Conference tecrus::mormonism

    
    	How about this definition: That which leads to perfection, 
    	that which leads to beauty, harmony, virtue, is Truth. That
    	which brings a human being closer to God, which makes a
    	person more Christlike, Buddha-like, Mohammed-like, etc.
    	Which makes a person more tolerant, more open-minded and
    	enlightened, and puts the person in greater harmony with
    	the Universe. Does the Book of Mormon uplift you spiritually?
    	Does it make you a better neighbor, better parent, spouse?
    	Does it also make you a happier person? Then you have found
    	Truth. But if someone finds these exact same qualities, these
    	benefits accruing unto themselves from other teachings,
    	who are you, or I for that matter, to deny them their Truth?
    
    Neal/B

    
    Well, the only definition of truth that I accept from a religious sense
    is in accordance with D. & C. 93:24.  I don't figure that 'it's true
    for you, but not for me' will carry much weight when I stand before
    God on Judgement Day.  But, I certainly agree if what is meant is
    that we *accept* different things as being true.  And, I *accept*
    your right to believe differently than I do.  And, that doesn't
    mean that I *accept* what you believe as true.  I agree that we
    all have to decide for ourselves what truth is, but that will not
    alter what truth actually is, according to the definition in 
    D. & C.

    In the conferece, I think one of the main problems pointed out was
    that intellectuals often find truth but tend neither to embrace it nor 
    apply it.  This implies to me that they must have other intents than that
    of finding it so that they can benefit from its application.

    Hey, I'm glad you opened this topic.  Could provide more intersting
    discussion.

    Steve

    
    Re .2,
    
        >    is in accordance with D. & C. 93:24.  I don't figure that 'it's true
>    for you, but not for me' will carry much weight when I stand before
>    God on Judgement Day. 
          
    
    True, true! What *will* carry much weight is what sort of person
    you are. Were you a good neighbor, husband, father? Did you love
    your neighbors, even those that hated you? Did you live up to
    the commitments enjoined upon you by your LDS Church? Were you
    a man of your word? It is in these things that one's love of
    God shows forth. Simply saying "I love God" does not make it 
    so. For one cannot love God - CANNOT love God - and still harbor
    ill feelings toward one's fellow man!
    
    BTW, pardon me for bringing it up, but why is it that no Mormon
    women ever seem to join these discussions? Is there some ordinance,
    like not being able to hold the priesthood, that restricts them
    from giving an opinion? 
    
    (I only bring it up because I noticed that whenever I have discussions
    with members of the Born-Again Christian church, they always herd
    the women off to another room, making some lame excuse. I pointed
    out to them that I could never join a church that didn't believe
    in complete equality, and denied me an opportunity to learn from
    someone just on the basis of their gender. This issue has never
    been explained to my satisfaction.)
    
    
    Neal/B

    Truth seems to be a bit like a multicolored beach ball. That is it
    looks different when viewed from different angles. One person would see
    it as blue and the other would see it as red. Both would be partially
    correct and yet neither is seeing the entire ball. The real fun begins
    when they start to insist that theirs is the only correct viewpoint.

    To see truth in its entirety, it is often necessary to rise above it
    and view it from that level.

    Dan Kusnetzky

Neal,

I really like your statement about what will carry weight on the judgment
day!  You really described what should be our priorities in life!

There is nothing in either this conference or in the LDS church that should
discourage women from participating in these notes; I hope we haven't done
something to discourage them from being more vocal.  Perhaps they are busy
getting real work done....

Allen

    
    	Re .5, Thanks Allen! 
    
    	Re .4, This is the point I was trying to make in .0, about the
    	sublime nature of Truth. If the beach ball were *huge*, like
    	Truth, we tiny humans would not be able to percieve all of it.
    	But when we "rise above it" (I forget your exact words), i.e.
    	enter the Kingdom of Heaven (which, remember, Jesus taught was
    	*within*!!!) then Truth may be apprehended in all It's splendor,
    	beauty and glory.
    
    	Well, enough for now let me go and find some "real work" to
    	do!
    
    Neal/B

    RE .6
    >	If the beach ball were *huge*, like
    >	Truth, we tiny humans would not be able to percieve all of it.
    >	But when we "rise above it" (I forget your exact words), i.e.
    >	enter the Kingdom of Heaven (which, remember, Jesus taught was
    >	*within*!!!) then Truth may be apprehended in all It's splendor,
    >	beauty and glory.

    Yes, our human consciousness IS limited. Few, however, make the effort
    to journey to even ITS boundaries. While limited, its capability for
    experience and vision is greater than often believed possible. Many
    seem content to live within their self-imposed restrictions due to
    beliefs such as:
       "It's not possible to learn those things now, I must wait until
        that time when I enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

    Some, believing that it is possible to experience truth for themselves,
    find going to that temple within allows them to find answers their
    questions concerning truth for themselves. Once that inward journey is
    begun, it is often found that a great deal can be learned first hand.

    	Dan K.

    Boy, Neal, you sure got the (beach) ball rolling ... ;-)
    
    There are some really good thoughts here.  Hope what I write adds
    to it.  A recurrent theme in the Scriptures is that of learning
    truth 'line upon line, precept upon precept' (Isaiah 28:9-10,
    D. & C. 98:12).  I think that it is not always necessary for us to 
    see the whole picture so that we can understand a small part of it.  

    For example, we often say that we can't see the forest because
    of the trees when we don't understand something that is more easily
    understood from a better perspective.  But, we do at least see
    trees and know that there are a bunch of them.  Just because we
    don't see the forest doesn't mean we should deny that we see trees.

    Similarly, we can seek out truths and allow an understanding to
    carefully build, basing what we learn on a solid foundation of
    knowledge and experience.  We can also apply some of the truths
    we learn without requiring that we first know all truths.

    
    Steve

    RE .9

    Wow! Now we have both beach balls and forests. Combining both certainly
    gave me some interesting mental images. Ah, spring! 8^)

    Steve's comment brought out an important point. Waiting for the
    complete vision of truth before living one's life guarantees paralysis!
    Truth is uncovered a piece at a time. Each new vision of truth builds
    upon the last. Learning more seems to require the incremental
    application of truth that has already been learned. Additional
    experience will reinforce one's partial understanding of truth and will
    bring a more complete vision in time.                  
 
    	Dan K.

    
    	The feeling that prompted me to start this topic was something
    	that I read into Steve's comment in note 222 about intellectuals
    	finding the truth and not accepting it. I took that to be a
    	reference to persons who study LDS teachings and don't embrace
    	them as the "truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth".
    	Did I misunderstand, Steve?
    
    	Just last Sunday, a Rabbi came to speak at our church (which
    	accepts that there is truth to be found in all the great
    	teachings). His address to us gave us access to additional 
    	truths, or better yet a new perspective on spiritual realities.
    	Thus adding to our ever-growing body of spiritual knowledge.
    	I was fascinated, and am even considering a visit to a synagog
    	to see what more I may learn. Shame it would be, to be denied
    	this enriching experience because of a belief that no other
    	religion has truth!
    	
    Neal/B

    I haven't used notes very often and am not sure how to perform some
    basic operations.  For example, I don't know how to pull part of
    a note in order to respond specifically to that part.  That's one
    reason I, Mormon woman, haven't [yet] participated more.  Another
    reason: quite often as I read I find that someone else has already
    entered the answers, interpretations, etc., that I feel and I hate
    to belabor the point.  Alan's answer sounded pretty good too!
    
    Re Dan's note (229.11), we learn "line upon line, precept upon precept,
    here a little and there a little".  To wait for complete knowledge
    in order to achieve perfection is to guarantee that perfection will
    never be reached - conversely, to work upon the foundation of knowledge
    that we have, testing and trying offerings for their truth as
    we build, offers the possibility (and the only possibility at that)
    of reaching that complete vision and knowledge of truth.  Not
    necessarily today, of course... ;)
    
    I'm reminded of a conversation between two characters, brother and
    sister, in the production _Saturday's Warriors_.  The sister likened
    the gaining of knowledge, and ultimately complete truth, to looking
    at the stars on a summer evening.  We see first one star, then another
    and another until the heavens are blazing with glory - how foolish
    we would be to reject that glorious truth because it began with
    just one star.
    
    Regards,
    aq
    (Ann Quayle that is)
    
    

Note 230 has been created to discuss the role of Mormon women; portions of
several replies to this note that concern women have been copied or moved
to that note.

    re .12:
>I took that to be a
>reference to persons who study LDS teachings and don't embrace
>them as the "truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth".
>Did I misunderstand, Steve?

    Hmmm.  I agree except for the implication that we are talking LDS
    doctrine (as opposed to policy) as being separate from spiritual
    truths.  Also, the 'whole truth', implying all spiritual truths, is
    not found in LDS teachings.  Else, we would not expect further
    revelation (Articles of Faith, 9).  What we claim to have is a subset 
    of all truths which has no intersection with the set of abominable 
    creeds.
    
    In the conference, I understood the speaker to be referring to 
    intellectuals who investigate Gospel teachings and find them to be
    true but don't apply them.  I think it's akin to when somebody is
    losing an argument and so decides to change the topic. The result
    being one of ever learning, but never gaining knowledge about truth 
    (2 Tim. 3:7).  It seems a funny thing to find that something is true
    and to reject it anyway.  But, it happens.
    
    Steve

    
    
    Hi Anne, glad to hear from you!
    
    >    Re Dan's note (229.11), we learn "line upon line, precept upon precept,
>    here a little and there a little".  To wait for complete knowledge
>    in order to achieve perfection is to guarantee that perfection will
>   never be reached ...
    
    Actually, I think there is a misunderstanding in your note and another
    (I forget which note) regarding the "beach ball" analogy. It doesn't 
    mean that we stagnate and not strive for perfection, but rather
    that when we reach the more perfect state, we can then see that
    Mormons, Moslems, Jews et cetera are all looking at the same "beach
    ball". 
    
    More on this later,
    
    Neal/B

    RE 229.16
    
>    Actually, I think there is a misunderstanding in your note and another
>    (I forget which note) regarding the "beach ball" analogy. It doesn't 
>    mean that we stagnate and not strive for perfection, but rather
>    that when we reach the more perfect state, we can then see that
>    Mormons, Moslems, Jews et cetera are all looking at the same "beach
>    ball". 
    
    Neal has caught my meaning quite well. A wise man once said that men
    all look at the same truth, call it by different names, and then fight
    over their descriptions of it!
    
    All see a portion of truth. It is possible, though, to see more. Life
    is the teacher.
    
    	Dan K.

    
    	As the Joseph Smith's revelation from God that"all other teachings
    are an "abomination" in God's sight. To be sure, there were lots
    of "snake oil" religions in the days of J.S.. The context of "all"
    may be the issue here. What may have been revealed th J.S. was that
    "all" of the preachers in his aquaintance were preaching an abominable
    perversion of Christianity.
    
    The saddest part, in my view, of the current state of spiritual
    affairs, is that we have all of these religions, running around
    proclaiming themselves to be the "one true faith" - just like in
    the episode in the Bible, wherein all of the apostles are declaring
    their individual selves "the greatest". And what happened? Jesus
    showed them all Who was indeed the greatest, by humbling himself
    and washing their feet.
    
    If only the Christian traditions of today could learn from His example - 
    and prove their greatness by "washing each other's feet"!
    
    Neal/B

    RE .18

>   The saddest part, in my view, of the current state of spiritual
>   affairs, is that we have all of these religions, running around
>   proclaiming themselves to be the "one true faith" - just like in
>   the episode in the Bible, wherein all of the apostles are declaring
>   their individual selves "the greatest". And what happened? Jesus
>   showed them all Who was indeed the greatest, by humbling himself
>   and washing their feet.

    Neal, it is an interesting artifact of the human state of consciousness
    that it believes that whatever is right for it is right for EVERYONE
    ELSE. This is likely to be the reason for each having the belief that
    THEIRS is the only TRUE path.

    Each religious path is perfect and right for the people who follow it
    and not for those who don't. Truth can be seen from many vantage
    points. None, however, have the right to force their beliefs on others.

>   If only the Christian traditions of today could learn from His example - 
>   and prove their greatness by "washing each other's feet"!

    It certainly would be a pleasure to live in a world in which everyone
    respected the beliefs of others as being right for those who believe.
    It is not something that I expect to see very soon! Too many are
    convinced that their's is the only true path to God.

    	Dan Kusnetzky

    Re: Note 229.19 by NSSG::KUSNETZKY

    Hi Dan,
    
>   Neal, it is an interesting artifact of the human state of consciousness
>   that it believes that whatever is right for it is right for EVERYONE
>   ELSE. This is likely to be the reason for each having the belief that
>   THEIRS is the only TRUE path.
    
