name was lost. There arose many who claimed this
    authority, and they set up churches. I don't know if it is correct to
    call them "remnants" of Christ's church, but I would tend to call them
    "emulators" of it, but lacking in divine authority. 

    Re: 226.7 by MUTHA::STARIN
    
>   I'm a little concerned about the references to Priesthood 
    
    Latter-day Saints do not use the term priesthood in the same way that
    some denominations do. We do not, for example, have a professional
    clergy. Every worthy male in the church is given the priesthood, and
    our leaders are called by revelation from the congregation. These
    leaders do not wear special robes, but dress the same as others. They
    do not preach all the sermons, but call on members of the congregation
    to preach, as directed by the spirit. 
    
    To us, priesthood is authority from God to act in his name. For
    example, we do not believe that any man has the right to baptize
    another, unless he has received authority to do so from someone who has
    it to give. 
    
>   Another area of concern for us is Excommunication 
    
    Those who have been called by God to lead the congregation have the
    responsibility to judge righteously. This direction is found the Bible,
    as well as the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Those who
    will not repent of their sins lose their membership in the church,
    though they are not cast out. If they repent, they may be baptized
    again. 

    Re: ICONS and CROSSES
    
    There are appropriate and inappropriate uses of Religious art. If
    the works of art themselves become venerated in some way, then it
    is inappropriate. If the art helps us to learn of God and glorify
    him, then it is generally appropriate.
    
    To Latter-day Saints, the cross is a symbol of Christ's death. We
    do not wish to glorify his death, but to glorify his resurrection
    in glory. We are mindful of the cross, and acknowledge that our
    Lord was most cruelly crucified, but we do not choose this symbol
    as the primary object of our contemplation. Especially in our chapels,
    the primary object of contemplation is the Lord's Supper, where
    we covenant to remember Him, to take His name upon us, and to keep
    his commandments that His Spirit would be with us.
    
>   The Congregationalists recognize only two sacrements: baptism and
>   communion.
>   
>   How many does the LDS have?

    Usually when Latter-day Saints use the term "sacrament", we are
    speaking of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. There are other
    "ordinances" that some churches refer to as sacraments, but we don't
    usually speak of these as sacraments (I'm not sure why). These include:
    baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the Laying on of
    Hands, marriage, dedication of a grave, healing the sick, and others.
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich 

RE:Note 226.20 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter" 

    Hi Rich,

    >Truth is truth where ever it is found. Many churches teach much
    >truth, for example, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Lord
    >restored a "fulness" of the truth in these latter days through the
    >Prophet Joseph Smith, and corrected many incorrect teachings.
    
    Is, not having the 'fullness' of truth, what Joseph Smith equated
    with 'abomination'? In other words, if I happen to attend a church
    that believes that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God but at the
    same time disagrees with the LDS church on some other teaching, is
    my church 'an abominination' to God according to Joseph Smith?

    >When apostasy prevailed after the death of the apostles, the authority
    >to act in God's name was lost. There arose many who claimed this
    >authority, and they set up churches. I don't know if it is correct to
    >call them "remnants" of Christ's church, but I would tend to call them
    >"emulators" of it, but lacking in divine authority. 

    But what would make Joseph Smith any different from others who have
    claimed to have acted through God's authority?

    Charlie

    Re: Note 226.21 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Hi Charlie,
    
    You've asked some excellent questions, as always! Right at the outset,
    let me say that all the claims of the LDS church hinge on the truth of
    Joseph Smith being a prophet of God and his receiving the revelations
    and authority and heavenly messengers from God that he said he did.
    Others were present when some of these revelations were received, and
    made the same claims. If these claims are false, then the LDS church
    not only does not have a "fullness" of the truth, but it is a terrible
    fraud. If they are true, then the LDS church can lay rightful claim to
    being quite different from other Christian faiths. 

    Let's review a few of these claimed revelations. Joseph Smith said that
    he received a vision in which God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ
    appeared to him, that John the Baptist came and restored the Aaronic
    Priesthood and the power to baptize, that Peter, James, and John came
    and restored the Melchizedek Priesthood and the authority of the
    Apostles, that Elijah came (as was prophesied in Malachi) and restored
    the sealing powers, that Moses and others came and bestowed upon him
    the keys of their dispensations, restoring all things as they were,
    that Moroni came and revealed another testament of Jesus Christ's
    ministry to another nation (the Book of Mormon), written on plates of
    gold and preserved to come forth and to restore and clarify many plain
    and precious truths that had been taken from the Holy Bible, that he
    (Joseph Smith) was given a gift from God to translate this ancient
    record and to bring it forth in our time, that many other divine
    revelations were received giving specific instruction on how the church
    should be organized and shedding light on many other subjects from God. 
    
    I've been studying the ministry of Moses in the Old Testament lately,
    and it is truly remarkable to note how often the Lord gave revelation
    to Moses on so many subjects. In every sense of the way Moses was a
    prophet and received revelation, we believe that Joseph Smith was a
    prophet and received revelation. 

>   Is, not having the 'fullness' of truth, what Joseph Smith equated
>   with 'abomination'? In other words, if I happen to attend a church
>   that believes that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God but at the
>   same time disagrees with the LDS church on some other teaching, is
>   my church 'an abominination' to God according to Joseph Smith?
    
    Let it be remembered that, if Joseph's account is to be believed, this
    is not an assertion of his, but it was an assertion of Jesus Christ.
    Joseph wanted to know which of the many competing Christian faiths he
    should join. When he prayed, he received in answer his first vision, in
    which God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to him. The
    Father said "This is my Beloved Son, Hear Him". Joseph said, 
    
         I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all
         wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their
         creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors
         were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but
         their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the
         commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the
         power thereof." (Joseph Smith - History 1:19) 
    
    I think the Lord said to Joseph Smith that all their creeds, taken as a
    whole, were incorrect, *not* that every bit of their creeds were
    incorrect, for they had a "form of godliness", but they lacked the
    power, or the priesthood and authority from God. This had been taken
    from the earth, due to apostasy. They also taught commandments of men. 

>   >When apostasy prevailed after the death of the apostles, the authority
>   >to act in God's name was lost. There arose many who claimed this
>   >authority, and they set up churches. I don't know if it is correct to
>   >call them "remnants" of Christ's church, but I would tend to call them
>   >"emulators" of it, but lacking in divine authority. 
>
>   But what would make Joseph Smith any different from others who have
>   claimed to have acted through God's authority?
    
    Joseph Smith claimed that God sent heavenly messengers to restore this
    authority as described above. Who else has made such a claim? Also, his
    claims have been established "in the mouth of two or three witnesses".
    That is, others were present when the heavenly messengers came and
    restored this authority. It is not Joseph Smith's word alone. 
    
