Conference tecrus::mormonism

    Hi!
    
    The name "Mormon", is a nickname given to us, most likely because
    of our belief in the Book of Mormon, which is another testament
    of the mission and divinity of our Savior, Jesus Christ. We are
    members of the restored Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ
    of Latter Day Saints; in this, we are followers of Christ and 
    Christian. I suppose you could ask the same question to Catholics,
    Universalists, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc, as to why they have
    their own label attached to their belief. You could even direct
    the question to "Born Again Christian" or "Fundamentalist", labels
    that some Christians seem fond of giving one another.
    
    As far as divisions go, Christianity is so divided by different
    beliefs, that these labels are the only way to differentiate various
    faiths and beliefs  In Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord revealed 
    to the Prophet Joseph Smith the name the followers should call His 
    Church, (someone help me with the section and verse). That is the
    revealed name from the Lord, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
    Day Saints". The name "Mormon" is simply a label that has been given
    us.
    
    Kevin 
              

    Re .1:
    
    I refer to myself in theological terms as a Congregational Protestant
    Christian which means I am "protesting" the authority of the Roman Catholic
    Church to claim they are one "true" and "universal" church, that
    I support the right of each local church to be self-governing and
    independent from higher earthly authority, and that I consider myself
    to be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth.
    
    Congregationalist is just a lot easier to say and write.
    
    Mark

    RE:1
    
     This Joseph Smith person. Do you think that God would reveal to
    only one man those things that are written in the book of Mormans,
    and not to his other prophets? Look at the entire old and new testament
    of the holy Bible; everybody came, preaching the same gospel "about
    Christ". Sure, you may say that you all preach Christ, but where
    is your foundation? You speak an awful lot about Joseph Smith, the
    founder of your belief.  If I were to ask you all to come and
    fellowship with me, at the church I attend, would you come or would
    you think about (First) what your beliefs are? If indeed you do
    have to think about it, SOMETHING IS WRONG. Especially if we say
    that we are brothers in Christ. Now some of you will reply "I have
    christian friends that are not mormans, and we're able to speak
    on the word with out division", but what about the ones who don't?
    
    
    Lorenzo
    

    Re .3:
    
    I have to disagree with you regarding the "wrongness" of thinking about
    beliefs prior to attending another Christian church (that is, one
    that is a different denomination from your own).
    
    While as a Congregationalist (see .2) I share something in common
    with other Protestant Christians (we all at least reject the Pope's
    authority to a greater or lesser degree), I have to say I don't necessarily
    agree theologically with all of my fellow Protestants. I would want
    to know where a church stood on various issues before I attended
    it because I would not want to participate in an activity at a church
    that conflicted with my individual conscience.
    
    Mark

    The name of the Church is given in D&C 115:3-4.  As to divisions,
    there is an apparent division between the Church and other Christian
    churches.  It is not related to the name of 'Mormon'.  Rather, it
    is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is proclaimed
    to be 'the only true and living church upon the face of the whole
    earth' with which the Lord is well pleased (D&C 1:30).  In this
    respect, the Church is divided from other Christian churches.
    
    In light of this, I see the problem as not that all Christian churches
    need to call themselves by the same name.  Rather, it is that they
    need to be united in the truth as well as in Christian fellowship.
    
    Steve

    Re .5:
    
    You'll pardon me for asking this Steve but isn't the LDS declaring
    itself in its own literature the one "true" church a little like
    the Pope saying his authority comes from Peter ("On this rock I
    will build my church.....etc")?
    
    Just curious.
    
    Mark

    Lorenzo,
    
    I think you should study things out a little before drawing
    conclusions.  Apparently, you are unaware that Joseph Smith is not
    the only modern-day prophet, that revelations from others are also
    found in our scriptures, that Church members are strongly encouraged
    to become worthy of and receive personal revelations, that evidence
    of the things written in the Book of Mormon continue to surface,
    and so forth.  You seem to have a mistaken notion that Mormons are not 
    permitted to visit other churches or that they do not enjoy Christian 
    fellowship with non-Mormons.  I testify to you that such is not the
    case and can provide examples if you would find these helpful in
    your understanding.
    
    Our purpose is not to contend with you to show the error of your
    ways.  Rather, our purpose is to reason with you that you might better 
    understand what we believe and so that you can test these things for 
    yourself.  And, as you present your beliefs our understanding of
    how you believe can be enlarged.
    

    Steve

    re: .6
    
    At the risk of becoming engulfed in another topic (and since this
    is probably being discussed in another note), I will mention
    that our belief is that in Matthew 16:18 Jesus is referring to the
    rock upon which the Church will be built as having to do with
    Priesthood or authority of God.  It is our belief that with the
    Apostacy, Priesthood was lost and the Church lost its foundation.
    The Church was destroyed, but Priesthood was not and could not be
    destroyed by man, hence the gates of hell cannot prevail against
    it, meaning the Priesthood.  This Priesthood holds the keys to 
    revelation from God, hence the reference in verse 17 about Simon
    Barjona having received from the Father in heaven his knowledge that 
    Christ was the Son of the living God.  Priesthood and revelations
    through living prophets were restored and are the foundation of the 
    present-day Church.  Verse 19 goes on a little about what some of
    the keys of this Priesthood would be able to do.  I suppose that the 
    significance of Peter's name was so that he and others would
    understand the importance of this concept.


    Steve

    Re .8:
    
    Steve - 
    
    I too want to avoid a rathole but I would like to do it without
    impeding the exchange of ideas and I think the oft-used statement,
    "....refer to x subject in note y for further information", can
    lead to the suppression of alternative viewpoints. But that's another
    topic......
    
    I raised the question I did because it seemed a little self-serving
    to come up with a statement of "truth" from what is certainly a
    biased source document from a non-LDS view (D&C) just as it would
    be for a Vatican official to claim the Pope was chosen by God to
    lead all of Christendom.
    
    So I'm really talking about the process by which you derive "truth"
    and comparing it an organization whose claims are suspect in my
    mind.
    
    Just some more opinions.
    
    Mark

    We use the D&C, the Bible, the Book of Mormon and other written
    sources to derive truth.  My explanation in the previous note is
    some indication that our interpretation of the Bible does not
    conflict with our understanding of other Scriptures.  As to the 
    Mormons being separated from other churches, there are parallels in
    the Bible from Old Testament times through New Testament times where 
    the people of God are separated from other peoples.  As we view the 
    Church as a restoration of the previous Church of Christ, the D&C is 
    consistent with this trend in previous scriptures.  In addition, it
    would probably have been inconsistent for the Church to have been 
    restored without having been regarded as separate.  As to the D&C
    being self-serving, it is no more self-serving than the New Testament 
    scriptures were in New Testament times, or than the Old 
    Testament scriptures were in Old Testament times.  
    