    The more important issue is *not* what you or I think is the true path,
    but what God thinks is the true path. If men are going around
    proclaiming that their ideas are the only TRUE path, without sanction
    from God, then I think you are justified in your remarks. But suppose
    for a moment that there is a Heavenly Father, who has created us, who
    has a purpose for us (our eternal happiness), and who knows what is
    required for that purpose to be accomplished. Suppose that He has
    spoken regarding the TRUE path. Then the matter is quite different. 
    
>   None, however, have the right to force their beliefs on others.
    
    Very true!

    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
                                                                       

    Just a thought ...
    
    When I was in Denmark I saw the results of a religion that people
    belong to but don't believe to be the 'one true religion'.  They
    have remarkable acceptance of other religions and are among the
    most liberal and generous to others.  They have no poor in the country
    and little censure of the media.  The government provides a
    cradle-to-grave program to take care of basic medical and other 
    living expenses.
    
    An utopia, right?  Not necessarily.  People who refer to their
    membership to the Danish Folk Church as their 'child faith' often
    profess no belief in God, Christ or the Bible.  The Danish Folk
    Church is government-sponsored and the most popular church in the
    country, but the chapels are largely vacant during worship services
    except during special occasions.  They often have family Bibles, but 
    it is a common joke that there is a layer of dust on top of every 
    Danish family Bible.  They have a high suicide rate, heavy national 
    debts, high levels of drug abuse, rampant immorality with the a
    ccompanying social and physical ailments, deviant youth and so forth.
    
    What I'm working up to is, who would want to belong to a Church
    while not believing it to be the one TRUE Church?  I believe that it does
    happen, but the results are not happy.  Even if we disagree on which
    is the TRUE Church, we must have some common beliefs as to the need 
    to find and abide by truth.  This is lacking in the situation
    previously described.  Instead of attempting to discover and abide
    by truth, we have a people attempting to justify living lasciviously.
    
    By the way, I do not condemn the people of Denmark.  I love these
    people and only a large percentage behave in the manner described.  
    There are many who are sincerly trying to bring about changes in
    the country and who see how the country is being brought down by
    the current mores.

        
    Steve

    Re .21,
    
    
        >    What I'm working up to is, who would want to belong to a Church
>    while not believing it to be the one TRUE Church?  I believe that it does
>    happen, but the results are not happy.  Even if we disagree on which
>   is the TRUE Church, we must have some common beliefs as to the need 
>    to find and abide by truth.

    
    Perhaps the more enlightened, who realize that what we are looking
    at is a giant beach-ball. 
    
    I believe my church has Truth. That's why I go. Things that have
    been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, are echoed there, amplified
    there. Concepts that I know from experience, from LIVING, are expounded
    there, things that I would miss out on if I were to become, say,
    a born-again Christian. Some of these concepts would be of no use
    to someone who was a BAC or LDS or some such, except as having a
    minor "intellectual curiosity" value. Such persons would have no
    way to apply such concepts in their lives. For me. however, gaining
    an understanding of these things is VITAL to this phase of my spiritual
    development.
    
    To the LDS Church, I would say (if I may be so bold as to preach!):
    Rather than expending so much energy trying to convince everyone
    that something is true, why not re-direct that energy, into seeing
    what good you can do with these truths? Say to yourselves everyday,
    "how can I use this knowledge to make someone happy? How shall I
    apply it in my own life, to make of myself a blessing to another?
    What example of kindness, of love, from these teachings shall I
    show forth to my neighbor?
    
    Let kind deeds, rather than strong words, be your mission. Let the
    example of your life be your evangelism. be a living example of
    what you believe in, and many will come willingly to your light.
    Judge, harangue, harrass and condemn, and many will flee from your
    darkness.
    
    

    Neal,
    
    Though the LDS Church does expend much energy in 'preaching' (that
    being a characteristic of the 'true' Church), this is not all that we 
    do.  We tend not to draw much attention to the other things we do,
    which is probably why you might have the impressions that you have
    and feel the need to 'preach' to us.  
    
    Our financial statements, for example, indicate that we do much more
    than preach.  We were recently cited as the single biggest contributor
    to the Red Cross.  We have been staunch supporters of the Boy Scouts
    and similar programs for many years.  And, there are many other
    examples though many are largely unpublicized.
    
    As for me, much (if not most) of the time and resources I spend in
    Church service involve labors of compassion (assisting the poor,
    visiting in prison, providing other Christian fellowship, serving in
    my Church callings and so forth).  But, you won't hear about that
    because I, like other Church members, tend not to boast.  I think you 
    will find the service I render and my attitude to be typical of
    faithful Church members.  The attitude is one of 'preaching' the
    Gospel and about the wonderful things the Lord is doing with His
    Church today.  And, it is an attitude of applying the principles of
    truth in a humble and discreet manner.
    
    Steve

    
    	Hi Steve (and all),
    
    	.22 was in no way intended to say that the LDS Church doesn't
    	devote time to making a contribution to society. Far from it
    	- you do a lot more than *most*! Sorry if it came across that
    	way.
    
    	It just seems a waste to me that so much emotion, so much
    	energy, goes to trying to convince people that this or that
    	belief is true, or the only truth. This is true of many belief
    	systems, not just Mormonism. What I was trying to get across
    	was that it's not so important to convince someone that something
    	is or isn't true, but how can one love one's neighbor better today?
    	
    	Trying to assert that one's belief system is better than anyone
    	else's only adds to the amount of contention and strife in the
    	world. Truth, as I stated in .1, is that which leads to greater
    	harmony, peace, love, and perfection. 
    
    	
    Neal/B

    Re: Note 229.22 by NAAD::BARNETTE

    Hi Neal,
    
>   Perhaps the more enlightened, who realize that what we are looking
>   at is a giant beach-ball. 

    I like the beach ball analogy that has been mentioned, but let's take
    it a bit further. 
    
    As I understand it, the beach ball represents the whole body of truth.
    Every person has a little different view of the truth, and describes it
    differently. People spend a lot of time debating their different views.
    No one has a global view of the whole truth, right? 
    
    Wrong! There is one who does have the global view of the truth. That is
    our Heavenly Father. He has a fullness of truth, where we do not, but
    he chooses to reveal truth from time to time, as we are ready to
    understand it and accept it. Thus, our view of the truth expands, line
    upon line. 
    
    It's ok to try our level best to understand truth on our own, but we
    would be foolish to ignore truth that is revealed by Him who knows all
    truth. So, it comes back to the question I asked in another note: what
    is God's view of a particular question? 
                                                                            
    You referred to those that realize we are looking at a beach ball as
    being 'enlightened'. But the most 'enlightened' of all is our Heavenly
    Father, therefore, let us receive light from Him! 
    
    Witnessing of Him,
    Rich

    
    Hi, Rich! Good to hear from you again - I was afraid everyone was mad at
    me. 8^)
    
    >   You referred to those that realize we are looking at a beach ball as
 >   being 'enlightened'. But the most 'enlightened' of all is our Heavenly
 >   Father, therefore, let us receive light from Him! 
 
    It may amaze you to know that this is precisely what we are all
    doing! Although not all are in agreement upon the nature of that
    One which you call Heavenly Father (for instance is the Holy One
    an entity, (if so) does this Entity have a "human-like" body, what
    do we call this One, etc.), and certain other details, we are 
    nonetheless seeking, and recieving, light from "Him" by pursuing 
    our spiritual growth.
    
    If a Mormon finds that the LDS teachings provide the most in
    helping him/her to love God and fellow human being, then that 
    person has found Truth. If someone else is aided more greatly
    by some other teaching, then the same can be said. Don't look
    upon it as opposites, or opposition. Look upon it as different
    courses of study in this great School of Spiritual Enlightenment.
    
    I'd bet that God is not concerned so much as to whether or not
    we conceive of Him as having a male body, but rather do we love
    one another and what we do to show that love.
    
    Neal/B
    
    

    Hey, I'm not mad, either.  :)
    
    Steve

    I have just read 229.0 - 229.27, and I feel sad.  That seems to
    be the predominant emotion that I experience when I read this
    conference, although I have felt frustrated, angry, confused, uplifted
    (quite frequently uplifted), etc. at various times.
    
    I really don't have the eloquence to express what I feel, which
    is why I don't contribute much.
    
    But lack of eloquence is not the whole reason.  The Spirit has on
    a couple of occasions witnessed to me truths that cannot be expressed
    in words, yet have had a marked impact on me emotionally and
    spiritually.
    
    Truth comes from God and nowhere else.  Truth is not a matter of
    'perception'.  The earth never was flat; it was always round, even
    when everyone perceived it to be flat.
    
    And  being loving, kind, considerate, helpful, etc. is by no means
    evidence that one has accepted the truth.  It is merely evidence
    that one is loving, kind, considerate, helpful, etc.  An atheist
    can have all these qualities in abundance.  
    
    I could go on at length, but to what end?  I am sad because I know
    that my words, like all of the words in this conference, will touch
    nobody's life.  I am sad because in 11 years as a Mormon, trying
    to reach out and touch lives, I have not succeeded.  Oh I love God's
    children sure enough, and I reach out sure enough, but I fail to
    touch lives.  People have been made a little happier for a moment
    by my efforts, but no lives have been really changed. Not really.
    
    All I can say is that from deep within my soul I KNOW that the Book
    of Mormon is the word of God.  I KNOW that we are made in His image.
    I know that Jesus Christ reveals TRUTH to His church through His
    duly appointed Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, and that He has only one 
    church.  I know these things are true, and I know many more truths,
    and I know they are truth because a loving Heavenly Father revealed 
    it to me.   
    
    I struggle to grow in the Gospel so that one day I may touch lives.
    
    God bless.  \Theo.

    	Re: 229.28 by KERNAL::BARTLEY
    
    	> I struggle to grow in the gospel so that one day I may touch <
    	> lives.                                                       <
    
        That day has arrived. I, for one, have been touched by what you
    	said in your entry. I mean that. I am a better person for having 
    	read your testimony and felt the spirit testify to the truth of
        what you said.
    
    	You see, when we give of ourselves to bless others in any way
    	lives are changed even if it's our own. We give of ourselves
    	through our words or our actions and not all change that
    	occurs as a result will be great or grand. For instance, the
    	one incident that changed my life was simply a member of the 
    	church asking me to go to church with him over the fence in
    	front of his house. I said yes and I've never looked back.
    	Neither of us expected that I would return to activity at the
    	time but I did. I feel he was prompted by the spirit to ask.
    	That's the key.....following the promptings of the Holy Ghost!
    	When we do so, things WILL happen, and lives WILL be changed.
    
    	You have blessed more lives by your example than you will
    	probably ever know. Nothing great or grand, just plain, simple
    	obedience to the gospel. If we all were reluctant to share our
    	gospel lives with others by words where would the church be?
    
    	I hope you'll continue to contribute to the conference. The 
    	thoughts, feelings and experiences you have to share are needed,
    	and they make a difference. I hope I've made sense to you and
    	grasped what you were trying to convey in your entry.
    
    	God bless,
    
    	Dave      

    To Theo:
    
    You never or may never know what "touches" a person.  Here is a
    drammatic and true story I have first hand.
    
    In the 1970's I taught in the Seminary Program of the Church (i.e
    Released Time Religious Instruction at the High School level).  On the
    faculty was another instructor, Reid H., who was a tall, rugged man who
    prided himself on his appearance, especially his highly shined cowboy
    boots. He told me this story.  
    
    One of his students after graduating joined the military service and in
    a weak momement was lured into "proving his manhood" at the local
    brothel. As the boy started to undress, he put his highly polished
    military shoes down in a stream of light coming from a nearby street light. 
    The glare caught his eye.  He remembered Brother Reid and then started
    thinking about what he taught in Seminary class.  Then came thoughts
    of home, and family; followed by thoughts of Church, baptismal covenants, 
    etc.  The boy got up and left.
    
    All this because of Brother Reid's shiny shoes!
    
    We all touch each other, for good or bad, in so many small and
    seemingly inconsequential ways.  Yet the outcomes are sometimes so very
    drammatic and soul-saving.
    
    Your note touched me so as to write this note so that it will touch
    you.
    
    Sincerest regards,
    
    Your brother in the Gospel,
    
    Paul
                                                                     

    
    	If someone is studying religions and picking and choosing that
    which sounds good to them ("I like the sound of that. That must
    be true"), then I can see the point that Steve was making in the
    reply that I quoted in the basenote.
    
