Conference tecrus::mormonism

    Re: Note 278.0 by CSC32::J_WETHERN

    Hi John,
    
    Are you the same John Wethern that I knew with DEC in Portland a
    few years back? If so, nice to hear from you once again.
    
    Just to sum up what I think you were saying, you have come to the
    conclusion that the Mormon religion has deceived its followers from the
    truth that is found in the Holy Bible, and that it seems especially
    designed to appeal to the human desires. Though I hold little hope of
    changing your opinion, I would like to respond to a few of the things
    that you have said, hopefully in the same spirit of caring that you
    tried to maintain. 
    
>        It seems to me that the Mormon religion takes very human
>        desires, things that even I would like to believe are true,
>        and turns them into "supportable doctrine".  "Supportable",
>        in that someone you acknowledge as a prophet or church leader
>        said it, or reportedly said it at one time or another.
    
    I submit that all of Christianity, including Mormonism, is based on
    doctrines that appeal to the desires of the human heart. We all hope
    for eternal life with God. We all desire to be forgiven of our sins. We
    all hope to find eternal joy. These are the messages of Christ, and of
    his prophets throughout all ages. 
    
    Thus, the real question is not whether it is ok to believe in some
    things that appeal to the desires of our hearts. The real question is
    not if prophets *have* taught such things as "supportable doctrines".
    Even the prophets in the Holy Bible have taught many such doctrines.
    The real question here is, are these latter-day prophets really
    prophets of God, or are they deceivers? The real question is, are these
    teachings true or not? 

    No doubt you believe in prophets of God, or you would not accept the
    Holy Bible as the word of God. It was written by prophets called by
    God, who received revelation from God and recorded it as scripture. We
    also accept what they recorded in the Holy Bible as scripture. We also
    believe that God has called other prophets from other lands and at
    other times than those who recorded the revelations in the Holy Bible.
    These other prophets have also received revelations from God, and many
    have been commanded to record them as scripture. We rejoice to have
    received more of God's revelations. 
    
    But how can one know if these other prophets are really prophets of God
    or not, or if what they teach is true? The answer is simple. "Ask, and
    ye shall receive". "Seek, and ye shall find". "Knock, and it shall be
    opened to you". Ask God! Don't trust a proclaimed prophet on his own
    word! Ask God if what he says is true. But ask in faith, believing that
    God can and will answer. This is the challenge of Mormonism. Don't
    accept what we say because we say it. First seek to know, and then ask
    God if it is right. That is what I have done, and I rejoice to know
    that it is!
    
    If, as you say, you accept the Holy Bible as the word of God, then you
    also believe that prophets and revelations will come forth in the
    latter days, which these are, for the Holy Bible prophesies that they
    shall. We testify that they have and are coming forth even now. 

>        I've  always felt the "in so far as it is
>        interpreted correctly" statement, that I've heard and read so
>        many times, to be a convenient way to discount what you'd
>        rather not hear.  
    
    I think the statement that you are referring to is the Mormon tenet
    that we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, so far as it is
    *translated* correctly. There are hundreds of Bible translations, and
    they often give different meanings to the same passages. We do not say
    they are all correct, since they disagree with one another, do you? I
    think you will find, when it comes right down to it, that Mormons
    accept the Holy Bible more literally, in its *entire* context, than any
    other group of people. 
    
    For instance, we take literally that the church should have a
    foundation of apostles and prophets, as recorded in the Holy Bible. Do
    you believe this? We take literally that many in the Holy Bible saw God
    face to face. Do you believe this? We believe that Christ literally
    preached the gospel to the dead, while his body lay in the tomb, as
    taught in the Bible. Do you believe this? We believe that a man must be
    baptized to be saved, as the Holy Bible teaches. Do you believe this?
    We believe that a man must be called of God by revelation and receive
    authority from one who possesses it, before he can officiate in God's
    work, as taught in the Holy Bible. Do you believe this? 
    
    I find it very interesting that many Christians who claim to believe
    what the Holy Bible teaches also find it convenient to ignore some of
    the doctrines found in the Holy Bible that they regard as purely Mormon
    doctrines.
    
>        I guess you can tell I believe the Bible is
>        complete, that it doesn't "need" the benefit of any further
>        "revelation".  In fact, to do so is strongly warned against
>        in both the Old and the New Testaments.
     
    Nowhere does the Holy Bible warn against further revelation. In fact,
    the entire Bible testifies of on going revelation! The Holy Bible does
    warn against *men* adding to or taking away from that which God has
    revealed, but it does not say that *God* cannot or will not continue to
    give revelations to men. What is the entire Book of Revelation about,
    if it is not about revelations to come in the latter days? 
          
    My time is gone, and I fear that I have allowed myself to become
    too contentious in this note. If so, I apologize. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    This is a switch.  Usually the Church is criticized because its
    doctrine embodies principles that folks *don't* want to hear and
    teaches them they have to live by higher standards than they would
    prefer.
    
    Steve

    re: .1
    
    Amen Rich! You know, in all dispensations the truth has been twisted
    by many into something of man rather than of God. I'm not surprised
    that today's revealed truth is rejected by most people. It was rejected
    by many in Christ's time; why should today be any different?
    
    Kevin

    Here we go again!!  Excuse me if I say this to John in .0.  but I
    believe God does  not "lay a burden on anyone's heart".  Rather my Heavenly
    Father and his son, Jesus, the Messiah, take my burdens, relieve my
    pain, ease my suffering.  
    
    

	John,

		The desires that you label human are nothing more than our
	spirits trying to tell us the truth when we hear it.  Paul was told
	this when converted as "it is hard to kick against the pricks."
	So I must answer your thinking with my own.

>         It seems to me that the Mormon religion takes very human
>         desires, things that even I would like to believe are true,
>         and turns them into "supportable doctrine".  "Supportable",
>         in that someone you acknowledge as a prophet or church leader
>         said it, or reportedly said it at one time or another.

	Since the motivating force in our lives is the spiritual part of
	our soul, then could not these desires in actuality be the "truth"
	of our Heavenly Father's plan?  After all, it is this part that
	God "talks" to.  What I think you are doing is rejecting revealed
	truth in God's doctrine, and putting limits on His - like the Bible
	as THE only word we have from God.

>         Yes, I would like to be "sealed for time and eternity" with
>         my wife and children, it sounds pretty good to me.  Yet, that
>         feeling comes my base nature, from the things I understand
>         and enjoy in this life, and it's not supported in the Bible. 
>         God's overall plan for my eternity goes way beyond anything I
>         can envision (I only "see dimly" in this life).  It doesn't
>         have to include the things I'm comfortable with or desire in
>         this life.  I'd be in error to try and make it do so, as much
>         as I'd like to.

	Why do you limit and put boundaries up? Are not all things possible
	with God?  Do not use the base carnal nature of the physical body
	as overcoming your spiritual body.  If you do not want to continue to
	"see dimly", then open your eyes to the further light and knowledge
	God has revealed in these latter days.

>         I'd like to believe that virtually everyone will go to (a)
>         Heaven, and that after you die that someone else through
>         their actions could somehow improve my (or a loved-one's)
>         condition in the here-after.  Wouldn't it be wonderful, that
>         it didn't really matter that much what you believed, that you
>         had at least some version of paradise to look forward to? 
>         Problem is, God's Word, the Bible, doesn't support this view
>         of someone's step into eternity.  You are appointed once to
>         die, and then the judgment (Hebrews 9:27).  Heaven, forever
>         to reign with Christ, or Hell, forever separated from Him. 
>         Once again, if I believed what I believe the Mormon religion
>         teaches on this subject, I'd be trying to make God conform to
>         my base desires, instead of listening to what He has said on
>         the subject.

	Then why don't you look at what the Bible has to say on this 
	subject?  1 Cor 15 : 40-42 tells us that the resurrection is
	to different planes or glories.  This would agree with Christ
	telling us our Father's house has many mansions.  As to Hell, 
	I read in Revelations 20:13-14 where it gives up it's dead 
	and is then cast into the lake of fire, which is the second
	death.  It is done away with.  In fact, verse 13 states that
	the dead are judged "according to their works."  To me this is
	in agreement with Matt 25:40, 1 Cor 13, and James.  But the
	"Christian" translation of the Bible rejects works as a basis
	of God's judgment.  When Paul is telling the Jews that the
	works of the Law of Moses will not get them anywhere, he did
	not mean that man could just go about saying "I believe."
	Again, it is hard to kick against the pricks.

>         I attended a Mormon funeral several months ago.  It was my
>         step-brother Kurt's, an active Mormon.  No mention of the
>         Bible, of Christ and Him crucified during the whole event. 

	These things are taken as the standard base or foundation of
	our religion.  However, we do not dwell on them as THE only
	part of what we believe.  Why should we limit ourselves as 
	do those who only accept the Bible?

>         Real "biblical sounding", the implication being that the
>         bishop had the authority to tell Kurt whether or not he was
>         acceptable in God's eyes.  Sounds pretty blasphemous to me,
>         though, but then I believe I'm using the Bible as my guide.

	The bishop is a "Judge in Israel."  He does have that right, 
	mantle and authority from God.

>         It hurts my heart terribly to see the deception that Satan
>         has perpetrated on the followers of the Mormon religion.  I
>         could quote from the entire Bible, but as long as someone
>         chooses to be blinded, to follow what they WANT to believe,
>         as opposed to what God HAS said in his Word, there is no hope
>         for that individual.

	Yes, the devil does deceive.  But who has deceived whom?  I would
	ask you to look at your statement as from me to you.

	Charles

         *[RE: 278.1 By Rich] Hi Rich!  Yes, it's me, the same ol'
         John that worked out of Oregon District Field Service.  Got
         tired of never seeing my wife and three kids, so now I have
         an 8 to 5 job at the Colorado Springs CSC, and loving every
         minute of it!

         Thanks for the in-depth replies.  Let me address just a
         couple of them at this time....