    At one time, the Catholic Church *was* 'chosen by God' so far as its 
    roots were in the Church of Christ.  But, when Priesthood authority
    and revelation were lost, the Church of Christ was destroyed with only 
    a remnant of it remaining.  A Vatican official is pretty much correct, 
    but only on the assumption that there was no Apostacy.      

    Steve

    re .9
    
    Mark,
    
    In note .1  the D&C verse I used, that Steve  further elaborated
    on, (thanx for the ch. and verse, Steve!) was, I admit, coming from
    a biased perspective. But that's what I believe, and gives you all
    an opportunity to understand our perspective. Yes, there is a 
    division. When one believes he belongs to Christ's restored Church,
    it implies that other chuches are not. Others hold a measure of
    the truth, yet without the priesthood and the authority to act in
    God's name... you can well see where the lines become drawn.  It can
    seem arrogant and very self serving to others. It doesn't mean I
    wouldn't attend another church, there are truths throughout the
    gospel. I wouldn't change my faith, though,for I am happy where
    I am.
    
    Kevin 
    

Re .10:

Steve:

     As to the D&C being self-serving, it is no more self-serving than the New
     Testament scriptures were in New Testament times, or than the Old 
     Testament scriptures were in Old Testament times.  

Again, I was referring to the process and not necessarily the document. Any 
document can be self-serving. Christianity used the New Testament for years to
"support" their persecution of the Jews. That doesn't necessarily make the NT
"anti-Jewish" (although a case can probably be made for such a statement) but
it does show that the "truth", no matter how distorted, can be 
derived from almost any source (where there's a will, there's a 
way).

     At one time, the Catholic Church *was* 'chosen by God' so far as its 
     roots were in the Church of Christ.  But, when Priesthood authority
     and revelation were lost, the Church of Christ was destroyed with only 
     a remnant of it remaining.  A Vatican official is pretty much correct, 
     but only on the assumption that there was no Apostacy.      

There is *absolutely* NO Scriptural basis, NONE, ZIP, NADA, for the 
Catholic Church's claim that they represent the "true" church. I really find
it hard to believe that Mormon doctrine would presume, even remotely, to
support such a claim. You're right there was an "Apostacy" but a man 
named Martin Luther provided an out for those of us who wanted no 
part of the "Apostacy", even if the "Apostacy" is still with us.

Are you sure you've identified the correct "Apostacy"?

Mark 

    Re .11:
    
    Why do we need a priesthood? Why do we need an intermediary between
    God and ourselves? If God gave us free will, why would He change
    the rules later and decide we couldn't make choices for ourselves?
    
    Martin Luther taught the truth as he learned it from reading the
    Bible: each person has an individual relationship with God, each
    person can read the Bible on their own, and understand it as God
    calls them to understand His word. They need no priestly authority to
    interpret it for them.
    
    You might do well to study up a bit on the Reformation. The discussion
    we're having here could have taken place about 400 years ago, give
    or take.
    
    Mark

>There is *absolutely* NO Scriptural basis, NONE, ZIP, NADA, for the 
>Catholic Church's claim that they represent the "true" church. 

According to Catholic understanding there is ...  :-)

>I really find
>it hard to believe that Mormon doctrine would presume, even remotely, to
>support such a claim. You're right there was an "Apostacy" but a man 
>named Martin Luther provided an out for those of us who wanted no 
>part of the "Apostacy", even if the "Apostacy" is still with us.

We believe that the Catholic Church has its roots in the original Church and 
are not alone in that belief.  But, we believe that it and all other Christian 
churches were far enough from being the true Church (that is, there was loss 
of Priesthood and revelation, not that they had no truth whatsoever) that it 
was necessary for God to restore His Church.  By Apostacy, I refer to the
departure of all Christian churches from the original Church and that can trace 
their beginnings to the original Church of Christ.  Historically, that 
includes most Protestant churches.

You mentioned Luther.  While in Denmark, I often encountered the Danish
Folk Church, a splinter from the German Lutheran Church.  Even the Danish
Folk Church has apostacy within its ranks, but they don't call it that.
Rather, if there are enough people who want to believe a little differently 
from the mainstream, they can form their own group and still enjoy government 
subsidy.  Attendance at church is such a rare thing (except on holidays and
other events) that this doesn't bother most people.  I've spoken with many
who refer to the Danish Folk Church as their child-faith, who maintain that
it is enough to suit their needs and who openly profess that they do not
believe in Christ.  I love the Danish people, but I do not love the Danish
Folk Church.

The Apostacy is being discussed in note 87.

By the way, profound as the claims of the LDS Church may seem, I have more than 
once heard it said that Mormons tend to be more tolerant of others and their 
beliefs than the reverse.  I find a certain irony in that, but I believe that
this was often a characteristic of members of the original Church of Christ in 
the New Testament as well as of the people of God in the Old Testament.

re: .13

As to the need for Priesthood, part of this need is illustrated in Matthew
16:17 as was previously mentioned.  Without it, certain ordinances (binding) 
are not valid in heaven (where God is).  The implication is clearly that
ordinances performed without authority from God are not honored by God.
Just like if I were to present a check from your account to the bank, they
would probably not cash it unless your signature was on it.  Priesthood
is discussed in note 212.


Steve

    Re: Note 242.10 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN

    Hi Steve,
    
>   At one time, the Catholic Church *was* 'chosen by God' so far as its 
>   roots were in the Church of Christ.  

    I disagree with you here. Christ established his church, and its
    foundation was the apostles. I do not believe that the Bishop of Rome
    ever received the apostolic authority, as the Catholic church claims.
    As soon as the claim was made that the Bishop of Rome had this
    authority, as well as his successors, the church in Rome was apostate,
    thus the Catholic Church was never chosen by God.
    
    Rich

    re .16                                                 
    
    
    Rich,
    
    As I remember it, the first Bishop of Rome was a rather obscure
    figure, his authority purportedly coming from Peter. Wasn't he
    a former slave? Anyway, the word "Catholic", or universal didn't
    come into play until sometime down the road when the church of Rome
    exercised it's primacy over the other Churches. The Bishop chosen
    through the 12 Apostles, represented by Peter, may well have been
    legitimate as far as authority goes, however, as far as his successors
    go, if chosen through themselves, rather than through apostolic
    authority, would have no authority. The christian leaders of the 2nd
    century understood this problem and acknowledged their lesser 
    authority in relation to the apostles; ie, that they did not have
    the authority to act in matters concerning the overall church. 
    When authority is cut off from above, you find many divisions
    that arise.  For as some will acknowledge their lack of authority, 
    there will be many that will still assert their claim to lead as we
    find in the later period. The Roman church eliminated the other factions
    through time, became the state religion of Rome, and through time
    became the "official church", unless you count the Eastern church at
    Constantinople. The church, through the state, easily quelled other
    churches throughout the empire, through the Emperor's orders himself.
    