    But has it ever occurred to you that someone might have had a very
    personal, emotional, soul-stirring revelation of Truth, from the
    Holy Spirit, that completely changed his life and made him view
    his world and fellow beings upon it as precious, that for years
    now has left him with a heart full of joyous song, that caused him
    to notice the beauty of trees and stars and blades of grass when
    before he viewed his surroundings as barren and without beauty,
    that let him know that he was deeply, personally loved by his creator,
    but that didn't line up exactly with LDS teachings? How can you tell
    that person so changed, that he doesn't have Truth?
    
    Neal/B

Hi Neal,

>    How can you tell
>    that person so changed, that he doesn't have Truth?
    
We aren't saying that that person doesn't have truth.  We aren't saying that
other churches don't have truth.  We are saying to everyone, keep the truth
you presently have.  Keep your beautiful relationship with God.  Keep your
love for Jesus Christ.  In addition, open your eyes, ears, and hearts for
*additional* truth from God.  God would have you have an even more beautiful
relationship with Him.  Listen to our missionaries with a real desire to know
if it is true, and then ask God in prayer if their message is true.

Allen

    
    
    Hi Allen. In the ~six months I spent studying Mormonism with my
    new-member friend, his wife, missionaries and other church members,
    we had some sessions that were interesting indeed. How many times
    shall I ask God if a certain thing is true, when the Holy Spirit
    has repeatedly answered my questions? The testimony I got when I
    prayed about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith was was an interesting
    one, flattering to Mormonism but not the one the missionaries wanted.
    The Holy Spirit has revealed to me things that are utterly unacceptable
    to Mormon beliefs. I regard these things as Truth - the Holy Spirit
    cannot lie. Nor can any evil pass off on me a credible counterfeit
    of the Spirit. There is a certain feeling that comes over me when
    the Spirit speaks, that I may know it is Truth. 
    
    Furthermore, if I was intended to join the LDS Church there would
    be the promptings of the inner Spirit, the Still, Small Voice,
    that would be unmistakable. Never have I had any inkling of desire
    to actually become Mormon myself, although I have enjoyed studying
    them.
    
    Lastly, there are LDS beliefs and attitudes that I find, well,
    repugnant. Sorry to use such a strong word, but it's the only
    thing that comes to mind. I won't list them, nor am I here to
    attack your church or demand an explanation. You have your beliefs,
    they differ from mine (which I know are true), and I am ready to 
    look to every possible explanation for these differences before 
    I condemn in my heart your beliefs as false. It is for this reason
    I have the belief that the Truth is as given in the beach-ball analogy.
    
    To those who look at the last paragraph and say, "well, consider
    that maybe *your* beliefs are false", please read the whole reply
    again.
    
    
    

    Due to the 'All Hands on DEC' exercise, it's been a while since I could
    turn my attention to this conference. Please pardon the time lapse
    since the entry of reply .28 and my comments.

    RE .28

    >I have just read 229.0 - 229.27, and I feel sad.  That seems to
    >be the predominant emotion that I experience when I read this
    >conference, although I have felt frustrated, angry, confused, uplifted
    >(quite frequently uplifted), etc. at various times.

    Theo, what about a simple, open discussion of various people's
    understanding of truth makes you sad? Is it that you are concerned that
    a greater understanding of truth might become known or that what
    becomes clear might not agree with your current viewpoint? I'm truly
    (there's that word again) puzzled by your statements. Please don't take
    this as an attack on you.

    >Truth comes from God and nowhere else.  Truth is not a matter of
    >'perception'.  The earth never was flat; it was always round, even
    >when everyone perceived it to be flat.
    
    While it is true that those who believe in God would support your first
    sentence, a person's perception of truth is important. This is
    especially true when a person assumes that his/her perception of truth
    is the only acceptable perception and that all others must be wrong and
    being wrong must be negated or destroyed. In that case, perception
    becomes very important.

    More of God's truth can be known than many believe. It's silly to
    believe that all of God's truth to be contained in one physical book
    or one million physical books. It is important to go directly to the
    source in these matters. Studying books rather than going directly to
    the source just makes one knowledgeable in what has been written and not
    necessarily wise. Wisdom comes from direct experience.

    >And  being loving, kind, considerate, helpful, etc. is by no means
    >evidence that one has accepted the truth.  It is merely evidence
    >that one is loving, kind, considerate, helpful, etc.  An atheist
    >can have all these qualities in abundance.  

    Yes, and wouldn't that be wonderful if everyone, regardless of their
    spiritual persuasion, would adopt love, kindness, consideration, etc.?


    	Dan Kusnetzky

    The following was posted to the LDS discussion forum available through
    the DECWRL gateway. I thought others might be interested in it.

    Rich 

From:	DECWRL::"[email protected]" "Lee Poulsen  12-Jun-89 1600 PDT" 12-JUN-1989 16:08
To:	decwrl::lds
Subj:	Comments on a previous topic

With regards to an earlier discussion on the Koran, Islam, and other religions
and their beliefs and writings, there were a few comments against these other  
religions that made me a little uneasy. (Although one person in essence
retracted their statements.) Anyway, just having completed a year-long Institute
course in world religions (both Christian and nonChristian), I asked my 
Institute director for copies of some quote from various Church leaders that
were very interesting and in some cases rather eye-opening. There are quite
a number of them, but I've extracted just a few, starting with a statement
from the First Presidency that was reprinted in the January 1988 Ensign on
pp. 47-48:
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of the First Presidency
February 15, 1978
 
Based upon ancient and modern revelation, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints gladly teaches and declares the Christian doctrine that all men 
and women are brothers and sisters, not only by blood relationship from common
mortal progenitors, but also as literal spirit children of an Eternal Father.
 
The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the 
Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others,
received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to 
enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to 
individuals.
 
The Hebrew prophets prepared the way for the coming of Jesus Christ, the 
promised Messiah, who should provide salvation for all mankind who believe
in the gospel.
 
Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to
all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation,
either in this life or in the life to come.
 
We also declare that the gospel of Jesus Christ, restored to his Church in our
day, provides the only way to a mortal life of happiness and a fulness of joy
forever. For those who have not received this gospel, the opportunity will come
to them in the life hereafter if not in this life.
 
Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare
of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality,
knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are the sons and 
daughters of the same Eternal Father.
 
The First Presidency
Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
God has revealed himself at various times and in various ways to many people.
The heathen have had communication from Him. All light that exists; all the
truths that are taught and all the correct priciples and knowledge that have
been communicated and existed among the children of men, have come from God; 
he is the author of all. Socrates, Plato, Confucius, the heathen philosophers
who know nothing about Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation, received 
important truths from Him, and so did many other people to a greater or less 
extent, according to their abilities in improving upon the knowledge 
communicated to them.
George Q. Cannon	JD 21:75
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
....There had been men, doubtless many men in the various ages of the world, who
had light and who had a degree of the Spirit of God. I believe myself that
Mahomed, whom the Christians deride and call a false prophet and stigmatize
with a great many epithets--I believe that he was a man raised up by the 
Almighty, and inspired to a certain extent by Him to effect the reforms which he
did in his land, and in the nations surrounding. He attacked idolatry, and 
restored the great and crowning idea that there is but one God. He taught that
idea to his people, and reclaimed them from polytheism and from the heathenish
practices into which they had fallen. I believe many men were inspired who 
lived after him and before him, who, nevertheless, did not have the Holy
Priesthood, but were led by the Spirit of God to strive for a better condition
of affairs and to live a purer and higher life than those by whom they were
surrounded were living. But while this was the case it was the Spirit of God
that did it.
George Q. Cannon	JD 24:371
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc.
any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should 
gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up,
or we shall not come out true "Mormons."
Joseph Smith	DHC 5:517
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
No matter whether we are Jew or Gentile, as the two classes of people are
called; though Gentile signifies disobedient people, no matter whether we 
believe in the Koran as firmly as we now believe in the Bible; no matter whether
we have been educated by the Jews, the Gentiles, or the Hottentots; whether we
serve the true and the living God, or a lifeless image, if we are honest before
the God we serve,... if they act according to the best of their knowledge, there
is a chance for their salvation, as much as there is for the salvation of any 
other person.... "Do you suppose the Hindoos have the light of the Spirit of
Christ?" I know they have; and so have the Hottentots, and so has every nation
and kingdom upon the face of the earth....
Brigham Young	JD 2:139-140
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
It is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel 
(Christ) to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth
be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of 
Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists,
the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous sects and 
parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders
of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother, being at their head) to gather up
all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we 
preach, to mechanisms of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy
wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and
bring it to Zion.
Brigham Young	JD 7:283-4
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
Now this man (Mahomet) descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by 
God on purpose to scourge the world for their idolatry.
George A. Smith		JD 3:32
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
We have come not to take away from you the truth and virtue you possess. We
have come not to find fault with you nor to criticize you. We have not come
here to berate you because of things you have not done; but we have come here
as your brethren. We are giving our time and our means voluntarily, and have
come to your land with love in our hearts, with the desire to do you good, to
encourage you to repent of your sins, wherein you are sinful, and encourage
you to retain your virtues, wherein you are virtuous, and to say to you:
"Keep all the good that you have, and let us bring to you more good, in order
that you may be prepared to enter into the presence of our Heavenly Father."
(12-13) ...we are not over here to break up the churches.... First of all, we
are asking all you fine people over here to keep all the glorious truths that
you have acquired in your churches, that you have absorbed from your scriptures
.... Then let us sit down and share with you some of the things that have not 
yet come into your lives that have enriched our lives and made us happy. (217-
219)
George Albert Smith	SHARING THE GOSPEL WITH OTHERS	Deseret Book Co., 1950
(Compiled by Preston Nibley)
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
I hope you found these as interesting as I did.
--Lee
-------
 
========================================================================
Received: from apostrophe.pa.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	id AA16177; Mon, 12 Jun 89 16:01:18 PDT
Received: from apostrophe.pa.dec.com by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	for ripple::kotterri; id AA16177; Mon, 12 Jun 89 16:01:18 PDT
Received: by apostrophe.pa.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA20250; Mon, 12 Jun 89 15:59:12 PDT
Received: from decwrl.pa.dec.com by apostrophe.pa.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
	id AA20246; Mon, 12 Jun 89 15:59:08 PDT
Received: from star5.Stanford.EDU by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	id AA16121; Mon, 12 Jun 89 16:00:08 PDT
Received: from star5.Stanford.EDU by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34)
	for lds-distribution@apostrophe; id AA16121; Mon, 12 Jun 89 16:00:08 PDT
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Mail-System-Version: <VAX-MM(235)+TOPSLIB(135)+PONY(225)@STAR5.STANFORD.EDU>
    

    I have a friend who joined the Church a few years ago.  She had
    been a devout Catholic.  She was asked if she thought she could
    suddenly become a good Mormon.  She was a bit surprized and responded
    that of course she would be a good Mormon!  After all, she had been
    a good Catholic!  We sometimes forget that people will be rewarded
    for doing good and the Spirit does work with them.  I think sometimes
    our pride keeps us from remembering that.

    Thanks for posting that, Rich!
    
    Steve    

    Re .0 & .1:
    
    If the Mormons can learn from all the other churches, then how can
    those other churches be an "abomination"? Are the parts of their
    doctrines that are valuable to the LDS less "abominal" while that
    which is rejected by the LDS more "abominal"?
    
    Just curious (as usual)....
    
    Mark

    I think it's more that we can learn from other sources, be they
    other churches or whatever.  At the same time, caution is exercised 
    because these other sources may include truly abominable creeds and 
    ideas.  Truth is not abominable, wherever it is found.
    
    Steve

    re: .0
    
    Hi! 
    
    Thanx also, Rich for that posting that entry.  I think that posting
    entries like these help in giving credit to all the good that other
    faiths do, and in the light of spirit that they do have. Sometimes
    we tend to discount their beliefs without taking into account the
    truth that they DO have and who the Author of that truth is. The
    comment that Steve brings out on pride is so true; we get into this
    mode of behavior that is unbecoming of Christians.
    
    One other item: In the late seventies while inactive, I investigated
    other faiths, one in particular being The B'hai Faith (sp). I admired
    the members that I met, in the conviction of their beliefs and of
    their acceptance of me no
    tw    
    ithstanding my LDS convictions. We had
    many enlightening conversations that highlighted our common beliefs,
    rather than points of contention. The ones I talked to were familiar
    with LDS scriptures and
     Their philosophy of life is very 
    similar to the LDS faith, emphasis on family, and work ethic. I
    believe that I am a better person for having known them.
    

    
    
    Sorry bout the disjointed text in my last note. I accidently sent it
    out before I finished editing it.
    
