Conference tecrus::mormonism

        - The Word of Wisdom.

    For information on this doctrine see topic 21.
    
    As to the other topics you ask about, see note 86 for a table of
    contents and look up the topic regarding the plan of salvation.
    It's towards the  end of the list.
    
    If you have any questions about the specifics of these doctrines,
    feel free to ask.  I'm sure there are several people in here who
    are willing to respond.
    
    scott

    Re: Note 254.0 by NWD002::JOLMAMA

    Hi Matt,

    The best source of information on LDS doctrines is the scriptures,
    which include the Holy Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and
    Pearl of Great Price. There are also many other books available that
    discuss what we believe. One of my favorites that I would recommend to
    you is "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder". I will be glad to send you any
    of these books that you do not have. Send me mail, if you are
    interested. 
        
>   - The Word of Wisdom.
    
    This refers to a revelation that was given to the Prophet Joseph Smith,
    in which he was told that certain things are not good for the body and
    should not be used. These substances are alcoholic beverages, tobacco,
    coffee, and tea. Also, the revelation admonishes the use of grains and
    vegetables, and the use of meat sparingly. The revelation was given
    over 150 years ago, and all of its precepts have since been
    corroborated by scientific studies. The revelation is recorded in
    Section 89 of the D&C. 
    
>   - The Doctrine of three degrees of glory.
    
    The apostle Paul briefly refers to this doctrine in the Holy Bible, but
    it is more complete in the D&C Section 76. The Holy Bible teaches that
    men will be judged according to their works, and Christ taught that in
    His Father's house are "many mansions", which He prepares for us. We
    believe that these rewards will fall into three separate kingdoms, or
    degrees of glory. They are the Celestial kingdom, Terrestrial kingdom,
    and Telestial kingdom. 
    
>   - Eternal progression and the Heavenly Mother Doctrine.

    Eternal progression is also discussed in D&C section 76, as well as
    other places. This refers to the doctrine that we existed prior to our
    earth life as Spirit children of our Father (and Mother) in Heaven. We
    came to this mortal life to obtain a physical body, and to progress by
    exercising our free agency. If we are faithful in this life, we will
    have the opportunity to continue to progress eternally, and to grow in
    knowledge and power and glory to become like our Father in Heaven. We
    become joint heirs with Christ of all that the Father has, just as He
    testified. On the other hand, those who are "damned" have their
    progress stopped, and do not have the opportunity to progress
    eternally. 

    Did that help a bit?
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

	- The Doctrine of three degrees of glory.


	Holy Bible - 1 Cor. 15 around verse 40 to 45

	Doctrine and Covanents

		 76 - attributes thereof - vs. 24 to 113
		 88 - laws relating to - vs. 14 to 39
		131 - more on the third, or Celestial - vs. 1 to 4
		132 - relates only to the Celestial order

    Re .3:
    
    Didn't you read *a little* too much into 1 Cor. 40-45? How do those
    five verses get spun off into a whole doctrine on "Degrees of Glory"?
    
    Just curious....
    
    Mark

    Re: Note 254.4 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
>   Didn't you read *a little* too much into 1 Cor. 40-45? How do those
>   five verses get spun off into a whole doctrine on "Degrees of Glory"?

    The verses in Corinthians only make a passing reference to the
    doctrine. More details were revealed by God to Joseph Smith and are
    recorded in D&C 76.

	Mark,
		The doctrine of the "Degrees of Glory" in 1 Cor 15:40-41 is
	the only place in the Bible where these particular attributes are
	spoken about.  In verse 40, the terms 'celestial' and 'terrestrial'
	are the only times in the whole Bible, according to Strong, that these
	terms are used.  In verse 41, it talks about the brightness of each
	degree.  Can you show me where, in the Bible, that more complete
	information is on this subject.  No, you can not.  However, since the
	Bible is not the last word on God's doctrine, He has provided mankind
	with clear and distinct explanations of these degrees of glory.

		I can not read a little too much into the Bible when all the
	Bible has is much too little.  While you are in 1 Cor 15, try and find
	another reference in the Bible as to why "they are baptized for the
	dead, if the dead rise not at all".

	Charles

    Re .5 and .6:
    
    Well, how reams of doctrinal dissertation can be derived from one or
    two verses of Scripture is beyond me.
    
    Maybe I missed something somewhere......
    
    Mark

>    Well, how reams of doctrinal dissertation can be derived from one or
>    two verses of Scripture is beyond me.
    
Mark,

To understand what we are saying, you need to look at it from our perspective
not from your perspective.  I think that your perspective is one of taking
verses from the Bible and using them to formulate doctrine, and you don't
understand how those verses from 1 Cor. 15 teach a doctrine of different
degrees of glory in the Father's house.  Our perspective is that the Lord
revealed truth through his latter-day prophet about the degrees of glory, and
in discussions with non-LDS we use those verses to substantiate the
revealed truths; we do not use those verses to formulate doctrine.

Concerning the verses from 1 Cor. 15.  I think everyone understands that Paul
is talking about the resurrection.  He introduced two metaphors to teach
that resurrected bodies were not all the same.  One metaphor was about
different animals and the other one was about objects in the sky.  To 
paraphrase Paul, just as animals have different types of bodies, and just
as there are objects in the sky having different degrees of light, so in the
resurrection will there be different bodies coming forth.  To substantiate
our beliefs of three degrees of glory in heaven, we take the verses from
1 Cor. and use them to *imply* the three degrees.  We say, Paul is teaching
that there are different types of resurrected bodies, and that implies that
there are different places in heaven for those bodies to go, i.e. different
"mansions" in the Father's house.  As I said above, our beliefs in the
three degrees of glory came through revelation and is found in Section 76
of the D & C.

Does this help?

Allen

    Re: Note 254.7 by ABE::STARIN

    Hi Mark,
    
    Section 76 of the D&C is not just a statement written by men about
    this doctrine. It is the record of a vision seen by Joseph Smith
    and Sidney Rigdon on February 16, 1832 at Hiram, Ohio. In this vision,
    they were shown the three degrees of glory and were told on what
    basis that men would receive these rewards. It is very enlightening
    and I would love to type it all in, but it is comprised of 119 verses
    and eight pages.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

>                                                It is very enlightening
>    and I would love to type it all in, but it is comprised of 119 verses
>    and eight pages.
    
Rich,

Note 4.63 has the important parts of Section 76.

Allen

    Why do I always forget about the wealth of stuff that is in topic 4? 
    
    By the way, I just noticed that 4.64 also has the part of Section 76 -
    the part that is about Outer Darkness. 
    
    Rich

    Re .8:
    
    Hi Allen:
    
    Ok.....I see at least a little bit better how *you* (that's a generic
    you - the Mormon you, if you will) derived the LDS doctrine on the
    3 degrees.
    
    From *my* perspective (very liberal by some standards), the "many
    mansions" reference implies to me that God has room in his house for
    all the people he ever created - otherwise why bother creating them?
    That's a universalist view admittedly and it doesn't address the
    issue of what God does with truly evil people like Adolf Hitler or
    Josef Stalin but that's how I look at it.
    
    It also doesn't agree with the fundamentalist/literalist Orthodox
    Christian view that if you're saved, you're on your way to Paradise
    but if you're not, you're on your way to you know where.....
    
    BTW, funny thing about those three degrees.......somewhere I remember
    another organization that has three degrees. I'm sure there's no
    connection though.
    
    Mark

    I don't suppose God will have trouble adding as many rooms as needed
    to His Place for anyone that can visit ...  :)
    
    Steve

Charles,

This is an old topic for this notes file, but I cannot let your remarks 
go without comment.

You say that the Bible says "much too little". I disagree. The Bible says 
plenty enough, and more than any one can ever fully absorb in a lifetime.
It only says too little for those who wish to believe things that are not 
in the Bible, or require far more of a basis than the Bible supplies. The 
fact that questions can arise from study of the scriptures does not 
in any way prove their inadequacy.