    As I understand it , Protestants today do not follow the lineage
    of authority aspect that LDS believe in. To do so would admit that
    they have no authority to act in matters of God. By definition,
    they are required to deny priesthood authority, and with it, revelation
    from God. 
    
    I believe that the Church of Rome does not have the authority
    to act in God's name and to administer the affairs of his church, 
    for I believe that a universal apostasy occurred - all lost the
    authority to act, and that there needed to be a restoration of the
    primitive Church again on the earth with all it's offices, ordinances,
    and gifts of the holy spirit, and priesthood. I believe that this
    restoration occurred, through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

    Re .14:
    
    Yeah, and according to the Mormons, the Book of Mormon is divine
    revelation :-):-)
    
    Why is it, Steve, that the Mormons claim the Bible is true "only so
    far as it is correctly translated" except when it comes to an issue
    that involves authority over individuals? I guess Matthew 16 must
    have been one of those "correctly" translated parts, huh?!?
    
    With regard to the "apostacy" of Protestantism, I shudder to think
    what we would have today if it hadn't been for Luther and others.
    Please don't try to turn back the clock.
    
    Mark

    RE .17

>   By definition,
>   they are required to deny priesthood authority, and with it, revelation
>   from God.

    This puzzles me. Are you saying that God can not speak to its children
    except through the priesthood? If that is what you were saying, that
    certainly limits God's abilities don't you think? God is not limited in
    its abilities.
    

    	Dan Kusnetzky
    

    re: .13
    
    Mark,
    
    I've read much on the reformation movement, and on the early church.
    You should see my library! Yes, discussions like this happened 400 years
    ago, and similar points were made then. 
    
    Kevin

    re: .19
    
    Dan,
    
    No. we can receive personal revelation. The priesthood authority
    I'm speaking of is through the Prophet and the keys he is able to
    exercise in receiving revelation concerning the overall church.
    
    Kevin
    

    Re .17:
    
    Hi Kevin:
    
    >As I understand it , Protestants today do not follow the lineage
    >of authority aspect that LDS believe in. To do so would admit that
    >they have no authority to act in matters of God. By definition,
    >they are required to deny priesthood authority, and with it, revelation
    >from God. 

What?!? Where did you come up with this one? As a Protestant 
Christian, I have no authority to act in matters of God *for another 
person* - only for myself. Any decisions they make are a matter of 
individual conscience and are between them and God ONLY. That's why we 
don't believe in the Roman Catholic approach to Confession (it is a 
private matter which requires no intercessor between a person and 
God). If I can be of assistance to another person who is struggling, 
fine, but I cannot under any circumstances usurp God's authority, as 
priestly authority does or tries to do.
   
    >I believe that the Church of Rome does not have the authority
    >to act in God's name and to administer the affairs of his church, 
    >for I believe that a universal apostasy occurred - all lost the
    >authority to act, and that there needed to be a restoration of the
    >primitive Church again on the earth with all it's offices, ordinances,
    >and gifts of the holy spirit, and priesthood. I believe that this
    >restoration occurred, through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Be glad that Martin Luther gave you the opportunity to look some 
place besides Rome!

Mark
    

>Why is it, Steve, that the Mormons claim the Bible is true "only so
>far as it is correctly translated" except when it comes to an issue
>that involves authority over individuals? I guess Matthew 16 must
>have been one of those "correctly" translated parts, huh?!?
      
Matthew 16 is consistent with the other scriptures if interpreted
correctly.  Who told you that Mormons claim the Bible is true "only
so far as it is correctly translated" except when it comes to an issue
that involves authority over individuals?  Can you give a reference?
To the best of my knowledge, this is not a Mormon belief.
    
Steve    

    Re: Note 242.22 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>As a Protestant 
>Christian, I have no authority to act in matters of God *for another 
>person* - only for myself. 
    
    Authority is necessary to officiate in such things as baptizing, making
    church policy and doctrinal statements, administering the sacrament of
    the Lord's supper, determining matters of church discipline, and
    receiving and proclaiming the will of the Lord for the church. The
    Holy Bible has lots of examples of how authority was an important
    part of Christ's original church.
    
    Each individual also has the responsibility to reconcile himself with
    God, to have a personal relationship with God, and to seek and receive
    revelation for matters that concern himself (but not concerning the
    whole church). No authority is needed for such things.
    
>Be glad that Martin Luther gave you the opportunity to look some 
>place besides Rome!
    
    I am, and I believe the LDS church teaches that the reformers were
    inspired to do much of what they did, so that the groundwork of
    religious freedom would be laid that would later allow the restoration
    of the gospel. However, they did not claim, nor did they possess
    the authority that we believe is necessary in Christ's church. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

Re .19

>    RE .17
>
>>   By definition,
>>   they are required to deny priesthood authority, and with it, revelation
>>   from God.
>
>    This puzzles me. Are you saying that God can not speak to its children
>    except through the priesthood? If that is what you were saying, that
>    certainly limits God's abilities don't you think? God is not limited in
>    its abilities.

Re .21
    
>    No. we can receive personal revelation. The priesthood authority
>    I'm speaking of is through the Prophet and the keys he is able to
>    exercise in receiving revelation concerning the overall church.
    
Just a quick elaboration on Kevin's comment.  Anyone who has a relationship
with God can receive revelation and guidance from Him for his or her personal
life.  The New Testament apostles, however, acted as leaders of the Church and
received revelations that were for the whole church; many of those revelations
were canonized later on and accepted as scripture.  Protestants are emphatic
in saying that there is no scripture other than the Bible, and hence they imply
there is no revelation given as it was in New Testament times to Apostles.

For those who haven't already read them, three notes discuss in detail the
New Testament teachings about the church at that time and the fact that it
did have central leaders who were guided by revelation for the whole
church, men who had priesthood authority, and men whose writings were canonized
as scripture.

     4.8    The New Testament church
     4.9    New Testament Church Guided By Revelation
     4.10   Authority From God

As I explained in note 4.12, we believe the reformers were great men and were
inspired of God to break down the religious and political power of the Catholic
church and to create a condition of religious freedom.

Allen

    re: .16
    
    Howdy, Rich.
    
    I may misunderstand, but I thought that the Catholic Church claimed
    to be the continuation of the Church of Christ.  The original Church
    was 'chosen by God'.  I think the consensus is in agreement with
    that.  So, if the Catholic Church is the continuation of the original 
    Church, then the Catholic Church was at least at one time 'chosen by 
    God'.