    Kevin
    

    
    
    re: .4
    
    Steve,
    
    We should be able through the power of the Holy Spirit to be able to sort
    through, and separate the wheat from the chaff, concerning other
    beliefs. The Light of Christ, however, avails itself in all truths
    whether or not the recipient knows it or not. This includes all faiths
    not limited to Mormonism. Correct me if I am wrong on this. In this way
    I can appreciate others beliefs, and have the knowledge that Heavenly
    prepares His children over time. I take your point on the fact that
    we should be wary of doctrine that might draw us away from the Lord.
    Example in point: In the early seventies I became acquainted with 
    some spiritualists, and learned something about their beliefs. They do
    things "according to them, through the Light of Christ", however,
    I consider their methods an "abomination". I learned of this through
    a term paper I wrote on them when in a Behavioral Science course years
    ago. I would warn people about being involved in such things. 
    Satan works through half-truths, and will use all means at his disposal
    to turn souls away from the Savior.
    
    Kevin
    
    
    Kevin
    

    I agree.  :-)
    
    Steve

    Re all:
    
    The following is not meant to be personal but.......I'd say you managed
    to straddle that issue very nicely!
    
    My impression is that the message Mormonism brings depends on who a
    Mormon is talking to, especially regarding possible conversion since
    the LDS church seems to be conversion-intensive. If you're addressing
    Protestants, you bring a Protestant-like message and if you're
    addressing Catholics, it's a Catholic-like message. This seems to
    be reinforced by the LDS doctrine which has bits and pieces
    of both (and some things unique to LDS).
    
    The other frustrating aspect (for me anyway) of this and other
    discussions on LDS doctrine is that a doctrine will be advanced
    and then when the logical/Scriptural basis for the doctrine is
    challenged the parameters of the argument are changed to ensure
    the LDS can come out on top of the discussion. And the doctrine
    seems to be written with this goal in mind.
    
    I have come to this conclusion after some months of participating
    in this conference. Hope nobody takes offense.
    
    Mark

    re: -1
    
    Mark,
    
    I hope that I haven't contributed to what you are feeling. If so,
    I apologise.  I have read your many entries and feel you've been
    fair and objective in your comments- and surely have a broad base
    of knowledge of Christianity, more so than most people I have 
    talked to.  Yes, we, as LDS are conversion intensive. We direct our
    message to all people, of all faiths and persuasions; to claim
    otherwise would be wrong.  On tailoring the message to different
    faiths, the message stays the same, only the manner of delivery may
    change.  I acknowledge that there are many who will not convert today;
    that does not stop me for loving them and trying to understand their
    beliefs/faith. As far as our (differing) messages that we (Mormons) give,
    we look at this from different perspectives; (remember the beachball
    analogy in a former note?) but we still are describing the same truths.
    
    As long as we are not deceived by evil that masquerades as truth
    then we are safe. The Holy Ghost is our witness that protects us on
    these matters, however being LDS is not a guarantee that the Holy Ghost
    dwells will dwell with us. That is why in some notes/ replies 
    members caution one another on evils of contention and arguments. It
    is only in a spirit of love that truths unfold and evolve.
    
    
    Kevin
    
    
    BTW, I wasn't aware that we were "moving targets". I thought we were
         the shooters! 

Hi, Mark!

Hope I can clear things up a bit for you.  I didn't think we were moving
targets, either.  Mostly sitting ducks (even if you're right it doesn't mean
you won't take a hit) ... ;-)  Here goes ...

The principles are the same and don't change depending on the audience.  How 
they are explained might vary according to the ability of the audience to 
comprehend.  I think that the confusion you've experienced may have to do with 
incorrect assumptions made about what you are learning.  The Church asserts
that it is the one true Church containing the fulness of the Gospel.  Some 
assume this to mean that we claim that God has revealed all truths to the 
Church.  The implications include that we have a corner on all truth, that if 
leadership says something it is always truth, and that if it doesn't come from 
the Church it is not truth.  If this is the message you've been interpreting, 
then I can understand your confusion.  

We don't claim that God has revealed all truths to the Church (Articles of 
Faith, number 9).  We don't claim that we have a corner on all truth (D&C
88:118).  We don't claim that if leadership says something it is always true
(D&C 68:2-4).  And, we don't claim that if it doesn't come from the Church it
is not truth (D&C 79:2).  (These references are just for example and not
comprehensive.)

So, did you have some of these misunderstandings?


Steve

    Re: Note 252.8 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>   The following is not meant to be personal but.......I'd say you managed
>   to straddle that issue very nicely!
    
    Your earlier question was not addressed as directly as it might have
    been. How can we say that there is truth in other religions, and at the
    same claim that God finds their creeds abominable? 
    
    The simple answer is that their creeds contain some true doctrine and
    some false doctrine. That which is true is from God, and will lead them
    to good results. That which is false is from Satan, and will lead them
    to bad results. Their creeds have been contaminated with false
    doctrines to varying degrees and are unacceptable to God in their
    contaminated forms. 
    
    Let's compare it to drinking water. If it is contaminated, it still
    contains water. Drinking it can have some good results and some bad
    results, depending on the nature of the contamination. To one who knows
    that it is contaminated, it is unacceptable. Latter-day Saints claim
    that the gospel has been restored in its pure, uncontaminated form, and
    that it will bring good results to those who will drink of it. 
    
>   My impression is that the message Mormonism brings depends on who a
>   Mormon is talking to, especially regarding possible conversion since
>   the LDS church seems to be conversion-intensive. If you're addressing
>   Protestants, you bring a Protestant-like message and if you're
>   addressing Catholics, it's a Catholic-like message. This seems to
>   be reinforced by the LDS doctrine which has bits and pieces
>   of both (and some things unique to LDS).
    
    It's not unusual to discuss our beliefs with a person by first starting
    from where they are at and proceeding from there. Even Christ taught in
    terms that were familiar to the people. This should not be done in a
    deceptive way, but it is an effective communication technique. 
    
>   The other frustrating aspect (for me anyway) of this and other
>   discussions on LDS doctrine is that a doctrine will be advanced
>   and then when the logical/Scriptural basis for the doctrine is
>   challenged the parameters of the argument are changed to ensure
>   the LDS can come out on top of the discussion. And the doctrine
>   seems to be written with this goal in mind.

    I, too, find this frustrating if I'm discussing with someone and they
    change the subject when they do not seem to be carrying the argument.
    Perhaps it is human nature to a degree. I don't think this is
    intentional or inherent in the beliefs of the church, however. We
    believe that the doctrines of the church can withstand the most
    determined scrutiny by those who are honestly seeking the truth. 
    
    One thing that may seem frustrating is that we do rely on our own
    personal witness from God as to the truth of our beliefs. Every Mormon
    is told that they should seek their own verification, directly from God
    that these things are true. One problem with this is that others have
    to get their own witness for themselves, since it cannot be transferred
    to another, objectively proven, nor effectively refuted. In the face of
    all other challenges, most Mormons will remain faithful to that which
    God has personally revealed to them in this manner. Many have died at
    the hands of mobs and under torture, without denying the witness from
    God. It's not meant as a dodge, but can be frustrating to those who
    seek to convince us that we are wrong. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
                                           

    Re .11:
    
    Hi Rich:
    
    Well, OK.....I see what you're trying to say - "good" comes from
    God and "bad" comes from Satan. So therefore if there are portions
    of Orthodox Christian doctrine that agree with LDS doctrine, they
    must be blessed by God and therefore "good". Conversely, any Orthodox
    Christian doctrine that does not agree with LDS doctrine is not
    blessed by God and is therefore connected with Satan, making it
    of course "bad". From what is the "good" derived in LDS doctrine?
    The fact that God revealed to latter day prophets the "true" church
    and restored to them "apostolic authority".
    
    The problem comes with the fact that "good" and "bad" are subjective
    terms. To a Mormon, most (not all) of Orthodox Christianity represents
    that which is "bad" or at least questionable from a subjective Mormon
    frame of reference (Mormon Scriptures). Since the subjective frame of
    reference for an Orthodox Christian is the Bible, the Mormon Scriptures
    are "non-Scriptural" because they are outside this frame of reference.
    Similarly, Jews are regarded by most of Orthodox Christianity as
    receiving only part of the "message" - the OT (again from a subjective
    view of what the "message" should be). From a Jewish standpoint,
    both the Orthodox Christian and Mormon views are Scripturally "out
    to lunch", if you will, for a variety of reasons (again subjective
    at least from a Christian perspective).
    
    So really what we have here are competing subjective human views
    of God. The ironic thing is that Judaism furnished the initial frame
    of reference for both the Orthodox Christian and the Mormon beliefs
    and yet neither bears much resemblance any more to that initial
    frame of reference!
    
    Mark

    Hi, Mark,
        
	I would beg to differ about "good" and "bad" being subjective if
	"good" comes from God and "bad" comes from Satan, unless neither
	God nor Satan exist.  Also, a church's doctrine may well differ
	with Mormon beliefs, not because it is from Satan, but because
	God has not revealed anything to His prophets concerning the 
	matter.  Sources also include the wisdom or speculation of men, which 
	may be right or wrong or indifferent, "good" or "bad" or neither.

	Again, it would probably be best to avoid getting stuck on mistaken 
	notions about what Mormons believe.  The mistaken notions implied
	here seem to include belief that Mormons profess that if it doesn't 
	come from the Mormon church, then it's "bad" or it is not true or that 
	the church believes it currently has all truth.  As I mentioned 
	earlier (with a few references, though more can be provided), the 
	Church does not profess such things.

	As to the Jewish faith and Christianity, the early Christians 
	originally had and used the same Scriptures as the Jews.  The
	New Testament is replete with testimony of Jesus Christ as 
	witnessed in the Jewish Scriptures.  It wasn't until later that
	the Christian church was separated dramatically from the Jewish
	faith.  In that sense, the Jewish faith became apostate from the 
	true religion.  In other words, it was the Jewish faith that turned
	away from the initial frame of reference.  The Mormon claim is that
	eventually all Christian faiths were far enough from that frame
	of reference that it had to be restored.  The original frame of 
	reference is the Gospel, remnants of which have been scattered
	throughout many religions or lost entirely.  The Church claims to
	be a restoration of that frame of reference, not a new frame of
	reference.


	Steve

    
    
    Mark,
    
    Interesting comments you made in the last note, esp. about subjective
    human views about God by different religions. Are you saying that 
    these views are through the scriptures themselves, or just the
    prevailing views of members of Judaism, Christians, and LDS Christians?
    It is true, that the God of the OT is portrayed differently than
    the NT God, but it's still the same God were talking about. If
    one wants God to be a God of wrath, throwing us poor sinners into
    a lake of fire to burn through eternity he can find him, if you
    want a God of compassion, you can find him also. Through latter day
    scriptures we learn more of the character of God and the purpose
    he has in mind for His children. It all comes down to one inquiring
    as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and the belief in the
    restoration of the everlasting gospel in it's fullness, with it's
    prophets, apostles, and divine authority. When one gains a witness
    of it, they do indeed have a subjective view of God.
                                                        
    Kevin 

Hi, Mark et al.,

May I jump in here a moment? 

Mark is right about equating the various viewpoints to competing human
frames of reference. That is exactly the problem.

While good does come from God and evil does come from the adversary, human
beings are also players in this drama, and are capable of both good and
evil. Man is a third, active, independent force in the world. It must be 
so, or free agency would have no meaning. So just as it would be wrong to
imply that everything that does not come from God comes from Satan, it
would also be wrong to imply that everything that is an abomination must
come from Satan. 

With regard to this discussion of other churches, while Mormons believe
that God has denounced some of their creeds as abomination, I do not
believe the reason is that they are inspired of Satan. On the contrary, I
believe that other churches are inherently good - at least the ones that
seek after truth, and provide a way for people to express their gratitude
and love to Almighty God. 

But they are creations of men. Not God nor Satan, but men. That isn't
necessarily bad, but then the 'abomination' comes in when people draw near
to the Lord with their words, but have removed their hearts from Him. This
does happen. They take it upon themselves to make decisions about what the
doctrine really is or should be, for example, or about the purposes and
responsibilities of church members. Those things are the exclusive province
of God, and cannot be second-guessed by Man. 

A perfect example is this rather silly notion that because the Bible
contains references that are considered sexist by 1980's standards, then it
is the Bible that must be wrong, and it is up to them to change it so that
IT agrees with THEM!! Unbelievable. I could see how God could get fairly
annoyed with such creeds. 

So while I believe that God did tell Joseph Smith that these other *creeds*
were an abomination, this does not equate to the organizations or the
people being Satan-inspired. Rather, if other churches submit to the will
of the Lord, seek after a fullness of the truth, and live by what they
learn from the Holy Ghost, I believe the word 'abomination' would not and
could not apply. 