You challenged Mark to show you "more complete information" from the 
Bible on the subject of "degrees of glory". To this I say that the Bible 
says enough for Paul to make his point, which is simply that the "glory" of 
the resurrected body is different from and exceeds the "glory" of the
physical, corruptible body. To take this as a basis for a lengthy and 
involved new doctrine replete with new "kingoms" and different sorts of 
resurrected bodies, is, in fact, reading too much into the Bible.

Alan is right, however, in stating that Mormon doctrine is not based upon 
this alone, but also on Mormon revelations, which non-Mormons clearly do 
not accept. I see these tie-ins as a means by which "new revelations" are 
given credibility. The scantiness of the biblical references versus the 
Mormon doctrine tied to it also serves to reinforce the Mormon assertion 
that the Bible is missing many things that were once part of it. This 
assertion, however, has little real support, since no one has been able 
to come up with evidence that supports the idea that anything has 
been deliberately removed by an "apostate" group, which is a basic premise 
of Mormonism.

You also challenge Mark to find more references to baptism of the dead, 
implying that since he cannot, that this proves that the Bible is 
lacking. It's worth pointing out that Paul says "what shall THEY do, who 
are baptized for the dead" instead of "what shall WE do..." Clearly he 
does not identify with those who baptize for the dead, and is only using 
this as part of an argument for the reality of resurrection. Instead, I 
challenge you to find further Biblical support for this practice. The 
lack of support demonstrates that such a thing was not commonly
practiced, nor was it ever considered as necessary by the ancient Church.
In fact, baptism of the dead contradicts the passage "It is appointed unto
man once to die and after that, the judgement." 

You seem to like challenges, so I challenge you to find Biblical support
for the Christian's need of earthy temples in order to perform various 
secret/sacred rites.

Regards,

Ed

    Re: Note 254.14 by CASPRO::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
>You say that the Bible says "much too little". I disagree. The Bible says 
>plenty enough, and more than any one can ever fully absorb in a lifetime.
    
    I don't think that it is for us to say whether the Holy Bible says
    too little, enough, or too much. Let's suppose for a moment that
    God wants to reveal more to men. Should we tell him "No thanks,
    we already have more than we can absorb"? No, we should be willing
    to live by *every* word that God chooses to give us. We only have
    enough of God's word when God says we have enough.
    
    For myself, I am grateful for the additional light and knowledge
    that the latter-day scriptures (Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants,
    Pearl of Great Price) give. They help me to absorb more of what
    is in the Holy Bible. I believe that when God reveals more, it helps
    us to better understand that which he has previously given us.
    
>You challenged Mark to show you "more complete information" from the 
>Bible on the subject of "degrees of glory". To this I say that the Bible 
>says enough for Paul to make his point, which is simply that the "glory" of 
>the resurrected body is different from and exceeds the "glory" of the
>physical, corruptible body. 
    
    I agree with you here. Paul is only making a passing reference to
    this doctrine, and not expounding upon it. 
    
>Alan is right, however, in stating that Mormon doctrine is not based upon 
>this alone, but also on Mormon revelations
    
    Correct.
    
>The scantiness of the biblical references versus the 
>Mormon doctrine tied to it also serves to reinforce the Mormon assertion 
>that the Bible is missing many things that were once part of it. This 
>assertion, however, has little real support, since no one has been able 
>to come up with evidence that supports the idea that anything has 
>been deliberately removed 
    
    It seems that I heard somewhere that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained
    a version of Genesis that was some 50% larger than the versions
    in the Holy Bible. This could be an indication that some editing
    has taken place.
    
>It's worth pointing out that Paul says "what shall THEY do, who 
>are baptized for the dead" instead of "what shall WE do..." Clearly he 
>does not identify with those who baptize for the dead, and is only using 
>this as part of an argument for the reality of resurrection. 
    
    I think too much can be made of Paul's use of the word "They" in this
    context. At least in English, it would be perfectly acceptable to to
    make this statement in the third person using "they", while at the same
    time not excluding oneself in the reference, especially in a rhetorical
    sense, such as Paul is using. Clearly, there would not be this
    ambiguity had Paul used "we" instead of "they", but even Peter said
    that sometimes Paul was sometimes hard to understand.
    
>In fact, baptism of the dead contradicts the passage "It is appointed unto
>man once to die and after that, the judgement." 

    I don't see a contradiction. Please explain.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    Clearly, they use the word "clearly" so much when there are clearly
    different ways to interpret scriptures clearly, making the use of
    the word "clearly" clearly meaningless.  ;)
    
    Steve

    It's all becoming 'clear' to me now...
    
    :-)

    After reading just a few essays from Hugh NIbley's Book "Early
    Christianity and Mormonism (this book contains erudite essays he
    wrote for NON-Mormon scholarly journals) - anyhow after reading just a
    few of his essays and the extra-ordinary footnoting, the position that
    the Bible is "complete" and "without error", is indefensible.  So
    much information has and is still coming forth that shows what is now 
    considered  traditional  Christian doctrine as being different from
    what Christ taught or what First Century Christians believed.
    
    
    Here's a for instance:  Early Christians did not believe Hell was a
    physical place at all.  Evidence of this fact is that they had no one
    name for it, but used several names, even using pagan names.  However,
    through the centuries, mostly the Middle Ages, this belief became
    blurred and what arose was Hell as a physical place with physical
    burning. Once it got cannonized, no amount of "proof" was or is able to
    dislodge it.
    
    Anyhow, just my small amount of reading has increased my appreciation
    for the Restoration of key principles and doctrines that were lost, and
    my realization of how much there is to learn.  I am also grateful that
    the Bible has been able to preserve as much as it has been.  It along
    with our modern scriptures give us a fuller view of God, the Saviour,
    the Plan of Salvation, and our own role and destiny within the Plan.
    
    For those "who hear his voice", I hope that you would partake of the
    "living waters" that have given me "life more abudantly" through a
    conscientious and honest study of the Book of Mormon.
    
    Regards to all  
    
    

	RE: 254.14

>You say that the Bible says "much too little". I disagree. The Bible says 
>plenty enough, and more than any one can ever fully absorb in a lifetime.
>It only says too little for those who wish to believe things that are not 
>in the Bible, or require far more of a basis than the Bible supplies. The 
>fact that questions can arise from study of the scriptures does not 
>in any way prove their inadequacy.

	I am not saying that the Bible is not something of value, just that
	what is in it does not fully explain the doctrines "known" to the
	people of that time.  That is why one can not find anything more to
	some of the doctrine mentioned.  Therefore, I do indeed say that the 
	Bible says "much too little".  Just because you have put a limit on 
	what God can give to his children, do not chastise me for not.  There
	are many areas in which the Bible is inadequate - otherwise we would
	have a unity in Christ and not 700 - 800 denominations.


>You challenged Mark to show you "more complete information" from the 
>Bible on the subject of "degrees of glory". To this I say that the Bible 
>says enough for Paul to make his point, which is simply that the "glory" of 
>the resurrected body is different from and exceeds the "glory" of the
>physical, corruptible body. To take this as a basis for a lengthy and 
>involved new doctrine replete with new "kingoms" and different sorts of 
>resurrected bodies, is, in fact, reading too much into the Bible.

	I do not know where you get the idea that I limit myself to the Bible.
	The Bible is incomplete on these doctrines and I refer to the further
	light and knowledge my Heavenly Father has given me.  The ONLY reason
	I issued a challenge was to show that the Bible is silent on any
	explanations in increasing knowledge on the subject.

>Alan is right, however, in stating that Mormon doctrine is not based upon 
>this alone, but also on Mormon revelations, which non-Mormons clearly do 
>not accept. I see these tie-ins as a means by which "new revelations" are 
>given credibility. The scantiness of the biblical references versus the 
>Mormon doctrine tied to it also serves to reinforce the Mormon assertion 
>that the Bible is missing many things that were once part of it. This 
>assertion, however, has little real support, since no one has been able 
>to come up with evidence that supports the idea that anything has 
>been deliberately removed by an "apostate" group, which is a basic premise 
>of Mormonism.