    Another point was brought up about the canonization of the Bible.
    According to my Bible dictionary, much of the OT was probably 
    canonized by prophets (Ezra, according to Jewish tradition).  Later
    books of the OT were probably canonized just before the time of Christ,
    though it is not known by whom.  (Perhaps this is one reason why
    the Song of Solomon made it in?)  The NT, on the other hand, was
    probably not canonized until around 150 AD.  It includes a collection
    of letters written by prophets in the original Church, but some
    letters are missing (1 Cor. 5:9, Col. 4:16).  The Bible dictionary
    seems to imply that the canonization of the NT may have occurred
    right around the time of the Apostacy, since there was a felt need
    for a gathering of the records due to the passing away of the apostles.
    So, this brings forth a couple of interesting questions: 
    
    Was the New Testament canonized by members of a Church that was soon
    to become (if not already) apostate?  
    
    Did these members have Priesthood authority (that is, did they do
    so with authority from God)?    


    Steve

    
    
    re: .26
    
    Interesting questions you pose! I have some of the writings of the
    early leaders, Polycarp, and Clement, among others and the writings
    of the Gnostic sects, these writings didn't make it into the NT,
    because of being non-canonical, the question is: who decided that
    they were not? I'll have to look into this one... maybe some council.
    I keep thinking Origen, but he came a little later down the road.
    Anybody elaborate?       
    
    Kevin
    

Hi, everyone,

I just wanted to get back to Lorenzo's questions. Have we answered
them, Lorenzo? If not, tell us how we can explain further. There are a
lot of questions/comments from various people in this particular note
that indicate some basic misunderstanding of LDS belief. So anything I
or anyone else can do to clear things up, we'll be glad to do. 

>     This Joseph Smith person. Do you think that God would reveal to
>    only one man those things that are written in the book of Mormon,
>    and not to his other prophets? 

We believe that many of the things contained in the Book of Mormon 
were *meant* to be revealed only in modern times. Revelation is not
dead. Therefore there must be new revelation from time to time. The
Book of Mormon is an example of this. 

We also believe that many of the things in the Book of Mormon are also 
contained in sacred writings of other times, including but not limited 
to the Bible. 

And we believe that there are many things *not* *yet* revealed, that 
God will make known in His good time. 

>    Sure, you may say that you all preach Christ, but where
>    is your foundation? 

Our foundation is Jesus Christ. We believe that it was He and God the 
Father who *personally* restored the Church. And I have a personal
testimony that Jesus Christ directs this Church today. I know it like I
know I'm sitting here typing this right now. 

I know also that Jesus Christ is busy with more things than just this 
Church; that I am sure that you, Lorenzo, for example, are a committed
disciple of the living Christ, and that you must have a real, true, 
and loving relationship with Him in your personal life. There is 
nothing about being a Mormon that keeps me from believing this about 
you.

You and I share a testimony of the Risen Lord, and that will always be true
no matter what anyone says about doctrine, history, or anything else. 

A brother in Christ,
/kevin

    Re:28
    
    We have a mixture here, of christians & LDS.  Look at how the differant
    of opinions and beliefs are turning out. This is a well, put together
    demostration of what I was speaking about. Being that we are all
    confessing that Jesus Christ is our Lord and savior, why is this
    wall here?  This is a wall that "Must" come down! We're not going
    back to glory in this condition.
    
    Lorenzo
    

    Hi!
    
    Just a comment about the compilation of the various books of the
    Bible.  The date that the NT seems to have formed into a canon body
    of scripture is approx 200 AD; The document, "The Canon of Muratori",
    is a catalogue that lists a table of contents of the holy scripture. 
    This document was discovered and published in 1740, by the librarian
    Muratori, who discovered it. The document fixes the present body
    of scripture with the exception of the epistles of James and Peter.
    Marcion (approx 135 AD.) made a collection of the various letters
    written by Paul, and the gospel of Luke. (from J.L. Barker, "Apostasy
    from the Divine Church", pg. 13 ). As far as it being a body of
    scripture that was canonised, I can see nothing to suggest it was done 
    in any formal manner, early on. 
    
     The NT that we read today, consists of what survived the various
    purges and persecutions in the early church. It would be unfair to 
    limit the epistles that the apostles had written to our current
    collection. So what we have today is what has survived over the
    centuries. Any claim that the Bible is the entire Word of God fails
    to take into account any manuscripts that may still be discovered
    of apostolic origin. If some were found, it would probably take an
    "Act of God" to get them included in scripture! 
                                       
    re: .29
    
    Lorenzo, you're right about the wall, we need to be working to tear
    it down. Let's start now!
    
    
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    
    Kevin                                               
    

    Re .29:
    
    What about, "Good fences make good neighbors?"
    
    Mark

    Hi, Mark!
    
    	We WANT you in OUR yard!  If we didn't, we could have made this
    one of those 'private' conferences where you would have to call
    to be added to it.
    
    	I think that you would be interested in re-reading Hebrews,
    which discusses 'the priesthood'.  Since the rest of the crew here
    have been members of the church for a long time, I think they've
    forgotten that our terminology is a little bit different than most
    Catholic/Protestant terminology on some things.  "Priesthood" is
    a lot different for us than it is for the Protestant or Catholic
    churches.  Any member who is worthy may receive 'the priesthood'
    - and there are two types: a lesser, or "Aaronic" priesthood, and
    a greater, or "Melchesdek" (I know I spelled that wrong, but I don't
    have my scriptures on me today) priesthood.  Hebrews talks about
    
    		"a royal generation of priests"
    		"called by God as was Aaron (if you recall, Aaron was
    			called rather directly by God, not by being
    			chosen by some rabbi or whatever)"
    
    	etc.
    
    		In any event, we welcome your presence because it actually
    builds our testimony that the gospel is true, and that Christ lives!
    I was "born again" back a long, long time ago...and I had the
    opportunity to "watch" the people in the church for about a year
    while a member lived with us.  I had absolutely no intention of
    joining the church.  I was fascinated by what went on, tho, and
    after about 6 months I asked for a Book of Mormon, because I wanted
    to know what exactly it was that was in it that made all of their
    young people exude an air of 'purity', or 'all-American boy/girl'
    feeling.  I spent another 3 months reading anti-Mormon literature
    AND works by church members, such as "A Marvelous Work and A Wonder"
    by LeGrande Richards.
    
    	I can testify to you that all of a sudden the pieces of the
    Bible that I never understood - and some I had never noticed! -
    fit together with the Book of Mormon like a jigsaw puzzle. I knew
    then that the book was true and although I didn't really believe
    Joseph Smith was a prophet (after all, it was a pretty wild story!)
    I reasoned that if the book was true, then Smith must have translated
    it, which meant therefore he was a prophet, and he HAD been visited.
    I've since grown spiritually so much that I KNOW now that Joseph
    Smith was a prophet.  
    