A brother in Christ,
/(the other) kevin

    Hi,
    
    In regard to the reasons why other "beliefs" or "creeds" may be
    considered an abomination, may I add one more thought.  Assume a person
    follows a particular creed which contains come truth and makes some
    progress, at least as much as he has truth.  Then he encounters
    another creed which is pure.  If he rejects the pure religion because
    it is different or in opposition to some of his prevously held beliefs
    he has blocked his progression.  The teachings of the first religion
    are then an abomination because they prevent one of God's children
    from returning to Him.
    
    People tend to think that if many people are doing something it
    can't be wrong.  Things are only right and true when they are in
    accordance with what God has said.
    
    Later,
    Russell Murray

    Re: Note 252.12 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>   The problem comes with the fact that "good" and "bad" are subjective
>   terms. 
                                                     
    You're right, everyone has a different idea of what is "good" and
    "bad". However, in my note that you referred to, my focus was not on
    "good" and "bad", but rather on "true doctrine" versus "false
    doctrine". "Good" and "bad" were only mentioned in relation to the
    results that will come from heeding true doctrine or false doctrine. 
    
    If we keep the focus on true doctrine versus false doctrine, then I
    don't think that it is subjective at all. God, knowing all things,
    knows what is true and what is false. Truth is not subjective, but is
    constant. Our challenge and desire should be to find out what is true
    doctrine and what is not. But, how can *know* the truth about doctrine,
    and not just endlessly debate our own subjective understandings of the
    doctrines? From God Himself! 
    
    Latter-day Saints believe that God can and will reveal the truth about
    doctrine, in His own good time, to those that earnestly seek it. Once
    He has revealed something, it is no longer subjective. He has clearly
    revealed many things in the Holy Bible, as well as in the Book of
    Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, and we believe
    that He will yet reveal many things: 
         
         We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal,
         and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important
         things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. (9th Article of Faith) 
    
    Not only can and will He reveal doctrines, but he will reveal the truth
    of those revealed doctrines to those who seek, so that each person can
    know for himself or herself of the truth of these things. I know this
    is true, for he has revealed many such things to me. For example, it is
    by this method that I know that the Holy Bible is the Word of God. It
    is also by this method that I know that the Book of Mormon is the Word
    of God, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that there are
    living apostles and prophets called by God in this today. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

   RE: 252.17 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI> True doctrine vs. False doctrine

       Hi, Rich!  It's me again.  I know you've heard this before, but I'll
   state it again for other benefit.  I feel that your method of determining
   truth is very subjective.

       If God still reveals truth, as you (the Mormons) claim, then how are
   Mormons able to universally accept a revealed truth?  If everyone must ask
   God to reveal to them if a certain Doctrine is true or not, how does
   everyone agree?
   
       Suppose that a new doctrinal truth is revealed to one of your apostles.
   Is everyone required to accept it because it has been revealed to an
   apostle?  Or do they get to inquire of God for the same revelation?

   Inquiring Minds want to know...
   In Christ,
   Tony Balsamo

    Re: Note 252.18 by MILPND::BALSAMO

    Hi Tony,
    
    Nice to hear from you again!
    
>  I feel that your method of determining truth is very subjective.
    
    In spite of what I have said before, I must agree with you that there
    are some subjective elements to the process. Some of these are:
                                                                  
    1- You must have faith that God exists. 
    
    2- You must have faith that God has previously revealed things, and
    that He still can, if he wants to. 
            
    3- You must have faith that God will answer a sincere request for a
    witness of the truth; that Christ's promise "Ask and ye shall receive"
    will be honored. 
    
    4- You must be willing and able to recognize an answer to such a
    request that God might choose to give. If the answer comes by the power
    of the Holy Ghost, then you must be able to recognize this power, when
    it bears witness to you. 
    
    All of these factors are subjective elements to the process. They are
    processes of the heart and soul, more than of the mind. They involve
    communication from God's spirit to your spirit, more than measuring
    cold hard facts with your mind. 
    
    Can people (even Mormons?) go wrong in this process? Yes! Everyone's
    powers of faith and spiritual discernment vary. Fortunately, there are
    some "sanity checks" to this process that also help. 
    
    One is consistency. New revelations must be consistent with previous
    ones. For example, if a person says that God has revealed to him that
    Jesus Christ was not the promised Messiah, you may know for sure that
    the revelation is not true, since it contradicts that which God has
    previously revealed. The Book of Mormon must be consistent with the
    Holy Bible. The Doctrine and Covenants must be consistent with the Holy
    Bible and the Book of Mormon, etc. 
    
    Another sanity check is the "test of fruits". Jesus said that we would
    know his servants by their fruits. If the teachings and actions of a
    person claiming to be servant of God do not bear the fruits of the
    gospel, then you may know that any purported revelations advanced by
    that person are suspect. What are these fruits? There are many, but
    those that come to mind are: joy, peace, love, and obedience to God's
    commandments. 
    
>      If God still reveals truth, as you (the Mormons) claim, then how are
>  Mormons able to universally accept a revealed truth?  If everyone must ask
>  God to reveal to them if a certain Doctrine is true or not, how does
>  everyone agree?
    
    New revelations are accepted by the Church by an approval process
    called "sustaining". When the prophet receives a revelation for the
    whole church, it is first presented to the First Presidency and Quorum
    of the Twelve Apostles for their sustaining vote. Then, it is presented
    to the whole church in general conference for their sustaining vote.
    This signifies that the membership of the church accepts this
    revelation as the mind and will of the Lord for the Church. Each person
    has the right and is encouraged (but is not required) to ask God for
    himself if the revelation is true. This is a matter of personal
    initiative and desire. 
    
>      Suppose that a new doctrinal truth is revealed to one of your apostles.
>  Is everyone required to accept it because it has been revealed to an
>  apostle?  Or do they get to inquire of God for the same revelation?
    
    The Lord has designated that revelations for the benefit of the whole
    church will come to the president of the church, who is the senior
    living apostle, much the way that Peter received revelations for the
    benefit of the whole church in New Testament times. They are presented
    for the sustaining vote of the other apostles and church membership as
    described above. Every member has the right to know from God if the
    revelation is from God. 
    
    In addition to revelations for the benefit of the whole church, each
    member is entitled to revelations for his own personal benefit and for
    the benefit of those within his stewardship. For example, a father
    might receive revelation for the benefit of his family. I might receive
    (and have received) revelations for my own benefit. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    Hi gang:
    
    Sorry for the very long reply but this is in response to a bunch of
    responses so bear with me please.....

Re .9:

Hi Kevin S.:
    
    I hope that I haven't contributed to what you are feeling. If so,
    I apologise.

Nope. You haven't and no apology is necessary.

    I have read your many entries and feel you've been
    fair and objective in your comments- and surely have a broad base
    of knowledge of Christianity, more so than most people I have 
    talked to.

Thanks for the compliment. The more I learn, the less I know.

    Yes, we, as LDS are conversion intensive. We direct our
    message to all people, of all faiths and persuasions; to claim
    otherwise would be wrong.  On tailoring the message to different
    faiths, the message stays the same, only the manner of delivery may
    change.  I acknowledge that there are many who will not convert today;
    that does not stop me for loving them and trying to understand their
    beliefs/faith. As far as our (differing) messages that we (Mormons) give,
    we look at this from different perspectives; (remember the beachball
    analogy in a former note?) but we still are describing the same truths.

I don't recall the beachball analogy but my concern would be that 
because the LDS church is conversion intensive that "tailoring the 
message" might become "manipulating the message" in order to 
maintain a certain conversion quota.
    
    As long as we are not deceived by evil that masquerades as truth
    then we are safe. The Holy Ghost is our witness that protects us on
    these matters, however being LDS is not a guarantee that the Holy Ghost
    dwells will dwell with us. That is why in some notes/ replies 
    members caution one another on evils of contention and arguments. It
    is only in a spirit of love that truths unfold and evolve.
    
Well, that's fine but where do you draw the line to ensure that 
cautioning against the evils of contention and arguments does not 
lead to the suppression of legitimate dissent? For example, re: my 
Mormons and Masonry note, I had an individual who is fairly high up 
in the Mormon hierarchy (and who shall remain nameless) tell me that 
any Mormons who saw my note and wanted to know about Temple ritual 
(the one in Salt Lake City - not the Masonic type) should consult with their
Bishop.

I can't imagine belonging to a church (yes I can - I was raised a 
Catholic) where an individual would have to clear anything with any 
person in "higher" authority.
    
    BTW, I wasn't aware that we were "moving targets". I thought we were
    the shooters!

I was referring to how you reacted under "returned fire"!

Re .10:

Hi Steve:

    We don't claim that God has revealed all truths to the Church (Articles of 
    Faith, number 9).  We don't claim that we have a corner on all truth (D&C
    88:118).  We don't claim that if leadership says something it is always true
    (D&C 68:2-4).  And, we don't claim that if it doesn't come from the Church
    it is not truth (D&C 79:2).  (These references are just for example and not
    comprehensive.)

But the LDS church does claim (and please correct me if I'm wrong 
and sorry for not having exact references) that truth will 
*continue* to be revealed to them, do they not? So even if you don't 
have all of the truth now, by implication you are at least on the 
"correct" path to receiving "all" truth, yes?

Since the leadership are considered to be prophets and inspired by 
God then if the leadership does make an "untrue" statement, what was 
the source of the "untruth"? Certainly not God because by definition 
nothing untrue comes from Him.

    So, did you have some of these misunderstandings?

Yeah, you might say that.

Re .13:

Hi Steve:
        
	I would beg to differ about "good" and "bad" being subjective if
	"good" comes from God and "bad" comes from Satan, unless neither
	God nor Satan exist.  Also, a church's doctrine may well differ
	with Mormon beliefs, not because it is from Satan, but because
	God has not revealed anything to His prophets concerning the 
	matter.  Sources also include the wisdom or speculation of men, which 
	may be right or wrong or indifferent, "good" or "bad" or neither.

See above/previous.

	Again, it would probably be best to avoid getting stuck on mistaken 
	notions about what Mormons believe.  The mistaken notions implied
	here seem to include belief that Mormons profess that if it doesn't 
	come from the Mormon church, then it's "bad" or it is not true or that 
	the church believes it currently has all truth.  As I mentioned 
	earlier (with a few references, though more can be provided), the 
	Church does not profess such things.

If a belief that does not originate from the Mormons is not "bad", 
then there can't be any creeds that are "abominations" in God's 
eyes, right?

	As to the Jewish faith and Christianity, the early Christians 
	originally had and used the same Scriptures as the Jews.  The
	New Testament is replete with testimony of Jesus Christ as 
	witnessed in the Jewish Scriptures.  It wasn't until later that
	the Christian church was separated dramatically from the Jewish
	faith.  In that sense, the Jewish faith became apostate from the 
	true religion.

If the source for Christianity is "apostate", then what does that 
say about Christianity or any follow-ons to Christianity (like 
Mormonism, for example)? If the foundation of a building becomes 
weak and structurally unsound, won't the building eventually 
collapse?

  	In other words, it was the Jewish faith that turned
	away from the initial frame of reference.

Wrong! It was the Christian faith that modified the original frame 
of reference (Judaism) and, in some cases, disregarded it entirely.

  	The Mormon claim is that eventually all Christian faiths were far
     	enough from that frame of reference that it had to be restored.  The
     	original frame of reference is the Gospel, remnants of which have been
 	scattered throughout many religions or lost entirely.  The Church
     	claims to be a restoration of that frame of reference, not a new frame
     	of reference.

Which frame of reference? The Christian-modified Jewish frame of 
reference or the original Jewish frame of reference? If the former, 
you'll have to show me clear evidence in the Bible (not Mormon 
Scriptures) of same and if the latter, I submit that Mormonism as I 
understand it is *very* far removed from Judaism (not even close in 
fact).

Re .15:

Hi Kevin O.:

>With regard to this discussion of other churches, while Mormons believe
>that God has denounced some of their creeds as abomination, I do not
>believe the reason is that they are inspired of Satan. On the contrary, I
>believe that other churches are inherently good - at least the ones that
>seek after truth, and provide a way for people to express their gratitude
>and love to Almighty God. 

I think you're still injecting Mormon subjectivity here, Kevin.

>But they are creations of men. Not God nor Satan, but men. That isn't
>necessarily bad, but then the 'abomination' comes in when people draw near
>to the Lord with their words, but have removed their hearts from Him. This
>does happen. They take it upon themselves to make decisions about what the
>doctrine really is or should be, for example, or about the purposes and
>responsibilities of church members. Those things are the exclusive province
>of God, and cannot be second-guessed by Man. 

Then how do you justify "living prophets"? Inspired by God they 
might very well be but they are still imperfect human beings. Who 
says the "living prophets" aren't "second-guessing" God either?