	You have the right to believe what you want, and so do I.  So please
	give me that right and stop contending with every little thing that 
	YOU do not believe in.  I believe in it, and so do a lot of other 
	people.  The "wise" of the world are despised by God, and only they
	put limits on what He can do.


	Just for your information, I do not think the word of God has yet
	ceased nor do I believe all His directions to His children have come
	forth to man.  There are 12 tribes in Israel, and we only have God's
	word to 2 of them.  I am waiting for the other 10 books to come forth.
	If you want to base your salvation on 1 tribe, then go ahead, but I
	will wait for more information.


>You seem to like challenges, so I challenge you to find Biblical support
>for the Christian's need of earthy temples in order to perform various 
>secret/sacred rites.

	I will not go down a rat-hole with you just because you do not believe
	the same as I.  For your information, the temple rites are not secret.
	If you want to know what is done in the temple, then go to the public
	library and read all about them.  However, I do hold them sacred.
	To ME they are sacred.  That is all that counts.

********************************************************************************

	Ed
		I feel that you took offense at what I said and for that I am
	truly sorry.  I also feel that you do not beat around the bush, and
	I tried to be as straight forward as I could in my reply.  However,
	since religion is one of the two main points of contention between
	people, I do not wish to engage in lengthy debates about who is right.
	I have my witness from God and so do you.  Do what you like with yours
	because it is your right.  But it is also my right to do what I want
	with mine, and I appreciate it when I am allowed that right.

		It is difficult for non-members to really understand members
	because the basis for understanding is different.  If the Bible was
	the limiting factor, then the basis would be the same.  I am sure that
	there are other conferences that have that limit, but this conference
	does not.  When people can talk on the same basis then an expansion
	of understanding can take place.  But when not, then there is just
	contention.  May you find your peace in this world that is right for
	you and yours.

	Regards,

	Charles

	I am not Ed, but I have been reading the last few notes with
    interest and I'd like to make a couple of comments.

>	I will not go down a rat-hole with you just because you do not believe
>	the same as I.  For your information, the temple rites are not secret.
>	If you want to know what is done in the temple, then go to the public
>	library and read all about them.  However, I do hold them sacred.
>	To ME they are sacred.  That is all that counts.


	Your right, you shouldn't have to go down a rat-hole, but this
    conference gives you a good opportunity to gloat about why you believe
    the way you do.  And I don't believe that it is contentious for
    non-Mormons to want to challenge what you believe.  Challenge should
    either strengthen a belief or help to shake off a weak one.
    
    	I believe that Ed has posed some good questions, if there are
    others that would like to take up the question, I'd like to 'listen'
    and learn.  


>	I have my witness from God and so do you.  Do what you like with yours
>	because it is your right.  But it is also my right to do what I want
>	with mine, and I appreciate it when I am allowed that right.

THIS SHOULD PROBABLY BE ANOTHER TOPIC:

	What is your 'witness from God' and how is it different or the
    same as that of non-Mormons that profess to having the truth. (by
    truth, I mean those that believe that they shall receive the reward
    that God has intended for them from the beginning of time)
    
    	And what makes that 'witness from God' the indicator that
    one is right?
    
    Roger

    In an effort to go in a productive direction, how about Ed's question
    about temples?  Mormons build temples and believe the ordinances
    therein to be necessary for salvation.  Yet, the New Testament
    apparently mentions little about the necessity of temples.  I have
    even heard the NT used to defend the idea that temples were one of
    those things that was fulfilled by Christ's mission (such as 1 Cor. 
    3:16-17).  The position of Mormons is that some of the rituals of the 
    temple were still required after Christ's atonement.
    
    Now, to keep this productive, what Biblical basis exists for answers
    for and against the concept that man needs to perform sacred
    ordinances in modern-day temples?
    
    Steve

	Roger

>	Your right, you shouldn't have to go down a rat-hole, but this
>    conference gives you a good opportunity to gloat about why you believe
>    the way you do.  And I don't believe that it is contentious for
>    non-Mormons to want to challenge what you believe.  Challenge should
>    either strengthen a belief or help to shake off a weak one.

	First let us be "perfectly clear" that I, nor any other Mormon, GLOAT
	over our beliefs.  If any Mormon does, then they are wrong to do so.
	This conference should be able to allow Mormons to edify each other
	in the given doctrine.  When a someone asks questions about that
	doctrine, as this particular topic was started, then Mormons should
	be able to give that doctrine without a lot of contention from those
	who do not believe in the same way.  I do not mind a challenge as to
	*why* we believe in a particular way, but not one as it was issued.
	Besides, I can not dream of this conference going this far without
	the doctrine of the temples not already discussed somewhere else.

>    	I believe that Ed has posed some good questions, if there are
>    others that would like to take up the question, I'd like to 'listen'
>    and learn.  

	I would refer you to note 4.62


>	What is your 'witness from God' and how is it different or the
>    same as that of non-Mormons that profess to having the truth. (by
>    truth, I mean those that believe that they shall receive the reward
>    that God has intended for them from the beginning of time)
    
>    	And what makes that 'witness from God' the indicator that
>    one is right?
    
	I believe that I have seen this discussion in another note also.

	My intention was to say that I believe what I believe and you believe
	what you believe.  Let us give each other the right to do so.  The
	*basis* for most beliefs is the 'witness from God', through the Holy
	Ghost, that these beliefs are correct.  I read where one person got
	a witness NOT to join the Mormon church.  Well, a long time ago, I got
	a witness that the Mormon church was where I should be.  To each their
	own.  Live and let live.  Etc.....  Other than that, I meant nothing
	else.


	Charles

    Re .22:
    
    Uh....if you don't appreciate "contentious non-Mormon views", why
    allow non-Mormons to enter the conference in the first place? Are
    you hoping those who do will be potential converts rather than those
    of us who ask questions with no easy answers?
    
    Also, why is it that whenever non-Mormons go over the "contention
    threshold", if you will, for this conference anyway that we see
    the "contentious non-Mormon view" flag raised while the wagons form
    a circle for all-around defense?
    
    No flames intended but I feel called to ask questions without easy
    answers....
    
    Mark

    Hi, Mark!
    
    As to the contention flags, I suppose that experience has taught
    me that those who are violently opposed to the Church do not change 
    their opinions through contentious debate.  Arguing that you're right
    about one aspect of the Church and that they are wrong serves often
    to infuriate, not teach.  The 'spirit' of contention is one of enmity, 
    not of debate or of learning.  Mormons have been cautioned about
    developing enmity toward their fellowmen, have been told that this 
    is sin.  
    
    I personally have never observed Christian conversion as the result of 
    hostile debate.  I have rarely observed any learning and then usually
    implicitly.  Instead, the contenders, if beaten or humiliated, tend to 
    either change the topic or do more research and throw references back 
    at each other during the next round.  Each is seeking the defeat
    of the other.  Friendships are seldom strengthened and there ain't
    no edifying going on.
    
    The Spirit of the Lord is not present with contention.  And, it is
    that Spirit that is required for learning and for conversion to 
    true Christianity, from a Mormon point of view.  Anyway, that's
    why flags go up when somebody says something hostile or abusive
    about the Church.
    
    I think it's *great* that non-members participate in this note!
    But, it's reprehensible when participants (members or non-members)
    feel that the theme can justify ignoring what might be interpreted as 
    regular social behavior in a note file.
    
    Steve

    Re .23:
    
>    Uh....if you don't appreciate "contentious non-Mormon views", why
>    allow non-Mormons to enter the conference in the first place? Are
>    you hoping those who do will be potential converts rather than those
>    of us who ask questions with no easy answers?

	To the first sentence, I did not say anything about "appreciation".
	The bantering of words to and fro does not, in my mind, make up a 
	"conversation".  Again, I would go back to the basis of each of our
	beliefs.  I use the Bible and so do you.  But, I also use the Book 
	of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and teaching
	from the different prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter 
	Day Saints.  You do not.  I am just tired of being belittled because
	of that.  I would be willing to present my beliefs, but if they are
	not accepted, then I would like the respect for those beliefs.