    	As far as the Bible goes, while I was investigating the church
    I also checked out the Dead Sea Scrolls.  These are the oldest
    'scriptures' we have ... I, too, had believed that God would not
    allow His word to become corrupted, removed from, or added to....
    but when I discovered (and it was a number of non-LDS sources!)
    that Genesis was nearly 50% longer, and Isaiah was 40+% longer,
    it gave me pause.  These scriptures are 400-600 yrs older than our
    oldest known copies!  The wording had been changed, and reading
    the translation myself, you could see that some subtle variation
    of meaning had occured!  
    
    	Jewish prophecy has it that prior to the 2nd coming of the Messiah,
    the prophet ben-Joseph will come.  He will also have a father whose
    name is Joseph, and so will be a Junior.  One synonym for this prophet
    is 'the Restorer'.   
    
    	Initially it was kind of scary.  One of the reasons scholars
    did not believe Joseph Smith is that he said that the record was
    on metal plates in a stone box.  At that time, no other records
    had ever been found that were written on metal in stone boxes. 
    They told him that records simply were not kept that way back then.
    
    	Archeologists have since uncovered 7 stone boxes filled with
    metal plates, one of which was written during the reign of King
    Darius of Persia (Iran now), throughout the Middle East.
    
    	Like I started to say, initially these discoveries were
    frightening.  It rocked the foundation of all I had ever believed
    in - or so I thought.  I think that that's the real reason that
    the "Christians" in the conference get upset sometimes.  You see,
    it's not rocking your foundation, really....it's just adding onto
    it!  The Book of Mormon is simply another testament of the same
    Jesus Christ...the truths it contains are the same ones that are
    in the New Testament.  Some points of doctrine are expanded upon,
    and others are glossed over.  Our Heavenly Father knew what we needed
    emphasized and de-emphasized.  
    
    	If you were to take a nail, and drive it through a spoon, you
    would be able to move the spoon 360 degrees, in whichever direction
    you wanted it to go.  Once you drive another nail thru it, though,
    no matter where, you now have a spoon that is immovable.  That second
    nail illustrates the necessity of the Book of Mormon.  We may no
    longer be 'blown about by the wind of false doctrine' (that's
    paraphrased, I think, from Paul - like I said, my scriptures are
    out in the car) - we have an additional source which backs up the
    first one.
    
    	If you'd like an reading material, I'd be more than happy to
    give you a reading list.
    
    		Bless you,
    		Sheryl
    

I've been thinking somewhat along these lines, too.  My thoughts are for me
somewhat painful, not because I feel threatened for I do not.  Rather, the 
pain I feel is because I have a genuine love for sincere people I recently met 
who believe in Christ and do not yet belong to what I have testimony to be 
God's true Church.

Recently, I had opportunity to attend the services of a non-denominational
Christian church.  The people there were loving, worshipped Christ, believed 
in the Bible, and otherwise appeared to live according to Gospel principles 
and invited the Spirit of God to be part of their lives.  These people appear 
to have Christ in their lives.  So, why not join with them?

The reason is that their church does not have authority from God.  They are 
every bit as sincere as members within the Church.  I also have no doubt that 
their missionaries work with the Spirit in that they seek the Spirit in their
work, preach Christ and that this message touches hearts.  Surely they are
and will be rewarded by God for the good that they do.  But, as long as they 
lack Priesthood authority, their church cannot address all of their spiritual 
needs.  They have faith and are faithful in exercising a portion of the Gospel. 
But, because of the lack of authority from God, they do not have the fulness 
of the Gospel nor the ability to apply it.  

I love the people in this other congregation.  And, I feel my heart drawn to
them.  I feel that there are aspects of the Gospel that they practice better
than I do, which causes me to strive to improve.  It would be so wonderful if 
they could see how much greater their potentials are, how much greater their 
worship of God could be, how much nearer they could draw to the Lord.  And, it 
is obvious that they want that nearness so much!  But, they are satisfied with 
what they have and feel there can be no better.  These are painful thoughts to 
me.

The Spirit works with the children of God because of His love for us and our
faith in Him.  I believe that the Spirit (or 'light of Christ') is found with
these people.  But, it may not always strive with them.  I began to sense an
example of what might happen that could cause this.  

While I was there, one of the members explained that the reason that he liked
the church was because it, unlike some other churches that required you to 
'pay your dues', did not require anything more of him for him to go to heaven 
other than that he believe in Christ.  Eternal life, it is taught, is a free 
gift since you can't do anything to earn it on your own.  You get it by
believing in Christ, nothing else.

I believe the Spirit witnesses to others of Christ.  I also believe the Spirit
witnesses to others that they need to accept Christ and that they have genuinely
had that revelation when they claim they have.  More, I believe the Spirit 
witnesses to them the need to do good works because of their faith and that 
they cannot work out their own salvation without Christ.  But, I do not 
believe the Spirit witnesses that they will go to heaven if they do nothing 
but accept Christ.  Yet, this was the Gospel that was being taught.  I believe 
it is easy for them to confuse the testimony of the Spirit of these other 
things with a testimony to this latter, incorrect principle.

The incorrect principle, that so long as you believe in Christ you'll go to
heaven, can blind a person in time of spiritual need.  One may not perceive a 
need for further understanding and may be easily misled by other false 
doctrine.  One may be able to diminish the need to repent, feeling that faith 
is all that is necessary.  One may dismiss the needs to make covenant with 
God as being no longer necessary.  I believe this incorrect principle to have 
led to the fall of many Christian churches in the past.  It is only one of 
many false principles that can creap into a Church that lacks authority from 
God and keys to modern revelation necessary to clarify understanding of the 
fulness of the Gospel.

I, too, would like to see the walls come down.  We all should be a part of the
'body of Christ'.  That is, if I may be more specific, we all should become 
part of the Church of which Christ is the head, within which is found 
authority from God.  That which lacks this authority is not of the 'body', 
even though the Spirit may work within its membership.  


Steve

Re .23:
    
Hi Steve:    
    
    Matthew 16 is consistent with the other scriptures if interpreted
    correctly.  Who told you that Mormons claim the Bible is true "only
    so far as it is correctly translated" except when it comes to an issue
    that involves authority over individuals?  Can you give a reference?
    To the best of my knowledge, this is not a Mormon belief.

You did! See your first sentence above!
    
Re .24:

Hi Rich:
                
    Authority is necessary to officiate in such things as baptizing, making
    church policy and doctrinal statements, administering the sacrament of
    the Lord's supper, determining matters of church discipline, and
    receiving and proclaiming the will of the Lord for the church. The
    Holy Bible has lots of examples of how authority was an important
    part of Christ's original church.

In the Congregational Churches (as in other Free Protestant 
churches), there are only two sacraments - baptism and communion. 
You need an ordained minister to administer those as well as to 
officiate at burial services. Otherwise, a Congregational Church is 
self-governing; laypeople can run the services if necessary. With regard to
church discipline, it is almost unheard of today. Maybe in the Pilgrim's 
day, but not today.
   