>A perfect example is this rather silly notion that because the Bible
>contains references that are considered sexist by 1980's standards, then it
>is the Bible that must be wrong, and it is up to them to change it so that
>IT agrees with THEM!! Unbelievable. I could see how God could get fairly
>annoyed with such creeds. 

Again, more subjectivity. According to the LDS, the Bible is, 
"true only so far as it is correctly translated." The Mormons 
saw nothing wrong in disagreeing with the Bible. Given the 
male-centered culture that gave us the OT and the NT, why wouldn't 
someone be upset with all the male pronouns in the Bible or St. 
Paul's instructions to husband's about their wives?

>So while I believe that God did tell Joseph Smith that these other *creeds*
>were an abomination, this does not equate to the organizations or the
>people being Satan-inspired.

I'm still confused, Kevin. If Satan did not inspire the 
"abomination" and God deliberately created man to be imperfect and 
the imperfections of men lead to abominable creeds, then who is 
ultimately responsible? God?

>Rather, if other churches submit to the will of the Lord, seek after a
>fullness of the truth, and live by what they learn from the Holy Ghost, I
>believe the word 'abomination' would not and could not apply. 

You mean, of course, if we were all Mormons, the problem would go away!
    
    Mark

Re .19:

Hi Rich:

    One is consistency. New revelations must be consistent with previous
    ones. For example, if a person says that God has revealed to him that
    Jesus Christ was not the promised Messiah, you may know for sure that
    the revelation is not true, since it contradicts that which God has
    previously revealed.

Unless of course the person is Jewish!

    The Book of Mormon must be consistent with the Holy Bible. The Doctrine
    and Covenants must be consistent with the Holy Bible and the Book of
    Mormon, etc. 

If that is the case, Rich, then how come I have found a "you can't 
get there from here" situation with regard to the BOM and the Bible. 
I can very easily go from the BOM to the Bible, no problem. What I 
can't do is retrace my steps without a prodigous leap of faith. And 
since my faith is grounded in the Bible, I've found that kind of a 
tough thing to do.
     
    New revelations are accepted by the Church by an approval process
    called "sustaining". When the prophet receives a revelation for the
    whole church, it is first presented to the First Presidency and Quorum
    of the Twelve Apostles for their sustaining vote. Then, it is presented
    to the whole church in general conference for their sustaining vote.
    This signifies that the membership of the church accepts this
    revelation as the mind and will of the Lord for the Church. Each person
    has the right and is encouraged (but is not required) to ask God for
    himself if the revelation is true. This is a matter of personal
    initiative and desire. 

Rich, your kidding, right? You put God to a vote? If you're telling 
me that you put man-made doctrine to a vote, bravo! More churches 
ought to do that. But I don't think God can be equated to a 
political figure! You sure you're not joking?
    
    The Lord has designated that revelations for the benefit of the whole
    church will come to the president of the church, who is the senior
    living apostle, much the way that Peter received revelations for the
    benefit of the whole church in New Testament times. They are presented
    for the sustaining vote of the other apostles and church membership as
    described above. Every member has the right to know from God if the
    revelation is from God. 

All those members should have to do is search their heart. They 
don't need another person to tell them what is right and what isn't.
    
    In addition to revelations for the benefit of the whole church, each
    member is entitled to revelations for his own personal benefit and for
    the benefit of those within his stewardship. For example, a father
    might receive revelation for the benefit of his family. I might receive
    (and have received) revelations for my own benefit. 

I don't suppose mothers receive revelations, do they? Or is that exclusively 
for fathers?

Mark                                                

    Mark,
    
    We are in disagreement.  But, I will not participate in contentious
    discussion.
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 252.21 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>Unless of course the person is Jewish!
    
    Even if the person *is* Jewish, God would not reveal to him that Jesus
    Christ is not the promised Messiah, if indeed Jesus Christ *is* the
    promised Messiah (which I testify He is!). My point is that God does
    not contradict himself. 
    
>If that is the case, Rich, then how come I have found a "you can't 
>get there from here" situation with regard to the BOM and the Bible. 
>I can very easily go from the BOM to the Bible, no problem. What I 
>can't do is retrace my steps without a prodigous leap of faith. And 
>since my faith is grounded in the Bible, I've found that kind of a 
>tough thing to do.
                    
    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "can't get there from here". Are
    you saying that you can see how the Book of Mormon helps to verify the
    truth of the Holy Bible, but that the Holy Bible does not help to
    verify the truth of Book of Mormon? 
    
    We do not say that the Holy Bible contains proof of the truth of the
    Book of Mormon. There are some passages in the Holy Bible that
    Latter-day Saints believe refer to the Book of Mormon and it's people,
    but they are not sufficiently definitive to prove to everyone that they
    refer to the Book of Mormon. 
    
    It *does* take kind of a "leap of faith" to know that the Book of
    Mormon is the Word of God. You must have sufficient faith to read it
    and sincerely ask God if it is true. You must have faith that God can
    and will answer such a prayer. You must search your heart to know if it
    speaks the truth. 
    
    You say your faith is grounded in the Bible. This is good, but I say
    let your faith be grounded in the author and giver of the Holy Bible -
    God himself. Have faith that He will reveal His word to all nations
    that seek Him, and not to just the Jews who wrote the Holy Bible. Be
    willing to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Be
    willing to accept the testimony of other nations that He has spoken to. 
    
>Rich, your kidding, right? You put God to a vote? 
    
    Sustaining votes are a way for people to signify that they commit
    themselves to accept and to follow the will of the Lord, and not to
    decide what it is. The Lord himself makes it clear what His will is in
    the revelations. If the people reject the word of the Lord, then they
    cut themselves off from Him. If they accept it, but then do not live
    it, then they are condemned by it. This practice is consistent with
    some instances in the Holy Bible, as well.
    
>   Every member has the right to know from God if the
>   revelation is from God. 
>
>All those members should have to do is search their heart. They 
>don't need another person to tell them what is right and what isn't.
    
    What you say is true. Quite often, if we will search our heart, we can
    know the truth of many things. As I stated in my previous note, God
    communicates from His Spirit to our hearts. 
    
>I don't suppose mothers receive revelations, do they? Or is that exclusively 
>for fathers?

    Yes, they do. My example was only an example, and not meant to be all
    inclusive. Everyone is entitled to receive revelation for the benefit
    of themselves and for the benefit of those over whom they have
    stewardship. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich 

RE: 252.20  ABE::STARIN

>  I don't recall the beachball analogy but my concern would be that 
>  because the LDS church is conversion intensive that "tailoring the 
>  message" might become "manipulating the message" in order to 
>  maintain a certain conversion quota.
    
     I think there might be a few who try to to convert others to the church,
     yet who do so in a deceitful fashion.  However, I also feel that "tailoring
     the message" can be an inspired way of presenting the gospel.  For example,
     when Paul spoke to the citizens of Athens (and I paraphrase, not having a
     Bible handy), he reminded the people of their altar for the unknown god.
     He then declared that He whom they ignorantly worshipped, Him declared he
     [Paul] unto them.

     Well, I doubt that Paul was really declaring Jesus Christ to be in the
     same category of the gods worshipped by the Athenians.  But it gave him a
     common ground, so that people could understand the message he was about
     to declare.
       
>> Again, it would probably be best to avoid getting stuck on mistaken 
>> notions about what Mormons believe.  The mistaken notions implied
>> here seem to include belief that Mormons profess that if it doesn't 
>> come from the Mormon church, then it's "bad" or it is not true or that 
>> the church believes it currently has all truth.  As I mentioned 
>> earlier (with a few references, though more can be provided), the 
>> Church does not profess such things.

>  If a belief that does not originate from the Mormons is not "bad", 
>  then there can't be any creeds that are "abominations" in God's 
>  eyes, right?

     I'm not sure I follow you're logic.  Just because Steve says that SOME
     doctrine that doesn't originate with the Church is not NECESSARILY "bad"
     doesn't imply that ALL such doctrines MUST be good.  In fact, I think
     we would say that much of what is practiced in other faiths is true,
     and also some/much is not true (depending on the belief system).

>> As to the Jewish faith and Christianity, the early Christians 
>> originally had and used the same Scriptures as the Jews.  The
>> New Testament is replete with testimony of Jesus Christ as 
>> witnessed in the Jewish Scriptures.  It wasn't until later that
>> the Christian church was separated dramatically from the Jewish
>> faith.  In that sense, the Jewish faith became apostate from the 
>> true religion.

>  If the source for Christianity is "apostate", then what does that 
>  say about Christianity or any follow-ons to Christianity (like 
>  Mormonism, for example)? If the foundation of a building becomes 
>  weak and structurally unsound, won't the building eventually 
>  collapse?

>> In other words, it was the Jewish faith that turned
>> away from the initial frame of reference.

>  Wrong! It was the Christian faith that modified the original frame 
>  of reference (Judaism) and, in some cases, disregarded it entirely.

     I can't see how Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ or the apostles
     modified the "frame of reference" or discarded it.  The Jewish scriptures
     are grounded in the premortal Christ, and all the doctrines taught therein
     are true.  Christ himself said he had not come to destroy the law, but
     to fulfill it.  While the rituals practiced were done away in Christ,
     he did not destroy the law.  Moreover, Paul explains that the law was
     given as a schoolmaster to Christ.  It lead people to the point where
     they could spiritually understand and accept the greater "law" found in
     the Messiah.  It was a foundation on which the primitive Christian church
     based all that it did.  It was not the Jewish law, which was given from
     an inspired prophet of God, which provided a shaky foundation, but the
     faith and spiritual awareness of the Jewish people that were not on solid
     ground.

     I believe that the LDS claim (based on modern revelation), is that the
     gospel in its fulness was to be presented to the Israelites by Moses
     upon his first descent from the mount.  The wickedness of the people
     demonstrated they were not prepared for this; therefore, the more carnal
     law was given, to prepare the Israelites as a people to look forward to
     the coming of Christ.  It is my testimony that all things in this law
     pointed forward to the coming of the Messiah, and those Israelites who
     did prepare themselves spiritually dould have an understanding of the
     future sacrifice of their Redeemer.

RE: 252.21  ABE::STARIN

>> New revelations are accepted by the Church by an approval process
>> called "sustaining". When the prophet receives a revelation for the
>> whole church, it is first presented to the First Presidency and Quorum
>> of the Twelve Apostles for their sustaining vote. Then, it is presented
>> to the whole church in general conference for their sustaining vote.
>> This signifies that the membership of the church accepts this
>> revelation as the mind and will of the Lord for the Church. Each person
>> has the right and is encouraged (but is not required) to ask God for
>> himself if the revelation is true. This is a matter of personal
>> initiative and desire. 

>  Rich, your kidding, right? You put God to a vote? If you're telling 
>  me that you put man-made doctrine to a vote, bravo! More churches 
>  ought to do that. But I don't think God can be equated to a 
>  political figure! You sure you're not joking?

     First, I would suggest that we are not putting a man-made doctrine to
     a vote, or putting a God-inspired doctrine to a vote, either.  We are
     adding our testimony to that of others, that this is the mind and will of
     God.  I believe God will inspire his prophets even if no one listens, and
     their words will be true; however, I don't think it is insignificant that
     several million people also declare that these same doctrines are true by
     their sustaining "vote,"  To me, it gives a very needed witness to the
     world.

     Second, I can't see it as much different from the way the Bible was
     formed.  Various documents were included in the canonization of the N.T.,
     based on their likelihood as coming from the original leaders of the
     Church.  How were such decisions made ?  Though not the only factor, the
     orthodoxy of the doctrines contained therein was a major factor in such
     determination.

     Third, it is possible that the people could reject the truth as spoken
     by the prophet, and it would end up not being put into practice.  Wo unto
     the saints if and when such should occur, but I believe such things have
     happened.  For example, if my Church history is correct, at one point
     Joseph Smith was "required" to retain Frederick G. Williams as a counselor
     in the First Presidency, while Joseph himself was objecting.  (If I am 
     wrong on this, I apologize; someone please correct me.)  This is a minor
     point, yet demonstrates the point I want to make.
   
>> The Lord has designated that revelations for the benefit of the whole
>> church will come to the president of the church, who is the senior
>> living apostle, much the way that Peter received revelations for the
>> benefit of the whole church in New Testament times. They are presented
>> for the sustaining vote of the other apostles and church membership as
>> described above. Every member has the right to know from God if the
>> revelation is from God. 

>  All those members should have to do is search their heart. They 
>  don't need another person to tell them what is right and what isn't.

     You are right, of course.  However, God needs to have these testimonies
     born of Him, His word and His plan.  Any person can live according to the
     Lord's will even if they have not had the opportunity to read the holy
     scriptures or hear a living prophet.  Hebrews (?) claims that Abraham
     lived according to the Lord's will prior to his receipt of the law, and
     it was accounted unto him as righteousness.  (Again, I paraphrase/interpret
     the scriptures; judge this as you will).  This doesn't invalidate the
     need to have the word declared and disseminated, nor the desire for the
     additional witness of the congregation of the Church.

>  I don't suppose mothers receive revelations, do they? Or is that exclusively 
>  for fathers?

     Of course, mothers receive revelations (often to correct uninspired
     husbands.  Of course, if both were inspired of God, both would get the
     same revelation if they asked the same question.)

RE: 252.23  RIPPLE::KOTTERI

>  Even if the person *is* Jewish, God would not reveal to him that Jesus
>  Christ is not the promised Messiah, 

     I think we can see that if Rich stopped here, he would have certainly
     been correct.  God will not reveal to anyone that Jesus of Nazareth is
     not the Christ.

	
		This is all very interesting, but seems to not really be
	going anywhere.  So I would like to make a couple of comments on
	what I have read.

		First, I would like to point out that no member of the Mormon
	Church can *convert* any other human being.  All they can do is to
	*present* the message and encourage the other person to ask God for
	the conversion.  ONLY GOD CAN CONVERT! - and He will force no person
	into heaven.

		Second, it seems that I have twice seen, in this conference,
	the fact that people are basing ALL their faith and belief in the 
	Bible.  It is the final say so and that is that.  Mormons are beat up
	because we categorically state that the Bible is only as good as were
	those who translated/compiled/etc. it.  Just this weekend, the Baptists
	have a big row over whether the Bible is "inerrant" or not.  Seems we
	are not the only ones....  Anyway, what I would like to point out, to
	all the people everywhere who hold the Bible is such a high esteem, is
	that by your actions, from what I have read, you seem to actually deny
	that being who is responsible for the Bible - God.  HE is the last
	word of authority!!! - not the Bible.  *Who are you* to deny God the
	right to give His children more light and knowledge than what He has
	given in the Bible?  Show me where the Bible says that the heavens are
	closed.  Show me in the Bible where the word of God has stopped for 
	all time to his children.  

		I will give you two thoughts from the Bible that I would like
	you to apply to yourself, and consider them very carefully.  Look them
	up in the Bible and discover the circumstance around the situations
	where they are said.  Then prayerfully reconsider your stances........

		"It is hard to kick against the pricks."

		"Tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine."

    regarding note .20
     
    The point made that "Mormonism is *very* far removed from Judism"
    is well taken.  The baseline of Judism, and of Christianity, is 
    monotheism, while Mormonism is polytheistic.   
                                                                
    Here ye Israel, the Lord God is One         
                                                
    You shall love the Lord God with all your heart
                                                
    You shall put no other gods before me
                                      
        etc., etc.,                                 
                                      
    Matt                              
                                      
    
    
    

    I have managed to plow my way through every note in this file. I
    have not read every word. I speed read through some of the 100 and
    200 + long notes. I haven't gone back to reference every long note
    that was referenced by even longer notes. I believe I have done
    enough reading to have a sufficient understanding of Mormonism.
    
    As I look at it and try to understand why anyone would become a Mormon,
    I find several important keys to conversion. I'm going to speak to
    just one of those keys;
    
    Everything seems to depend upon your reading the Mormon books and then
    asking the Holy Spirit" to reveal to you if Mormonism is the only true
    religion.
    
    From my perspective, after reviewing your materials, and noting with
    Rich in the Christian notes file is the following;
    Mormons do not believe in the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit as do
    the RC's and normative Protestantism. Mormons use most of the same
    terminology to describe Jesus, so He seems to be the same person in
    both Mormonism & RC/Prot.. However, the Mormon Jesus, while described
    in much the same manner as the RC/Prot. Jesus, is the son of some other
    "Father God" who is not recognisable in RC/Prot. Christianity. Your
    Jesus, if the son of some other "god", then is not the same Jesus we
    know. Your Jesus may look alike but he is not of the same father as
    RC/Prot. Christianity. Since that Jesus has some other father, then
    the spirit to whom Mormons refer is a counterfiet also. Therefore for
    me to pray to that spirit is asking me/us to pray that a spirit of
    darkness would be my guide.
    
    Now that is the conclusions that I have drawn from reading your
    material. So if you were to ask me to become a Mormon, that is 
    why I couldn't
    
    Don

>                               However, the Mormon Jesus, while described
>    in much the same manner as the RC/Prot. Jesus, is the son of some other
>    "Father God" who is not recognisable in RC/Prot. Christianity. Your
>    Jesus, if the son of some other "god", then is not the same Jesus we
>    know. Your Jesus may look alike but he is not of the same father as
>    RC/Prot. Christianity. Since that Jesus has some other father, then
>    the spirit to whom Mormons refer is a counterfiet also. Therefore for
>    me to pray to that spirit is asking me/us to pray that a spirit of
>    darkness would be my guide.

     Latter-Day Saints do teach that the orthodox Christian description of
     the nature of God is wrong.  There can be no mistake about that.

     I think most members of the Church would say that if you are sincere,
     and pray for knowledge from the true and living God, whatever your
     perceptions are of him, he would give you that knowledge.  We are not
     asking you to pray to any God in whom you do not believe.  However, it
     appears to me from that above statement that you could not ask God to
     reveal things about himself to you that contradict whatever you might
     falsely believe in him, whether or not "Mormonism" is true.  Since you
     believe God has certain attributes, it appears you could not sincerely
     pray to any Being that has other attributes, even if God Himself does
     not have the attributes you perceive in Him.

     I think most Latter-Day Saints would be very comfortable in asking people
     to pray for truth and understanding, to whatever being they understand
     to be God, if they are willing to be enlightened by the true and living
     God.  Such a prayer was offered by the father of King Lamoni, and I would
     be comfortable with such a prayer offered by anyone, if that person were
     truly sincere:

     "If there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known
     unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee."
     [From Alma 22:18]

    Don, 
    
    The spirit is not counterfeit.  The Church is true.  The Christ
    I believe in is the Christ of the New Testament.  And, the God I worship
    is the God of the Old Testament.  My humble testimony is not dependent
    on the opinions that others have of me or my beliefs for it is given
    to me from God.  I know it, and I know that God knows it.  I will
    serve Him and His children in love, charity and humility to the day I
    die and beyond.
    
    Steve

    Hi Don,
    
    Mormons pray to our Father in Heaven in the name of Jesus Christ, as
    Jesus Christ commanded that we should. If you think our understanding
    of Heavenly Father is flawed, that is one thing, but to say that it is
    a different God is not justified. We pray to the same Heavenly Father
    that Jesus prayed to.
                                                            
    Also, you intimate that having a flawed understanding of God would
    somehow cause prayers to Him to be answered by a "dark spirit". I don't
    have my Holy Bible with me now, but consider the passage where Jesus
    asks which father whose son asks for bread will give him a stone, and
    goes on to say that our Father in Heaven will give us the good things
    that we ask for, if we ask in faith, and if we ask in the name of Jesus
    Christ. 
    
    The bottom line is that if any one should sincerely ask our Father in
    Heaven to reveal to him the truth of the Book of Mormon, and if he asks
    having faith in Jesus Christ and if he asks in the name of Jesus
    Christ, our Father in Heaven will not send Satan to answer his prayers. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    I am so tired of hearing that same old litany about "You believe in a
    different Jesus"!  Is that doctrine taught universally  in Fundamentalist
    Churches because it seems all the BACs I have met use that same line of
    thinking.  When I try to probe their reasoning, I always come up with
    no solid basis for why they believe this way.  Here is the Jesus
    Mormons believe in:
    
    1. He is part of the Godhead.
    2. He is the Only Begotten of the Father.
    3. He is the creator of this earth.
    4. He is the Messiah and Saviour.
    5. He offers salvation to all men and women.
    6. He freely gave his life to atone for the sins of this world.
    7. Through acceptance of him and his blood sacrifice and following the
       Gospel Plan we have salvation and eternal life.
    8. His is the only name under the heavens whereby mankind can be saved.
    9. We must invoke his name when praying to the Father.
    
    I could add many other things, but these ideas are the very essential
    ones.  Personally I am grateful for Jesus Christ for all that he has
    done for me.  I acknowledge him as Lord and Saviour; I
    witness that his blood will cover my sins. I strive to follow his
    teachings and example in my day to day living.
    
    As for Mormon's believing in a different Jesus, well, you judge for
    yourself from the above statements if our Jesus is different from
    yours.
    
    

    The reason for the "You believe in a different Jesus" is because
    the fundamentalist churches believe that within the nature of ONE
    eternal God are three persons: the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.
    
    I believe that LDS doctrine teaches the trinity as three separate
    gods rather than the three co-equal persons of the Godhead.
    
    The second reason for the "different Jesus" is fundamentalists believe
    that Jesus was the unique Son of God, that he was God come down
    in the flesh, which differs from the concept of Jesus being a 
    pre-existent spirit like everyone, and being the spirit brother
    of Lucifer.
    
    I am just passing along what the fundamentalist believe so that
    you can understand the *solid basis* for why they believe this way.
    From an LDS point of view, I am sure that you will see that they
    have a misunderstanding, but that misunderstanding does provide
    a *solid basis* for their reasoning.
    
    Roger

    Like Paul, I've experienced the same argument and watched it break
    down.  I've heard it come down to a vague and incomprehensible
    assertion that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are physically one person,
    and at the same time physically three persons.  
    
    We believe in God the Father, in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the
    Holy Ghost as three beings, one in purpose and having together the
    title God (D&C 20:28).  There is no other God with whom we have to
    do.  The assertion that somehow I believe in a different Jesus than
    the one I study about in the Bible strikes me as a desperate and 
    irrational assertion.  If it is based on a misunderstanding of
    Mormonism, then isn't someone guilty at worst of knowingly spreading a 
    lie and at best of not doing honest research?

    There is only one Jesus Christ.  There is only one living God. 
    I believe that even non-Christians who pray and are sincere often
    receive a measure of response from the Father.  (I'm glad it was
    brought up about what a father would give his child.)  Similarly,
    those who seek a seducing, lying, contentious or self-serving spirit
    will find it, even though they outwardly profess to be Christian
    (or even Mormon).  By their fruits ye shall know them.  I believe that 
    one of the best tests of which spirit is which is to see what the
    spirit entices one to do.  God does not tempt men to do evil.  The God 
    I pray to has *never* tempted me to do evil and has *always* enticed
    me to be obedient to the principles taught by Jesus Christ, to do
    good continually.  It is that Spirit that has caused me to exercise 
    restraint, patience and love when I encounter contention and derision 
    directed toward God's Church.

    
    Steve

    
    Re: .33
    
    Roger,
    
    Thanx for bringing this very important distinction. The Nicean Council
    pondered over the same concept nearly 1700 years ago. I believe
    in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being separate members of the Godhead. 
    However they are one in purpose. In this respect they are one. As
    to note .34, the points that were brought out there show that the Jesus
    we believe in is not different from what Christianity teaches and
    believes. The nature of the Godhead, is an area in which churches have
    differed with, for centuries. The same can be said for doctrinal
    differences, various sects have, that we have discussed at length in 
    this conference. The comment some make " You believe in a different Jesus "
    could be directed from a Baptist to a Presbytarian, in regards to some
    doctrines, or Catholic to Lutheran. The difference here is that the
    statement is directed by *some* toward LDS members to discount their
    beliefs, and somehow infer that they believe in some heathen God. Such
    treatment in regards to our Savior's name; denegrates his purpose
    and mission to mankind. I would hope that we have learned something
    by now from the Savior's example.
    
    Kevin 
                                      
    Kevin
    

    To Rinesmith:
    
    Thanks for giving your ideas for thinking Mormons have a
    different Jesus. Here are my thoughts.
    
    1. As for the concept of Godhead, Traditionalists say 3 in 1, all
       one nature, but three manifestations.  Mormons say yes to a 3 person
       Godhead, but each a separate and distinct person.  I tried for 23 years
       to understand the 3 in 1 concept, and finally gave up. And yes I believe
       Jesus is God and that he came down to earth.
    
    2. You say that Traditionalists say that "Jesus is the unique son of
    God."  I would say yes he is unique in being the only begotten of the
    Father in the flesh.  But if Jesus is the unique (only) son of God,
    what does that make the rest of us.  Are we then not children of God? 
    And if we are not, then why call him Father.  I thought that he was
    literally our father (of our spirit nature).
    
    3. Finally I do not think we have a different Jesus.  I think we have a
    different Lucifer, because we believe that he pre-existed with Jesus,
    was great in power (but not a god), and was also the spiritual son of
    God (but not the Begotten Son of God).
    
    Paul
    
                       

    Re .22:
    
    Hi Steve:
    
    I'd say we are......we have some fundamental differences here. I'm
    sorry to hear that you feel the discussion is "contentious" - I
    find it rather enlightening and intellectually stimulating.
    
    Mark

  RE:  < Note 252.36 by SLSTRN::RONDINA >

    > But if Jesus is the unique (only) son of God,
    > what does that make the rest of us.  Are we then not children of God? 
    > And if we are not, then why call him Father.  I thought that he was
    > literally our father (of our spirit nature).
    
      The fundamentalist thinking is not that Jesus is the "only" son
      of God, but that he is unique in that he is pre-eminent.
      Fundamentalists would agree that we can become the children of
      God.
    
     >   3. Finally I do not think we have a different Jesus.  I think we have a
     >     different Lucifer, because we believe that he pre-existed with Jesus,
     >     was great in power (but not a god), and was also the spiritual son of
     >     God (but not the Begotten Son of God).
    
      If the LDS view makes Jesus another God, then certainly that does
    make Jesus a different Jesus.  As for Lucifer being pre-existant
    with Jesus and the spiritual son of God, that one would be very
    hard to explain to a fundamentalist (using the Bible to make the
    point).
    
    Roger
        
                       

    Seems to me the problem centers around the use of the word 'God',
    which is a title.  Similarly, the title 'Father' is used for both God
    the Father and Jesus Christ.  Here are a few snipits from my Bible 
    dictionary:
    
    	... At the time of our Lord's birth this monotheism or belief
    	in One God was the special mark of the Jewish people.
    
    	When we pass from the Old Testament to the New, the most important
    	development in the teaching about God is the revelation of the
    	name of Father.  Under the Old Covenant God had been the Father
    	of Israel, i.e. of the whole nation, but little had been said
    	of His Fatherhood of the individual members of the nation. 
    	In the N.T. most of our Lord's teaching about God gathers round
    	the name 'Father' ...
    
    	The Christian's knowledge of God may be something much deeper
    	and more complete than anything that was possible before Christ
    	came ... In seeing Jesus Christ we see God; to know Him is to
    	know the Father ... The character of Jesus Christ is the character
    	of God Himself.  Moreover, ever since the Pentecost, the Spirit,
    	who Himself is God, has been dwelling in the hearts of 
    	Christians ...
    
    There's more, but it mostly repeats what has already been said.
    From what I understand, the belief in monotheism is not a general
    trait of Christians.
    
    Steve

Roger,

I wanted to take a moment and thank you for taking your time to explain
the Fundamentalist viewpoint to us.  It is hard for us LDS to understand
other Christian groups from their viewpoint, as it is hard for them to
understand us from our viewpoint, and I am finding your explainations helpful.

Allen

    
    OK, all us Mormons...can you guys understand why all of the 
    "Christians" seem to want to feed us to the lions?  I guess I don't
    understand whether they are in this conference to learn, or in this
    conference to persuade us to give up our nasty old Mormonism....
    
    I guess I find it strange because I came from *their* background
    - a fundamentalist, Bible-believing Southern Baptist.  
    
    I can't quite understand just what doctrines it is that they don't
    like....I'm not sure how to start a new note, but could we have
    a note about what doctrines the "born-agains" do not agree with,
    and how the Bible supports them in their beliefs?
    
    Now for a few more cents' worth.
    
    I will use ONLY the Bible.  Not the Book of Mormon.  
    
    What of the three separate beings in the Godhead?  Are there multiple
    personages, or is it really 3 in 1?
    
    When Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, a voice came out of
    the Heavens and declared "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
    well-pleased".  Unless Jesus was a ventriloquist, the Father is
    separate from the Son.  If Jesus *was* the Father, why would He
    pray to Himself in the Garden of Gesthemane?  Why would His last
    words be "Father, into Thy hands I commend my Spirit!"  Why would
    He declare that He was doing the will of the Father who sent Him?
    In other words, one stayed at 'home' and sent the other to earth.
    
    Re the Holy Spirit.  During Christ's baptism, the Holy Spirit in
    the form of a dove rested on the shoulder of Jesus.  Again, the
    Holy Spirit must be a separate being.  *Without* a physical body,
    because the Bible makes clear that the Spirit was "in the FORM of
    a dove".  Jesus declared that he would send "the Comforter".  He
    did not declare that He *was* the Comforter, or that He would leave
    a part of himself when he returned to Himself.  
    
    Frankly, 3-in-1 just does *not* make sense.  It never did to me...but
    we were always told that we could not understand the infinite with
    finite minds.  And speaking of minds, we are told that we are all
    one body in Christ, or are "like minds with Christ" .... does that
    mean that Christ is a physical part of us or vice-versa?  
    
    As far as the Bible being the immutable, unchangeable word of God,
    who men cannot corrupt.....I used to believe this, too.  I believed
    it until I started reading up on my archeology.  The Dead Sea Scrolls,
    discovered in 1947, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible
    in fact, was changed.  Period.  In fact, Biblical scholars changed
    the King James Version that was put together in 1600 in order to
    conform with them!  Genesis, in about 33 A.D., was about 50% bigger.
    
    Even the Greek texts discoved in St. Marks monastery (?) that were
    about 300 AD had some significant differences.  How do you explain
    that?
    
    Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that our "One Lord, one faith,
    one baptism" God would be a little annoyed?   Wouldn't He see fit
    to make *sure* that His Bible was restored to what it originally
    was?
    
    All us Mormons are saying is this - since God is unchangeable, and
    His word is immutable, some things are fact.  Period.  Since we
    know for a fact that the Bible has changed - and I'm not talking
    just punctuation, guys, I'm talking serious doctrine and commentary
    - we know God won't let us falter.  "Surely the Lord God will do
    nothing except he revealeth himself to his servants the prophets"
    (Amos 4, I think)  God *will* put us back on track.  We Mormons
    believe God already has.  If you don't believe us, go check out
    your archeology.  Read up on the Nag Hammadi, the Dead Sea Scrolls.
    Find out for yourself!  You may be really surprised when you find
    out that the oldest doctrines - yes, Christian doctrine, not Judaic!
    corresponds exactly with ours!
    
    Sure, I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon....but since I was
    coming from the same background as you guys, I wasn't willing to
    go on a bunch of good feelings or faith.  I needed some hard, cold
    evidence that the BofM had a shred of truth to it.  So I was a true
    "investigator".  I looked into stuff.  I *still* am!  So far, I've
    been researching the Church for almost 3 years, and I haven't found
    a flaw yet.  The people are human....but they are in other churches,
    too.
    
    One other thing....If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
    is found to be a fraud and a hoax, I would retain my membership!
     Why?  Not because I'm a stubborn individual, but because what they
    teach has been proved archeologically.  Their teachings are the
    most accurate I've found to date, period.  I invite all of you
    to challenge me with doctrine....not human nature, doctrine.  I
    don't really care if Joseph Smith was a prophet or not, as long
    as the doctrine is correct.
    
    	I'm a contractor, and may be leaving the conference soon.  You
    can write to me at PO Box 1463, Manchester, MA 01944  508-526-7520.
    I don't want you to say I backed out of my agreement to be challenged.
    
    		In Christ,
    		Sheryl Glass
    

    RE: .41
    
    Well. Speaking as a non-LDS'er, I found your note very interesting.
    It unfortunate that you are leaving, because I would very much like
    to discuss the alledged 'great differences' between our current scriptural
    text and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
    
    Please also don't go away with the misunderstanding that all
    non-LDS'ers are out to 'save you from your nasty old Mormonism'.
    I'm sure that you have valid reasons for why you have chosen
    Mormonism and I would be the last person to say that you are wrong
    for choosing the way you have. Personally, if you say you have
    faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, I don't care what you call
    yourself, I would consider you my sister in Christ.
    
    Goodbye, and may God watch over you in the future,
    Charlie
    
    

		Atta girl Sheryl.  Give it to'm.  

		I believe what I do because God, through the Holy Ghost,
	has given me an unshakable witness of that which I say I believe in.

	The other Christian groups have their viewpoint, and that is that.
	If God were to hit them over the head with true doctrine, I think they
	would argue with him.


		Sheryl - don't forget the Mount of Transfiguration, when
	God, the Father, praised His son again.

		Also, about Jesus being special.  I have not *once* seen
	anyone say he was the only *begotten* son.  That is the difference -
	he is the only child of God IN THE FLESH!  Job talks about the
	pre-existance, and there are two times in the Bible that talk about
	Satan being cast down.

		In any case, what the Bible has for us is a good starting 
	place.  However, it is not the last definitive word of God, else
	why would he bother with "the other sheep."  Satan has tried his
	best to thwart the work of God, and by causing contention through
	the Bible, he has partially succeeded.  He tried to do the same thing
	with the Book of Mormon - remember the first 116 pages and why Nephi
	had to keep two records ? - but could not.  God has restored the
	truth of His gospel upon the earth again. Period.  The stone cut out
	of the mountain without hands is rolling forth and it will not stop
	until it has covered the whole earth.  If a person really wants to
	go forward in their progression in this probationary mortal state,
	then they should stop fighting God and submit to His will, and cast
	aside their pride and approach God with a broken heart and a contrite
	spirit.  God will not be mocked - He will not answer the defiant!
    
		So instead of saying what the Mormon church does or does not
	believe in, give some good scriptural basis for your belief.  Quote
	the Bible - please.  Otherwise, it is just your word alone that will
	be the basis, and that will not resolve anything.

RE: < Note 252.42 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON >

>    Personally, if you say you have
>    faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, I don't care what you call
>    yourself, I would consider you my sister in Christ.
    
Charlie,

Although the above comment and note were not directed at me personally, I
nevertheless would like to thank you for them, said as they were in the 
Spirit of Christ whom we all serve.

This is really what it's all about.

Thanks again,
/kevin

< Note 252.41 by FRECKL::SALESDEV >
    
>    As far as the Bible being the immutable, unchangeable word of God,
>    who men cannot corrupt.....I used to believe this, too.  I believed
>    it until I started reading up on my archeology.  The Dead Sea Scrolls,
>    discovered in 1947, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible
>    in fact, was changed.  Period.  In fact, Biblical scholars changed
>    the King James Version that was put together in 1600 in order to
>    conform with them!  Genesis, in about 33 A.D., was about 50% bigger.
    
>    Even the Greek texts discoved in St. Marks monastery (?) that were
>    about 300 AD had some significant differences.  How do you explain
>    that?
    
     As a member of the Church, I realize that the Church teaches that we
     believe the Bible to be the word of God in so far as it has been
     correctly translated.  Unfortunately, I think there are far too many
     people who are members of the Church who do not take the Bible seriously
     enough.  I have heard members who try to excuse plain doctrine found in
     the Bible because it does not conform to what they believe to be true.
     Yet, having read many sermons by General Authorities over the years, I
     don't ever remember hearing the brethren saying there are any specific
     portions of the Bible that are wrong (with the exception of Joseph Smith
     indicating his position that the Song of Solomon was not inspired writing).

     We proclaim the Book of Mormon to be a SECOND witness to Jesus Christ,
     not the ONLY one.  We teach that both the Old and New Testaments bear
     direct witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ.  True, there may be a few
     textual changes, but even President Clarke stated that its preservation
     has been remarkable.  It is my opinion that members of the Church
     who ignore the teachings of the Bible do so because of ignorance and lack
     of faith, not because the Bible is in error.  Both the Old and New
     Testaments breed the Holy Spirit within us, I so witness.

    Sorry, .45, I don't mean to trivialize the Bible - I believe in
    the Bible!  I was merely pointing out that the Bible isn't the be-all
    and end-all for doctrine.  As a 'born-again', one of the things
    that was doctrine was that Heavenly Father would not have let the
    Bible become corrupted by men - a thought which is nice, but simply
    doesn't have any scriptural basis.  The only scriptural basis which
    I ever heard of was the one in Revelations...and John the Beloved
    specifically was referring to the book of Revelations, *not* to
    the entire Bible.  What I didn't know then, but do know now, was
    that Revelations was written some time before some of the other
    parts of the New Testament.
    
    	One of the things that really hit home when I started investigating
    the church was the fact that suddenly some of the things I had read
    in the Bible were made clear as I read the Book of Mormon.  I suddenly
    understood what the prophet meant by 'through a glass darkly!' 
    Sure, I had what I thought was excellent understanding before -
    but the illumination comparatively speaking was like 'regular'
    headlights compared to halogen headlights....a vast difference in
    comparison.
    
    	Sheryl