	As to the second sentence, Mormons are taught that we have the answers
	to what people are searching for in regards to religion.  The only
	real questions with no easy answers are in the minds of the beholder.
	I have, for the most part, had all the questions answered that are
	really necessary for my eternal salvation.  I can progress with the
	knowledge I have, with a promise that if I adhear to that, then I
	will be given more.  Every person on the face of the earth is, from
	my point of view, a potential convert.  All people who are LDS have
	to, at one time or another, be converted.  People do not convert.
	God does, just as he converted Paul.  Each person must get their own
	witness from God.  All people can do is present, and then it is up to
	those to whom information is presented to accept or reject that which
	was given them.
    
>    Also, why is it that whenever non-Mormons go over the "contention
>    threshold", if you will, for this conference anyway that we see
>    the "contentious non-Mormon view" flag raised while the wagons form
>    a circle for all-around defense?

	Mormons should "discuss" and "present" until the spirit informs them
	that contention is present.  I pray every morning for the Spirit of
	the Lord to attend me that day.  Without it I am lost.  There are
	numerous LDS scriptures where the Lord cautions against contention.
	Right now I feel calm in preparing this reply, so I know I am not
	being contentious.  If you take it wrong, then I can not prevent that
	and I am sorry if you do.  But the most important thing is how *I*
	feel.  My attitude is what I am.  It is how I conduct myself.  Also,
	if I have any "wrongness" about me, them the Spirit withdraws and I
	am left to myself.  I really do not like that position.

    
    Charles

    RE: < Note 254.22 by BSS::RONEY >

>	First let us be "perfectly clear" that I, nor any other Mormon, GLOAT
>	over our beliefs. 
    
    GLOAT was probably an inappropriate word for this context.  What
    I meant to say was EXCITED about what you believe to the point
    that you want to tell others what you are so excited about.
    

    At any rate, could we get back to Ed's question about temples as
    posed again in .21?

    RE: < Note 254.26 >
    
>    GLOAT was probably an inappropriate word for this context.  What
>    I meant to say was EXCITED about what you believe to the point
>    that you want to tell others what you are so excited about.
    
	Yes, don't we all get rather "excited" about our religion?
	Maybe that is why it is called the "good news".


>    At any rate, could we get back to Ed's question about temples as
>    posed again in .21?

	I believe it has been answered in one part by note 4.62 in so far
	as baptism for the dead goes.  As far as a "Biblical" reference to
	the purpose of the "modern-day" temple goes, there is none.  As far
	as Latter-Day revelation goes, there is some.  

		Now, the purpose of baptism is to receive the covenants of 
	salvation through the administration of the Aaronic Priesthood, and 
	one purpose of the temple is to receive the covenants of exaltation
	through the administration of the Melchizedek Priesthood.  In both 
	cases, the Melchizedek Priesthood is necessary for these covenants 
	to be administered vicariously.

		If any further elaboration is wanted, then I suggest this
	be moved to another topic.


	Charles

FYI: Note 93 is discussing LDS Temples.

    Re .24 and .25:
    
    I never questioned your right to your Mormon beliefs. The only concern
    I have is that in the LDS church's quest to minimize "contentiousness",
    as it were, that they might just end up minimizing the right of their
    members to question.
    
    If you feel comfortable in a hierarchical, creedal, conformist church
    like the LDS, hey, go for it. I just can't abide by having another
    person interpret for me what God clearly wants me to interpret for
    myself.
    
    Just some opinions.....
    
    Mark

    Well, Mark, I for one don't feel that my right to question is in
    any sense minimized below any civil level.  Basically, I can ask
    my leadership about anything I want and express any feeling I have
    without fear of being 'cast out'.  However, if I do so with any feelings
    of malice, enmity, rebellion or whatever, I will be in the wrong.
    Not because I am ticked off, but because my purpose is to malign,
    humiliate or destroy and not to learn though I may profess that
    that is my intention.  In the Church, that might be a sin, not because
    I vent my wrath at leadership, but because I would do so to another
    person.  
    
    What we're talking about is just common sense.  It's just not right
    to go around making enemies of people and putting them down.  The 
    Church's teaching that we should treat each other well and build each 
    other up is not grounds for assuming that it is telling us to avoid 
    contention as a way of exercising dominion over its members.  
    
    The Church does not encourage dogmatic responses.  Instead it
    encourages us to seek out the ways that we can do good and
    specifically tells us that it's *bad* for us to be commanded in all 
    things.  It also encourages us to seek out truth, not just accept
    blindly anything that is spewed out.  We are specifically told to 
    read the best books we can find, and not just Church books.  And, we 
    are responsible for finding truth on our own.  
    
    Of course, if one feels that truth is what you want it to be, then one
    will have a problem with the Church.  The Church holds truth to be
    more consistent than that.  So, if you don't want to conform to the 
    'truth', there are plenty of churches out there that will cater to
    members who want to believe in relative truths.  But, if you want
    *real* truth, you have to find that out for yourself, Church or no.  
    And, you have to be humble enough to be able to accept it once you find
    it.  The spirit of contention is just the opposite of the humility
    a person needs to accept truth.
    
    Steve

    Mark
    
>    I have is that in the LDS church's quest to minimize "contentiousness",
>    as it were, that they might just end up minimizing the right of their
>    members to question.

	It is not the "LDS church", or that organizational part of the church,
	that is requesting the absence of contention.  You are way off base on
	this one, because, I, as a member of the LDS church, believe that the
	scriptures we use are from God, and IT IS GOD WHICH WANTS TO MINIMIZE
	CONTENTION.  The church leaders just talk about it, but MY learning
	about contention has come from the scriptures.
    
>    If you feel comfortable in a hierarchical, creedal, conformist church
>    like the LDS, hey, go for it. I just can't abide by having another
>    person interpret for me what God clearly wants me to interpret for
>    myself.
    
	I see no problem being in an organization that Jesus Christ set up.
	Are you saying that if you were alive during Christ's ministry that
	you would not "join" His church?  I'm sorry, but you had better go
	back and re-read the Bible.  It does not say that Christ will return
	to His "people" as individuals, but to His "church" as a collection
	of people in a hierarchical structure as He originally set up.  And, 
	the people who are of His church will indeed be "conformist" to 
	Christ's view, or they will not be His.  I verify ALL my views with
	God and not with man, no matter where they are in the church hierarchy.

	Charles

    To Mark in .29
    
    When you say that the LDS belong to a "hierarchical, creedal,
    conformist Church", expect some flames coming your way!!!  If you think
    that the LDS Church is like that, then how far you have missed the mark
    in understanding us.
    
    The quintessential value/belief in the LDS Church is that of free
    will/agency, the ability of a person to accept, question, or not
    accept.  We even have a favorite Scripture which cautions us not to
    interfere with a person's free agency.  Doctrine and Covenants 121:41
    
    No power or influence can or out to be maintained by viture of the
    priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and
    meekness and by love love unfeigned.
    
    Mark, do you really mean the comments you made or are you just testing
    us?
    
    Paul 
        

    Re .30 thru .32:
    
    Whoa!!! Easy there, guys......
    
    Let's go back a few....when I first joined DEC, I had a fellow employee
    tell me about the LDS church. We got about five minutes into the
    discussion and I said, "Stop." I had stopped him at the point where
    he was explaining the hierarchy. I said you need not go any farther because
    I rejected a similar hierarchical church (the RC Church) years ago
    and was now a member the Congregational Church for precisely that
    reason. I told him I don't care how dedicated, saint-like, and selfless
    and individual might be, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
    absolutely. The history of the RC Church clearly shows that. It
    is only when free men and women can establish an individual
    relationship with God, unencumbered by state or hierarchy, that
    we truly have religous freedom. Anything else is not genuine religous
    freedom - no flames intended, that's just the way I feel.
    
    As far as Jesus and the church is concerned, it's been pretty well
    established historically that Jesus was not a "Christian" - he was
    in fact a Galilean rabbi (i.e., a traditional Jew) of the first
    century. Only later (in Acts) do we see the "Christian" aspect of
    Jesus's message coming to the fore thanks to the Gentile followers
    of his message (at the expense of his Jewish followers incidentally)
    and of course the eventual breaking away of the church from anything
    Judaic. In other words, I believe the Jesus that Paul describes
    is not necessarily the real Jesus. Blasphemy? Well, 500 years ago
    I probably would have been burned at the stake but happily today most
     people take a more enlightened view. Do I consider myself a Christian?
    Yes, because I am a Gentile follower of Jesus of Nazareth and I
    try to live my life to the best of my ability as he taught us.
    
    You're certainly welcome to challenge me on my Congregational faith.
    The Congregational Church has not had a perfect track record (witness
    the Salem Witch Trials for example) but it's where I feel most
    comfortable. If you feel most comfortable in the LDS church, great,
    more power to you. But I think you ought to be upfront with potential
    converts and let them know right off that you expect a certain amount
    of conformity from LDS members. If they join with that understanding,
    fine. If not, then you've done them a disservice IMHO.
    
    Mark

    I've been away for a few days and find the conversation that has
    ensued to be very interesting.
    
    Re: Temples
    
    There are a few places in the New Testament after Christ's ascension
    that make mention of temples. They are, like the passages about the
    degrees of glory and baptism for the dead, only passing references, and
    not complete discourses on the subject of temples. Taken together,
    however, they seem to indicate to me that the importance of the temple
    was not done away when Christ fulfilled the law. I don't have time to
    type these in, but these are the ones listed in the topical guide in
    the back of the LDS edition of the Holy Bible: Acts 2:46, Rev 3:12,
    Rev 7:15, Rev 11:1.
    
    Re: Hierarchical church organization
    
    Mormons see two channels for revelation. Revelation from God to the
    whole Church and to the whole of humanity comes to those that he has
    called to be prophets. Revelation for an individual person comes
    directly to the person. This is not new, but was the case anciently,
    also. Thus, in matters that pertain to the building up and maintaining
    of the Kingdom of God, he has always called living prophets to do this
    work. The word of God is imparted to mankind through living prophets.
    We may reject or accept God's word, as we see fit, but God will judge
    us for our choice. 
    
    We have the right and responsibility to have our own relationship with
    God and to seek personal revelation. We can even ask for and receive
    revelation that what the prophet says came from God really did. 
    
    So, in a sense, God does operate through a hierarchy, that there may be
    order in His kingdom. In another sense, He does not, that each may have
    a relationship directly with God. 
    
    
    Re: Contention
    
    Everyone is welcome in this conference, members and non-members alike.
    Our only hope is that those who disagree and who challenge one
    another's beliefs may do so in such a way that no one or their beliefs
    are belittled or ridiculed. For those who are not Mormons, it's ok to
    say you don't believe what we do and why. For those who are Mormons,
    it's ok to say that you do believe and why. I know that I have been
    strengthened by such discussions in this conference. People are almost
    always benefitted when they can calmly discuss their beliefs and their
    differences. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

RE:              <<< Note 254.33 by ABE::STARIN "The Attentive Ear" >>>

>    I believe the Jesus that Paul describes
>    is not necessarily the real Jesus. Blasphemy? Well, 500 years ago...

Mark,

I would agree with you on this point to the following extent.

I believe that Jesus taught certain principles directly to the multitudes,
and I believe that Jesus taught certain principles to his Apostles who were 
instructed to teach the multitudes after Jesus was gone.

I assume that the function of the Apostles was not just to repeat the words
of Jesus, and it certainly was not to 'make up' their own versions of
things. I believe they were inspired, and their ministries were part of
Jesus' plan to spread the gospel light. If so, then their function must
have been to be a repository of knowledge and authority that was intended
to *extend* the ministry of Jesus. 

Therefore if we depended only on the words of Jesus, or only on the words
of Paul or the Apostles, then we would have an incomplete picture. We would
have a tendency to fill in gaps with our own ideas, which has the potential
to lead us to error. We must consider the words of Jesus and the words of
the Apostles together to get a more complete picture. 

So if we take the picture Paul paints of Jesus as a kind of distinct 
drawing from what we could produce from only Jesus' words, we could very 
well come up with different images, as your above comment suggests. But I
believe the plan all along was for us to take all the available
brushstrokes, and develop a single, complete picture. All the words of the
Lord, whether direct or via his Apostles and prophets, are part of this
picture. 

/kevin 

 �   Clearly, they use the word "clearly" so much when there are clearly
 �   different ways to interpret scriptures clearly, making the use of
 �   the word "clearly" clearly meaningless.  ;)

 I use the word "clearly" twice and I this is what I get. Steve, you 
haven't run out of cogent comments, have you? Besides, if you move the
comma from the fourth "clearly" to the word "scriptures" just before it, 
your meaning would be a little clearer...

 �   Let's suppose for a moment that God wants to reveal more to men.
 �   Should we tell him "No thanks, we already have more than we can absorb"?

Rich, you can suppose what you like, but we are not to simplistically 
assume from that supposition that, since no one can prevent God from 
revealing "more", then He must therefore have done so. At the very lesat, 
we must be able to take the current body of revelation and use it to 
validate or refute candidates for "new" revelation, or be able to prove 
that the current body of revelation is no longer a fit standard, then 
somehow demonstrate that the new revelation is genuine.

You claim that the Bible is insufficient - at least that is the central
issue of this discussion - and I say that it is. It is plenty sufficient 
for us to understand God's plan, purpose, and agenda from creation until 
the arrival of the new heaven and the new earth. It is not sufficient, 
however, to understand the doctrines of Mormonism, thus the need for new
"revelation", and an altering of the meaning of the Old and New Testament
scriptures. 
    
�   No, we should be willing to live by *every* word that God chooses to give
�   us. We only have enough of God's word when God says we have enough. 

I'm willing to subject myself to that principle, but for that very 
reason I challenge the Mormon claim to an exclusive franchise on new 
revelation. Mormon scriptures add to and alter the gospel as revealed in 
the Bible, and subject the individual to the authoritative heirarchy of 
the Mormon Church if they wish to be saved and follow God. When, other 
than in Mormon writings, did God say we needed more scripture? Of course 
God does not even address the topic of "the Bible" directly, because he 
did not send us "the Bible", he gave us his word at various times 
throughout history, but there is no reason to believe that it is to be a 
continual stream. It is for us, man, to determine which of all the writings
claiming divine inspiration is authentic. Thus the need for canonization.
Oddly enough, the Mormon church initiated its own process of canonization
much sooner in its history than the early Christian church. 

�    For myself, I am grateful for the additional light and knowledge
�    that the latter-day scriptures (Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants,
�    Pearl of Great Price) give. They help me to absorb more of what
�    is in the Holy Bible. I believe that when God reveals more, it helps
�    us to better understand that which he has previously given us.

There is a fine shade of difference between light that enlightens and 
light that colors. The "additional light" of the "latter-day scriptures"
does not help you absorb more of what is in the Bible so much as it 
alters it to appear to mean something else.
    
�    It seems that I heard somewhere that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained
�    a version of Genesis that was some 50% larger than the versions
�    in the Holy Bible. This could be an indication that some editing
�    has taken place.

I've hear that too (only in this conference, though) but have seen
nothing to back it up. I'd like someone to tell us just what is meant by
"50% larger" and what this extra 50% contains. I might add that if
the supposed additional material had validated the verses Joseph Smith added
to Genesis in order to "correct" it, then every Mormon would be shouting
it from the rooftops. 
    
>It's worth pointing out that Paul says "what shall THEY do, who 
>are baptized for the dead" instead of "what shall WE do..." Clearly he 
>does not identify with those who baptize for the dead, and is only using 
>this as part of an argument for the reality of resurrection. 
    
    I think too much can be made of Paul's use of the word "They" in this
    context. At least in English, it would be perfectly acceptable to to
    make this statement in the third person using "they", while at the same
    time not excluding oneself in the reference, especially in a rhetorical
    sense, such as Paul is using. Clearly, there would not be this
    ambiguity had Paul used "we" instead of "they", but even Peter said
    that sometimes Paul was sometimes hard to understand.
    
>In fact, baptism of the dead contradicts the passage "It is appointed unto
>man once to die and after that, the judgement." 

�    I don't see a contradiction. Please explain.

The passage says that judgement follows death. It does not allow for the
idea of post-mortem correction of one's performance in life by oneself or 
another's actions.

�    ...the position that the Bible is "complete" and "without error", is
�    indefensible.  So much information has and is still coming forth that
�    shows what is now considered  traditional  Christian doctrine as being
�    different from what Christ taught or what First Century Christians
�    believed. 

Well, Paul, are we talking about traditional Christian doctrine or the 
Bible? The fact that some early Christians may have believed something 
different from "traditional Christian doctrine" has no bearing on the 
correctness of the Bible.
    
Read Josh McDowall's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict", before you 
conclude too much about the errancy and incompleteness of the Bible. I'd
stack the Bible up against the Book of Mormon any day on the basis of
historical accuracy and trustworthiness. I seem to recall that there have
been nearly 4000 changes made to the book of Mormon from the original
manuscript. Not a good track record for the "World's most perfect book". 

�    For those "who hear his voice", I hope that you would partake of the
�    "living waters" that have given me "life more abudantly" through a
�    conscientious and honest study of the Book of Mormon.
    
But not the Bible?

Regards,

Ed    
    

< Note 254.36 by CASPRO::PRESTON "What makes the Hottentots so hot?" >

> I seem to recall that there have been nearly 4000 changes made to the
> book of Mormon from the original manuscript. Not a good track record
> for the "World's most perfect book". 

  What kinds of changes have been made ?  In the latest edition of the
  Book of Mormon, how many significant passages have been deleted from the
  oldest known manuscript ?  How many have been added ?  Do you have any idea ?

  Which change do you feel to be the verse(s) most corrupted by these changes
  in the Book of Mormon ?

  I would submit that the of changes in the Book of Mormon, there are
  practically none that would make a major change in the doctrine of any
  church who accepts it as scripture.  (Or even a minor change, actually.)

  Compare the types of changes found between various editions and manuscripts
  of the Book of Mormon, and then between various editions and manuscripts
  of the Bible, and see which manuscripts are more consistent.  Look at the
  IOSG::CHRISTIAN notes 83.*, 100.*, 104.*, and tell me that there aren't
  even more difficulties in determining what is valid and what is not.

Note 254.36 by CASPRO::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
>we are not to simplistically 
>assume from that supposition that, since no one can prevent God from 
>revealing "more", then He must therefore have done so. 
                                              
    True, but let me ask you this. If God chooses to reveal something more
    than is in the Holy Bible to mankind, where is there room in the
    position you have taken to accept it as revelation? To me, the position
    you have taken seems to say to God, "no thanks, we have enough all
    ready". Please correct me if I am wrong. 
    
>At the very least, 
>we must be able to take the current body of revelation and use it to 
>validate or refute candidates for "new" revelation, or be able to prove 
>that the current body of revelation is no longer a fit standard, then 
>somehow demonstrate that the new revelation is genuine.

    Latter-day Saints agree with you that new revelations must be in
    harmony with previous ones. God does not change, nor does His truth.
    However, this is not to say that God previously revealed *everything*
    and that new revelation must be a subset of what has previously been
    revealed, *if* God chooses to reveal something more. Also, the Holy
    Bible itself refers to books of scripture that we no longer have. What
    truths, that God previously revealed, have been lost with these books? 
                                                                      
    Latter-day Saints do not regard the Holy Bible as "no longer a fit
    standard". We very much regard it to be a fit standard. It is one of
    our "Standard Works", and we use it extensively, we claim that our
    doctrines are in harmony with it, and we claim to try to live by its
    teachings. But we do say that God has not closed the heavens from
    revealing His word, and that that which God chooses to reveal in our
    day is also an important standard for us to live by. 
                                                   
    You are right that we must somehow be able to determine if new
    revelation is genuine. We say that there are two tests to apply to new
    revelation to determine if it is genuine. First, is it in harmony with
    that which has been previously revealed. Second, ask God, in the name
    of Jesus Christ, asking in faith, if it is true. I have applied these
    tests to latter-day scriptures and find them to be genuine. 
    
>You claim that the Bible is insufficient 
    
    It is only insufficient if God says it is insufficient. That is, if, in
    God's wisdom, He wants us to know more, then let's give Him the freedom
    to do so. Let's not be saying, in effect, "no thanks we have sufficient
    light and knowledge already". 
    
>I challenge the Mormon claim to an exclusive franchise on new 
>revelation.     
 
    We do not claim exclusive franchise on new revelation. God can reveal
    things to whomever He chooses. However, we do claim that he has called
    latter-day prophets, to whom he has revealed many things for the
    benefit of mankind, if they will heed the revelations. 
    
>Mormon scriptures add to and alter the gospel as revealed in 
>the Bible
    
    Obviously, additional scriptures "add to" what is in the Holy Bible,
    but whether they "alter" the gospel is, of course a matter of opinion.
    I do not believe that latter day scriptures alter the gospel. They do
    add additional understanding, and they explain many things that are not
    clear in the Holy Bible. They do differ from the interpretations of the
    Holy Bible held by many Christian sects. But the Christian sects also
    differ from each other in the interpretation of the Holy Bible. So
    whose interpretation is correct? Only God's interpretation of the
    scriptures is the correct one. 
    
>When, other 
>than in Mormon writings, did God say we needed more scripture? 
    
    When did God say that we do not? 
    
>Of course 
>God does not even address the topic of "the Bible" directly, because he 
>did not send us "the Bible", he gave us his word at various times 
>throughout history, but there is no reason to believe that it is to be a 
>continual stream. 
    
    Is there any reason for us to assume that it should not be an ongoing
    stream? Yes, he has given us His word at various times throughout
    history, and the Holy Bible contains many references to the latter
    days, and that there would be revelations forthcoming in the latter
    days. I testify that the Holy Bible is correct when it speaks of
    revelations to come in the latter days. 
    
>>In fact, baptism of the dead contradicts the passage "It is appointed unto
>>man once to die and after that, the judgement." 
>
>�    I don't see a contradiction. Please explain.
>
>The passage says that judgement follows death. It does not allow for the
>idea of post-mortem correction of one's performance in life by oneself or 
>another's actions.
                                                                         
    The scripture only says that judgement follows death. It does not say
    that there is not a time between death and the judgement when the
    gospel can be preached to those who are dead. In fact, the Holy Bible
    indicates that there is just such an interval. When Jesus preached to
    the spirits who had died while his body lay in the tomb, it was said
    that he did so, that they might be judged according to men in the
    flesh. They had died, but their final judgement had not yet come. See 1
    Pet 3:19-20, 4:6. 
    
    I know that God has revealed many things to living prophets in our day,
    and I am grateful for these revelations. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

�	I am not saying that the Bible is not something of value, just that
�	what is in it does not fully explain the doctrines "known" to the
�	people of that time.  That is why one can not find anything more to
�	some of the doctrine mentioned.  Therefore, I do indeed say that the 
�	Bible says "much too little".  

You are assuming that the existence of "doctrines" known to early
Christians somehow validates the idea that the Bible is incomplete. This 
is a huge fallacy. As Christianity spread throughout the ancient 
world, heresies and false doctrines naturally followed. Just because 
you can demonstrate that some group advocated a certain doctrine not
found in the Bible does not mean that this doctrine was a correct one.
Jesus Himself said that false prophets and teachers would spring up to
lead people astray. The fact that some were lead astray by false
doctrines only proves that He was right, not that the Bible is "missing"
things. (Again, I recommend Josh McDowall's "Evidence that Demands a
Verdict") 

�	There are many areas in which the Bible is inadequate - otherwise 
�	we would have a unity in Christ and not 700 - 800 denominations.

Then how come there's so many spin-offs from Mormonism? Your track record 
is no better, considering how long Mormonism has been around.

� I do not know where you get the idea that I limit myself to the Bible.

You misunderstand me. It is obvious to me that you not only don't limit 
yourself to the Bible, but that you could not believe what you do without
other sources of input, or as you call it, "further light". From an
"angel of light", perhaps?

�	The ONLY reason	I issued a challenge was to show that the 
�	Bible is silent on any explanations in increasing knowledge 
�	on the subject.

I understand your intent. My intent is to point out that it is not 
valid to assume that because the Bible is silent or limited on a subject
that "further light" is needed. Simply put, what is important is
emphasised, what is not, is not. 

�	You have the right to believe what you want, and so do I.  So please
�	give me that right and stop contending with every little thing that 
�	YOU do not believe in.  I believe in it, and so do a lot of other 
�	people.  The "wise" of the world are despised by God, and only they
�	put limits on what He can do.

I grant you the right to believe what you want, but I reserve the right 
to challenge you when you contradict my beliefs. If I remain silent, it
implies agreement, does it not? It sounds like you want to be free to 
chastise those who believe differntly, and exempt from their objections 
as well.

This whole "contention" thing has grown out of context, I think. The very 
fact that some are still raising the contention flag and others are 
parading their new freedom from contention ("well, I don't contend anymore!")
demonstrates that it has become some sort of football, for showing off or
showing up. The Bible (there it is again) says to not be contentions, but 
elsewhere it says to "contend for the faith". So there is a right and a 
wrong contention. Jesus' own words infuriated the religious establishment 
of the day, yet He spoke them anyway. He could have been accused of 
"contending with every little thing" that He did not believe in.

My point is that I want the same right to challenge your beliefs as you 
have taken to challenge mine. If you "bash" those who trust only the Bible, 
then those who trust only the Bible should be able to "bash" back, and 
see whose arguments stand up. ("Bashing" in only the best sense of the 
word, of course!)

�	Just for your information, I do not think the word of God has yet
�	ceased nor do I believe all His directions to His children have come
�	forth to man.  There are 12 tribes in Israel, and we only have God's
�	word to 2 of them.  I am waiting for the other 10 books to come forth.
�	If you want to base your salvation on 1 tribe, then go ahead, but I
�	will wait for more information.

I'm really tempted, but this definitely belongs in a different topic!

�	I will not go down a rat-hole with you just because you do not believe
�	the same as I.  

You opened the door, Charles. If I cannot challenge what you say 
without your accusing me of creating rat-holes, then I can only assume 
that you don't feel comfortable being challenged, and want to paint me as 
a villain to make it easier for you to deal with what I say.

Regards,

Ed

    To Ed,
    
    I am setting here wondering how to answer your recent questions.  WE
    seem to be again going round and round about the Bible as THE FINAL, 
    COMPLETE AND INFALLIBLE Source.  Over the last 6 months I have been
    reading more and more about newly discovered scrolls, manuscripts, etc.
    which are shedding light on early Christianity, which supports the idea
    that Mormons hold about the incompleteness of the Bible and about the
    Traditional Christian interpretation thereof. 
    
    At a lecture on the Dead Sea Scrolls I attended, I learned how
    pre-Christian Jews (Qumran Society) were practicing rituals that later
    became the earmark of Christian groups, e.g. baptism, Lord's Supper).
    Said the lecturer, the Scrolls have embarassed Jews and Christians
    because they show that there was a strong link between the 2 groups
    that unlike Christian thought Jesus did, in some cases, not originate
    new ideas or practices, rather reinstated the ones that an apostate
    Judaism had abandoned throughout the years. 
    
    I guess we have to agree to disagree about the Bible's completeness and
    accuracy.  I personally feel that I am not qualified to talk about what
    is or is not left out.  I leave that to the scholars, and from what I
    have been reading, there is a lot of controversy over the Bible on this
    topic.
    
    See you,
    
    Paul
    
    PS,  I sent you some materials that you were going to have a scholarly
    friend of yours look at.  Did you ever hear back from them?  What did
    they say?
      
    

    
    re:-1
    
    Paul,
    
    Good point on the Qumran society. The has been much research in
    recent years that supports the observations that Jesus Christ
    did reinstate earlier practices. This supports the assertion that
    the gospel was taught in it's fullness in earlier dispensations.
    
    Kevin 
    
    

	Ed
		This is another reply other than the one I first prepared.
	I did not feel good during or after I was compiling it.  I will
	state here that you are most welcome to all of your opinions, but
	that I will remain silent - AND NOT AGREE - with them.  I do not
	think you are interested in going beyond your current status, and
	I have more important things to do than banter words and opinions
	with you and watch the words being twisted around or be on the
	receiving end of stupid (my belief only) questions.  As I believe
	I am free to do as I will, then this is the tact I will take with
	you and let other people bash heads with you if they like.

Hi Paul.
    
�    I am setting here wondering how to answer your recent questions.  WE
�    seem to be again going round and round about the Bible as THE FINAL, 
�    COMPLETE AND INFALLIBLE Source.  Over the last 6 months I have been
�    reading more and more about newly discovered scrolls, manuscripts, etc.
�    which are shedding light on early Christianity, which supports the idea
�    that Mormons hold about the incompleteness of the Bible and about the
�    Traditional Christian interpretation thereof. 

Like I said, it is a misconception to believe that anything associated 
with early Christianity must be correct. They could be in error, too. If 
some ancient spin-off group held to certain heretical doctrines, does 
this mean that the extant scriptures are to now be brought into question 
because of this? Of course not.
    
�    At a lecture on the Dead Sea Scrolls I attended, I learned how
�    pre-Christian Jews (Qumran Society) were practicing rituals that later
�    became the earmark of Christian groups, e.g. baptism, Lord's Supper).
�    Said the lecturer, the Scrolls have embarassed Jews and Christians
�    because they show that there was a strong link between the 2 groups
�    that unlike Christian thought Jesus did, in some cases, not originate
�    new ideas or practices, rather reinstated the ones that an apostate
�    Judaism had abandoned throughout the years. 

Let me guess - the speaker was a Mormon, right? Just establishing his 
bias. If I'm wrong, let me know...
    
�    I guess we have to agree to disagree... 

Yes, Paul. You're right. I must say though, that of all the people I 
disagree with, you're one of the most sincerely agreeable!

�    PS,  I sent you some materials that you were going to have a scholarly
�    friend of yours look at.  Did you ever hear back from them?  What did
�    they say?

Well, I did send the material to one fellow who is a PhD candidate at 
Brandeis, and discussed it with another man whose qualifications are at 
least on a par with Hugh Nibley's. I got an initial reaction from my 
Brandeis friend, but I want to talk with him again now that he's had a 
chance to review the material. I planned to enter a reply when I had 
gotten around to that. He recently moved, so has been more busy lately 
than usual, but I'll try to give him a call tonight. Thanks for the 
reminder.

Ed      
    

Charles,

I am surprised at the level of irritation that you express towards my 
replies, but perhaps I have caused you to think about things in a way 
that you previously had not. I hope your intention to silently disagree 
with me in the future does not mean that we will not hear from you any 
longer. You are certainly entitled to whatever opinion of me you wish, 
however, whether it is flattering or not (and I'm pretty sure it's not). 

If you perceive my role in our discussions as no more than twisting of 
your words and firing stupid questions at you, then I am truly saddened. 
I felt that a few well founded and pointed remarks and counter-arguments 
would contibute to the quality of the discussion. I try to be polite 
without sacrificing impact, and, although not a Mormon, I have 
participated in this conference for quite a long time, and feel that I 
have pretty much removed the more abrasive aspects of my writing style,
to avoid offending unnecessarily. The notes file environment is by 
necessity very limiting, and does not allow for a great deal of 
investment in fine tuning of every nuance of communication, thus we 
have to allow for a little give-and-take regarding one-another's 
personalities and style, which, so far, seems to be the norm.

I realize that one's deeply held personal religious beliefs are 
potentially a very sensitive area, and that has been acknowledged 
numerous times in this conference. That is to say that we all know it and 
agree to live with that fact in this conference. I am willing to risk 
being irritated and offended by others in this conference. It sort of 
goes with the territory.

Unfortunately, I personally believe that one's individual spiritual
condition is of eternal consequence, and as such must be often treated as
more than a "you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want and
somehow we'll both get there" proposition. I will go so far as to say
that my questions are deliberately hard, and that I try to force you
(anyone) to support questionable claims having eternal consequences. It's
that important. 

I'm sorry that you perceive me the way you do, and I hope that we will 
still be able to discuss things in the future.

Regards,

Ed

< Note 254.43 by CASPRO::PRESTON "What makes the Hottentots so hot?" >
    
�    I am setting here wondering how to answer your recent questions.  WE
�    seem to be again going round and round about the Bible as THE FINAL, 
�    COMPLETE AND INFALLIBLE Source.  Over the last 6 months I have been
�    reading more and more about newly discovered scrolls, manuscripts, etc.
�    which are shedding light on early Christianity, which supports the idea
�    that Mormons hold about the incompleteness of the Bible and about the
�    Traditional Christian interpretation thereof. 

>  Like I said, it is a misconception to believe that anything associated 
>  with early Christianity must be correct. They could be in error, too. If 
>  some ancient spin-off group held to certain heretical doctrines, does 
>  this mean that the extant scriptures are to now be brought into question 
>  because of this? Of course not.
  
   It certainly would be a misconception; certainly the doctrines Marcion would
   have held to existed reasonably early in the history of the Christian church.
   However, how does one ascertain if a doctrine is heretical ?  Is that
   judgement being made because it conflicts with the extant scriptures, or
   because it conflicts with one's own view of the scriptures ? While I wouldn't
   argue the validity of any particular early sect of the church, it does seem
   important to me that we not ignore any information we can obtain from those
   sects, either.

re: .36

Okay, Ed.  Maybe I wasn't clear enough, or at least you seemed to miss
my point.  In a friendly way, I was pointing out a faulty tendency that
you, I and others sometimes have.  This is the tendency to present some 
tidbit of information as being obvious to the most casual observer
when it is not.  I find that this gets in the way of productive discussion.

I found it to be a standard joke in my math and science classses that some of 
the hardest problems or glaring weaknesses in theories are masked with words
like 'clearly', or 'this is left as an exercise for the student', or 'it
is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that ...' or 'any fool 
can plainly see that ...' and so forth.  So, though you only used the word
'clearly' twice, you did so at two points where things are not clear, 
tarnishing somewhat the credibilty of your assertions.  We all seem to do
this on occasion, so I took the opportunity to point this out so that the
discussion might become more productive.

Just to make this even clearer, let me refer back to your statements and
contend against use of the word 'clearly'.  I am using your note as an 
example.  I could probably use a similar approach with a note of my own.

>Alan is right, however, in stating that Mormon doctrine is not based upon 
>this alone, but also on Mormon revelations, which non-Mormons clearly do 
>not accept. 

No, there are non-Mormons who accept Mormon revelations.  For example, there
are those who have been excommunicated and who are working to come back to 
the Church.  There are those who are not yet members but who plan soon to
become members.  And, there are those who believe in relative truths and that
God is capable of revealing conflicting information to people of different
beliefs.  And, this does not include those non-Mormons who do not know
if they accept or reject Mormon revelations.  So, the assertion that 
non-Mormons (implying all who are not members of the Church) do not accept 
(implying accepting as being true or from God) Mormon revelations is not 
easily proven (perhaps not easily defined) and may be a debatable issue.

>lacking. It's worth pointing out that Paul says "what shall THEY do, who 
>are baptized for the dead" instead of "what shall WE do..." Clearly he 
>does not identify with those who baptize for the dead, and is only using 
>this as part of an argument for the reality of resurrection. 

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.  It has been and is currently being argued
about what Paul meant.  Both sides claim logical basis for the conflicting
assertions, so it is not a clear issue.

I point these out for the benefit of you, me and others.  At best, we cloud
the assertions we make by too frequently using words like 'clearly' when
interpretations are not clear.  At worst, we insult if we do this in a context
where we try to make the other party appear foolish for not being in agreement.


Steve

I realize this particular discussion has cooled down somewhat, but I was
just re-reading Steve's previous reply, and after consideration, I feel that
I have to register some disagreement with his major point. (I know,
what's so unusual about that?) 

First, I agree with you, Steve, that sometimes people misuse words such 
as "clear" or "obvious" in order to lend undeserved credibility to their 
arguments, but I think in this case you are splitting hairs rather
than pointing out a rhetorical shortcoming on my part. After reading your
supporting example, I still would not change what I said: 

>Alan is right, however, in stating that Mormon doctrine is not based upon 
>this alone, but also on Mormon revelations, which non-Mormons clearly do 
>not accept. 

My point was that Mormon doctrine cannot be supported by the Bible 
without the addition of Mormon revelations. And since Mormon revelations
require blanket acceptance and exempt themselves from the kind of
objective scrutiny that Biblical scriptures are subject to, then I still 
say that non-Mormons clearly do not accept them.

You say:

�No, there are non-Mormons who accept Mormon revelations.  For example, there
�are those who have been excommunicated and who are working to come back to 
�the Church.  There are those who are not yet members but who plan soon to
�become members.  And, there are those who believe in relative truths and that
�God is capable of revealing conflicting information to people of different
�beliefs.  And, this does not include those non-Mormons who do not know
�if they accept or reject Mormon revelations.  So, the assertion that 
�non-Mormons (implying all who are not members of the Church) do not accept 
�(implying accepting as being true or from God) Mormon revelations is not 
�easily proven (perhaps not easily defined) and may be a debatable issue.

Pointing to fledgeling or "wanna be" Mormons, who are not official
Mormons yet accept Mormon revelations, seems a pointless splitting
of technical hairs, since they are Mormons "in the making" and are only
considered non-Mormons by the LDS Church, and that only in a technical 
sense.

The other groups, those who believe in "relative truths" and those who do
not know about Mormon revelations, is really too vague to be of any
consequence. "Relative truth" people do not accept or reject anything
fully, they sift through everything taking what they "feel" is right, on
the principle that "truth" is to be found everywhere. These people cannot be
considered as part of the group that accepts Mormon revelations, since
they will only take what they want and disregard the rest. People who
do not know about Mormon revelation can not logically be included, since
you cannot accept something you don't know exists.

You have a little more basis for your remarks about Paul's statement 
about baptism of the dead. If a debatable issue is defined by the fact 
that people debate it, then I guess it is not clear, at least to those 
who hold to the opposing opinion. I still think it's pretty clear, 
considering that nowhere else in the scripture is there any reason to 
believe that Paul performed or endorsed baptism of the dead, but if you 
insist, I will concede that at least for you the point is not clear after 
all.

Ed

>My point was that Mormon doctrine cannot be supported by the Bible 
>without the addition of Mormon revelations. And since Mormon revelations
>require blanket acceptance and exempt themselves from the kind of
>objective scrutiny that Biblical scriptures are subject to, then I still 
>say that non-Mormons clearly do not accept them.

I don't follow the reasoning.  Do we each have a different understanding 
of what is meant by "clearly"?   It is not apparent to me that
I should not apply Mormon scriptures to the same tests that I might apply to
Biblical scriptures.  It is also not apparent to me that I am incapable of
objective scrutiny of Mormon scriptures while being capable of it for
Biblical scriptures.

Steve