    Protestants are emphatic in saying that there is no scripture other
    than the Bible, and hence they imply there is no revelation given as it
    was in New Testament times to Apostles.

Not only is there no other Scripture other than the Bible there is 
no *authority* but the Bible!
    
Re .25:
    
Hi Allen:
            
    As I explained in note 4.12, we believe the reformers were great men and were
    inspired of God to break down the religious and political power of the Catholic
    church and to create a condition of religious freedom.

I'm confused. How can the Reformers be great men and yet "apostate"? 
Are they "great men" when you're addressing a potential convert who 
happens to be a Protestant and "apostate" every other time?

Re .26:
    
Hello again, Steve:
        
    I may misunderstand, but I thought that the Catholic Church claimed
    to be the continuation of the Church of Christ.  The original Church
    was 'chosen by God'.  I think the consensus is in agreement with
    that.  So, if the Catholic Church is the continuation of the original 
    Church, then the Catholic Church was at least at one time 'chosen by 
    God'.

The Roman Catholic Church unilaterally declared itself to be the 
"true" church. It was not until the Reformation that people woke up 
to this fact and fixed the problem.

    Was the New Testament canonized by members of a Church that was soon
    to become (if not already) apostate?

With some exceptions, the Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible 
track pretty well. They accept some of the Apocrypha where we do 
not.
    
    Did these members have Priesthood authority (that is, did they do
    so with authority from God)?    

As I mentioned earlier, they unilaterally declared themselves as 
Bishops of the one "true" church and therefore were "qualified" to 
decide what went into the Bible. God didn't pick them, they chose themselves!

Re .27:
    
Hi Kevin:
                
    Interesting questions you pose! I have some of the writings of the
    early leaders, Polycarp, and Clement, among others and the writings
    of the Gnostic sects, these writings didn't make it into the NT,
    because of being non-canonical, the question is: who decided that
    they were not? I'll have to look into this one... maybe some council.
    I keep thinking Origen, but he came a little later down the road.
    Anybody elaborate?       
    
The Gnostic texts were deliberately suppressed by the early church 
and later the Roman church. The Nicea Council of the 4th century 
tried to put a lid on the Gnostics with some success but it took 
several more councils before the Gnostics finally went away. From 
this council we of course get the well known Apostle's or Nicean 
Creed ("I believe in one God, the Father Almighty....etc")

You might also be interested to know that the Divinity of Christ as 
Orthodox Christian doctrine was decided at the Council of Nicea in 
325 AD I believe by a vote of 218 to 1!

Mark    

    Re .32:
    
    Thanks for the offer, Sheryl. But I think I'll remain the one (that
    I know of) token Congregational Protestant "Gentile" in this
    conference, if you don't mind.
    
    It's a tough job but somebody has to do it!
    
    Mark

    Mark,
    
    Apparently, not only do we interpret the Scriptures differently,
    we even interpret my words differently ...
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 242.34 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>In the Congregational Churches (as in other Free Protestant 
>churches), there are only two sacraments - baptism and communion. 
>You need an ordained minister to administer those as well as to 
>officiate at burial services. 
    
>Not only is there no other Scripture other than the Bible there is 
>no *authority* but the Bible!

    It seems to me that you may have contradicted yourself with these two
    statements. First, you acknowledge that ordination is required for a
    minister to officiate in baptism and communion. Then, you say there is
    no authority but the Bible. Why then does the minister have to be
    ordained? Please clarify. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich 
    

    
> The incorrect principle, that so long as you believe in Christ you'll go 
> to heaven..

    

    Re .37:
    
    Hi there Rich:
    
    I was wondering when someone would pick out some of the apparent
    contradictions......
    
    The ideal the early Congregationalists strove for was *absolutely*
    no hierarchy with each person literally a church by themselves.
    By this I mean the ultimate goal was the achievement of an individual
    relationship with God rather than a corporate one.
    
    Well, like all idealists, they woke up to the fact that some sort
    of framework is essential or you'll have total disorganization.
    So when like minded people of this persuasion started to group
    together, it was decided that a framework was required - but only
    the bare minimum and nothing more. That is why each Congregational
    church is independent and self-governing and not beholden in any
    way to any higher authority (except God of course). The individual
    churches form conferences and the conferences have synods but the
    individual churches can accept or reject any and all resolutions
    coming out of the synod, as they see fit.
    
    As far as ordained clergy are concerned, the pastor in a Congregational
    church is supposed to be a "leader-servant". He/she is hired just like
    any other employee of the church, has a contract like any other
    employee (30 day termination notice for the employer and the employee
    is typical), and has to be approved by a vote of the congregation
    before he/she can be hired. He/she typically attends church council
    meetings but has no vote (on purpose) and provides a report to the
    council chairman just like everybody else attending the meeting.
    If it sounds from this like the pastor's role in a *authoritative*
    sense is limited, you are correct - it is, on purpose.
    
    It's sort of like the US Constitution - a balance between individual
    and corporate rights with the emphasis on individual rights.
    
    Hope that helps clarify things.
    
    Mark

    This is an interesting discussion. Mark, your recent note explaining
    how the limits on the pastor/minister's authority exist in
    the Congregational Church and the concepts of synods prompted a thought. 
    Knowing of the absolute control the Catholic Church held over kings,
    people and nations during the middle ages and of the excesses and
    corruption of the Catholic Priesthood, I wonder if the pendulum
    swung too far in the other direction during the 
    Reformation in that Protestants, trying to eradicate corruption, totally
    annihilated the concept of divine authority (through the Priesthood) and
    subsitituted the concept of the Bible as the final authority.  Thus, 
    today most Protestants I know always say that the Bible is the absolute
    authority in all matters.  
    
    As for LDS, while we do believe in the concept that authority to act
    in God's name must be present and must be given and received according
    to his prescribed manner (by the laying on of hands from one who has
    been given the authority previously), Mormons do not believe in the
    concepts of Control, Coersion or Diving Right.  Thus, each Bishop and
    Stake President is a local authority over their own congregations.  And
    furthermore, each member can choose to follow or not. If he/she chooses
    not to follow/attend, no pressure is put on him/her to do so.
    
   What do you think of the above?
    
    Paul

    re: .38
    
    The principle is incorrect from the viewpoint that faith in Christ
    is sufficient.  In other words, faith in Christ is necessary for
    one to enter heaven, but it is not a necessary and sufficient
    condition.  
    
    Steve

Re .40:

Hi Paul:

    This is an interesting discussion.

I agree!

    Mark, your recent note explaining how the limits on the pastor/minister's
    authority exist in the Congregational Church and the concepts of synods
    prompted a thought.
 