         You are correct that there are multitudes of translations of
         the Bible, and that they tend to very on some points.  I have
         yet to find a translation  (and I have several), though, that
         conflict on major points of "doctrine".  At least, not to the
         extent that God's plan for salvation was clear in one and
         ambiguous or totally misleading in the other.  Being curious
         by nature, I've made it my own personal goal to go "as far
         back" as possible by beginning a study of the original
         languages (New Testament Greek is what I'm just beginning
         now).  If I discover anything different than what previous
         translators have found, I'll let you know!

         As far as what we believe or don't believe, I'm sure there
         are points on which we agree (but that doesn't necessarily
         make either one of us correct).  And there is room to
         disagree within the "Christian" context, as we are a diverse
         people.  My main problem with Mormonism is that we don't
         appear to worship the same God.  Sure, we may use the name
         "Jesus Christ", or refer to the "Holy Spirit" or "God the
         Father".  This doesn't mean that who we're referring to is
         indeed the same god, person or being.

         I don't believe that Mormons worship or acknowledge the same
         all-mighty, all-powerful, all-"whatever is holy, good and
         pure", eternal God that is spoken of in the Bible.  If you're
         not in tune with or seeking the "real" God, how can you hope
         to know Him or His plan for salvation?  If you acknowledge
         the shed blood of Jesus, is it the "same" Jesus of the Bible,
         does his sacrifice REALLY mean what it can and should to you
         or anyone else?

         This is not a minor doctrinal point.  I truly, truly wish
         that it didn't matter, but it does.  A person's eternal
         destiny hinges on it.

         More later, hopefully.

         *[RE: 278.2 by Steve] I don't think you'll find any higher
         standards for living than the ones that Jesus Christ himself
         set.  If someone wants to "work" their way to Heaven or to
         gain God's favor, the Bible is pretty clear on how futile
         that is.  The Mormon religion has no monopoly on "higher
         standards", my concern is what is your motivation?  Personal
         gain (either here or in eternity), "warm fuzzies" from your
         peers, or out of love for the Creator for how He sacrificed
         Himself for you?


         *[RE: 278.3 by Kevin] Truth is not "truth" if it conflicts or
         contradicts with what God has already said.  I need no
         "higher" or more recent "truth" to know God, how much He
         loves me and what He did for me on Calvary's cross, than what
         I find in the Bible.  I find it disconcerting how any
         religion could try to take away from or diminish that truth
         by ADDING things that don't align with what God has already
         revealed.  Christ Himself said "It is finished".

         *[RE: 278.4 by "RONDINA"] Sounds like I hit a nerve. You are
         right, God does bear my burdens... I am guilty of using a
         "churchy-type" phrase.  My intent remains the same, though,
         that I would be remiss not to share my thoughts with you
         folks in this conference.  My heart does indeed ache for
         those that do not know the God of the Bible, and I believe
         that Mormons as a whole fit that category.  I do not want to
         stand before Jesus someday, only to give account of how I did
         not follow the prompting of his Spirit.  I pray that He
         increase my fervor to reach those that don't know Him. 

         Hope I'm not boring anybody.  I appreciate the stimulating
         conversation, and I hope it continues in the spirit in which
         it was initiated.

         Thanks!

         John

>    that is.  The Mormon religion has no monopoly on "higher
>    standards", my concern is what is your motivation?  Personal
>    gain (either here or in eternity), "warm fuzzies" from your
>    peers, or out of love for the Creator for how He sacrificed
>    Himself for you?
    
    My motivations include all of the above!  And, there is Biblical
    basis for all of it.  When I live the law of God, I get personal
    gain, since so many of the blessings that result are realized in
    this life as well as hereafter.  It's blessings from God that I
    prize above all.  I get "warm fuzzies" from my peers (let's call it 
    Christian fellowship!) because I find myself surrounded by people who 
    also love and serve God.  I absolutely love my Creator and express
    this love frequently, privately in vocal prayer, in thought and in
    service to His children.  I am always cognizant of the sacrifices He
    made and continues to make for me.  If you have concerns about my
    motives, observe my works and see if they give you evidence of
    my faith.  :)
    
    
    Steve

Hi John,

Thanks you for sharing your thoughts with us in a friendly way!

You've talked about the Bible in absolute way, saying that the Bible
doesn't support Mormon doctrine.  What you are actually saying, John, is
that your interpretation of the Bible doesn't support Mormon doctrine.  The
Bible is a physical object that contains characters that represent information.
However, those characters have to be interpretated; without interpretation, the
Bible conveys no information to us.

Because each person interprets the Bible differently, there is no absolute
meaning to symbols printed on the pages of the Bible.  Thus, the Bible is not
sufficient as a sole authority for establishing the truth of religious
doctrine.  In fact, no book is sufficient for doing that.  Please keep in
mind, John, that I am not saying that the biblical prophets were not inspired.
I am not saying that the Bible has no importance. I am only saying that the
symbols printed on the pages of the Bible must be interpreted to have any
meaning, and since each person has a different interpretation, there is no
"one interpretation" or absolute meaning available to us. (this has been
discussed in great detail in note 10).

You are certainly welcome, John, to accept your interpretation of the Bible
as binding in your life, but may I suggest that you are out on a weak limb
when you tell us that our beliefs are wrong because they don't agree with
your interpretation of the Bible.  Likewise, we are on weak limbs if we tell
you your beliefs are wrong because they don't agree with our interpretations.
Thus, we ask you to read the Book of Mormon and sincerely fast and pray and
ask God if it is true.  Have you done that, John?

Allen

         *[RE: 278.5 by Charles]  Stayed up past midnight composing a
         reply to your's... system hung and I couldn't recover it.  I
         will give it another try as time allows.  Thankyou for your
         comments.


         *[RE: 278.7 by Steve]  Didn't mean to offend or question your
         personal integrity, just asking you the same questions I have
         to ask myself from time to time.  Also nothing wrong with
         receiving and enjoying God's blessings in this life or the
         next, as I do and plan on doing throughout eternity.

         > If you have concerns about my motives, observe my works and
         > see if they give you evidence of my faith.  :)

         Steve... faith in what?  Someone can sincerely believe
         something, and be sincerely wrong.  As far as your works
         being evidence of you faith, please see the following verses
         (and please don't take them personally, they are for all
         mankind's benefit):

         Matthew 23:27-28 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
         hypocrites!  For ye are like unto whitened sepulchers, which
         indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead
         men's bones, and of all uncleanness.  Even so ye also
         outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full
         of hypocrisy and iniquity."

         The implication here is that someone can appear to be holy
         and righteous in man's eyes, and still fall WAY short of
         God's standards.  What a tragedy to labor in a false system,
         which may yield some short-term rewards, yet ultimately ends
         in spiritual death.

         John

    John, I am making a point very similar to that made in James 2:18
    or in Matthew 7:16-17.  Most of the service I render is not made
    known to the public.  But, privately, you are welcome to investigate
    all service that I render if you truly have concerns that I do not
    have faith in God.  And, I am, I think, typical of most active Mormons.
    
    Steve

    
    	Re (John Wethern), You  mention that you feel that the Mormon's
    	beliefs are a deception by Satan. Aside from differing concepts
    	regarding what Heaven is, eternal marriage, levels of salvation
    	etc, what *sin* do you find in their beliefs? If they are baptized,
    	and commit their lives to following Christ, how does this serve
    	Satan? Does one really have to picture God, and Heaven, exactly
    	the way you do in order to be "saved"? Will not their "faith
    	and their works", (as given in the codes of conduct that they
    	subscribe to), be sufficient? Am I missing something?
    
    	It seems to me that the Mormon religion (as it exists today,
    	anyway) expresses a desire to live up to the Bible *and then
    	some*. They seem to just be going that extra mile, doing what
    	is given in the Bible and doing even more, to be "perfect"
    	(Matthew 5:45).
    
    Neal/B

I actually have much less time than I used to for participation in notes
conferences, but I'd like to join this discussion if I may...

Neal, 

You asked John how it could be possible for the Mormon's beliefs to be a
deception from Satan. It's a good question, in fact it's one of those 
"obvious" questions that often never get asked outright.

It helps to remember that Jesus himself warned that in the last days false 
Christs and false prophets would arise and lead many astray. If He warned 
against such a thing, then it must be important. What could be more
dangerous than a convincing counterfeit? 

Suppose you have to take a very important journey, and the success of
your journey depends upon your taking a certain train to a certain
destination. Since your train doesn't depart for a few hours, you decide
to explore. While looking around the station, you notice, on another
track, a beautiful, gleaming, state-of-the-art, high speed train, with
all the comforts and amenities, an attentive and capable crew, and the
most congenial fellow passengers. 

While you're admiring the train, you are surprised to learn 
that you can exchange the ticket you hold for a ticket on this one!

But, you say, it's very important that I make my destination, and I see 
your train is going somewhere else. You poor fellow, they say, haven't 
you heard? We have discovered that many of the older schedules, like yours,
have been misprinted and they really don't give all the correct 
information. Be assured, they say, our train is going to the right 
place, the place you need to go, and furthermore, if you take the other 
train there's a good chance you may never reach your destination at all.

Now you have a problem. You really must make your destination - so much 
depends upon it - but now you're told that you should take a different 
train to get there. Your original instructions to board the other train
were very explicit, but, after all, how can you be sure that they were
completely correct? Certainly these people seem to know what they're talking
about, and this sleek, modern train could certainly take you anywhere you 
need to go. So, after a great deal of pondering, you decide to switch to
the new train. You exchange your ticket, board the train, grab a cup of
coffee, and settle down in a comfortable seat for the long ride. 

Not until much later do you discover that you have been taken for a very 
long and enjoyable ride - to a place thousands of miles from where you 
needed to go. Your original ticket is gone, and you have no way of 
getting back.

If you can follow this metaphor, you can begin to see what John is trying 
to say.

If you were Satan and your greatest ambition was to lead the maximum
number of people astray, wouldn't you devise the most beautiful religious
counterfeits possible? Wouldn't you appeal to every native desire of the
religiously-inclined human heart? Certainly you would, and anyone who 
joined such a counterfeit, no matter how sincere, would be serving your 
purpose, would they not?

That is what John is saying about the LDS Church. 

Regards,

Ed

Of course, many people who really wanted to get to the final destination
and had receiving conflicting information on how to get there, would
probably call someone trustworthy at the final destination to find out
what really is the reliable information.

That is what Latter-Day Saints ask people to do regarding the LDS Church.
Ask God, in the name of Christ, for the true route back to him.

> Of course, many people who really wanted to get to the final destination
> and had receiving conflicting information on how to get there, would
> probably call someone trustworthy at the final destination to find out
> what really is the reliable information.

    But who gave you the phone number? Was it the same people encouraging
    you to take the other train? "Here, call the president of the railroad,
    he'll tell you..."
        
    I don't wish to belabor my little metaphor. The point was only to
    demonstrate to Neal that a thing can have all the outward appearance
    of goodness and still be wrong.
    
    Ed

I find it interesting that many of the arguments used against Joseph Smith, 
the Book of Mormon, and Mormons presented here could have been used effectively
many years ago with little modification against Jesus Christ, the New Testament
and the early Christians, respectively.

Steve

Hi Ed,

When we ask people to investigate Mormonism and then pray & ask God if
it is true, we're saying pray to what ever God they believe in and ask
Him or Her or It or...  In other words, use the phone number they have
confidence in and ask about the destination.

Allen

>> Of course, many people who really wanted to get to the final destination
>> and had receiving conflicting information on how to get there, would
>> probably call someone trustworthy at the final destination to find out
>> what really is the reliable information.

>    But who gave you the phone number? Was it the same people encouraging
>    you to take the other train? "Here, call the president of the railroad,
>    he'll tell you..."
        
>    I don't wish to belabor my little metaphor. The point was only to
>    demonstrate to Neal that a thing can have all the outward appearance
>    of goodness and still be wrong.
    
>    Ed

     I absolutely agree with your last point.  That's why we DON'T ask people
     to make these decisions while we're putting pressure on them.  We ask
     people to ask God to tell them if it is true or not, and to do it in the
     name of their Redeemer.  We let them determine if God answers in the way
     we claim He has answered to us.

     Quite frankly, no LDS leader has ever taught me how to pray, other than
     to address the Father, offer thanks and praise, ask for the blessings which
     I sincerely feel I need (trusting in His judgment as to what is best), and
     to do all the above in the name of Christ.  My background befoire joining
     the LDS Church was from the UCC, and I doubt if my concepts about God were
     that much different from yours today.  Perhaps, if I got the wrong answer,
     it's because traditional Christianity had "the wrong phone number," but I
     personally believe I got through to the proper personage.

> I find it interesting that many of the arguments used against Joseph
> Smith, the Book of Mormon, and Mormons presented here could have been
> used effectively many years ago with little modification against Jesus
> Christ, the New Testament and the early Christians, respectively. 

Steve, that *sounds* reasonable, but I disagree completely. The key word
here is "effectively". 

Please don't let this start a new topic though - it could become an instant
rathole...


> When we ask people to investigate Mormonism and then pray & ask God if
> it is true, we're saying pray to what ever God they believe in and ask
> Him or Her or It or...  In other words, use the phone number they have
> confidence in and ask about the destination.

Allen, it sounds as though you are granting credibility to the idea that
there is an array of "gods" out there, each of which is capable of
answering this prayer reliably. There's already millions of mislead folks 
out there seeking similar guidance to support their various and sundry 
beliefs in anything from astrology to channeling to voodoo. Most, if not 
all of them are misguided, whether their guidance comes from their own 
minds or from a phoney "god". I think it's very dangerous to make or follow 
the suggestion to ask guidance from "whatever god you believe in."
Besides, it seems a little non-sensical to tell someone to ask "their" god
to tell them to join "your" church.

> My background befoire joining the LDS Church was from the UCC, and I
> doubt if my concepts about God were that much different from yours today.
> Perhaps, if I got the wrong answer, it's because traditional
> Christianity had "the wrong phone number," but I personally believe I got
> through to the proper personage. 

What's UCC? (Univ of Central Calif?) please expand the mnemonic, we don't 
all know what it refers to. I also think it's a misnomer to use the 
umbrella term "traditional Christianity" in that context. It's too broad.
It implies that you looked high and low through "Christendom" and Christ 
was nowhere to be found. Maybe the "UCC" doesn't have the "right phone 
number" (I dislike the concept anyway) but don't indict "traditional 
Christianity" just because your congregation failed you.

Also, I think that you do practice a certain form of pressuring, whether
you think you do or not.
    
Regards,

Ed

Ed,

I don't quite follow you.  If my assertion "sounds" resonable, why is it not
reasonable?  What flaw is there in my assertion?  Am I not capable of taking
your arguments and changing them slightly so that they could be used effectively
to criticize Jesus Christ, the New Testament and the early Christians?  

Steve

    
    Ed,
    
    "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement."
    
    - John 7:24
    
    What do you base your knowledge of The Church of Jesus Christ of
    Latter-Day Saints on?  Have you ever taken the missionary discussions?
    
    I believe that you would find the oppertunity most interesting and
    perhaps rewarding.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Steve

    Re .12:
    
    > So, after a great deal of pondering, you decide to switch to 
    > the new train. You exchange your ticket, board the train, grab
    > a cup of coffee, and settle down in a comfortable seat for the
    > long train ride.
    
    Can't be the Mormon train - not with coffee!  ;)
    
    aq
    

    A question keeps popping into my mind about this analogy.  What about
    taking a jet, an automobile, or (horrors) walking?  There are many,
    many ways of getting from here to there.  All of them are appropriate
    for certain individuals.  Believe it or not, some people just can't
    tolerate taking the train.  :)
    
    Dan Kusnetzky

Re:  .6 (from John Wethern)

>         people.  My main problem with Mormonism is that we don't
>         appear to worship the same God.  Sure, we may use the name
>         "Jesus Christ", or refer to the "Holy Spirit" or "God the
>         Father".  This doesn't mean that who we're referring to is
>         indeed the same god, person or being.
>
>         I don't believe that Mormons worship or acknowledge the same
>         all-mighty, all-powerful, all-"whatever is holy, good and
>         pure", eternal God that is spoken of in the Bible.  If you're
>         not in tune with or seeking the "real" God, how can you hope
>         to know Him or His plan for salvation?  If you acknowledge
>         the shed blood of Jesus, is it the "same" Jesus of the Bible,
>         does his sacrifice REALLY mean what it can and should to you
>         or anyone else?  

John, *from my own experience*, you are right on target in your concerns
here.  As a Mormon [I was Mormon.  I am not Mormon now.], I would not have 
believed that statement because I honestly and sincerely believed that there 
was ONE God - and that those who professed to believe in God believed in the 
same God, i.e. the God of the Baptists is the God of the Lutherans is the God 
of the Catholics is the God of the Mormons, etc.  Perhaps this view was 
shallow on my part, but it is what I believed.

Quickly, I would like to relate an interesting experience I had dealing
with this issue.  When I got to Seattle, I met a friend who was a Christian
(I was still Mormon at that time).  We talked a lot about religion and what 
we believed.  However, it took a few weeks of talking to realize that we were 
talking two different languages.  The God my friend was talking about was not 
the God I was talking about.  The plan of salvation I was talking about was 
not the plan of salvation my friend was talking about.  And so on . . .
We began to realize that we needed to define the terms/concepts we were
using before attempting to discuss it.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that as a Mormon or a non-Mormon,
it is important that we make sure that we are talking the same *language*
when we talk with one another - especially when our eternal salvation is
dependent upon our understanding of the *language* we have been taught.
I think that's the point you were trying to make too John.

That's all for now,
Tamara

Hi Ed,

>Allen, it sounds as though you are granting credibility to the idea that
>there is an array of "gods" out there, each of which is capable of
>answering this prayer reliably. There's already millions of mislead folks 
>out there seeking similar guidance to support their various and sundry 
>beliefs in anything from astrology to channeling to voodoo. Most, if not 
>all of them are misguided, whether their guidance comes from their own 
>minds or from a phoney "god". I think it's very dangerous to make or follow 
>the suggestion to ask guidance from "whatever god you believe in."
>Besides, it seems a little non-sensical to tell someone to ask "their" god
>to tell them to join "your" church.

I didn't intend to say there is an array of "gods" out there capable of giving
reliable answers to prayers, but I can see how my words could be interpreted
to mean that.

It seems to me, Ed, that when we ask people to pray we have to accept the
fact that they will pray to what ever god they believe in.  If they believe
in false gods, then they will not receive reliable answers to their prayers
from those gods.  However, if they are sincerely seeking truth, I believe
they might receive answers from the true God.  That is, they pray to false
gods and receive answers from the true God, our Father in Heaven.  All
people are children of God, and He loves everyone and will help us in our
search for truth.  So, to return to your metaphor, what I'm trying to say
is that those riding the train can choose whatever telephone they believe
in, and if they are sincerely and honestly seeking truth, if they have the
wrong phone, God may tap in to their phone line and intercept their call.
This interception of phone calls by God may take months or years, depending
on the sincerity and honesty of the people seeking truth, and depending on the
wisdom and will of God.  In doing this, God will lead them away from their
false gods to Him.

Allen

    I think that the key to make the telephone call analogy more applicable
    is to stipulate that the person follow the correct operating procedures
    for the telephone, so to speak: 
    
    1- Speak to your Father in Heaven.
    
    2- Ask Him in Faith, believing that He can and will answer your sincere
       prayer. 
    
    3- Pray in the name of Jesus Christ.

    I believe that when these instructions for calling upon Heavenly Father
    are followed, as taught in the Holy Bible, as well as in the Latter-day
    scriptures, God will hear and will answer such prayers. 
    
    Latter-day Saints challenge all mankind to study out our claims and
    then ask God, as outlined above, if these things are true. Do NOT take
    our word for it and accept it ONLY if God gives you the answer that it
    is true. That is how I have come to my conviction that these things
    are true.
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
                                   

RE: Prayer to whatever god.

If you start from the premise that there is One God (or Godhead) for this earth
and one other powerful non-earthly being (Satan) each with their staffs and 
having a real good organization amoung those folks. And the premise that God is
more powerful than Satan. Then if you accept the premise that God is using this
mortal existence as a place to help folks learn and develop themselves.  Then
the premise of asking people to pray in what ever manner they choose (ie. use
what ever phone number) is logically consistent with arriving at one truth.

What makes it seem not to work is that the right answer, and the right time
differs for each person.  But since God is one and is more powerful, then he
hears all the prayers, and makes sure that the person gets the answer they 
need and are ready for. Even then when Satan is answering a person's prayer or
giving a person some kind of prompting, God is making sure that what they get
is consistent with what they are ready for.

In other words, if a person is sincerely seeking, and has an open mind, they 
will grow towards this one God. For various reasons some get there faster than
others and none of us has yet seen the whole picture, therefore what someone
else says that disagrees with what I see may be that he sees a side of God's 
plan that I have not yet seen.

On the other hand if a person has already determined what they want for an 
answer (and don't we all do this at times), then God is probably not going to
give them a different answer, they are going to hear what they want whether it
comes from God or Satan.

So let us all go ahead individually exploring this wonderful experience, that
we have found ourselves in (the world,  the ultimate video game), and let's go
ahead and share what we see with each other. We certainly may want to share
why we believe some things that we do believe, But let's keep the focus on
caring and understanding each other as people. We need not fear that someone
else's view makes our own less true. All that we need to do is keep in touch
with God as we know him (or her or it if you prefer), Let all of our verifi-
cation come from our trusted source and God can and will lead us toward where
we should go.

I am indeed committed to the Mormon Church and it's teachings, but I believe
that when a member of my church reaches out to offend the beliefs of someone
else, they are not doing what God would want them to do. Similarly If someone
were to take their sincere belief that I am wrong and try to force it on me.
(this is not referring to anyone specifically here) it would also be wrong.

Indeed I believe there is one God, and he is working his plan, ultimately he
has a set of things for each of us to do, but it is for us only to share with 
love and let the conviction come from God, and to reserve all judgement of 
others, then we will get were God want's us as fast as we each are willing to
go. Frankly pushing on someone else doesn't make them go faster anyway.

Your Brother,

Len

If I might add to some of the thoughts here, after all is said and done, 
listening is as vital to the process of prayer as it is in other forms of
one-to-one communication.

Steve

    Re .21:
    
  >  Can't be the Mormon train - not with coffee!  ;)
    
    Somebody noticed!
    
    

Ed,

> I don't quite follow you.  If my assertion "sounds" resonable, why is it
> not reasonable?  What flaw is there in my assertion?  Am I not capable of
> taking your arguments and changing them slightly so that they could be
> used effectively to criticize Jesus Christ, the New Testament and the
> early Christians? 

Steve,

I'm sure that you realize that it is possible to sound reasonable and yet 
not be. My disagreement begins with your use of the word "effectively".
If by "effectively" you mean that you could prove Christ or Christianity 
false, then your statment is unreasonable. Better minds than ours have 
already tried, and have utterly failed. I'm sure you will try to make the 
same point about Mormonism (in fact you will have to), but I don't see a 
valid parallel.

What you are really trying to do, in fact, is enhance the credibility of 
Mormonism by drawing this parallel and implying that since Christianity 
and Mormonism (et al) could be criticized in similar ways, then they
both must be valid. It is not good reasoning.

Ed

    

>    "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement."
>    
>    - John 7:24

Steve, you're not saying that Mormonism only *appears* to be a false 
religion, are you? :-)

>    What do you base your knowledge of The Church of Jesus Christ of
>    Latter-Day Saints on?  Have you ever taken the missionary discussions?
>    
>    I believe that you would find the oppertunity most interesting and
>    perhaps rewarding.

I used to work with a man who is a Mormon. He is one of the most
intelligent and articulate people that I personally know, and we have
gotten to know his family as well. I spent quite a few hours discussing
Mormonism with him, which sparked my interest in learning more. Since
then I have spent a great deal of time reading both the Book of Mormon
and "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder", as well as books you might consider
"anti-Mormon". I also have spent quite a bit of time in this notes
conference as a reader and participant. I've even seen a couple of LDS
videos. As you can tell, I have not come to the same conclusions 
regarding Mormonisn that you have.

I may be wrong, but I think it's safe to assume that I would not
hear anything new from "taking the missionary discussions". Besides, it
sounds like some kind of pre-orchestrated process rather than a
discussion...

However, if you want to start a note based on the missionary discussions 
on a point by point basis, I'd be happy to participate.

Ed

          <<< Note 278.18 by ARCHER::PRESTON "Punch it, Margaret!" >>>

>> My background befoire joining the LDS Church was from the UCC, and I
>> doubt if my concepts about God were that much different from yours today.
>> Perhaps, if I got the wrong answer, it's because traditional
>> Christianity had "the wrong phone number," but I personally believe I got
>> through to the proper personage. 

>What's UCC? (Univ of Central Calif?) please expand the mnemonic, we don't 
>all know what it refers to. I also think it's a misnomer to use the 
>umbrella term "traditional Christianity" in that context. It's too broad.
>It implies that you looked high and low through "Christendom" and Christ 
>was nowhere to be found. Maybe the "UCC" doesn't have the "right phone 
>number" (I dislike the concept anyway) but don't indict "traditional 
>Christianity" just because your congregation failed you.

 UCC is the United Church of Christ.  I grew up as a member of the First
 Congregational Church, which "merged" with other denominations in the early
 1950's (I believe) to form the United Church of Christ.

 While I didn't search through all sects of Christendom, I did search through
 many while deciding what church to join.  And while perhaps traditional
 Christianity does not imply the concept I meant, trinitarian Christianity
 probably would.  Finally, I have not indicted anyone; that is your term, not
 mine.  I have a lot of respect for the followers of Congregational beliefs,
 and do not indict/condemn/judge them.  I would suggest that far more of the
 trinitarians indict the Latter-Day Saints than LDS do likewise (at least, that
 has been the prevolent experience for me).

Ed,

>My disagreement begins with your use of the word "effectively".
>If by "effectively" you mean that you could prove Christ or Christianity 
>false, then your statment is unreasonable. Better minds than ours have 
>already tried, and have utterly failed. I'm sure you will try to make the 
>same point about Mormonism (in fact you will have to), but I don't see a 
>valid parallel.

My use of the word "effectively" is per TAHD.  That is, the use of the
arguments are intended to have desired effects.  You apparently assume that I 
have indicated that I could use your arguments to prove Christianity false.  
Perhaps this is simply a reflection of your own intents, to which it is easy 
to counter with your own argument.  That is, better minds than ours have 
utterly failed at proving Mormonism false.

The effect that others had in the past were, as you pointed out, unable to 
prove Christianity false.  But, proving Christianity false was not the
only desired effect.  Another desired effect was often attained.  That is,
many were convinced through arguments, not unlike your own, to apostatize 
from the true faith.  I continue to maintain that I could use your arguments
to attain this effect.

Part of this is obvious.  I have only to turn to the Scriptures to observe
how some of the Jews and others criticized the New Testament, Christ and the 
early Christians.  There are even Old Testament situations that bear
similarities, especially when a disobedient people had to confront living
prophets of God.  And, why shouldn't these arguments be resonable and logical?
They have been around for thousands of years!  They have been tested, tried
and proven to yield desired effects.  

For example, the Jews were logical and reasonable when they crucified Christ.
The Scriptures told them there would be false Messiah's.  Even John the
Baptist was thought by some to be the Messiah.  And, the Jews were usually
right about who was a false Messiah.  Their approach is STILL logical and
reasonable.  After all, they were only wrong once.

Ed, your arguements about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the Latter-Day
Saints are quite logical and reasonable.  They are also unoriginal, if you
consider the arguments that have been effectively used against Jesus Christ,
the New Testament, and early Christians.  They have proven to be right most of 
the time.  But, they have also led to wrong conclusions.  If you are content 
to be right most of the time, don't give my observation a second thought.

>What you are really trying to do, in fact, is enhance the credibility of 
>Mormonism by drawing this parallel and implying that since Christianity 
>and Mormonism (et al) could be criticized in similar ways, then they
>both must be valid. It is not good reasoning.

This is definitiely not good reasoning.  And, it sure isn't my reasoning.
I am not enhancing the validity of Mormonism.  I am discrediting the arguments
that were used against Jesus Christ, the New Testament and the early Chrstians.
Arguments which bear striking resemblance to some of the arguments presented
against Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Latter-Day Saints.  These
arguments, though logical and reasonable, have been proven to be right most
of the time, but wrong when most critical.

Steve

> While I didn't search through all sects of Christendom, I did search through
> many while deciding what church to join.  

Perhaps that's the problem - "looking" for a church to join. This touches 
upon John's original point about Mormonism's appeal to the religiously-
inclined individual's innate desires.

> Finally, I have not indicted anyone; that is your term, not mine.  I
> have a lot of respect for the followers of Congregational beliefs, and do
> not indict/condemn/judge them.  I would suggest that far more of the
> trinitarians indict the Latter-Day Saints than LDS do likewise (at least,
> that has been the prevolent experience for me). 

Yes, you're right, I used that term. You, however, said that traditional
Christianity failed you by not having the "right phone number", which
means they mislead you by appearing to have the knowledge of salvation
when they did not. That is an indictment, whether you chose that 
particular word or not. I was not trying to portray you as levelling 
your guns against them, however. I hope you can see what I meant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

� My disagreement begins with your use of the word "effectively".
� If by "effectively" you mean that you could prove Christ or Christianity 
� false, then your statment is unreasonable. Better minds than ours have 
� already tried, and have utterly failed. I'm sure you will try to make the 
� same point about Mormonism (in fact you will have to), but I don't see a 
� valid parallel.

> My use of the word "effectively" is per TAHD.  That is, the use of the
> arguments are intended to have desired effects.  You apparently assume
> that I have indicated that I could use your arguments to prove
> Christianity false. Perhaps this is simply a reflection of your own
> intents, to which it is easy to counter with your own argument.  That is,
> better minds than ours have utterly failed at proving Mormonism false. 

Like I said, you had to say that, and you did! 

> The effect that others had in the past were, as you pointed out, unable to 
> prove Christianity false. But, proving Christianity false was not the
> only desired effect. Another desired effect was often attained.  That is,
> many were convinced through arguments, not unlike your own, to apostatize 
> from the true faith.  I continue to maintain that I could use your arguments
> to attain this effect.

If you insist.

> I have only to turn to the Scriptures to observe how some of the Jews and
> others criticized the New Testament, Christ and the early Christians. 

> For example, the Jews were logical and reasonable when they crucified Christ.

Oh really? Is that why they had to assemble a kangaroo court in the 
middle of the night then haul Him over to Pilate in hopes of getting Him 
condemned by Roman authority? Pilate himself could find no fault in Him, 
and wanted to let Him go, except the Jews leaned so hard on him that he 
gave in to them and washed his hands of the matter. Read any account of 
His crucifixion and see how utterly unreasonable and illogical the Jews 
were at that time.

> Ed, your arguements about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the
> Latter-Day Saints are quite logical and reasonable.  

Thanks. I never thought I'd hear that from a Mormon.

> They are also unoriginal, if you consider the arguments that have been
> effectively used against Jesus Christ, the New Testament, and early
> Christians.  They have proven to be right most of the time.  But, they
> have also led to wrong conclusions.  If you are content to be right most
> of the time, don't give my observation a second thought. 

Steve, this is getting muddled too quickly... you are saying that 
certain arguments, "proven to be right most of the time", lead to 
wrong conclusions. To me that doesn't make much sense. None of the 
arguments I have read against Christ, Christianity or the New Testament
have been "proven to be right", or even held up after close scrutiny. I'm 
afraid I can't say the same for Joseph Smith, Mormonism, or the Mormon 
scriptures. Don't worry, I'm not going to try to get you to agree with me 
on this.

>What you are really trying to do, in fact, is enhance the credibility of 
>Mormonism by drawing this parallel and implying that since Christianity 
>and Mormonism (et al) could be criticized in similar ways, then they
>both must be valid. It is not good reasoning.

� This is definitiely not good reasoning. And, it sure isn't my reasoning. 
� I am not enhancing the validity of Mormonism. I am discrediting the arguments 
� that were used against Jesus Christ, the New Testament and early Chrstians. 
� Arguments which bear striking resemblance to some of the arguments presented
� against Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Latter-Day Saints.  These
� arguments, though logical and reasonable, have been proven to be right most
� of the time, but wrong when most critical.

I'm sorry Steve, I don't see you discrediting anything, at least not in 
this note anyway. I still maintain that you are trying to create a parallel 
that puts Joseph Smith and the LDS on a par with Jesus Christ and early
Christians, thereby gaining a credibility and status by the association.

Ed

    
    
    Hi!
    
    If I could break in for a moment.  I've been following this discussion
    through several replies, and see it going nowhere fast. Seems that the
    participants are digging themselves in for a long drawn out battle!
    
    I often wonder about what Heavenly Father thinks of us as we try to
    somehow justify our thoughts and beliefs. I'll say one thing. If I
    ever need somebody to argue a case in court for me I'll know where
    to look! 
    
    As an LDS I often find myself searching for answers, as well as perhaps
    members of other denominations might do.  I feel that when one stops 
    searching, asking, inquiring of the Lord, and closing their mind to others'
    thoughts, whether it be on their beliefs or a better understanding
    of their own, spiritual growth stops. If we spent more time in trying
    to understand others rather than constantly defending our own, perhaps
    we might learn a bit more. 
    
    I see much that we can build on together. Jesus Christ is a Savior to
    all of us regardless of denomination. I think that all of us here
    believe in the resurrection of the Savior. I pray that we all believe
    that we want to be in His Presence again. We all believe that love
    directed outwards towards others is an essential trait to any Chris-
    tian. May we rejoice in those things, and rejoice in the news that He 
    Lives! 
    
    Kevin
    

Ed,

We are apparently unable to communicate.

Steve

    
    I am just now catching up with notes here. I now know why I had trouble
    getting into here. The galois system was very busy. I am changing back
    to Cache again. I will never find answers to my questions from
    outside,but,from within. There are universal laws which will apply to
    all of us. They have been stated over and over again. Most of us know
    what these are. Man gets hung up on points and interpretation,in order
    to justify his beliefs. The real and true laws cannot be interpreted in
    any other way than what they state. All will be in agreement as to
    there meaning. Think of what these laws are that cannot be
    argued,then,you will know what God expects from us all!
    
    Peace
    
    Michael
    

� We are apparently unable to communicate.

I think you may be right, Steve.

Re: Kevin,

�    If I could break in for a moment.  I've been following this discussion
�    through several replies, and see it going nowhere fast. Seems that the
�    participants are digging themselves in for a long drawn out battle!

Well, you could be right, but Steve has acknowledged the difficulty that 
he and I are having at arriving at some kind of common ground, and I 
think we have both gone around on this enough and are satisfied to let 
others form their own opinions about our respective points. I think (I 
hope anyway) that we (Steve and I, and in a larger sense all of us) 
realize that in one sense we are engaged in a sort of "battle", but in 
another very real sense we *are not*. We must be able to maintain the 
realization that while we may be staunch opponents theologically, it is 
possible, and important, to keep it from becoming personal. Yes, I might 
get irritated by what I think is poor rationale, but I cannot allow 
myself to let that create personal emnity towards the one who sincerely 
believes it. Perhaps he has not thought it through or perhaps he just 
hasn't articluated it adequately. 

While it is important to believe the right things (when they are
important), it is not required to be able to convince anyone else, so if
we voluntarily enter into debate over some subject we must be willing to
get a rhetorical bloody nose if we do a bad job of supporting our
arguments. But just like boxing or fencing, we should be gentlemanly 
enough to "keep it in the ring". 
    
It is a misnomer to see this as mere pointless defending of our own 
turf, because, to be able to do it properly, we have to deal with the 
arguments of our opponents, and strive to do it convincingly. If, of 
course, we find our opponents arguments are little too tough, we can
always resort to diversionary tactics to preserve a facade of
correctness, but that's human nature and another topic...

Anyway, I hope that we can all be adult enough to argue stridently yet
still remain "good sports" at all times. I have no personal enmity 
towards anyone in this conference, and hope that no one has any towards 
me.

�   I see much that we can build on together. Jesus Christ is a Savior to
�   all of us regardless of denomination. I think that all of us here
�   believe in the resurrection of the Savior. 

While I will gladly stand alongside Mormons on many issues such as
abortion or freedom of worship, our theological differences remain 
separated by a wide chasm.

I hope that you now have a better idea where I'm coming from...

Regards,

Ed

> We must be able to maintain the 
>realization that while we may be staunch opponents theologically, it is 
>possible, and important, to keep it from becoming personal. Yes, I might 
>get irritated by what I think is poor rationale, but I cannot allow 
>myself to let that create personal emnity towards the one who sincerely 
>believes it.

One thing I've appreciated during the past couple of years is that everyone
has been able to keep theological differences from being personal.  I consider
Ed a friend, even though we've only met electronically.  I respect him as a
person, and I know he returns that respect.  We disagree in theology, but we 
are both children of God and have that as a basis for fellowship.

One thing, however, that hasn't occurred much in this conference is that LDS
and non-LDS have been able to engage in dialog about the things they have in
common--love of Christ, love of mankind, service, etc.  It seems we're always
talking about our differences.  We LDS have had that type of dialog, and the
other Christians have it in the CHRISTIAN conference.  Can we LDS and non-LDS
join together in this conference and share our commonalities instead of our
differences?

Allen

    Re .37:
    
    Ed, I appreciate your thoughts on avoiding contention, and especially
    appreciate the two reasons you mentioned why people may disagree.  To
    them I would add at least one more reason.  You said, "Perhaps he
    has not thought it through or perhaps he just hasn't articulated
    it adequately."  To that I would add:  Perhaps I haven't yet
    understood what he or she has articulated.
    
    
    Re .38:
    
    There must be so much we share, starting with love and trust in
    our Savior.
    
    
    aq
    

    re: Ed's note
    
    Thanks, Ed for your comments. I appreciate anybody who is able to 
    convey their thoughts in an articulate manner, and you and Steve
    certainly have done that. To be able to discuss and compare thoughts,
    to agree, and to disagree without being contentious, is a trait that
    I do not always seem to have command at all times. I will say, although
    I do not always agree with your viewpoint, I find your points to
    be well reasoned out. Keeps us on our toes!
    
    Kevin 

    Some good thoughts here.  I believe that debate concerning theology is
    different from other forms of debate.  If, for example, my wife debates
    with me about what today's agenda will be and she has a better
    argument, I have an obligation to abide by her argument.  But,
    theological debate is not the same.  Seems to me that no matter how good 
    or bad the arguments, both sides usually tend to walk away thinking they 
    won and that they presented good arguments.  Unlike the example with
    my wife, I think that once it is determined that nobody is learning 
    anything or that common understanding is not possible, it's time to 
    drop the topic and move on to something else.
    
    Steve

    
    Some of my thoughts. I usually withhold some of what I can say in
    any theological debate, or discussion. My reasoning is that it wouldn't
    be constructive to bring out  points that would tend to direct any
    thing personally toward the other individual. I usually ask open-
    ended questions that will encourage one to think but not press for
    any definitive yes or no answers. I usually do not quote direct
    scriptures, for I'm sure others can use the same technique to defend
    their point of view. If I did quote them, it might begin a barrage
    of references, some used incorrectly by myself and others;(scripture
    bashing!).
    
    On another note, I've often wondered  about what led me to Christ in
    the first place. My family was not religious in the slightest degree.
    My first exposure to Christianity was through my family sending me to
    vacation bible school at the age of 4. If I was brought up in another
    culture that believed in Mohammed, or Judaism, I might well have
    adopted their belief. I wonder at how much of our belief is based on
    traditions of our culture. I acknowledged Jesus Christ to be a special
    figure and the Bible to be a Holy Book long before understood any of
    it.
    
    During my youth, I was always fascinated by the different sects and
    the different ways they used scriptures to justify their beliefs. 
    I had many Catholic, Baptist, and fundamentalist friends. I couldn't
    figure out why they believed in the same Saviour, yet had differing
    beliefs. Remember, this all happened to me as a youth. I was led
    to ask why this was so.... 
    
    I will say my introduction to the LDS faith was through a step by step
    investigation by myself as a youth. I was fascinated by the Book of
    Mormon and literally ate it up. I consequently joined the church,
    was baptised and have been a member since (21+ yrs.). I am the only
    active member in my family. After I joined the church, I was given
    a rough time by others, (friends, their parents, ministers of other
    faiths) who all used scriptures to "prove" doctrinal points. The
    thing that amazed me is that none ever read the BoM, nor cared to.
    They all used scriptural arguments to show me how wrong I was. I
    decided long ago that beliefs are not easily changed. I went through
    a process not unlike the prophet did as a youth, always defending my
    beliefs. So today, I do not try to convert the world through 
    doctrinal proofs, but hopefully through an example of love. 
       
    
    Kevin

	RE: Note 278.42  DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV
    
>    I usually ask open-
>    ended questions that will encourage one to think but not press for
>    any definitive yes or no answers. I usually do not quote direct
>    scriptures, for I'm sure others can use the same technique to defend
>    their point of view. If I did quote them, it might begin a barrage
>    of references, some used incorrectly by myself and others;(scripture
>    bashing!).
    
	Kevin,
		Nothing against you or what you are saying, but I would 
	like to address the issue of scripture reference from my perspective.

		Most of the time, in the majority of cases, the scriptures
	are generally pretty clear.  It seems to me that it is the ambiguous
	ones in which the meaning is nebulous, or involves a complete 
	understanding of another subject or area, that the problems arise
	with "scripture bashing."

		However, even if we were to address topics with open ended
	questions, from whence do we start?  I think that we should start
	with the scriptures referencing or detailing the questioned topic,
	and then go into how each individual decodes the symbolic words.
	But the scriptures are, to me, definitely the place to start.  Bashing
	only comes in when trying to defend one's definition against another's.

		To me the scriptures are the word of God.  I have a firm
	knowledge that God does exist.  I have not personally seen Him, but
	I have had His direct intervention in response to a prayer.  I have
	heard His voice in response to a prayer.  I have felt His guidance
	in my life.  When I came in contact with the LDS church, I gained a
	better understanding of the relationship between Father and Son,
	and between myself and them.  I learned about, in unmistakable terms,
	the plan of salvation, the atonement, and how it affects me.  If I
	came across doctrine that I did not understand, then I either let it
	go until the time was ready for me to progress from milk to meat, or
	I referenced the words and understanding of those whom the Lord has
	placed in stewardship over me.  In any case, I have always gotten my
	own understanding of the subject matter in the same manner in which
	I have been shown or given other truths.  Because of this, I firmly
	believe in the Doctrine and Covenants.  In D&C 18:34-36, the Lord tells
	me the following about this :

		    "These words are not of men nor of man, but of me; 
		wherefore, you shall testify they are of me and not of men.

		     For it is my voice which speaketh unto you; for they 
		are given by my spirit unto you, and by my power you can 
		read them one to another; and save it were by my power you
		could not have them;

		     Wherefore, you can testify that you have heard my voice,
		and know my words."

	Therefore, not only is the D&C the word of God, but the voice.  And
	in that voice I do repeat His words for the edifying of the saints
	and the redemption of the world.  That is why I believe that the first
	place to start is with the scriptures, and the scriptures are the
	last place to end.  All my daily actions are based upon what I know
	and *understand* of the voice of the Lord.  How else could I conduct
	my life in accordance with His will?  Man may determine what he may,
	but unless it is sanctioned by the Lord, it is of no consequence.

	Charles

    
    	WOW! A lot has happened in this topic since I last looked in.
    
    	Re. Last few:
    
    	Without pulling in quotes from the last 10 or so replies
    	(haven't learned how to reply to multiple notes replies
    	yet), they seem to be making a point for me. When you
    	mission/evangelize/prostheletize (sp), your clientele
    	should be those who are lost, seeking, despondent. Why
    	expend a lot of energy attacking the beliefs of someone
    	who has a faith and a testimony as strong and heartfelt
    	as yours, of a different faith? These religions serve a
    	vital purpose in our everyday lives, and we each believe
    	in our own "salvation" as it were. That's why we follow 
    	them. 
    
    	You are wasting your breath, or in this case keystrokes,
    	trying to convince the followers of a religion that their
    	beliefs are false. Unless you have a true sin to convict 
    	them of (e.g. deliberately causing harm to another person), 
    	what issue can you take with their beliefs? What harm does
    	it do you if someone else believes in additional scripture
    	and latter-day revelation? How do I harm you if I believe
    	that your understanding of certain Bible passages is wrong?*
    		
    
    	You can do more good for us all if you go and seek out those 
    	who feel a need for something in their lives. Those who already
    	have a testimony to whatever belief, and find their faith, their
    	"God", working effectively in and through their lives, will not
    	profit from continued disparagement of their beliefs.
    
    Neal/B
    
    *I'm not a Mormon of a Fundamentalist but thank God for both!
    
    

May I thank Neal for that note. There are vast lessons one can glean
from such gentle words of common sense, if only one wishes to do so. 

It seems to me that a Christian religion should emulate Christ. When
He said "Come, follow me," it was not in the form of an angry,
thunderous denunciation of currently held beliefs. It was a simple,
sweet invitation, leaving it up to the invitee to choose for
him/herself what path to follow. 

As Mormons, we can offer our understanding of Christ's teachings to 
others, and we believe we are instructed to do so to all the world. 
But if we try to ram our beliefs down anyone's throat, we are wrong 
and in direct contrast with the example of the Savior. So is anyone 
else. It is up to each person to choose, once they have heard the
message. 

I wince when I hear or see someone declare "I know all about the 
Mormans (sic) and they're ALL WRONG!", not realizing that they don't
even know enough to spell the name right. I wince when I am told - as
was done recently in this conference - that I am on a bullet train to
hell. I wince when feverish denouncements of my religious beliefs are
supported by no more than a throwaway line like "I use my
intellegence (sic)," as if no one else does.

I wince because it is all such a waste.

Christ was concerned the most about the lowest and lost among us. And
we should too. I would echo Neal's words about seeking out those who have a
real need: those who we can bring out of poverty, despair, ignorance,
disease, hunger, and on and on. There is so much of Christ's work to do in
this world that to expend such energy trying to convert the converted seems
almost a criminal waste. There are millions of others - around the world
and under our noses - who would profit far more by such efforts. 

/kevin

    
    
    Why is it that religous communities continue to build very expensive
    buildings and in the mean time,thousands of children and adults die of
    starvation around the world? If we are to follow Jesus then feed the 
    hungry,and,help our brothers and sisters have a better life instead of
    spending millions of dollars on buildings. "John,feed my sheep","John,
    feed my sheep","John,feed my sheep",!
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    
    Hi!
    
    re: -43
    
    I see your perspective, and understand the essence of what you are
    saying. Again, I could quote scripture in responses (but usually
    don't). Say for example we got into a discussion of the Saviour's
    arising from the tomb. Which Gospel would you like to quote for
    the "true account". I think that if I used the 4 gospels to
    "prove" that the saviour rose on the 3rd day I might have a problem.
    There are different accounts, and they do not agree with one another.
    Can four accounts that do not match up be true. Would you like me
    to open up and have a  discussion using quotes from scripture
    to prove or disprove this particular point. I, for one would rather not 
    do it in this forum. So much of what we believe is based on faith and
    our level of understanding. I've seen comtemporary interpretations
    and explanations of some of Jesus' parables given by leaders today
    that are at total variance with the prophet Joseph's interpretations.
    We are taught to follow the teachings of the living prophets. Now,
    are we rewriting what the prophet Joseph taught. Was he wrong,
    did he have an imperfect level of understanding? What about the
    thousands that believed him. It's just that the scriptures are there
    for us, and what do we do... We utilize them often to "prove"
    our personal beliefs. Is the gospel true. Yes! Do we all the 
    answers? I think not, therefore we need to continue to seek out
    truth.
    
    Kevin
          
    

    
    
    
    
    
    Kevin,
    
    Yes, there are some things that need to be explained better than they
    presently are.  That is why we have prophets and the D&C and Book of
    Mormon.  There are exceptions to every rule, and, as I said before, in
    the example given I would let it go.  It would be enough to know that
    Christ rose after the third day - Jewish reconing there too.  However,
    I am amazed at the order in the plan of salvation as I continue to
    study the D&C and BoM.  As I face the trails of life, I continually
    refer back to the scriptures, and more and more I find relief in the
    LDS scriptures.  There is much in the Bible, but as you have so aptly
    pointed out, it does not always go together.
    
    Charles

    Re: Note 278.46 by DNEAST::PUSHARD_MIKE

    Hi Mike,
    
>   "John,feed my sheep","John, feed my sheep","John,feed my sheep",!

    With all due respect, I think Jesus spoke these words to Peter.
    
    As to buildings, I think that you are right that it is important that
    vast fortunes not be spent to build lavish buildings. I, for one,
    regard LDS buildings to be rather simple in design and function. Even
    the holy temples are built to be elegant, but not lavish. 
    
    There is a need for buildings to be built that will be adequate
    for "feeding my sheep". But there is also a sacred responsibility
    for the leaders to wisely use the Lord's funds in all things.
    
    As to feeding the hungry, the fast offerings of the church are used
    100% for the needy, with NO administrative overhead. They have been
    used to help needy people, both LDS and non-LDS, in my own
    neighborhood, those in war torn lands, those in poverty and drought
    stricken lands like Ethiopia, and in many far flung lands throughout
    the world. Members of the church have consistently been urged to give a
    generous fast offering for this purpose, and to help the needy in any
    other appropriate way. There is so much suffering, and we each have a
    responsibility to do what we can to alleviate it. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    
    Rich,
    
     Oh well,You can see I'm not a biblical scholar,but the point was made
     anyway. I believe that all of our efforts should be put into helping
     those in need,not just a small part of it. If I had the opportunity,
     I would. It is such a shame that the resources for solving our
    problems are there,but,are used for other purposes. There should be
    priorities. The world needs to work together. We dont need buildings,
    we need people working together in a common cause. 
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

Howdy!

I'd like to address the building question.  I think it is a GOOD question and,
seein's how I'm the Stake Physical Facilities rep for the Boston Stake, I feel
I have a pretty good background for addressing the question.  My calling
involves the upkeep of all of the buildings in the Stake.  There are 6 buildings
in the Boston Stake.  One was recently completed and cost in excess of $1M,
cash.  Why spend such an apparently "extravagant" amount?

Well, much of the cost is associated with the cost of the location.  This 
building is in Roslindale.  For those unfamiliar with Boston, this is a rough
neighborhood, very rough.  There is frequent vandalism and violence and the
area is often in the news.  I have access to how much was spent on what.
Wherever possible, the Church buys at the best prices, often below distributors'
prices.  Wherever feasible, the Church also purchases locally to help local
business.  Money is not wasted.  The building was designed to be very functional
and efficient.  It is high-quality, but not elaborate.  It is designed to
meet the needs of those who attend, with very practical features to allow for
future construction as the Church grows in the area.  It is there for all to
attend and worship that care to come.  Efforts are made to make it accessible
to all who have need while protecting it from those who would deface it.  This
building is like an oasis in the area.  $1M sounds like a lot of money, and it
is.  But, considering the high potential for good effect on the community, this
cost may prove relatively small over the long term. 

Steve

    
    re: -48
    
    Hi Charles!
    
    I feel the same about the D&C and how it builds my testimony of the gospel
    along with the BoM. I never cease to be amazed at the truths that are being
    unfolded through the scriptures, and when I seek out answers I have
    been able to find them through the scriptures. I see the gospel as of
    a developing unfolding nature, where truths build upon truths, and
    any doctrine that may be unsupportable by our yardstick of canon
    scripture, will fall by the wayside. I see the Prophet as one who is
    that instrument of the Lord to guide the church and not let it falter.
    Lastly I see members as being led by the Holy Ghost, gaining that wit-
    ness of the truthfulness of all things in the gospel.
    
    Kevin

    
    Steve,
    
      I definately think 1M is a lot of money to have a building in a
    location like that! How will it change the people there? does it give
    them jobs? Does it give them better housing? How about putting that
    money into better housing,or,helping people move to a better place
    where they could take better care of themselves? The only way to solve
    the ills of poverty is to hit it from its base by providing opportunity
    and support to people and that takes money (in our present system). God
    will not change our lives for us,we must do it ourselves and help
    others to also by following the Laws that HE has given us. When Jesus
    comes He will be at the head and will do away with monetary systems. It
    will be people working for the common good reguardless of prejustices.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    >location like that! How will it change the people there? does it give
    >them jobs? Does it give them better housing? How about putting that
    
    It will change them by making it the gospel more accessible to the
    people in that area.  By building a chapel in a chosen area, it makes
    it possible for people to go somewhere where they can participate in
    ordinances, fellowship, and have a place to administer the affairs of
    the congregations that meet there.  It also provides exposure to the
    community.  
    
    It can provide better housing.  In San Francisco a relief center was
    set up at a chapel to provide relief for the people who needed help
    after the earthquake.  I wonder if the relief society was involved. ;).
    
    It can give them jobs in the long run.  If a person joins the church,
    then they have access to many resources to find a job.  First, there
    are limited employment opportunities to maintain the church facilities. 
    Also, there are the social services that are available along with the
    welfare program.  
    
    A church building might not solve the problems you mention directly,
    but it can provide resources to overcome some of the problems people
    suffer.  
    
    scott  

Through the classes taught in the building and the counseling from leaders
during meetings, etc., the people attending the building will learn to better
take care of their own needs and be less dependent on government welfare.

Allen

I agree that much is spent in building buildings, but by comparison the LDS 
church is very conservative in providing places of worship.

To address the question of how these facilities affect those in the area, one 
might say they don't, at least they are not designed to be soup kitchens.  However
the church does contribute in major ways to help those who are in need.  However
one thing I think hasn't been brought out yet is, that as one the General Authorities
recently said (somewhat paraphrased) "Man would have us remove the slums from 
around people. Christ removes the slums from within men and they remove the 
slums from around themselves."

  I think both are needed and that is what the church strives to do.


Russell

    
    I understand where you all are coming from,I have heard these
    statements before. I am not specificly pointing to LDS,but,to religions
    in general. I think having a chapel there will be helping a very
    limited amount of people,because a lot would not participate because
    they are afraid of people trying to convert them to LDS. It would work
    the same for any of the other denominations. I am LDS,I am Baptist,I am
    Catholic,I am a believer in Christ. I have beliefs that are far removed
    from present standards. I say,Christians,Buddists,Hindus,Etc,unite to
    work for the common good. This I say is the only way we will survive.
    It requires sacrifice. I myself am starting to look to the spiritual
    and less to the material. It will take me some time to adjust. 
      
     
    Peace
    Michael
    

With all due respect,

"feed my sheep" refers to the giving of the living water, not
material.  Church building spread that living water, and are helping
to fulfill a commandment of God.

The $1M or so it takes for a building also help people with jobs building
the building.  The money goes to those who labor in the actual construction
and those who provide materials, providing jobs.

Chad

    If $1m is spent on a monument or some other non-productive thingamabob,
    then there might be valid gripe, but to spend it on a facility that
    could benefit the community, then I think it demonstrates great
    short-sightedness to suggest that the money should be used to "help
    the needy". What's the alternative, go door to door and just hand
    out the money directly to the needy folk? I say that if $1m buildings
    are a benefit to people, then build more of them. Better than building
    another mall...
    
    Ed
    
   

Hear, hear!  :)

Steve

    
    Here we go again with different interpretations. I took Jesus Literaly
    when he said "feed my sheep",after all,what did he do several times? He
    fed thousands at a time. With all due respect,that is my belief. Gods
    spirit can exist in all of us,if we allow it. When we allow it,we know
    the base by which he wants us to live. This is common to all peoples of
    the world. There are too many people going around saying "You are wrong
    and I am right", or,"You will go to hell if you believe this,or,that".
    Give me a break! They are blinded by pride and arrogance. When is man
    going to rid themselves of that and accept there brothers and sisters
    as they work toward a common goal,to be united in Gods love as one.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

	RE: Note 278.61 by DNEAST::PUSHARD_MIKE 

	Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world."  Why are you trying to
	make it so?  To "feed" the sheep of Christ is not in the literal
	sense of the world.  The Lord said that no commandment He has given
	is temporal, but spiritual.  True, we have a hard time living in
	this world on that kind of "food", but that is the kind of food that
	makes mankind different.  When we go after the things of the world,
	we reject God.

	I don't see why either "side" is trying to foster the idea that
	our Father prefers us to do one over the other.  I see nothing in
	the scriptures that would indicate such.  God expects us to sacrifice
	in order to care for the temporal needs of his people.  He also
	expects us to care for the spiritual needs of his people.  We aren't
	going to be able to teach them to listen with their spirits when the
	grumbling in their stomachs drown out the small voice of the spirit.
	Still, feeding their bodies will accomplish nothing if we don't build
	their spirits as well.

Agreed .63.

The Saviour did feed people with real physical food.  He also commanded us to
look out for one another ("if you have done this to the least of them thy
brothers, you have done it unto me..." -- you know the story I am refering
to).  However, the Saviour did say however to feed the spiritual also, and
that was what he was refering to in that scripture.  He also said that not
all are his sheep, that they are numbered and known to him.  It is good and
necessay to look after the temporal welfare of each other.  But that is only
a step in helping people and their eternal welfare...

Chad

    
    We all have to live in the world,and,help each other in our Temporal
    needs. God have given plenty of Temporal commandments,as well as
    spiritual. I agree with what the person in .63 said. It was simple and
    to the point.
    
    Chad,
    
    I will not argue the interpretation of the scripture. I used it to make
    a point about what is first,the temporal,or,the spiritual. I agree that
    not all are his sheep,but,that has to do with the individual and has
    nothing to do with what denomination you are in,or,what religion you
    profess,or whether the other guy is wrong or right. We will all be
    dealt with on an individual basis.
    
    I still say that money collected by religions should go for the
    temporal needs of our brothers and sisters throughout the world,but,the
    emphasis is too much on the worldly things.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

	Mike,
		Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, God has NEVER given
	any temporal commandments :

	D&C 29:34	"Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things
			 unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have
			 I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither 
			 any man, not the children of men; neither Adam, 
			 your father, whom I created."
	Charles

    This morning as I was studying the scriptures, I came across the
    following passage, which seemed to be perhaps indirectly related to
    this discussion. 
    
    Jacob chasitizes the people for seeking riches in order to lift
    themselves up in their pride above their brethren, and then he says... 
         
         And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in
         this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you,
         and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come
         unto you. 
         
         ...Let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls! 
         
         Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with
         all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto
         you. 
         
         But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. 
         
         And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain
         riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to
         do good -- to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to
         liberate the captive, and adminsiter relief to the sick and the
         afflicted. (Selected passages from Jacob chapter 2, Book of
         Mormon) 
         
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

		Yes, very good.  We should also remember that it is the law 
	of Christ is to bear one another's burdens (Gal 6:2).  Paul tells us
	a lot about charity in I Cor chapter 13, and indicates that it is a 
	higher law than feeding the hungry and clothing the poor, (verse 3).
	I can not remember exactly where it is, but I seem to remember that 
	no matter what we do, if we forget the poor and the needy, then all 
	is to no avail and we lose our reward.  So don't let I Cor 13 lead
	us astray.

		All of the scripture is important to really understand what
	must be done to inherit the kingdom of God.  We get a little here
	and some more there, just like a jigsaw puzzle.  But the more knowledge
	we obtain does nothing for us if the spirit of God is not included
	in our life and therefore does not help us towards salvation.  We will
	fail if we are not valiant in our testimony of Jesus Christ, and the
	poor in both body and spirit must be taken care of.
	

                <<< Note 278.66 by BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney" >>>

>		Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, God has NEVER given
>	any temporal commandments :

>	D&C 29:34	"Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things
>			 unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have
>			 I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither 
>			 any man, not the children of men; neither Adam, 
>			 your father, whom I created."


	I have always interpreted this to say that He has never given a
	commandment that was ONLY temporal.  Realistically, many commandments
	(perhaps most) have some temporal aspects to them.  Certainly, feeding
	the poor has a temporal aspect to them; in fact, to the recipient, I'd
	guess it was a primarily temporal proposition.  Of course, to the giver
	it would be primarily a spiritual proposition (from my view, anyway).

    
    
    It seems like there is a contradiction here. One quotes scripture which
    indicates no Temporal commandments,and,another quotes scripture that
    does. I think that a person has to be concerned about both (which has
    been said in an earlier reply). You can quote all the scriptures you
    want to support a belief,but,the place to look is within ourself. Gods
    spirit manifests itself from the heart. Each of us must find and
    develop our relationship with God,from within. Each will be different. 
    Gods spirit is Love. As we give of ourselves to others,we receive many
    blessings of the spirit. So,as we give to our brothers and sisters
    temporal help,we receive Love in return for our own willingness to give
    it. So here is the connection:
    
                 Love(spiritual) } gives temporal needs} Love (spiritual)
    
                So here the temporal links the spiritual together between
                brothers and sisters.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

Consider more fully the comment "God removes the slums from inside people..."

If a person in a poor area enters a nice building, he gets a feeling of some
awe and respect for the physical facility. Suppose he comes in as a guest to
play a basketball game or attend an english class, he still is softened in spirit
when he is in a clean, pleasant environment.  As he comes back more often, he
tends to relate to the building some more. It is a place where he feels good,
yet it is also a place that he feels part of to some degree (if only the place
where "I" play basketball, or the nice building in "my" neighborhood). As he
starts to identify with this thing that  gives him a feeling of respect, he 
gets a little better feeling of respect for himself. 

This subtle but very real kind of feeling often is the important first key to
opening up a person's heart and starting to build in them a sense of self 
respect.

Now suppose that person goes on to become a part of that congregation, now that
sense of identification with the building is much stronger. Suppose he gets to
help clean up around it, or fix it up or do any of the many other tasks that
our members do all the time. Now he gets a much stronger sense of ownership and
pride in the building and in himself.

What about the members of that congregation that sacrificed time and money to
help build that building, They can look and say "look what we did". For some it
may be the first time they can feel really proud of one of their accomplishments.

Yes the beauty of the buildings gives the people something very very valuable,
and it comes from the personal sacrifice involved. This effect can be seen so
many times. Consider when a branch starts in a new area, and meets in someone's
home, how much better they feel when they finally get a rented place that they
can all claim some "ownership" of. Then when they get to build a building that
htey really "own" the growth of the individuals is much much greater.  I have
seen it in some poor areas, especially in Chile where I served as a missionary
(many years ago). 

Consider how important it was that the people in Kirtland struggled to build the
Temple there, the Lord knew that they would have to abandon it soon, why not
build something much simpler, why have people give even their china plates just
to make it glisten in the sun?  Because it pulled them together as an organi-
zation and built them as individuals. The building of the Kirtland Temple was
critical to moving the church from it's fledgling stage.

Consider the extreme sacrifice to finish the temple in Nauvoo, even when they 
knew that they would leave it immediatly, in fact they burned it themselves.
One of the reasons was to let them know that they could build a fine and beaut-
iful building as a capstone to a clean and neat city. They needed to know that
as they stepped off into the unknown wilderness.

I for one consider that the church's building program is truly inspired. It builds
simple functional buildings that are still beautiful and capable of instilling
a feeling of awe and respect in the persons there. It is financed in such a way
that the people who take part feel the strong bond and sense of ownership that
comes from personal sacrifice. This makes them feel much better about themselves
ans what they accomplish. Oh sure I know that this program is administered by
mortals and have seen numerous "war stories" about it, but still when I know 
that there about one thousand such projects going on each year, I feel truly 
excited at all the good that this is doing for lots of people. It truly is 
responding the the request to "feed my sheep".

The thing that I did not state but is so important is that as that person begins
to feel some self confidence, he is able to try a few more things, if he is so
fortunate to have good friends who help him see the sucesses in what he tries 
then his self confidence grows again and he goeson to bigger and better things.
If there is one particular thing that lifts a person out of the slums it is
self confidence. (that is why it is so important to really believe that one is
a child of God). There are those that get things my "muscling" their way around,
They do not have self confidence, they are instead trying to prove their worth
at every turn by hurting others, in fact part of the reason that they enjoy 
seeing others hurt is because they are hurting so much inside themselves. But
if you find a person in what ever environment, slums included, that begins to 
develop a honest appreciation of himself, you will find that that person starts
to better their own situation and that of those around them. That these wonderful
buildings can do this for people all around the world, is truly a wonderful.
wonderful thing.

By the way, I heard recently that the Church has been invited to send people to
help build housing in Armenia to rebuild from the earthquake. It seems that there
is little wood available in that area so they build from concrete, and their 
technology of concrete is very poor. So the church will be sending in people to
help build but also to help those there build more effectively. Not only will
they be building housing, but also they will be building some places of worship.
They will also be, in a very real way, be building people.

Yes those churches are in my mind a very good investment of money and a very real
way to do as the Savior directs. Remember the  saying "give a man a fish and you
feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". Build-
self confidence through association with beautiful buildings and loyal friends
as the church does, is truly preparing him to "fish" in this world.

Your brother,
Len

If a person had easy access to all the money they might need, and yet could keep 
their focus on helping other people then they would not worry at all, in teaching
those people, about money.

God has no need for money, and could solve out "Temporal" needs any time that it
seemed to him like the best thing to do. So he tries to get us to focus on 
"Spiritual" things.

Hapy is the person that can really learn this lesson (someday I hope to learn
it fully).

Your Brother

Len

I vote for the concept that all commandments of God have a spiritual aspect,
even though they may only seem temporal at first.  I think that one of the 
lessons in building a nice building is that we learn that it takes a lot of
work, sacrifice and care to do it right.  But, we know that it is only a 
building.  The really important thing is the Church or congregation that meet
there to worship.  Having come to an understanding of how much work it is to
create the building, we are now ready to understand how much the Lord expects
of us in terms of building His Church, in terms of adding to the Body of 
Christ.  Without this lesson, we might be content with lesser efforts.


Steve 

    Re. a few back.
    
    James2:14-17 talks about faith and works.  
    
    I agree with what Len said about buildings and how they affect an area. 
    I tried to say some of the same things in my earlier reply.  To add a
    note to what he and others have said.  This isn't really scriptural or
    anything but nevertheless, it makes sense.
    
    Give a man some fish and feed him for a day.  Teach him to fish and
    feed him for a lifetime.
    
    This applies to how I think we should solve the problem of feeding the
    masses (needy).  We should teach them how to provide for themselves. 
    The problem lies in how to implement this.  A colleague told me of
    someone (Carl Hess) who conducted a study in the ghettos of New York. 
    They were going to show them how to raise fish in tanks on top of the
    apartment buildings.  When they tried to implement the program and
    teach the people how to do it, the guy was interested only because it
    looked neat.  When he found out he would be taken off of welfare then he
    backed off and said no way, I got this check coming today.
    
    scott
    

    
    
    Education is very important if people are to take care of their needs.
    It would take a lot of money. People must be willing to work to get out
    of poverty. I agree,a lot of social programs prevent this by handing
    out money without anything attached to it. This is wrong. Its easier to
    bounce from shelter to shelter than it is to get a job. I know,I have a
    son who will not be responsible for his life. He will not work,he lives
    on the street out of shelters and soup kitchens,spending his time at
    support places. He knows how to live that way. Its a whole system of
    well meaning people wanting to help,but,it only prevents him from doing
    something for himself. And it exposes him to the drug culture. He just
    recently overdosed on a prescription drug,started a rehab
    program,dropped out when he couldnt be without his drug nicotine. He
    knew that there was a place he could go,so,why put up with doing rehab.
        Our culture is so hypocritical. We fight to keep drugs like heroin
    out of our country,and,at the same time promote alcohol and nicotine.
    Its a crazy world we live in. I would help anyone if they needed
    it,and, was willing to do something in return. I wont keep helping
    those who will not help themselves.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    > I would help anyone if they needed it,and, was willing to do 
    > something in return. I wont keep helping those who will not
    > help themselves.     
    
    Those who *will* not help themselves - we can and do help them by
    refraining from providing help (in the physical sense).  I, too, 
    suffer as my children meet the results of their incorrect choices.  
    I try to remember that I cannot choose for them and that they know 
    where help is to be found; and I try to love them and pray for them 
    always.  I do not always succeed, and then I tend to judge (sometimes
    harshly) and to feel anger and even despair.
    
    If I will remember the principles of agency, and take my sorrow to
    my Heavenly Father, He helps me turn from the destructive emotions
    and find peace.  This, you all understand, is not accomplished in
    a heartbeat - or even two!  :)
    
    It's wonderful that we need not rely *only* upon our own judgment  
    when determining how and when to help our children, and indeed all
    our brethren.            
                                                             
    aq
    

    
    Ann,
    
      I understand your point. I guess we COULD help them by not helping
    them. IT IS difficult to watch your children suffer because of their
    choices,and,even more when YOU WANT to come to the rescue but know that
    it would be taking their RESPONSIBILITY away from them. I cant LIVE for
    them,they must do it themselves. Truely,I know how the father felt in
    the parable about the good son,and,the lost one.
    
    Peace
    Michael