    The invitation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to
    all men is to study these things out and ask God if they be true. If
    one asks with an honest heart, with faith in Christ, they can know for
    themselves whether or not these things are true. I know this is so, for
    that is how I have gained my own witness that these things are true. 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

RE: Note 226.22 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter" 


    Hi Rich,
    
    
    >Let's review a few of these claimed revelations. Joseph Smith said that
    >he received a vision in which God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ
    >appeared to him, 

    But this doesn't seem to be an overly-unique experience. Others have 
    claimed dramatic visions of Jesus Christ as well. However, I honestly 
    don't recall anyone claiming to have ever seen God the Father, so Joseph
    certainly would have been unique in this respect.

    >that John the Baptist came and restored the Aaronic
    >Priesthood and the power to baptize, 

    But didn't both Peter and Paul baptize with power? Didn't Paul confer 
    this gift through the laying on of hands to Timothy, etc? It would seem 
    that this power was separate from the Aaronic priesthood. Help me with 
    this one, Rich.

    >that Peter, James, and John came
    >and restored the Melchizedek Priesthood and the authority of the
    >Apostles, 

    I think that we've already discussed this at length. :)

    >that Elijah came (as was prophesied in Malachi) and restored
    >the sealing powers, 

    Didn't Jesus teach that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the coming 
    of Elijah? [ref. Matthew 17:10-12]

    >that Moses and others came and bestowed upon him
    >the keys of their dispensations, restoring all things as they were,
    
    All this assumes, of course, that the great apostacy occured between 
    the time of the Apostles and Joseph Smith. Speaking of keys, :), when 
    Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, he stated that the gates
    of hell themselves, would not prevail against the church. How does the
    great apostacy fit into this?

    >that Moroni came and revealed another testament of Jesus Christ's
    >ministry to another nation (the Book of Mormon), written on plates of
    >gold and preserved to come forth and to restore and clarify many plain
    >and precious truths that had been taken from the Holy Bible, that he
    >(Joseph Smith) was given a gift from God to translate this ancient
    >record and to bring it forth in our time, that many other divine
    >revelations were received giving specific instruction on how the church
    >should be organized and shedding light on many other subjects from God. 
    
    It's unfortunate that neither the plates nor the means used to interpret
    them were ever to be found. This would have made the account much more
    convincing.

    Regarding Joseph's account:

         I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all
         wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their
         creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors
         were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but
         their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the
         commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the
         power thereof." (Joseph Smith - History 1:19) 

    It would have seemed more consistant to me if Jesus had responded
    with, "What is that to you; you follow me." Jesus never struck me
    as being all that big on organizations. Besides, I thought that 
    the purpose of the Holy Spirit was to remind us of all things and
    lead us into all knowledge. This too, seems to conflict in my mind
    with the idea of all apostate churches, almost as though the Holy
    Spirit had failed.
    
    >I think the Lord said to Joseph Smith that all their creeds, taken as a
    >whole, were incorrect, *not* that every bit of their creeds were
    >incorrect, for they had a "form of godliness", but they lacked the
    >power, or the priesthood and authority from God. This had been taken
    >from the earth, due to apostasy. They also taught commandments of men. 
 
    I'm sure you know that what is quoted is from 2nd Timothy 3:2-5, yet 
    the people spoken of in this scripture were quite blatantly evil;

        "For men will be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,
         proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
         without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
         incontinent, fierce, despisers of those who are good, traitors,
         heady, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a
         form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such
         turn away."

    Do you honestly believe that this described _all_ the churches of 
    Joseph's day?

>>   But what would make Joseph Smith any different from others who have
>>   claimed to have acted through God's authority?
    
    >Joseph Smith claimed that God sent heavenly messengers to restore this
    >authority as described above. Who else has made such a claim? Also, his
    >claims have been established "in the mouth of two or three witnesses".
    >That is, others were present when the heavenly messengers came and
    >restored this authority. It is not Joseph Smith's word alone. 
    
    Joseph's claim is based upon the alledged statement by Jesus that 
    _all_ churches were apostate and abominations and therefore God has 
    directed him to reestablish _the_ true church. There have been many 
    since Joseph's day that also claim that God has directed them personally 
    to reestablish His true church on earth. I won't mention them by name, 
    but each are emphatic that their's is the one, true church and all others 
    are [in essence] abominations to God in one way or the other, or at best
    simply tolerated. Each have their own individual set of 'witnesses' 
    on which their's is also established.
    
    >The invitation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to
    >all men is to study these things out and ask God if they be true. If
    >one asks with an honest heart, with faith in Christ, they can know for
    >themselves whether or not these things are true. I know this is so, for
    >that is how I have gained my own witness that these things are true. 
    
    No one can deny your personal witness, Rich. For you, this is the truth
    as you've come to personally know it to be true. We are each searching
    for the truth as the LORD chooses to reveal it to us, yet there remains
    differences of beliefs that arise. My personal choice is to not lean on
    my own personal understanding but to allow the LORD to reveal the truth
    to me through the Holy Spirit. I haven't been let down yet! :)

    Charlie

re: -.1
    
>But this doesn't seem to be an overly-unique experience. Others have 
>claimed dramatic visions of Jesus Christ as well. However, I honestly 
>don't recall anyone claiming to have ever seen God the Father, so Joseph
>certainly would have been unique in this respect.

I'm sure you'll disagree with the interpretation, but there is just such
an account in Acts 7:55-56.
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 226.23 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Hi Charlie,
    
>   >that John the Baptist came and restored the Aaronic
>   >Priesthood and the power to baptize, 
>
>   But didn't both Peter and Paul baptize with power? Didn't Paul confer 
>   this gift through the laying on of hands to Timothy, etc? It would seem 
>   that this power was separate from the Aaronic priesthood. Help me with 
>   this one, Rich.
    
    Peter and Paul were both apostles, which is an office in the
    Melchizedek Priesthood. This priesthood includes the authority of the
    Aaronic Priesthood. Thus, Peter and Paul also had the authority to
    baptize. Christ ordained his disciples with priesthood power, part of
    which was the authority to baptize. 
    
>   >that Elijah came (as was prophesied in Malachi) and restored
>   >the sealing powers, 
>
>   Didn't Jesus teach that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of the coming 
>   of Elijah? [ref. Matthew 17:10-12]
    
    Elias is not the same as Elijah. Malachi prophesied that Elijah would
    come before the "great and dreadful day of the Lord", which we
    understand to be the Second Coming. His coming is one of the signs of
    the latter days. His mission is to "turn the heart of the fathers to
    the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I
    come and smite the earth with a curse." (Mal 4:5-6)
    
    Latter-day Saints understand that Elijah came to restore the sealing
    power for sealing families together for eternity. Together with that is
    the importance of strengthening the family ties, both with living
    family members, as well as with our progenitors. 
                                                     
>   All this assumes, of course, that the great apostacy occured between 
>   the time of the Apostles and Joseph Smith. 
    
    The apostles themselves prophesied that apostacy would occur (Acts
    20:29, 1 Cor 11:18, 2 Thes 2:3, 2 Tim 3:5).
    
>   Speaking of keys, :), when 
>   Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, he stated that the gates
>   of hell themselves, would not prevail against the church. How does the
>   great apostacy fit into this?
    
    In the end, the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. Just
    because there was apostacy for a time does not mean that the gates of
    hell have prevailed against the church. The restoration of the church
    and the fulness of the gospel is God's way of preserving the church, so
    that it may prevail. 
    
>   It's unfortunate that neither the plates nor the means used to interpret
>   them were ever to be found. This would have made the account much more
>   convincing.
    
    Joseph was commanded to deliver them back to the angel Moroni, which he
    did. However, there were other three witnesses, besides Joseph Smith,
    who were shown the plates and other related items by the angel Moroni,
    and eight more who were shown the plates by Joseph Smith. All of these
    witnesses remained faithful to their testimony of these events, in
    spite of the fact that some of them later left the church for other
    reasons. 
    
>   It would have seemed more consistant to me if Jesus had responded
>   with, "What is that to you; you follow me." Jesus never struck me
>   as being all that big on organizations. 
    
    This is a notion that some hold that is not supported by the Holy
    Bible. Paul taught specifically that organization was important for the
    perfecting of the saints, until we come unto a measure of the stature
    of the fulness of Christ. (Eph 2:19-20, 4:11-14) 
    
>   Besides, I thought that 
>   the purpose of the Holy Spirit was to remind us of all things and
>   lead us into all knowledge. This too, seems to conflict in my mind
>   with the idea of all apostate churches, almost as though the Holy
>   Spirit had failed.
    
    Many were guided by the Holy Spirit during the period of apostasy. I
    believe that many of the reformers were guided by the Holy Spirit to
    lay the groundwork for the restoration of the gospel. Also, I believe
    that the founders of the United States were guided by the Holy Spirit
    to establish a country with freedom of religion. Those who have been
    honest in heart, no matter when they have lived will be able to learn
    of the fulness of the gospel in the next life, if not here. This is why
    Christ preached unto the spirits who were dead. And this is the
    reason for baptism for the dead. 
    
>   >I think the Lord said to Joseph Smith that all their creeds, taken as a
>   >whole, were incorrect, *not* that every bit of their creeds were
>   >incorrect, for they had a "form of godliness", but they lacked the
>   >power, or the priesthood and authority from God. This had been taken
>   >from the earth, due to apostasy. They also taught commandments of men. 
>
>   I'm sure you know that what is quoted is from 2nd Timothy 3:2-5, yet 
>   the people spoken of in this scripture were quite blatantly evil;
>
>       "For men will be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,
>        proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
>        without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
>        incontinent, fierce, despisers of those who are good, traitors,
>        heady, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a
>        form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such
>        turn away."
>
>   Do you honestly believe that this described _all_ the churches of 
>   Joseph's day?
                                        
    Yes, I do, in varying degrees, of course. They all lacked the power
    to act in God's name, even the power to baptize, as an example of
    something they all held in common.
    
    This scripture is strong support for the apostasy. Paul told Timothy
    what sort of conditions would exist in the latter days, and Latter-day
    Saints claim that this prophecy of Paul's was fulfilled (and continues
    to be). 
    
>   There have been many 
>   since Joseph's day that also claim that God has directed them personally 
>   to reestablish His true church on earth. 
    
    John wrote that there were those in his day that falsely claimed to be
    apostles, and that false Christs would come, etc. Yes, we have to be
    careful of the claims that we accept. We believe that each person must
    find out for themselves directly from God if these claims are true.
    Don't take Joseph Smith's word for it, or mine. Ask God. 
    
>   My personal choice is to not lean on
>   my own personal understanding but to allow the LORD to reveal the truth
>   to me through the Holy Spirit. I haven't been let down yet! :)

    I couldn't agree more.
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
        

    One more thing...
    
    How do Latter-day Saints suggest that you start, if you desire to know
    if these things are true? 
    
    We suggest that you read the Book of Mormon with real intent, desiring
    to know if it is true. By real intent, I mean that you read it with an
    honest willingness to accept it as the Word of God, if it is true. You
    should be willing to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and to be
    baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but only
    if it is true. This is real intent. 
    
    Then ask God, in the name of Jesus Christ, having faith in Christ, if
    these things are true. He will reveal the truth of it to you by the
    power of the Holy Ghost. It's a time honored test that millions,
    including me, have used to gain knowledge for themselves of the truth
    of these things. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
                     
    P.S. If you don't have a copy of the Book of Mormon, send me mail. I'll
    see that you get one. 

RE:Note 226.24 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN "but I'm feeling *much* better now " 


   Hi Steve,
    
>>But this doesn't seem to be an overly-unique experience. Others have 
>>claimed dramatic visions of Jesus Christ as well. However, I honestly 
>>don't recall anyone claiming to have ever seen God the Father, so Joseph
>>certainly would have been unique in this respect.

>I'm sure you'll disagree with the interpretation, but there is just such
>an account in Acts 7:55-56.
    
 No. I don't disagree with that account. When I said, "..I honestly don't
 recall anyone claiming to have seen God the Father..." I was speaking of
 my own personal experience; people that I have personally spoken with.
 Does this clear up my statement?

 Regards,
 Charlie
 

RE: Note 226.26 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       

    Hi Rich,

    >We suggest that you read the Book of Mormon with real intent, desiring
    >to know if it is true. By real intent, I mean that you read it with an
    >honest willingness to accept it as the Word of God, if it is true. You
    >should be willing to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and to be
    >baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but only
    >if it is true. This is real intent. 
    
    >Then ask God, in the name of Jesus Christ, having faith in Christ, if
    >these things are true. He will reveal the truth of it to you by the
    >power of the Holy Ghost. It's a time honored test that millions,
    >including me, have used to gain knowledge for themselves of the truth
    >of these things. 
    
    For me, where I stand spiritually, is that I'm quite content with my
    existing personal relationship and there is really no burning desire 
    to know whether these things spoken are indeed true or not. I am here
    mainly out of intellectual curiosity.
    
    Perhaps this would be my biggest road-block to accepting the LDS
    viewpoint. I strongly disagree with Joseph Smith that I can't have
    an abiding relationship outside of the Mormon Church because of my
    own personal testimony to the contrary. Neither of us can ignore our
    own experience, yet how can one of us be wrong? I'll leave that as
    an exercise for the reader.

    >P.S. If you don't have a copy of the Book of Mormon, send me mail. I'll
    >see that you get one. 

    Allen Leigh was kind enough to send me a copy about a year or so ago,
    but I appreciate your asking just the same.

    Regards,
    Charlie

    As far as I know, neither Joseph Smith nor any other latter-day
    prophet has said you couldn't have an abiding relationship
    with God outside of the Mormon Church.  I trust that you personally 
    have a deep and personal relationship with God.  That relationship
    does not require a Church for it to function.  A Church is one of the 
    ways that our needs are addressed, and this requires proper authority
    to help us make the covenants we need to make as well as revelation.  
    But, the personal relationship we each have with God is between each
    of us and God.  A Church can help with this.  But, no Church that I
    know of can do that automatically for any of us.
    
    Steve

    I don't mean to be sarcastic, but why do you get nervous when someone
    
>    Basically, what it boils down to is whether or not one recognizes
>    the Book of Mormon as being the word of God and a second testament
>    of Christ.  If that is true then what it teaches is true.  If that
>    is true then it follows that Joseph Smith did indeed restore the
>    true church.  If that is true, then the authority we claim to have
>    is the true authority from God and we are the people who are authorized
>    to administer the affairs of his kingdom here on earth.
    
    Not to be sarcastic either, but the converse is also true. If the
    Book of Mormon is not the word of God, then none of the rest is
    true, and you have no such authority.
    
    Ed
    
    

RE: Note 226.29 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN "but I'm feeling *much* better now " 

    Hi Steve,

    >As far as I know, neither Joseph Smith nor any other latter-day
    >prophet has said you couldn't have an abiding relationship
    >with God outside of the Mormon Church.  

    I assume that Joseph's message that all other churches are 
    abominations other than the LDS must still be true. If so,
    it would seem to follow that unless one is a member of the
    LDS church, one is hopelessly in error because of some plain
    and precious truths that have been corrupted, let alone being
    unoffically baptized, which would directly affect my personal
    ultimate relationship with God.

    If my reasoning is sound, then a number of scenerio's would
    follow: 

    Scenerio 1: If I willfully continue in my error, disbelieving
    that Joseph Smith's message is true and it turns out that his
    message was right, I am lost due to unbelief and do not have
    an abiding relationship.

    Scenerio 2: If I accept Joseph's message and it turns out that
    he was deceived or self-deluded and I have allowed myself to
    follow a false prophet, what relationship do I have?

    Scenerio 3: If I reject Joseph's message and it turns out that
    he was deceived or self-deluded, whatever relationship I now
    enjoy should not be affected by my decision.

    Scenerio 4: If I accept Joseph's message and it turn's out that
    he was right then my relationship will definitely be affected 
    for the better.

    I have chosen Scenerio 3.

    >I trust that you personally 
    >have a deep and personal relationship with God.  

    I have had a very powerful life-changing conversion experience.
    Words don't do justice to the event. Suffice to say, that God
    (for whatever reason) has chosen to reveal Himself to me through
    my acceptance of His Son's sacrifice in a very real and powerful
    way, such that I can never, from this point forward, deny His existance.

    >That relationship does not require a Church for it to function.  
    >A Church is one of the ways that our needs are addressed, and this 
    >requires proper authority to help us make the covenants we need to 
    >make as well as revelation.
  
    What covenants are 'required'? And required for what purpose?

    Regards,
    Charlie

  >  >That relationship does not require a Church for it to function.  
  >  >A Church is one of the ways that our needs are addressed, and this 
  >  >requires proper authority to help us make the covenants we need to 
  >  >make as well as revelation.
  
  >  What covenants are 'required'? And required for what purpose?
   
    A covenant is an agreement between us and another person(s).  We
    covenant with our Heavenly Father that we will do certain things
    and he in turn covenants with us that we will receive certain blessings
    when we hold up our end of the bargain.
    
    When we join the church and are baptized, we covenant, among other
    things, to obey his commandments, take upon ourselves his name and
    remember him always.  We renew this covenant when we partake of
    the sacrament or bread and water on Sunday.
    
    When a person repents and covenants not to repeat a wrongdoing,
    the Lord will bless us by forgiving us of our sins and giving us
    the blessings of not sinning.  When he break a covenant, the Lord
    denies us those blessings which are associated with whatever sins
    we have committed.  Every law or commandment has a blessing associated
    with it.                                   
    
    When we keep our covenants, we receive blessings and are allowed
    to return to dwell in the presence of our Heavenly Father.
    
    scott

    Re: Note 226.28 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Hi Charlie,
    
>   For me, where I stand spiritually, is that I'm quite content with my
>   existing personal relationship and there is really no burning desire 
>   to know whether these things spoken are indeed true or not. I am here
>   mainly out of intellectual curiosity.
    
    Fair enough. However, consider this. Suppose for a moment that the Book
    of Mormon is what it claims to be: the Word of God. Suppose that it
    contains things that God would have you know, in addition to the Bible,
    to improve your relationship with Him. Would you then say to God, in
    effect, "No thanks, I've got enough right here in the Bible"? 

>   Perhaps this would be my biggest road-block to accepting the LDS
>   viewpoint. I strongly disagree with Joseph Smith that I can't have
>   an abiding relationship outside of the Mormon Church because of my
>   own personal testimony to the contrary. Neither of us can ignore our
>   own experience, yet how can one of us be wrong? I'll leave that as
>   an exercise for the reader.

    I agree with Steve that no LDS prophet has said you can't have a
    relationship with God outside of the LDS church. Many do! However,
    consider also the possibility that more than a relationship with
    God is needed to dwell with Him in the next life. If, as Latter-day
    Saints believe, certain ordinances are required, such as baptism,
    then it adds a new dimension to the question.
    
    Re: Note 226.30 by CASV05::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
>   Not to be sarcastic either, but the converse is also true. If the
>   Book of Mormon is not the word of God, then none of the rest is
>   true, and you have no such authority.
    
    Exactly! This makes the Book of Mormon the key for knowing the truth
    (or error) of the Latter-day Saint claims.
    
    Re: Note 226.31 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

>   I assume that Joseph's message that all other churches are 
>   abominations other than the LDS must still be true. If so,
>   it would seem to follow that unless one is a member of the
>   LDS church, one is hopelessly in error because of some plain
>   and precious truths that have been corrupted, let alone being
>   unoffically baptized, which would directly affect my personal
>   ultimate relationship with God.
    
    It's not all *that* hopeless! :^) Each person will have a fair chance
    to understand these things, either here or in the next life. God
    is just and merciful!
    
    I think the best way to put it would be that those who love God also
    love the Word of God. They live by *every* word that proceeds from the
    mouth of God. The LDS church merely says that God did not finish the
    scriptures or end revelation to His prophets with the Holy Bible, and
    that those who love Him will be willing to receive every word that
    comes from Him. 
    
>   I have chosen Scenerio 3.
    
    Fine enough, but have you made an informed decision? An informed
    decision can only come after one has read the Book of Mormon and put it
    to the test, by asking God. 
    
>   I have had a very powerful life-changing conversion experience.
>   Words don't do justice to the event. Suffice to say, that God
>   (for whatever reason) has chosen to reveal Himself to me through
>   my acceptance of His Son's sacrifice in a very real and powerful
>   way, such that I can never, from this point forward, deny His existence.

    Thanks for sharing your beautiful testimony! I have had some
    experiences that seem similar to what you are saying here. 
    
>   What covenants are 'required'? And required for what purpose?

    As Scott pointed out, baptism is one.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

RE: Note 226.33 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       

    Hi Rich,
    
    >Fair enough. However, consider this. Suppose for a moment that the Book
    >of Mormon is what it claims to be: the Word of God. Suppose that it
    >contains things that God would have you know, in addition to the Bible,
    >to improve your relationship with Him. Would you then say to God, in
    >effect, "No thanks, I've got enough right here in the Bible"? 

    I suppose it would all depend on whether there really were 'necessary
    things' missing from the Bible. From what little that I've read of the
    Book of Mormon, I don't remember coming across anything that would
    strike me as 'relationship improving', but I've only read a little. 

    Jesus taught that His followers would be given a comforter to lead us into 
    all truth, that being the Holy Spirit. For me, when I read the Book of 
    Mormon, I didn't recieve any spiritual confirmation that what it contained
    was for me. I'm sorry, but this was my experience. Perhaps I wasn't
    sincere enough. As you mentioned, the sincerity needs to be
    there but sincerity needs to be preceded by desire, which I lack.

    >I agree with Steve that no LDS prophet has said you can't have a
    >relationship with God outside of the LDS church. Many do! However,
    >consider also the possibility that more than a relationship with
    >God is needed to dwell with Him in the next life. If, as Latter-day
    >Saints believe, certain ordinances are required, such as baptism,
    >then it adds a new dimension to the question.
    
    The dimension that it seems to add to me is that salvation is by faith
    + ordinances, seeming to indicate that works are required for salvation.
    And yes, I realize what is written in James 2. :)
 
    >I think the best way to put it would be that those who love God also
    >love the Word of God. They live by *every* word that proceeds from the
    >mouth of God. The LDS church merely says that God did not finish the
    >scriptures or end revelation to His prophets with the Holy Bible, and
    >that those who love Him will be willing to receive every word that
    >comes from Him. 
    
    Agreed. If it can be proven that the Book of Mormon is indeed the Word
    of God.    

>>   I have chosen Scenerio 3.
    
    >Fine enough, but have you made an informed decision? An informed
    >decision can only come after one has read the Book of Mormon and put it
    >to the test, by asking God. 
    
    Is it possible to take the test without reading the Book of Mormon? :)
    In other words, why would God require someone to read through the
    entire work before revealing whether or not the Book of Mormon really
    is His Word?

>>   I have had a very powerful life-changing conversion experience.
>>   Words don't do justice to the event. Suffice to say, that God
>>   (for whatever reason) has chosen to reveal Himself to me through
>>   my acceptance of His Son's sacrifice in a very real and powerful
>>   way, such that I can never, from this point forward, deny His existence.

    >Thanks for sharing your beautiful testimony! I have had some
    >experiences that seem similar to what you are saying here. 
    
    Your welcome. It's good to know that we at least share this much in
    common :). Given that your familiar with this type of experience,
    hopefully you can see why I'm totally comfortable with the fact that
    if God wants to reveal the truth of the Mormon Church to me, I'm 
    sure He'll let me know, in spite of myself.

    Charlie

    I keep reading in these notes that the Lord, through Joseph Smith, said 
    the churches of Joseph's time were an abomination.  BUT, the Lord said 
    the creeds (belief system) were the abomination.  
    
     So, which creeds (beliefs) are abominable?  Well in later revelations
    we learn that infant baptism and forbidding to marry are displeasing to
    the Lord.  I am sure that there are others.
    
    Once again, the creeds are the abomination, not the church (unless of
    course, it is the Church of the Devil).
    
    Paul                                  
    

    Re: Note 226.34 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Hi Charlie,
        
>   I suppose it would all depend on whether there really were 'necessary
>   things' missing from the Bible. 
    
    Who is to judge what is necessary in the Holy Bible and what is not?
    Only God would know that. Besides, you cannot know by reading the Bible
    alone if anything is missing that is necessary. You would only know
    that if God revealed it. (Which he has!)
    
>   sincerity needs to be preceded by desire, which I lack.
    
    Well put! Without desire, it's pretty tough to find out the truth of
    anything, I think. This is the "real intent" part. Unless, of course,
    God deems it appropriate to reveal truth in a dramatic way to one who
    is not seeking it, such as he did to Saul. Though this type of
    manifestations seem to be rather rare. 
    
>   The dimension that it seems to add to me is that salvation is by faith
>   + ordinances, seeming to indicate that works are required for salvation.

    Yup. Latter-day Saints believe that this is true, and that it is
    supported by the Bible. Of course Paul made several statements that
    seem to contradict this, but always speaking in terms of the works of
    the Law of Moses, and those Jews who thought that performing the many
    rites that it specified could save them. Paul also abundantly referred
    to the necessity of being baptized.
    
>   >I think the best way to put it would be that those who love God also
>   >love the Word of God. They live by *every* word that proceeds from the
>   >mouth of God. The LDS church merely says that God did not finish the
>   >scriptures or end revelation to His prophets with the Holy Bible, and
>   >that those who love Him will be willing to receive every word that
>   >comes from Him. 
>   
>   Agreed. If it can be proven that the Book of Mormon is indeed the Word
>   of God.                  
    
    Now maybe we're getting somewhere! *IF* it can be proven, you say! 
    
    Well, can it be proven or not? Mormons claim it can be proven, but only
    by the witness of the Holy Spirit after applying the test (read it with
    real intent [prerequisite: sincere desire to know] and ask God if it is
    true [prerequisite: faith that he will answer]). 
    
    What do you say? Do you say it can or cannot be proven in this way? If
    so, why or why not. If it *can* be done, then it ought to be done. If
    it can't be done, then why bother? If it can't then are we to believe
    that God will not answer such a prayer?
    
>   Is it possible to take the test without reading the Book of Mormon? :)
    
    It is strictly and *open* book test! :^)
    
>   In other words, why would God require someone to read through the
>   entire work before revealing whether or not the Book of Mormon really
>   is His Word?
    
    He doesn't always. As with so many other things, he tries our faith
    each individually. Some have had a powerful witness of its truth
    without even reading it at all. Others have read it many times before
    receiving a witness. You see, its up to God. (So ask Him.) 
    
    Please don't take my responses as badgering. I regard this as a
    friendly exchange, and I hope you do, too.
    
    God Bless,
    Rich

    	Just to throw something out as food for thought - we spend so much
    	of our time in these discussions discussing *truths* and what they
    	are. Hugh B. Brown, a member of the Council of the Twelve, had a 
    	discussion about the Church with a member of the Supreme Court of 
    	Britain just prior to WWII. As a part of this discussion they had
    	what in legal terms is called an "examination for discovery" to 
    	find areas of agreement between them thus allowing more time for
    	discussing issues where they did not.
    
    	I think it might be a good idea to have our own "examination for
    	discovery" and find out what *truths* we all agree on. Obviously
    	this would need to take place primarily between LDS and non-LDS.
        
    	I think we would all agree that *truth* is universal and would be
    	binding on all. We just need to establish what truth we agree on.
    	As I see it when we disagree it is generally in areas of doctrine
    	and not in areas of generally accepted truth ie: Revelation,
    	prayer, etc.. As Paul (I believe) asked, "What is truth?" so
    	should we. Unless we (LDS/non-LDS) do this, as I see it, we will
    	be forever spinning our wheels.
    
    	I hope this makes sense to all of you. The method used to arrive 
    	at these areas of agreement is negotiable and should be discussed.
    	Elder Brown started his examination by asking his friend if he 
    	believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God. His method was question/
    	answer. We might just make lists for each side & then compare.
    
    	Well, enough of this. I hope I've made myself clear to all of you.
    
    	God bless you all,
    
    	Dave Pyle
    	TFO
           

    
    	Re .37, I like this idea. How about note 229, as a place to
    start discussing spiritual concepts that we agree are truth.
    (I presume you mean the LDS/non-LDS in this notes conference).
    Neal/B

    	RE: 226.38
    
    	Sounds fine to me. Yes I do mean LDS/non-LDS in this conference.
    
    	Dave
    	TFO

Re: 226.25,

>    Elias is not the same as Elijah. Malachi prophesied that Elijah would
>    come before the "great and dreadful day of the Lord", which we
>    understand to be the Second Coming. His coming is one of the signs of
>    the latter days. His mission is to "turn the heart of the fathers to
>    the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I
>    come and smite the earth with a curse." (Mal 4:5-6)
    
>    Latter-day Saints understand that Elijah came to restore the sealing
>    power for sealing families together for eternity. Together with that is
>    the importance of strengthening the family ties, both with living
>    family members, as well as with our progenitors. 

Sorry, but you're wrong on the Elijah/Elias matter. They are one and the 
same. Elijah and Elias are merely different renderings of the same name, 
Elijah being Hebrew and Elias being Greek. Check any concordance.

Maybe we could call this one place where Mormonism contradicts the Bible...

Ed

    I read/heard once where the word "elias" also meant messenger.  Thus,
    John the Baptist was an elias.  Anyone know anything on this meaning of
    elias?
    
    Paul
    

    Ed's right about the equivalence of the names.  The Danish translation 
    of the Bible has Elias and Elijah translating to the same name,
    for example.  My Bible dictionary refers to Elias as the
    N.T. form of Elijah.  However, as with many names, this name 
    can be title, but the meaning of the title is uncertain, according
    to my Bible dictionary.  It translates to 'God (is) the Lord'.  
    Names and titles in the Scriptures are often swapped around, making 
    things very confusing at times.
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 226.40 by CASV05::PRESTON
 
    Hi Ed,
    
>                             -< Elijah = Elias >-

    Interesting information. However, it still leaves open the question
    about the prophecy of Malachi, who said the Lord would send Elijah the
    prophet with a specific mission, prior to the "great and dreadful" day
    of the Lord. Do you agree that this refers to the Second Coming of
    Christ? If so, then we should expect Elijah the prophet to come prior
    to this event. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon said that he did, and
    that this prophecy was thus fulfilled. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

        Hi,

        With regard to Elias and Elijah, here are some excerpts from Jesus
        The Christ by James E. Talmage:
        
        "It is not possible that Jesus could have meant that John was the
        same individual as Elijah; nor could the people have so understood
        His words, since the false doctrine of transmigration or
        reincarnation of spirits was repudiated by the Jews.  The seeming
        difficulty is removed when we consider that, as the name appears in
        the New Testament, 'Elias' is used for 'Elijah,; with no attempt at
        distinction between Elijah the Tishbite, and any other person known
        as Elias.  Gabriel's declaration that the then unborn John should
        manifest 'the spirit and power of Elias' indicates that 'Elias' is
        a title of Office; every restorer, forerunner, or one sent of God
        to prepare the way for greater developments in the gospel plan, is
        an Elias.  The appellative 'Elias' is in fact both a personal name
        and a title."   pp. 374-375
        
        From the notes on chapter 23 we read:
        
        "That John the Baptist, in his capacity as a restorer, a
        forerunner, or as one sent to prepare the way for a work greater
        than his own, did officiate as an 'Elias' is attested by both
        ancient and latter-day scripture.  Through him water baptism for
        the remission of sins was preached and administered, and the higher
        baptism, that of the Spirit, was made possible.  True to his
        mission, he has come in the last dispensation, and has restored by
        ordination the Priesthood of Aaron, which has authority to baptize.
        He thus prepared the way for the vicarious labor of baptism for the
        dead, the authority for which was restored by Elijah, and which is
        preeminently the work by which the children and the fathers shall
        be united in an eternal bond." pp. 376-377
        
        "In the closing chapter of the compilation of scriptures known to
        us as the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi thus describes a
        condition incident to the last days, immediately preceding the
        second coming of Christ: 'For, behold the day cometh, that shall
        burn as an oven; and all that the proud, yea and all that do
        wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them
        up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root
        nor branch.  But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of
        righteousness arise with healing in his wings.'  The fateful
        prophecy concludes with the following blessed and far-reaching
        promise: 'Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the
        coming of the gret and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn
        the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the
        children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a
        curse.' (Malachi 4:1, 2, 5, 6.)  It has been held by theologians
        and Bible commentators that this prediction had reference to the
        birth and ministry of John the Baptist, upon whom rested the spirit
        and power of Elias.  However, we have no record of Elijah having
        ministered unto the Baptist, and furthermore, the latter's
        ministry, glorious though it was, justifies no conclusion that in
        him did the prophecy find its full realization.  ...  It is
        evident, therefore that the commonly accepted interpretation is at
        fault, and that we must look to a later date than the time of John
        for the fulfillment of Malachi's prediction.  The later occasion
        has come; it belongs to the present dispensation, and marks the
        inauguration of a work specially reserved for the Church in these
        latter days...."  pp. 149 - 150  Notes on chapter 11.
        
        More references are:  D & C 110:13-16; Matt 11:14; 17:11; Mark
        9:11; Luke 1:17 etc...)
        
        John the Baptist & Elijah the Tishbite were two different people.
        I do not believe in reincarnation.  Therefore it is only reasonable
        so far as I can tell, that these two men were no one and the same.
        
        /Don  (just something to consider)

    Let's not forget Elisha either. ;^)
    
    scott

    Re .37:
    
    Hmmmmm. That's interesting. The UK has never had nor does it presently
    have (that I know of) a "Supreme Court". The US alone is the originator
    of the concept of judicial review from which we derive our Supreme
    Court. The system has been copied around the world but it began
    right here in the US of A.
    
    Re Elijah:
    
    Perhaps I'm misreading the comments on Elijah but Elijah and Elisha
    are two distinctly different people. Elisha was a follower of Elijah
    who continued his work after Elijah's ascent to heaven (I & II Kings).
    
    Also, agreed that John the Baptist could not have been Elijah but
    for a reason other than transmigration of souls; namely, as Malachi
    prophesized, that when Elijah returns, he will be the forerunner
    of the Messiah and when the Messiah comes there will be no more
    wars, famine, pestilence, etc.
    
    Since Jesus failed in his mission to the Jews of his day and the
    world remained an imperfect place after his death, the early Church
    had to come up with an explanation for this failure so we have the
    doctrine of the second return.
    
    Just some thoughts.
    
    Mark

 >   Perhaps I'm misreading the comments on Elijah but Elijah and Elisha
 >   are two distinctly different people. Elisha was a follower of Elijah
 >   who continued his work after Elijah's ascent to heaven (I & II Kings).
  
    I agree.  My comment was a feeble attempt at humor. (read ;^) ).
    
    scott

    Re: Note 226.46 by MUTHA::STARIN

    Hi Mark,

>   Since Jesus failed in his mission to the Jews of his day and the
>   world remained an imperfect place after his death, the early Church
>   had to come up with an explanation for this failure so we have the
>   doctrine of the second return.

    This is an interesting assertion. However, Christ himself prophesied
    that he would come again: 
         
         For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his
         angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
         (Matt 16:27)
         
    The angels also testified at the ascension of Christ:
         
         Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same
         Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in
         like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:11)
    
    See also Matthew 24, in which the Lord refers repeatedly to His
    second coming.

    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich 

RE: .46
    
>    Since Jesus failed in his mission to the Jews of his day and the
>    world remained an imperfect place after his death, the early Church
>    had to come up with an explanation for this failure so we have the
>    doctrine of the second return.


        I for one believe that Christ was not a failure in his mission, in fact
        he was very successful.  He accomplished exactly what he came for,
        namely to suffer the atonement.  The Old & New Testament both
        contain numerous references to the first and second coming of the
        Savior.
        
        The mosaic law was instituted originally as a *type* or symbol of the
        atoneing sacrifice of the Savior.  The sacrifices were meant to
        symbolize the atonement of the Savior.  For example, the Savior is
        often referred to as the *lamb of God* which has direct reference
        to the sacrifices embodied in the law of Moses.  This is why the
        law of Moses was fulfilled when Christ was ulimately crucified.
        
        As mentioned in .48, Christ & the Angels stated that he would come
        again.  His first coming was to atone for the sins of mankind.  His
        second coming is to usher in the millenium.  It was not possible to
        usher in the millenium at his first coming (my opinion here) since
        the atonement would not have taken place, & the eternal plan of
        salvation would have been frustrated.
        
Don.

    	Re: 46:
    
    	The words used in reference to the Supreme Court of Britain were 
    	Elder Brown's words from the story. Perhaps I should have used
    	quotation marks. I believe he meant Britains highest court, 
    	whatever it may be called. Who knows, maybe the British copied
    	the concept from us.
    
    	D.P.

    Re .48 & .49:
    
    Your comments are interesting considering that LDS church doctrine
    says (and please correct me if I am wrong) only LDS doctrine correct
    and all other Christian doctrines are more or less incorrect; yet
    you espouse what amounts to Orthodox Christian doctrine with regard
    to Jesus of Nazareth.
    
    His mission to the Jews was a failure but there was nothing particuarly
    unique about that. Other Jewish prophets had preached to the Jews
    and had been ignored as well. In addition, he knew what fate was
    in store for him once he went to Jerusalem and began challenging the
    policies of the Sadducees with regard to the Temple. The Sadducees were
    the priestly class that collaborated with the Roman occupation forces
    (the Quislings of their day). Jesus, in fulfillment of the OT
    prophecies, went in and cleared the Temple. When he did, he drew
    their attention and it was at that point he knew it was only a matter
    of time before he was history.
    
    After his death, and with the ruthless suppression of traditional
    Judaism by the Romans (especially after the sacking of Jerusalem
    in 70 AD), his followers knew that to emphasize the Jewishness of
    Jesus was an invitation to disaster. So at the Council of Jerusalem,
    they adapted the teachings of a Jewish sage to a Gentile world and
    thus we have the early church. The Jewish Christians objected
    strenuously (see Acts) because they felt a follower of Jesus had
    to follow the Law and be circumcised etc. which was not unusual
    because Jesus himself upheld the Law. In any event, the Paul's
    doctrines prevailed and were later expanded upon and solidified
    into Orthodox Christian doctrine by the end of the 4th century AD.
    Thus, we see the Gospel writers making statements about Jesus they
    could not have made in their lifetimes - certain statements had
    to have been added later under the influence of Orthodox Christian
    doctrine.
    
    Just my opinions based on a study of historical evidence.......
    
    Re. 50:
    
    No biggie. I'm sure he was equating whatever Britain's highest court
    is to our Supreme Court. Just wanted to set the record straight
    in case someone thought there really is a British Supreme Court.
    
    Regards,
    
    Mark
    

    Re: Note 226.51 by MUTHA::STARIN

>   Your comments are interesting considering that LDS church doctrine
>   says (and please correct me if I am wrong) only LDS doctrine correct
>   and all other Christian doctrines are more or less incorrect; yet
>   you espouse what amounts to Orthodox Christian doctrine with regard
>   to Jesus of Nazareth.

    There is much in LDS doctrine that is held in common with other
    Christian faiths. We do not reject their teachings wholesale. We do say
    that they lack the prerequisite divine authority, however, and they do
    teach some incorrect doctrines. But they espouse many correct
    doctrines, as well. 
    
    You have based your expressed view of Christ's mission on your study of
    history, and it describes a possible scenario. One of the things I am
    thankful for in the Book of Mormon is that it is a Second Witness of
    Jesus Christ and of His mission, written completely independent of the
    Bible. It confirms the witness of the Holy Bible of Christ and of His
    mission, and lays to rest some of the conjecture that you have raised
    about the evolution of certain Christian teachings and doctrines, for
    those that believe it. 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

    Re .52:
    
    Hi Rich:
    
    Well, there are a number of excellent books out right now that deal
    with the historical aspects of Christianity. My comments are derived
    from some of those books.
    
    The sense I get from most of what I've read (and I certainly do
    not claim to have read every book on the subject) is that Jesus'
    ministry was separate and distinct from the post-Council of Jerusalem
    church of Peter and Paul. In addition, the very early church,in
    existence between the death of Jesus and the Council of Jerusalem, had
    a very Jewish orientation which was unacceptable to Peter and Paul
    (not to mention how to sell the teachings of a Jewish sage to Gentiles
    and pagans).
    
    That shouldn't surprise us - after the sacking of Jerusalem, Jews kept
    a very low profile among the Romans (those that were still alive
    anyway). Christianity on the other hand adapted fairly well to the
    Roman rule because of its generally pacifistic nature. Christians
    really only ran into problems when they were accused by Nero of
    putting the torch to Rome.
    
    Mark

This past weekend was regional conference for our region.  The general
authorities who attended were Elder Loren C. Dunn, Elder James E. Faust and
President Gordon B. Hinckley.  We attended a 4 hour training mtg on saturday
afternoon and a 2 hour general session mtg sunday morning. 

During the training meeting, President Hinckley related an experience he had
during the Jordan River Temple open house.  They invited some ministers and
pastors of other faiths to tour the temple before it was dedicated.  After the
tour they had a talk with the ministers.  One minister could not contain
himself and asked an interesting question.   He said something like this. 

	"The conceit!  The Arrogance!  How can the LDS church get away 	with
	saying it is the only true church?  What gives you the 	right to say
	that?" 

Those are not his exact words, but hopefully, it conveys what he felt and also
how some people who read this conference feel.  President Hinckley simply
responded, "We did not say it, the LORD is the one who said it."  And then he 
quoted some scriptures to show where the LORD does say this.  I don't know if 
he quoted the scriptures to the group of ministers.

My own feeling is that if you believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of GOD 
and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet then you can also accept President 
Hinckley's response as being valid.  If, however, you do not, then we are just 
another church as far as everybody else is concerned.

scott 

    
    	In April 1975 General Conference Elder Hinckley, speaking on the
    	Savior, related a story about a similar tour taken by ministers
    	of other faiths through the Mesa Arizona Temple prior to its 
    	rededication. One minister asked why there were no crosses in the
    	Temple. Elder Hinckley replied that the cross is the symbol of
    	the dying Christ while we worship the living Christ and that the
    	lives led by church members is the symbol of our faith.
    
    	We, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,
    	are encouraged to come to know the Father and the Son on an
    	intimate personal level and, after having received that witness,
    	to live as they would have us live. That is the symbol of our
    	Church! Living symbols of a Savior that is alive and guiding the
    	affairs of His church on Earth.
    
    	I submit that it is not my responsibility to prove that the LDS
    	church is the true church. There is no way to prove that nor 
    	should we, as members, even try. The only way for a person to
    	come to a knowledge of the truth of this church is to EARNESTLY,
    	and SINCERELY study the Book of Mormon, ponder its contents with
    	real intent, and pray with faith that these things are true.
    	Until this is done all other discussion, though enjoyable and 
    	stimulating, has little meaning or effect. The witness is of 
    	a spiritual nature and that cannot gained merely with words.
    	As Scott so aptly said all arguments against this church rest
    	on the validity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's being
    	a Prophet of God. These things are proven to the soul by the
    	Holy Ghost. 
    
    	May the Lord bless us all to become like Him more each day and
    	to seek Him and His truth.
    
    	Dave
    
     

    regarding note .51
                      
        >Thus we see the Gospel writers making statements about
    >Jesus they could not have made in their lifetimes- certain
    >statements had to have been added later under the influence
    >of Orthodox Christian doctrine.
                      
    >Just my opinions based on a study of historical evidence.
                      
    Please be specific to the above and reference the statments they
    could have not made in Jesus's lifetime and how you came to this
    conclusion.  
    
    Matt
    

    To Roger in .15
    
    Bingo, you have just hit the $64k question.  I, too, have wrestled with
    the question you pose, namely, "How can different people arrive at
    different points of religious understanding using the same process?
    (prayer, study, sincere seeking, and inspiration).
    
    Please, oh please read my note in 52.4 for my ideas.  I have yet to
    have anyone in this Note or in the Christian Note reply to the idea I
    have suggested.  I really would like to have your comments, Roger.
    
    Paul

    Paul,

    I don't know that I can give you a good answer, but I'll address
    some of your statements from 52.4

>    I have had discussions with these men and found that we, all three,
>    differ from each other's belief system.  Yet, each of us is ABSOLUTELY
>    CONVINCED of having found the TRUTH, testifying that the Holy Spirit
>    has witnessed to us the truthfulness of our chosen paths.
    
      It is obvious that all of you cannot be hearing from the Holy Spirit.
      This is why I contend that a 'feeling' is not a valid indicator
      of truth.  Also, it would be interesting to know what the Born Again
      and the one that started a church believed as well as why each of you
      were seeking God in the first place.

>    How can this be?  If God is not the author of confusion, then each
>    person who asks would be led to the one and only one way.  Yet,
>    each person seems to find their own unique path.
    
    What you are asking here is can 'sinful' man ask God, (whom the sinful
    man does not know) to show truth and expect to be able to 'hear'
    God give him a concise answer within some expected period of time.


> Thus, he allows the principle of free will to take precedence over
> the principle of salvation.                        
    
    Simply put, but I believe you have touched on an element of truth.

    

>    Well, then could it be that God looks down from heaven, sees people
>    exercising faith (even as small as a mustard seed), and says to
>    himself "Here is faith.  Here is someone I can teach". And so faith
>    is rewarded in the same measure it was exercised.  Even when I did
>    not know God or his son, when I used another name for him, when
>    I believed strange things about him, he was always there to answer
>    my prayers of faith, lead, guide and teach me.  In this case he
>    was willing to let the principle of faith take precedence over other
>    principles (such as having a correct understanding of the Gospel).
    
     I don't think I would agree with this, but suppose that God does
    try to teach you things and your understanding increases.  But then
    God begins to teach you about some sin that you are involved in and
    so you reject the teaching because you enjoy your sin.  Does this not
    leave open the door for you to believe something other than the truth?

================================================================================
Note 64.15                Direct-Evidence and Parallels                 15 of 19
GENRAL::RINESMITH "GOD never says OOPS!"             19 lines  26-MAR-1990 12:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> since my acceptance of the BoM is based on faith and personal prayer and not
> on scholarly evidence.

    I have a hard time understanding this level of faith.  The reason is
    that many religious groups base their religion on faith and personal
    prayer as well.  I am sure that we could find such a group that both
    you and I would agree is 'way off in left field'.   These people
    are probably just as sincere as you are.  What I am asking is how
    can you validate the BOM based only on 'faith' and 'personal prayer'
    when other religious groups use 'faith' and 'personal prayer' to
    validate their religions, and yet these are in conflict with one
    another.  Can we objectively validate the BOM without the need for
    subjective (prayer/faith) analysis? 
    

    Roger