    Knowing of the absolute control the Catholic Church held over kings,
    people and nations during the middle ages and of the excesses and
    corruption of the Catholic Priesthood, I wonder if the pendulum
    swung too far in the other direction during the Reformation in that
    Protestants, trying to eradicate corruption, totally annihilated the
    concept of divine authority (through the Priesthood) and subsitituted the
    concept of the Bible as the final authority.  Thus, today most Protestants
    I know always say that the Bible is the absolute authority in all matters.  
    
Well, for persons of the Free Protestant tradition like myself, 
we're glad for the pendulum swing and we're hoping it doesn't ever 
swing back! Seriously, though, not all of Protestantism did away 
with Priestly authority completely. Lutherans, Episcopalians, and 
Presbyterians (so-called "higher orders" of Protestants) have retained in 
one form or another some kind of hierarchy or Priestly authority via Bishops
or whatever. Baptists and Congregationalists typically want nothing to with 
any such "higher order".

In my family's case, my ancestors were Protestants who came from the
Netherlands to America in 1696 and although they probably weren't happy under
English rule, they were most unhappy about the possibility of French 
(and therefore Catholic) rule, being mindful of the Spanish Catholic 
occupation of the Netherlands, which is why they fought in the 
French & Indian War for the English Crown. When the Revolution started, they 
were just as glad to fight against the Crown and for the colonies 
because they could have cared less about the authority of the Church of 
England.

    As for LDS, while we do believe in the concept that authority to act
    in God's name must be present and must be given and received according
    to his prescribed manner (by the laying on of hands from one who has
    been given the authority previously), Mormons do not believe in the
    concepts of Control, Coersion or Diving Right.  Thus, each Bishop and
    Stake President is a local authority over their own congregations.  And
    furthermore, each member can choose to follow or not. If he/she chooses
    not to follow/attend, no pressure is put on him/her to do so.

But if someone in an LDS church dissents against a decision by the 
Bishop or Stake President, isn't that like defying God because the 
Bishop's/Stake President's authority is from God?

Also, if a Bishop/Stake President isn't meeting the needs of the 
congregation, do they have some right of recall? In other words, can 
they throw the rascal out if they feel it's necessary?

Mark

    Re: Note 242.42 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>But if someone in an LDS church dissents against a decision by the 
>Bishop or Stake President, isn't that like defying God because the 
>Bishop's/Stake President's authority is from God?
    
    These leaders have the authority to preside and administer the affairs
    of their jurisdiction. We believe they are called of God, and that we
    should sustain them so long as they remain in harmony with church
    teachings. If a member chooses to defy them, then quite often this is
    between the member and God. If it is disruptive to the church or
    involves the serious violation of God's commandments or the teaching of
    false doctrine, and the person is unwilling to repent, then the person
    could lose their membership in the church. These matters are decided by
    a church disciplinary council, and such decisions may be appealed to a
    higher council. 
    
>Also, if a Bishop/Stake President isn't meeting the needs of the 
>congregation, do they have some right of recall? In other words, can 
>they throw the rascal out if they feel it's necessary?

    We believe that church officials are called by revelation to those who
    have authority. Apostles are called by revelation to the prophet and
    the other apostles, as are other General Authorities. Stake presidents
    are called by revelation to the Apostle or General Authority who has
    been assigned to organize or reorganize a particular stake. Bishops are
    called by revelation to the Stake president, with approval for the
    nomination by the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (I
    forget which). Each of these callings is presented to the church body
    over which the person will preside for a sustaining vote. If anyone has
    an objection to the calling, they have an opportunity to raise their
    concerns. 
    
    With the exception of Apostles and other General Authorities, these are
    not full time positions, and are not paid positions. These leaders
    serve in their spare time and maintain their normal "civilian"
    occupations. Typically they serve for a few years and then someone else
    is called to fill the position. 
    
    If a leader is not meeting the needs of the congregation, a member may
    discuss this with the next higher leader. Sometimes this results in a
    leadership change, sometimes not. 
    
    The bishop is not the only one with priesthood authority. In fact, his
    responsibilities are largely administrative. But he is the "judge in
    Isreal", with the responsibility to decide difficult issues, as also is
    the Stake president. But any worthy male member can hold the priesthood
    and, under the direction of the bishop may administer ordinances such
    as baptism, the sacrament (communion), the laying on of hands for
    giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, anointing the sick, blessing infants
    and giving other blessings, dedicating graves, and other ordinances
    that the priesthood may administer in. Marriages must be performed by
    bishops, mostly for legal reasons. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich 

    Thanks for your explanation of "priesthood authority", Rich.  That
    was pretty much what I was trying to convey in .32, but because
    I said a bunch of other things, I think it kind of got missed in
    the shuffle!
    
    And Brother Starin, I was *really* referring to a non-LDS book list,
    so you could see that some of the things we are saying are not just
    limited to us crazy Mormons - that other theologians, also, agree
    with us on many of the points that are being discussed!  Unfortunately,
    what theologians decide is the actual fact and what ends up being
    taught in church and Sunday school is frequently somewhat out of
    sync.
    
    		Sheryl
    

    Re .43:
    
    Hi Rich:
    
    Well, I think the time has come for us to agree to disagree and
    leave it at that. I just cannot for the life of me see why any church
    needs a disciplinary council or whatever. But if the LDS feels they
    need such an institution (a cynic might say it's necessary to keep
    those in line who might have changed their minds), well, that's
    up to them. They're not the only church that has them or something
    like them - all I know is, thank God mine doesn't!
    
    Re .44:
    
    Hi Sheryl:
    
    You might be surprised to know that I too have disagreements with
    Orthodox Christianity on whether everything that got into the Bible
    is really telling the whole story. Where I part company with the
    LDS is I don't accept it or any of its prophets as being the "restored
    church" or in a direct line from the original Apostles.
    
    By the way, I'm usually referred as "Brother Starin" only in Masonic
    Lodge.......
    
    Mark

Hi Mark,

I wanted to mention something that has already been said but in different
words than I use.  My relationship with God is a personal thing between Him
and me.  No one else is involved, including my Bishop, My Stake President,
and the Prophet.  My Priesthood leaders get involved in my life only in 
terms of the ordinances of the church (e.g. baptism), the organization of
the church (e.g. a sunday school class), and assignments (we call them
"callings") such as missionary work or a classroom teacher.

Allen

    Re .46:
    
    Hi Allen:
    
    I know, I know.....I agreed to disagree earlier but I have to ask
    another question.
    
    If you say you have a individual relationship with God and the LDS
    Priesthood leaders get involved only insofar as ordinances etc are
    involved, then I'm a little confused.
    
    Are you serving God or the Priesthood leaders chosen by God? What
    do you if there's a conflict? Who comes first?
    
    My understanding of the LDS tells me that the Priestly Authority
    from God takes precedence but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
    (wouldn't be the first time).
    
    Thanks.
    
    Mark

>    Are you serving God or the Priesthood leaders chosen by God? What
>    do you if there's a conflict? Who comes first?

I'm serving God.  The Priesthood leaders represent him in terms of earthly
organizations and authority for ordinances, etc. but they are people who
make mistakes and commit sins as we all do.  Last night, for example, I spent
an hour with a Bishopric to solve a disagreement between them and me.  I'm
scoutmaster of the two Littleton (MA) wards, and the Bishoprics of both wards
wanted to make a change in our scouting program that I didn't think we should
make.  We discussed the pros & cons and came to an undestanding of the
others viewpoint.  They helped me to understand one point that I had overlooked,
and I realized that they were right after all; now, we'll go ahead and make
that change and all be united.  Last fall, they did make a change that I
disagreed with, and I told them at that time that they were wrong.  They went
ahead and made the change, and we've had problems all year from that change.
I told the Bishop last night that they had caused the problem themselves due
to their decision last fall, and they agreed with me.  So, disagreements do
occur between us and our leaders.

I've been in three Bishoprics and know from my own experience that Priesthood
leaders are human, do sin, do make mistakes, including mistakes of judgment
in our Church work.  I hope that no Mormon will *blindly* follow any Church
leader, including Ezra Taft Benson.  The key is personal prayer to God to
find out what He wants.  I follow Ezra Taft Benson as my earthly Priesthood
leader because I have a witness from the Holy Spirit that the LDS Church is
God's true church and that Pres. Benson is His prophet, but I serve God.

Brigham Young said something to the effect that we should not blindly follow
our leaders but should pray to God about the things our leaders do and say.
This gaining of personal testimonies via the Holy Ghost is one of the major
things that makes the LDS Church the powerful and dynamic thing that it is.
    
Perhaps other LDS will share their views on your questions, Mark.

Allen

    Re: Note 242.45 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>   I just cannot for the life of me see why any church
>   needs a disciplinary council or whatever. 
    
    It's basically to prevent the "wolves" from entering into the fold
    with the "sheep" and destroying the flock. To allow false doctrine
    to be taught or serious sin to be flaunted would have devastating
    results.

    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    Re: Note 242.47 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>   Are you serving God or the Priesthood leaders chosen by God? 
    
    We are serving God, not the priesthood leaders.
    
>   What do you if there's a conflict? 
    
    I think you are asking 'what do we do if a priesthood leader asks us to
    do something that is in apparent conflict with serving God?'. If so,
    then I offer these thoughts on the question. 
    
    First, each person has a right and responsibility to find out for
    himself directly from God if what a priesthood leader is asking is
    really God's will. Second, if we still feel that there is a conflict,
    then we may pursue it on up the line of priesthood authority. Third, if
    you've pursued it all the way to the Prophet of the church and you
    still feel it is wrong, then it is pretty much between you and God. 
           
    We may not always know *why*, but sometimes God may try our faith
    through our priesthood leaders. An example of this is many of the
    instructions which Moses was told to give to the children of Israel.
    Perhaps they did know *why* they should look upon the brazen serpent to
    live, for example, but those who obeyed the prophet were saved from
    death. We have the right to receive our own personal witness that
    instructions that are given are from God, and once we know that, we
    should obey it, even if we don't know the why. Thus, we are following
    God with our faith, and not the man. 
        
>   Who comes first?

    God.
    
>   My understanding of the LDS tells me that the Priestly Authority
>   from God takes precedence but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
>   (wouldn't be the first time).

    The authority never takes precedence over the giver of the authority
    (God). There is an excellent revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants
    that tells how this priesthood authority must be used: 
    
         Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are
         they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the
         things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they
         do not learn this one lesson -- That the rights of the priesthood
         are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the
         powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the
         principles of righteousness. 
         
         That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we
         undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain
         ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon
         the souls of the children of men, in any degree of
         unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the
         Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to
         the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is
         aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to
         persecute the saints, and to fight against God. 
         
         We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and
         disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little
         authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to
         exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are
         chosen. 
         
         No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of
         the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by
         gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and
         pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without
         hypocrisy, and without guile -- reproving betimes with sharpness,
         when moved upon by the Holy ghost; and then showing forth
         afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou has reproved,
         lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy
         faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. 
         
         Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the
         household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts
         unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence
         of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distill upon thy
         soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant
         companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness
         and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and
         without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.
         (D&C 121:34-46) 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich 

    Brother Starin:
    
    	Nice to hear there's another Master Mason out there.  I'm a
    past Worthy Advisor of West Medway Assembly #63, IORG, and my husband
    is an ex-Demolay and current Master Mason.
    
    	By the way, I understand Joseph Smith was a Mason, too.
    
    		Sheryl
    

    Re .50:
    
    Hi Rich:
    
    Well, OK, if it works for you, fine.....but I am reminded that power
    corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    
    Re .51:
    
    Hi Sheryl:
    
    There's a few of us around.....what lodge does your husband belong
    to? I am a member of Hospitality #128 A.F. & A.M. in Wethersfield,
    CT and hope to start my York Rite degrees next month.
    
    There's a MASONIC Conference if you're not already aware of it.
    
    As far as Joseph Smith's Masonic connections are concerned, I had
    heard he was a Mason but apparently ran into some problems. What
    I'm not sure but I do know that some LDS critics have compared what
    I guess is called "Temple Work" to Masonic rituals. I have a book
    at home entitled, "Mama, Mormonism, and Me" which was written by
    a former Mormon lady who became a fundamentalist Christian and
    renounced her LDS ties. In the back of the book, they have a reprint
    of what is purportedly LDS Temple ritual from quite a few years
    back. After reading it, I can see some similarities between Masonic
    ritual and LDS ritual but it seems whoever came up with the Temple
    Ritual borrowed something of the forms and ceremonies perhaps but
    left out a lot of the symbolism. In other words, to the uninitiated
    it would appear to be "Masonic" ritual but in fact isn't.
    
    The Masonic ritual has often been copied but never duplicated.
    
    Just an outside viewpoint....
    
    Mark

    Mark,
    
    This is a trite and friendly nit.  God is absolutely powerful, but
    not corrupted ...  :-)
    
    Steve

    Re .53:
    
    Steve:
    
    Oh, I know He is uncorruptible......I am not so sure, however, about some
    of the people who claim to represent Him!
    
    Mark

    Howdy,
    
    Soon as I can (and if I'm allowed to get away with it), I'll post 
    President Benson's article on pride.  He makes several good points
    that would be relevant to this discussion.
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 242.52 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>   I am reminded that power
>   corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
                                                             
    As Steve pointed out, it is not power itself that corrupts, for God
    himself has power and has not been corrupted. I would say that it is
    the use of power for unrighteous dominion that currupts. This is
    exactly the point of the passage from D&C 121 that I quoted. Priesthood
    power can *only* be exercised on principles of righteousness, and not
    by unrighteous dominion. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich