• BattleStar Galactica and Mormonism March 31 - 12:49 pm

This board needs some interior decorating.

Matt, the Book of Mormon, as I understand it, conflicts with the Bible. Is this true, and if so, how do you resolve the differences? MikeC

All I can say is, I've read the Book of Mormon through various times, and I've even read the entire Bible more than once, and I don't see any conflicts arising between what the two books say. Some people claim there are inconsistencies, but many of those people haven't even read the Book of Mormon, so I hardly think they're qualified to make such an assessment. Have you heard any specific ways in which people believe the Book of Mormon conflicts with the Bible? If so, I'd be happy to address them to the best of my ability.

Matt Duke, how do the bishop and the ward clerk know if you're tithing? When you get a job, are you required to report your salary to the church, so they can inform you how much you are to tithe? It sounds a little like "Big Brother" to me. (I'm referring to the book version, not the TV show!) margie

Church members do not report their salaries to the church. Maybe I shouldn't have said that the ward clerk knows who's paying a full tithing, because in a sense that's not true. He and the bishop do know how much tithing money any particular person donated. The bishop, at the end of the year, gets together with each member individually, and they go over the carbon copies of the member's tithing slips from the entire year, and so the member can see exactly how much he/she paid. The bishop asks the person if the amount is correct. It's pretty much the honor system.

1. I've heard that in the Mormon faith, you must continue to do works for your salvation (or exaltation). Is this true?
2. I also fail to see where the Nature of Heaven in the Mormon faith is biblical. Is this from the other books?
3. Also, does the Mormon faith recognize original sin?
4. What about baptism by proxy?

Good questions. Let's see...

1. I've heard that in the Mormon faith, you must continue to do works for your salvation (or exaltation). Is this true?

I think this will answer that question, unless I misunderstood you:

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.
18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life. (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 31:17-20)

2. I also fail to see where the Nature of Heaven in the Mormon faith is biblical. Is this from the other books?

There's a lot to say about this, but I'll make do with something concise and to the point (I hope). By "the Nature of Heaven in the Mormon faith" I'm going to assume you mean the belief in the Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial Kingdoms. The Book of Mormon doesn't use such specific terminology, and like the Bible, uses the terms "heaven" and "hell" frequently in referring to the afterlife. (Though you might be interested in 2 Cor. 10:2, where Paul mentions a "third heaven", which I believe is a referrence to the Celestial Kingdom) I don't know to what extent the ancient saints understood the concept of the three kingdoms, but what we now know about them comes mostly from a section in Doctrine and Covenants, which contains revelations from Jesus Christ given in modern times.

Here's a link, if you want a detailed account: D&C Section 76

3. Also, does the Mormon faith recognize original sin?

We recognize the Fall of Adam, and that it brought sin into the world, but we don't believe that people are born into sin. So I guess the answer is, no we don't recognize "original sin."

38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.
39 And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers. (D&C 93:38-39)

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." (Article of Faith 2)

4. What about baptism by proxy?

Are you asking whether baptism for the dead is an idea in harmony with the Bible, or are you asking something else?

The Book of Mormon doesn't make any mention of baptism for the dead. Doctrine and Covenants discusses it somewhat. There is actually one referrence in the Bible to the practice, in 1 Cor. 15:29.

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The "original sin" part sort of seems to contradict Romans' "Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men..." (I understand that man would probably still sin even without original sin, but...)

I also just am curious. How did the LDS decide which books beside Scriptures were from "divine inspiration?"

It took me a while to find that verse in Romans! I don't think that verse nullifies the LDS perspective, really. We believe that the transgression of Adam and Eve brought into the world physical death (the death of our mortal bodies), and spiritual death (our separation from the presence of God). Both of these are elements of condemnation which the Atonement of Christ overcomes for us. Here's an interesting Book of Mormon scripture:

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 3:19)

This speaks of the "natural man". Like you said, even without original sin, we'd probably end up sinning anyway. It's a consequence of our separation from the presence of God that the fall brought about, I think. That verse in Romans, with its surrounding verses, pretty much says that because these conditions were brought into the world, Christ was needed to remedy them. I think that jives perfectly well with another LDS scripture:

54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.
55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good. (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 6:54-55)

Christ's Atonement takes care of the universal problems of death and sin, such that we are not held accountable for something Adam and Eve did. We still have our own sins to worry about, of course. I think the Bible itself agrees with this.

19 ¶ Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:19-20)

I don't think our perspective is so very different from the idea of original sin. I'd say the main difference is that we believe children are innocent until they become personally accountable, the Atonement having saved them from the conditions Adam brought.

"Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them..." (Book of Mormon, Moroni 8:8)

How did the LDS decide which books beside Scriptures were from "divine inspiration?"

Well, first it's important to understand that we believe in revelation. We believe that God calls prophets in our day, and directs them as he did ancient prophets. We also believe that through the Holy Ghost we can receive personal revelation to guide our own lives. Church leaders can receive revelation to guide them in their callings. But we believe that no one has the authority to receive any revelations for the guidence of the entire church, except for the President of the Church, who is a prophet of God. Early on in church history, a church member claimed he was receiving revelations regarding the entire church, and the Lord revealed the following to Joseph Smith:

2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.
4 And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it.
5 But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom;
6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church;
7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead. (D&C 28:2, 4-7)

Therefore, if the Lord is to reveal anything new to us, we know that it will come through the President of the Church, and no one else. Not all revelations received by the prophets are canonized. If the Lord sees fit that they should be, they are presented to the church as a whole for acceptance. The last time this occurred was in 1978, when the following was accepted and shortly afterwards added to the book of Doctrine and Covenants: Official Declaration 2

"For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." (D&C 28:13)

We are not expected to just blindly accept things as God's word. We are expected to pray and ask God if they are true. The only way to really know is through the Holy Ghost, who can teach us the truth of such things. We take this approach to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and modern-day revelations.

Does the LDS feel that Christians that do not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon do not have salvation?

I'll jump in here because I used to be a Mormon until I discovered that I made a better sinner than a saint.

Mormonism is a great system as far as salvation is concerned. My biggest reason for being an atheist (or at least an agnostic) when I was young was simple: what if I devoted my entire life to praising God through this or that religion only to get to the gates and be turned away because I picked the wrong one? And what about devout members of other non-Christian religions? Certainly they weren't going to go to hell were they? After all, there's nothing to say that they aren't as good of people as Christians are and just as worthy of salvation.
Now the Mormons have a beautiful approach to this: the only people that go to Hell in the Mormon system are... ex-Mormons! Everyone else, even the sinners, is given a chance to convert while in the "waiting room" between here and heaven. If they accept, in they go- but to one of the lesser kingdoms. Mind you, this is heaven we're talking about- the least of the kingdoms is probably beyond our realm of imagination. The hitch to all of this is that if you want to get into the highest kinddom and hang around with God and Jesus any time you want, you have to be a devout Mormon... a very devout Mormon. You also have to be married, which isn't such a bad rule. But if you're a wavering Mormon like me, don't count on getting into any of the kingdoms! (In other words, if you're thinking about becoming a Mormon, think long and hard about it because it's a real change of lifestyle.)

That doesn't sound like anything biblical to me.

It doesn't really to me either MikeC.

I never said my perspective was biblical! Far from it... and I'm far from being an authority on Mormon beliefs so please don't take my word for it!

D.W., I don't consider myself one of the best authorities on Mormon beliefs, but I'd like to comment on a thing or two you stated, if I may.

the only people that go to Hell in the Mormon system are... ex-Mormons!

It sounds like you're limiting your definition of hell to only mean outer darkness, where Satan and his angels end up. Also, keep in mind that not all ex-Mormons will go there, only those that become sons of perdition by committing the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, and those people are very few. "Hell" has a broader definition than that, and refers also to spirit prison, where all the unrighteous must suffer until they are resurrected, whether they're LDS, former LDS, or never were LDS.

Yes, many who were unrepentant in life will end up in lessor kingdoms, but it sounds as though you think this will be hunky-dorry for them. They will still end up suffering for their sins before they enter their final kingdom. Jesus said,

15 Therefore I command you to repent--repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore--how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit--and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink--
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. (D&C 19:15-19)

Though the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms are degrees of "heaven", they still mean damnation, in a sense, for those who receive them. They are blocked in their eternal progression forever. They may have a degree of salvation, but not exaltation.

I'm curious, D.W., are you actually atheist (or at least agnostic, as you say), or do you still hold LDS beliefs but not follow them? Has your name been removed from church records, or are you still technically a member of the church?

That doesn't sound like anything biblical to me. MikeC

It doesn't really to me either MikeC. Jwb

These beliefs are derived from more sources than just the Bible, of course. Do you mean that they sound like they are in conflict with what the Bible says?

Does the LDS feel that Christians that do not follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon do not have salvation? MikeC

That's not really something that can be answered with a simple yes or no, because what you mean when you say "salvation" may be different than what I mean when I say it. I suppose I can simplify the matter by not going outside the confines of the question. Let's start with a passage in Acts, where Peter said,

22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. (Acts 3:22-23)

I'm sure you won't disagree with me that Peter was equating this prophet to Jesus. I'm also sure you won't disagree with me that those who reject Christ's words are in serious trouble. Since we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, and to contain Christ's words, this warning of Moses and Peter applies to it as well. Jesus gave the same warning in the Book of Mormon,

"Therefore it shall come to pass that whosoever will not believe in my words, who am Jesus Christ...(it shall be done even as Moses said) they shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant." (3 Nephi 21:11)

Those who knowingly reject the words of Christ and don't repent can't receive the fullness of salvation.

As far as I know I'm still considered a member of the church although I stopped attending a long time ago for many good reasons, my love of coffee being the least of them.

And I apologize for putting the discussion off track... what I meant to say was that I thought one of the nicer things about the Mormon church was the fact that faithful members of other churches weren't eternally damned simply because they unknowingly made the wrong choice. I personally don't like the fact now that I've chosen to be a Mormon because it's very incompatible with being me and I worry about going to Hell or outer darkness. So I have to encourage anyone who is thinking about becoming a church member to give it real honest thought. Are you really ready to tithe 10 percent of your income? Are you ready to research your family's history in great detail? (you'd be surprised how many people aren't) Are you ready to give up coffee, cigarettes, drugs, alcohols, swearing and any beverage with caffiene in it? Of course, being a Mormon isn't just about those things and it is a wonderful church but I personally felt overwhelmed by the details. I currently take a more laid-back approach to God, thinking that if he's got anything really important for me to do, he'll let me know one way or another.

What is this unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost that Duke speaks of?

What is this unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost that Duke speaks of? MJ

Sorry, sometimes I slip into LDS-terminology that other people probably don't understand. (I wonder if sometimes I do it on purpose just to encourage further questions? Hmmm...) This sin against the Holy Ghost is basically to deny and fight against God after one knows the truth. And I mean knows the truth. Joseph Smith said that to commit the unpardonable sin, a person "must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him...he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened to him, and to deny the Plan of Salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it." Since a person can only receive such a full knowledge of the truth of God through the Holy Ghost, it is called the sin (or "blasphemy"; Matthew 12:31) against the Holy Ghost, because it is a complete denial that the Holy Ghost ever made known these things to the person. It's rare enough that a person attains such a level of knowledge about God, and rarer that such a person would later turn his back and fight against it all, therefore, sons of perdition are very few.

D.W., thanks for the response. I think I misunderstood part of your first post, and I appreciate the further info. I hope you don't feel I was trying to pry into personal matters, or anything, though.

I'm just a little confused about the "least of the kingdoms" deal--it sounds like the Catholic Purgatory, which I can't find anything about in the Bible. Didn't Jesus say "Nobody gets to my Father except through me"?, or does the LDS believe this is referring to only people get to the "full kingdoms" through Jesus?

Well, I'm not an expert on Catholic doctrines, including Purgatory, but as I understand it, Catholics say that people who are there may eventually be let into heaven, and that prayers of the living in their behalf have something to do with it. The closest thing in our doctrine to purgatory would be Spirit Prison, though there are no doubt many fundamental differences.

After a final judgment, people will enter one of the three kingdoms, but afterwards there will be no advancement. Those in the Telestial Kingdom cannot play their cards right and eventually be let into the Terrestrial or Celestial. Since the Father resides in the Celestial Kingdom, they can't come unto the Father.

In any case, Jesus is making possible everyone's salvation, no matter which kingdom they end up in. He made possible the resurrection for all mankind, through the Atonement. The Atonement also redeems the world from the spiritual death (separation from God) that resulted from the fall of Adam. If Jesus had not performed the Atonement, none of us could enter even the Telestial Kingdom, let alone the Terrestrial or Celestial.

Those who end up in the lower kingdoms receive at least that much salvation through Jesus, but there's still the matter of their own personal sins, which they didn't repent of. The sufferings of those in hell only satisfy the demands of justice, since those people wouldn't accept mercy. The sins are answered on their heads, but they don't come out of it cleansed of their sins. Only Christ can cleanse people's sins, and only those who are cleansed can come unto the Father in the Celestial Kingdom, so yes, only through Christ can we come to the Father.

Okay, so to make sure I'm understanding Duke correctly...

I am Wiccan. After I die, I'm to be given irrefutable proof of Christ and God and all that. If I still deny that proof, then it's an unpardonable sin, and I'm going to Hell. If I accept that proof, and repent, and do everthing else I'm supposed to, then I'll go into one of the three Kingdoms.

Right?

(Personally, I'm aiming for Circle of Hell that holds virtuous pagans...wait...I already came from Hell. Whoops.)

I never said that in the spirit world you'd be given irrefutable proof of the plan of salvation, so no, rejecting it there won't constitute the unpardonable sin.

Sorry Machiko, you had your chance to get into outer darkness, and you passed it up. (There I go again, encouraging more questions, I hope... Bad Duke...slap! ) At this point I'd say you have at least a 99.9999999999% chance of making it into at least the Telestial Kingdom. Congratulations!

LMAO @ the Disney-like afterlife, complete with the E-Ticket level of eternal bliss. God Bless the Gullible, and tax(ooops, TITHE) 'em ten percent. ;~}

I had my chance? How'd I pass it up?

And what'd I do that gives me such a good chance of escaping Arizona again?

Or do Mormons believe as Wiccans - that all faiths lead to the same end?

LMAO @ the Disney-like afterlife, complete with the E-Ticket level of eternal bliss. God Bless the Gullible, and tax(ooops, TITHE) 'em ten percent. ;~} Not An Elder

Very amusing...I guess. What does LMAO mean, anyway?

I had my chance? How'd I pass it up?
And what'd I do that gives me such a good chance of escaping Arizona again? Machiko

Arizona=Outer Darkness, huh? Interesting... Of course, I haven't spent enough time in Arizona to be able to ascertain the validity of this claim, so I'll just take your word for it. Well, you had your chance to be thrust out into outer darkness back in pre-mortality. You passed it up by doing the very thing that, as you say, gives you such a good chance of escaping Arizona.

As I may have stated elsewhere, all of us lived with God before the earth was created, as His spirit children. There, He presented us all with the Plan of Salvation, which would involve us coming to Earth to be tested. If we passed, we would return to our Father and receive exaltation (that's the tip-top kind of salvation). The role of the Savior was vital to this plan, since being a bunch of weak mortals with free will, we'd end up sinning during life, to some degree, at least, and we'd need a Savior to free us from sin.

From the beginning, God's plan was to select Jesus Christ as our Savior, and we accepted Him. Some, however, did not accept Him. Lucifer (Satan) rebelled against Heavenly Father and Jesus and many followed after him. They were therefore cast out of God's presence, and because they rejected God's plan with a perfect knowledge of it, they never received, and never will receive, the opportunity to be born into a body and to continue in their eternal progression.

You, Miss M, believe it or not, accepted Jesus Christ as the Savior in your pre-mortal life, and that is why you are now passing through mortality, the next stage in the God's plan. You may snicker or even scoff at the suggestion, but it's true. That's why you're not bad enough to be cast off into Arizona forever when all is said and done.

Or do Mormons believe as Wiccans - that all faiths lead to the same end?

No ma'am. Certainly not.

Ahhhhhhh...got it now.

And to clarify, Wiccans (well, most...well, I do, darnit!) believe that all faiths lead to the same end. You call it Heaven, we call it Summerland. You say God and Jesus and Mary, we say Oak King and Holly King and Triple Goddess.

All just different words for the same thing.

I dunno, Duke, this doesn't seem to jive with what Revelation says, but do the Mormons take this literally or not?

::You, Miss M, believe it or not, accepted Jesus Christ as the Savior in your pre-mortal life, and that is why you are now passing through mortality, the next stage in the God's plan. You may snicker or even scoff at the suggestion, but it's true. That's why you're not bad enough to be cast off into Arizona forever when all is said and done.:: Matt Duke

Is that a Biblical concept? Is it something in Revelation that not everyone takes literally?

As I may have stated elsewhere, all of us lived with God before the earth was created, as His spirit children. There, He presented us all with the Plan of Salvation, which would involve us coming to Earth to be tested. If we passed, we would return to our Father and receive exaltation (that's the tip-top kind of salvation). The role of the Savior was vital to this plan, since being a bunch of weak mortals with free will, we'd end up sinning during life, to some degree, at least, and we'd need a Savior to free us from sin.
Umm , I'm sorry You believe this tripe, as I truly hate to laugh at others for their faults, but hey, YOU just ask for it..... LMAO=Laughing My Ass Off. BTW,,,,, Well I was going to ask you a question, but given your stated beliefs, I won't waste our time being as we live in different realities.

I dunno, Duke, this doesn't seem to jive with what Revelation says, but do the Mormons take this literally or not? MikeC

I'd say that for the most part we don't take Revelation literally. Most of the book is written with so many symbols and metaphors that it would be difficult to believe it that way (my apologies to those who keep their camaras handy in hopes of getting a shot, someday, of that seven-headed beast...). Occasionally, certain symbols are given enough explanation that they can be taken to a more literal level.

MikeC, is there some particular part in Revelation that you feel is in conflict with a specific thing I mentioned above?

Is that a Biblical concept? Jwb

Well, certainly not the part about Arizona. As for the rest, I've said previously that we have a number of beliefs that derive mainly from scripture outside of the Bible and statements by latter-day prophets. Earlier I listed some Bible passages that at least alluded to the pre-mortal existence, but I'm sure they didn't help much. If this doctrine were spelled out so clearly in the Bible, there wouldn't be the need of a further revelation to clarify the matter. We haven't gone and established doctrines on the backs of difficult-to-understand biblical tidbits, but further revelation has brought to our attention the meanings behind those tidbits.


In closing, I'd just like to thank everyone out there who can disagree with my beliefs without deriding them and spitting upon them. Much appreciated.

Not an Elder, shuddup. Thanks.

Matt Duke, I'm just curious about the part in the Bible when all who's names are not written in the Book of Life are thrown into the Lake of Fire. Do the Mormons believe that this is (a) symbolic, (b) the Lake of Fire is not "Arizona," but the Telestial Kingdom, or (c) these are the really bad folks (like Mr. March ) that will be thrown into "Arizona."

I have a question about the no caffeine rule. Does this include chocolate, or is it only caffeinated drinks?

Margie, mormons consider the body a "temple" and to use anything at all that could possibly harm it in any way whatsoever is defiling the temple and a sin. Right Matt Duke?

Not just Mormons--I believe that too.

So you don't drink caffeine or eat anything unhealthy ever, MikeC?

Matt Duke, I'm just curious about the part in the Bible when all who's names are not written in the Book of Life are thrown into the Lake of Fire. Do the Mormons believe that this is (a) symbolic, (b) the Lake of Fire is not "Arizona," but the Telestial Kingdom, or (c) these are the really bad folks (like Mr. March ) that will be thrown into "Arizona." MikeC

That's a good example, MikeC. Revelation 20:12-15, right? I've thought about that one quite a bit myself, actually. The answer, as I understand it, isn't (a), (b), or (c). Yes, there are symbols used in the passage, the book of life, and the lake of fire. Our interpretations of these are that those in the book of life are those who will receive eternal life, that is, those who will enter the Celestial Kingdom. All the rest must be cast into the lake of fire, which is hell. (We consider the "fire" part to be symbolic of suffering, and not representative of actual flames.)

Remember that to Latter-day Saints, the term "hell" can be used in more than one sense. It can refer to Outer Darkness, which we've dubbed "Arizona" , but it can, and usually does, also refer to Spirit Prison, or even to the suffering that the sinful experience in life, being under bondage of sin. Those who die without being in "the book of life" will have to endure "hell" to some degree. Those in Spirit Prison are in the devil's power, so it's pretty much the same thing as being in Outer Darkness, I assume. The difference is, the devil and his angels will remain in that state forever, while most of the rest will be released into a kingdom of glory (except the aforementioned "sons of perdition") after the resurrection. A verse that I feel goes along nicely with this passage is Rev. 21:8, which states that the unbelieving, abominable, etc., "shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone..." I believe the phrase "shall have their part" can be interpretted to imply a temporary condition. Other people may draw other interpretations, I don't doubt.

I shouldn't presume to venture an opinion as to the final destination of our dear Mr. DW March (even my guess of 99.9999...whatever percent for Machiko was for humor's sake, of course). I think, though, even his chances of ending up in Outer Darkness forever are slim. Don't quote me on that, though. Hmmm, remind me never to become a motivational speaker...

I have a question about the no caffeine rule. Does this include chocolate, or is it only caffeinated drinks? margie

I hope not! I mean, I just ate a Crunch bar!

Really, though, that's kind of hard to answer. I've certainly heard of some LDS who won't touch chocolate. I'd say that Jwb's post is mostly correct, and we don't intentially harm our bodies. I think that his statement that we consider using "anything" unhealthy as a "sin" is a bit inaccurate. At this time, the Lord has commanded us not to use alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea. He has made no specific mention of caffeine. Still, the point of "the Word of Wisdom", as we call the commandment, is the principle of it. The Lord said it was "given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." (D&C 89:3) The principle is basically just what J said, that the body is a temple and we shouldn't damage it. The Lord may not have commanded against caffeine, but I'm sure it doesn't please Him when we use it. Caffeine isn't really against the letter of the law, but most feel it's against the spirit of it. Personally, I don't see much harm in chocolate. I know there's caffeine in it, but as far as I know, the amount is miniscule. Maybe I shouldn't try so hard to justify myself, though...

Jwb, I admit I do eat unhealthy things (and caffeine, but mostly through pop--I'm not a coffee guy), but I also try to balance that with healthy things, and not eat a whole spurt of unhealthy things at once. That's also the reason why I believe smoking and using drugs are wrong.

::Really, though, that's kind of hard to answer. I've certainly heard of some LDS who won't touch chocolate. I'd say that Jwb's post is mostly correct, and we don't intentially harm our bodies. I think that his statement that we consider using "anything" unhealthy as a "sin" is a bit inaccurate. At this time, the Lord has commanded us not to use alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea. He has made no specific mention of caffeine. Still, the point of "the Word of Wisdom", as we call the commandment, is the principle of it. The Lord said it was "given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." (D&C 89:3) The principle is basically just what J said, that the body is a temple and we shouldn't damage it. The Lord may not have commanded against caffeine, but I'm sure it doesn't please Him when we use it. Caffeine isn't really against the letter of the law, but most feel it's against the spirit of it. Personally, I don't see much harm in chocolate. I know there's caffeine in it, but as far as I know, the amount is miniscule. Maybe I shouldn't try so hard to justify myself, though...:: Matt Duke

Someone should ask your leaders what they think about when science discovers good things about things that you believe God told you to avoid.

Someone should ask your leaders what they think about when science discovers good things about things that you believe God told you to avoid. Jwb

Feel free to, pal. You can reach them at the following mailing address:

50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84150

Address your letter to any of the following:

President Gordon B. Hinckley
President Thomas S. Monson
President James E. Faust
President Boyd K. Packer
Elder L. Tom Perry
Elder David B. Haight
Elder Neal A. Maxwell
Elder Russell M. Nelson
Elder Dallin H. Oaks
Elder M. Russell Ballard
Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin
Elder Richard G. Scott
Elder Robert D. Hales
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland
Elder Henry B. Eyring

Matt Duke, it really isn't my place to be asking them because I'm not a Mormon. Another Mormon should be asking.

Why? It makes more sense to me if someone of another faith asks. It promotes understanding outside of the religion.

And it's your question anyway, not Duke's. Don't pawn it off on him.

Unless you initially meant that he should ask? Should have said that, instead of "someone."

Gee , this DEEP coversation is still just a Deep Pile. Should I now ask a friendly question and give a hug to someone who Believes I will BURN in Hell, Gee , your beliefs are so, soo, BOGUS. OK, I bought the 12 speed bike, helmet, white shirt, nametag, etc.. ummm the middle aged Jehovah Witness women got the Block first.... Was that God's Will????? Or Just Bad Luck?

You know Mohammed, it always amazes me when I see a post like yours. It amazes me that people like you can even read. Take your intolerant attitude elsewhere. In case you didn't notice, there is a little notice at the top of this page that says "No FLAMING." Now you obviously haven't done much book learing so I'll explain it to you. It means that if you don't like Mormons YOU KEEP YOUR OPINION TO YOURSELF. You don't act like the foolish 12-year old that you probably are, spitting on the beliefs of some of this world's best people simply because you are a prick who at some time in your pathetic life was offended somehow by the Mormon belief system. There are plenty of places out there in the wastelands of the Internet where weasels like you can go and sprout your filth but this is not one of them. And I'm sure the moderator will back me up on this one. I don't know what Mormons ever did to you but if you have a beef with them, this is not the place to be airing it.
(And as further proof that Mohammed doesn't read much, see the above discussion where Matt Duke was kind enough to explain that not everyone of different belief systems ends up in hell. Not even jerks like Mohammed, although I'd be happy to see him there!)
BTW, my apologies to the moderator for coming down on this guy so hard, but someone has to straighten these intolerant little jerks out before they ruin a perfectly good message board. I've seen it happen before...

Way to expound, D Dubya.

Wine or Welch's?

I thought someone might find this fun, if they don't mind badly designed HTMLs. Since I had no idea how to thumbnail pictures when I made it (and I still don't really know how), you might want to avoid it altogether if you have a slow modem.

Elder Duke's Amazing Mission Photo Gallery

BTW, the adjective "amazing" was meant ironically...

A man asks Utah senator (and Mormon Orin Hatch who were those ladies he was with last night. Orin replies, "Those were no ladies. Those were my wives." Sorry, cheap shot about the polygamy practice. A Morman can now give the specific date that they declared polygamy wrong.

Anonymous: Yeha it was the date the won the bid for the winter olympics.

They renounced polygamy as a precursor to Utah being accepted as a state in the Union. Which IIRC, would place it around the last part of the 1800's.

Brian Webber was just making a little joke (sans smily face) about polygamy and the winter olympics (I hope...). Church president Wilford Woodruff released what was called "The Manifesto" (not related in any way to the Unibomber's tretise of the same name... ) in the year 1890, and the LDS church performed no "plural" marriages after that time. For more information, here's a link Official Declaration 1

The discontinuance of polygamy did facilitate the acceptance of Utah as a state, but it was not discontinued for political reasons. Utah had been petitioning to become a state since at least the 1860s, and maybe even the 1850s, and was denied statehood back then because of polygamy, yet they didn't give it up.

President Woodruff claimed a revelation from God on the matter, which commanded that the practice be stopped. The church had not changed its doctrine, but had acknowledged the laws passed by the US making polygamy illegal, and had followed the Lord's command to submit to that law.

Since that old August 25, 2001 link of mine no longer goes anywhere, I might as well update it.

Wine or Welch's? Grape juice provides health benefits without alcohol

I read that the Mormon church is toning down its missionary work in Salt Lake City during the olympics. What I couldn't figure out is: did the Church decide to do it on their own, or were they pressured by the Olympic committee or the legislature or something? Anyone know? What do the church members think about it?

As far as I know, Margie, the Church made the decision itself, and wasn't pressured by outside sources. I found a quote by Mitt Romney, the head of the Olympic Organizing Committee, who is a Church member. He said, "As with our sponsors, the feeling is that more is often less. If a sponsor, or the Church, is too overbearing, there is the potential for a backlash, and so the wise course for any institution is to be reserved." The Church won't be searching out and proselyting visitors to the Olympics, but will have plenty of resources available to answer anyone's questions. We're hoping a lot of people will be curious and want to know more.

Did anyone see the Olympics opening skit on this Saturday's SNL? It was of a female skier going down the slopes and suddenly two Mormon men appear next to her, trying to get her to convert to Mormonism. It was pretty funny.

Yeah, I saw that too. A Church opened up in my town a couple of years ago, and they came to my house trying to preach to me or sell me one of their books, so I can see the humor in it.

Although the LDS missionaries are more recognizable in their "uniforms" they are far less intrusive (some might even say obnoxious) than other missionaries (Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind -- I've had a few "interesting" conversations with them).

I assume that the church fathers decided to keep a low profile at the Olympics because they are already too ripe for thae kind of parody on SNL

I like that "less is more" statement. It makes sense-push someone too much & they'll never see your way, but just sit back and show them what you're about, and maybe some will come around.

>Although the LDS missionaries are more recognizable in their "uniforms" <

What do the uniforms look like? I don't think I've ever seen one.

Well, the ones in Union City, NJ wear white shirts with black ties, pants and shoes. Are those the ones you're familiar with, Tom?

That's the uniform! On my last trip to Hawaii, my wife and I were the only ones on the plane not dressed that way (they were all on their way to the BYU campus).

Matt, Duke: No offense intended!

That's why I put "uniforms" in quotes. It is ordinary "Sunday-go-to-meeting" clothing reflective of he importance their work. It only becomes a recognizable "uniform" because it is even more bereft of individual stylistic touches than the similar FBI "uniform" of the fifties and sixties.

The most uniform part of the "uniform" is the name plaque. That's the most tell-tell sign of all. The rest is more of a strict dress code. As for individual stylistic touches, in my experience, some missionaries do this through their neckties. This isn't consistent worldwide, but in some places the elders can wear bright, somewhat obnoxious ties.

*Nods* Yeah, the name badge that says "Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ" kinda smacks of LDS.

I can see how a lot of people miss it, though...;)

Ah, yes. I remember those now.

Speaking of dress codes and BYU in Hawaii, I was driving around Oahu one time with my family, and we asked a local person if he knew a good place to get lunch nearby. He said, "The BYU campus has good lunches, and they're cheap." He never mentioned a dress code to us.

When we got out of our car and started searching for the dining hall, we noticed that a few students were looking at us strangely. After lunch, my brother tried to light up a cigarette, and a student politely informed him that there was no smoking. A few steps later, we ran into a big sign that outlined the campus dress code. It turned out that my brother was violating just about every rule in the book. He was wearing shorts, a t-shirt (I think the shirts had to be button-down), an earring, and I believe his hair also violated some rule (it was bleached, maybe?). It seems like there were also a few other violations I'm forgetting. Not to mention the smoking, of course.

My brother is generally a pretty polite person, but that day he looked like a Class A jerk! We knew that Mormons usually dress neatly, but we didn't realize that there would be a campus dress code, and that it would apply to visitors as well. Oops! Our apologies to any BYU students out there.

On the topic of missionaries, there are a lot of young Mormon missionaries here in Japan, and they wear the standard white shirts, ties, and dark slacks and are usually seen riding bicycles in pairs. I like to see them, because whereas most foreigners in Japan tend to look withdrawn and sallow for some reason (including me), the young missionaries are healthy-looking and friendly, and they always say hello.

Which reminds me of a question I've always had, Matt. You never seem to see female missionaries here, and I was wondering if the church doesn't send them, or if it's just that they are harder to recognize because their "uniforms" are less standardized than the male missionaries?

I'm sorry you and your family had a bad experience at BYU Hawaii, Juli. You have no need to apologize. I'm a bit confused, though. I'm a student at BYU in Provo, and we have a dress code, but it only applies to students, not to visitors on campus. (And we can have t-shirts and bleached hair, doncha know...) Maybe the Hawaii campus is different. I don't know. The no smoking part, though, we have here as well. Just in case you ever happen to be in Provo and are looking for a bite to eat...

There are female missionaries in Japan, and if you haven't seen them, it may be just because they're less common than the male missionaries. But you're right, they have a broader dress standard, and are not as instantly recognizable as the elders. The name tag (and hopefully the sweet spirit that resonates from them ) is the dead give away.

Thanks for your response, Matt. I guess I'll have to look harder for those lady missionaries!

Your answer made me think of another question. You said that the female missionaries are not as recognizable as the "elders." Could you explain the usage of the term "elder"? Does it apply only to missionaries? Does it exclude women (if it does, is there a corresponding term for women)? Does the term have anything to do with age, rank, or length of membership in the church?

About the BYU story, you have nothing to apologize for, either. I think we only assumed that visitors were required to follow the dress code because of the way a lot of people were looking at (or rather, trying not to look at) my brother. It would be natural for them to react that way, considering they probably don't see grungy-looking people like my brother on their campus on a daily basis.

After I posted the first time I remembered the hair regulation. It had something to do with men not being allowed to grow their hair beyond their shirt collars. Does that sound right?

Oh, yeah. My brother also had a beard. I'm assuming facial hair is not exactly kosher, either?

My brother, the antiMormon.

(Not by design, I assure you.)

Juli-

The word "elder" (like the word "deacon") appears several times in Paul's writings, and seems to refer to a position in the organization of the Church. Many denominations use the word (or its equivalent "presbyter"*) as the title of one of their organizational positions, but not always the same one. I'm not sure exactly how the LDS uses it, but I assume Matt will be on soon to explain it to us all.

* The word presbyter is an Anglicized version of the actual Greek word Paul uses.

TomM's right about "elder" being a position in the church (like those ancient presbuteros). In the LDS church, it refers to any Melchizedek Priesthood holder. Most men in the church over 18 years old are elders, but the word is usually only applied as a title to the missionaries and church leaders. "Elder So-and-so", for example. The lady missionaries are called "sisters". "Deacons" are 12-13 year old boys.

Juli, your recollection of men's hair at BYU being above the collar is on the money. Yes, no beards, either (except for the professors...) In addition, sideburns can't go lower than the earlobe, or out onto the cheek. Therefore, Elvis-style muttonchops wouldn't work out. Moustaches are acceptable, but appartently not those of the Chester A. Arthur variety. Missionaries have similar facial hair guidelines, but their sideburns can only extend halfway down the ear, and they can't have moustaches, period! (Oh wait, that was an exclamation point, not a period...)

Got it (I think). Thanks, guys.

However, there are no restrictions on just how big someone's teeth can be (read: the Osmonds).

I've always thought of the term "elder" to mean, well, older folks, with decades of life experiences, so it seems a little silly to me to apply it to 18yo's, but that's just me. It's not a slur on the Mormon religion itself.

*** w62 5/15 313-8 The Book of Mormon Compared with the Bible ***
TO MEMBERS of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints The Book of Mormon is the word of God and is considered to be in complete harmony with the Bible. Their view was concisely expressed by Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses of July 13, 1862: "The Book of Mormon in no case contradicts the Bible. It has many words like those in the Bible, and as a whole is a strong witness to the Bible." Mormons with this firm confidence in The Book of Mormon should not object when others compare their book with the Bible. Their publicly expressed conviction that it is truthful is an invitation to others to make such a comparison. But first let us briefly compare the backgrounds of these two books.

The writing of the Bible was done over a period of more than 1600 years, and much of its historical narrative has been confirmed by many archaeological findings as well as by secular historians of different periods of time. Thousands of manuscript copies of the Bible in the original languages that date back close to the days of the apostles exist today. These are available for examination by all language scholars.

The claim made for The Book of Mormon is that it covers a period from about 600 B.C. to about A.D. 421. Joseph Smith claimed that he translated it from golden plates that he found in a hiding place revealed to him by an angel. The reason why the plates or copies of the text on them are not available for examination is explained by saying that the angel had forbidden Joseph Smith to show them to anyone except those designated by the angel. After the translating work was done the angel is said to have taken them away.

The mass of archaeological data and the secular records that confirm the accuracy of Biblical history is conspicuously absent with regard to what is claimed to be historical narrative in The Book of Mormon. Nor is the deep secrecy that surrounded the writing of The Book of Mormon characteristic of the production of the Bible. The stone tablets upon which God wrote the Law were neither taken back by an angel nor was Moses forbidden to display them. The same can be said for the other writings that make up the Bible. They were openly displayed and copies distributed far and wide.

THE SUPREME BEING

If The Book of Mormon contains the word of God, its doctrines should be in harmony with the Bible. Let us see if this is so regarding what it says about God. Concerning him Mosiah 3:5 states: "For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles." Here we find reflected the popular trinity doctrine of the churches of Christendom, which churches Joseph Smith considered to be wrong.

Consider a few more examples and note how The Book of Mormon boldly asserts that God and Christ are one God. Alma 11:38, 39 says: "Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." Mormon 7:7 speaks about singing praises "unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end." The Book of Mormon has Jesus Christ flatly saying, at 3 Nephi 11:14, "I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world."

Nowhere does the Bible make such trinitarian statements. At no time did Jesus Christ claim to be the "God of the whole earth" or the "God of Israel." On this point The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. Instead of saying that the Father and the Son are one God, the Bible reveals the Son to be a creature who was the beginning of the Creator's creations and who is subject to the Father even after his ascension to heaven. This is shown at 1 Corinthians 15:28, "But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."

Rather than claiming to be God in the flesh, Jesus Christ pointed out his dependence upon the Father and his inferiority to him by saying: "I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me."-John 5:30.

Frequently the Hebrew text of the Bible refers to the great Source of life as Elohim. The trinity doctrine is not proved by the fact that this word is in the plural form. It is applied not only to the true God but also to the pagan god Dagon, as at Judges 16:23, 24. When referring to the Father, who is identified in the Bible by the proper name Jehovah, the definite article ha is often used before Elohim. Instead of indicating a plurality of gods or persons in one God, it means the plural number of majesty or excellence, as with the royal "we."

JESUS CHRIST

A number of books in The Book of Mormon are dated before the coming of Christ, but they repeatedly talk about Jesus Christ, his sin-atoning sacrifice, his resurrection, his baptism in water, the baptism by the holy spirit, the salvation of man through Christ and the need of exercising faith in him in order to be saved. These things are mentioned with the great frequency that marks literary works produced after Jesus was killed and resurrected. Such statements about him become anachronisms in the time setting given them by The Book of Mormon. Being out of time-order, they conflict with the Bible, which places similar statements after Christ, not before his coming.

As might be expected when events are talked about out of time-order, The Book of Mormon occasionally slips and refers to them in the past tense instead of in the future tense. At 2 Nephi 31:6, 8 this is done. Speaking of Jesus Christ, these verses state: "Now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water? Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove." These verses are assigned a date between 559 B.C. and 545 B.C. The same thing is done at 2 Nephi 33:6: "I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell." How can a person supposedly living long before Christ made his sacrifice say that Christ had redeemed him?

About 124 years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem, The Book of Mormon has people crying out: "O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men." (Mosiah 4:2) How can a people cry for forgiveness of sins by the atoning blood of Christ long before that blood was shed and at a time when God's people were required to rely upon the animal sacrifices of the Law for atonement of sins?

Why do none of the Hebrew Bible writers talk about Jesus Christ, his sin-atoning sacrifice and resurrection as The Book of Mormon does? Did God reveal these vitally important things to people living in North America at that time and not to these beloved Hebrew servants of his? Mosiah 3:13 says: "The Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins." Why, then, did not the prophets living prior to 124 B.C., when Mosiah was supposed to have been written, mention these things in their inspired writings?

It would be wholly incredible to claim that the Bible text as we have it today is so defective because of copyist errors that not one reference to Jesus Christ by name and to his sacrifice was left in the copious writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. If such references had ever existed, surely the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures would have mentioned them. Rather than being grossly defective, the Biblical text as we have it today has been refined by comparison with very old manuscripts to the point where it is very accurate, little different from what the apostles had. What is subject to suspicion is not the accuracy of the Bible but the accuracy of The Book of Mormon.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Greek word biblía, from which we get the word Bible, was not used as a title for the Scriptures until the fifth century after Christ, The Book of Mormon has the term being used more than 500 years before Christ. It says at 2 Nephi 29:3, 10, "Many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words." The term Bible, or biblía, means "books" or "booklets" and is applied to the collection of inspired writings that are bound in codex form, that is with leaves and covers. No such collection existed when 2 Nephi was supposed to have been written. Here, then, is another inconsistency on the part of The Book of Mormon.

BIBLICAL QUOTES AND EXPRESSIONS

A very striking thing about The Book of Mormon is the frequent quotes or near quotes it makes from the Bible, the Authorized or King James Version. This was the version that was popular during the days of Joseph Smith. The books of the Bible were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek without chapter and verse divisions. These came in the sixteenth century after Christ. But in the numerous direct quotes from the Bible that are made by The Book of Mormon, the very same verse divisions as found in the Authorized Version are generally used. Except for the occasional addition of a few words the quotations are identical with the Authorized Version. For example: 1 Nephi 20 and 21 are the same as Isaiah 48 and 49; 2 Nephi 7 and 8 are the same as Isaiah 50 to 52:2; 2 Nephi 12 to 24 is the same as Isaiah 2 to 14; 2 Nephi 27:25-35 is the same as Isaiah 29:13-24; Mosiah 14 is the same as Isaiah 53; 3 Nephi 24 is the same as Malachi 3; 3 Nephi 25 is the same as Malachi 4 and Moroni 10:9-17 is basically the same as 1 Corinthians 12:8-11. These are only a few of the many practically direct quotations from the Authorized Version of the Bible.

Interestingly enough, The Book of Mormon has men who are supposed to have lived several hundred years before Christ using expressions that are found in the Greek Scriptures of the Bible, which Scriptures were written after the time of Christ. Paul's expression at Hebrews 13:8 is used at least five times. He said: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (AV) Its first appearance in The Book of Mormon is at 1 Nephi 10:18, which was supposedly written more than 600 years before the days of the apostle Paul. It says: "For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever." The other places where it appears are 2 Nephi 27:23, Alma 31:17, Mormon 9:9 and Moroni 10:19. The expression Paul used about the resurrection of Christ's anointed followers at 1 Corinthians 15:53 is also used in several places. Paul said: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." (AV) Notice the similarity to this famous expression of Mosiah 16:10: "Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption." Variations of it appear at Alma 40:2 and 41:4. Both of these books are dated before Christ.

At Hebrews 3:8, 11 (AV), which quotes from Psalm 95:8, 11, it is written: "Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest." See the similarity of this statement at Alma 12:35, which is dated 82 B.C.: "Whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity, behold, I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest." Verses 36 and 37 repeat the expression. A few verses back in this same chapter there is another expression found in Paul's letter to the Hebrews with a slight variation. Verse 27 says: "It was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment." The same expression appears at Hebrews 9:27.

Sometimes a verse in The Book of Mormon will contain familiar expressions from more than one place in the Bible. For example, Alma 34:36 states: "This I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb." The part about God not dwelling in temples is a variation of Stephen's statement at Acts 7:48. It was Jesus who said the righteous would sit down in the kingdom. His words are recorded at Luke 13:29. The part about the white garments corresponds with Revelation 7:14. Another example is Mormon 9:9: "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" These expressions came from Hebrews 13:8 and James 1:17. Although Mormon is supposed to have said this in North America about 400 years after Christ, it is obvious where the statements originated.

The Book of Mormon has Jesus Christ appearing in the flesh to the people of North America after his resurrection and ascension. Much of what it represents him as saying to the people are expressions written in the Bible. Lengthy quotations from the Authorized Version of what he said in Palestine are put in his mouth as being said in North America. For example, 3 Nephi 12:3-18, 21-28 and 31-45 are practically identical, verse for verse, with Matthew 5:3-18, 21-28 and 31-45 in the Authorized Version. This will also be found true when comparing 3 Nephi 13 with Matthew 6 as well as 3 Nephi 14 with Matthew 7. The type of similarities that comparison of these passages reveals would not have existed if Jesus had truly repeated these things to another people and they were written by different writers in a different language.

Many of Jesus' statements recorded in the Bible can be found liberally sprinkled throughout The Book of Mormon, from those parts dated nearly 600 years before his birth to those dated over 400 years after his birth. What Jesus said about his sheep at John 10:9, 14, 16 is found, in part, at 1 Nephi 22:25, dated 588 years before Christ. Alma 31:37 uses Jesus' words at Luke 12:22, although this book is dated 74 years before his birth. Jesus' well-known expression at Matthew 16:19, where he tells Peter: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," is found at Helaman 10:7, which says: "Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is dated twenty-three years before the birth of Jesus. It should be of interest to mention here that what Peter said about Jesus at Acts 3:22-25 appears, with the exception of a few alterations, at 3 Nephi 20:23-25, as words that Jesus was supposed to have said A.D. 34 to people in North America, but its close resemblance to the Authorized Version of the Bible identifies its source.

In the liberal use that The Book of Mormon makes of what is written in the Authorized Version it has included the spurious passage that appears in this version at Matthew 6:13, the latter part of which verse is recognized as being an uninspired addition to the original Bible writings. This spurious passage at Matthew 6:13, which says: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen," appears in identical form at 3 Nephi 13:13. Also, the apparently spurious verses at Mark 16:17, 18 appear almost word for word at Mormon 9:24.

After comparing The Book of Mormon with the Bible, the inevitable conclusions that must be drawn are these: It is not in harmony with the Bible but teaches doctrines that conflict with it. The reason that it has, as Brigham Young said, "many words like those in the Bible," is that it lifts from the Bible, in great number, expressions used by the Bible writers and weaves them into its own text. What also dresses it up to sound like the popular Authorized Version of the Bible is its constant use of the archaic English of that version.

Measured against the detailed history of the Pentateuch, the sublime beauty of the Psalms, the concisely expressed wisdom of the Proverbs and the upbuilding counsel of the Pauline letters, The Book of Mormon stands as a shabby, uninspiring and painfully wordy imitation of God's Word.

I thought anonymous posting disabled on this board. With the reason being that having to "sign" a post would discourage just this kind of attack.

It also looks like a copyright violation, but I can't prove it.

This Posting was by Blue Berry testing the anonymous ban.

Well, sure, anyone can just type "Anonymous" into the Username... Can that really be disabled?

Well Gosh, 'Annonymous' - if that is your real name , I'm so glad you cleared that up for me, because for the 24 years I have been alive, I have believed the Book of Morman to have been inspired of God, but I guess I've been duped - along with 11 million other people throughout the world. I must forward your post to the leaders of my church so that the church can be dissolved immediately. Oh, wait, could it be that your arguements, and not the Book of Mormon, are in fact "shabby, uninspiring" and my favourite of your descriptions, the ironic, "painfully wordy"!! (Better put another smiley in here before I am taken to seriously Thanks TomM, I love those things.)

Seriously, Annonymous, what's the story with the marathon post? Was it some college assignment you decided to copy and paste? Your arguements by the way, are actually very weak. I've read a lot worse and have heard explanations for all of them. I won't begin to go through your post piece by piece, because honestly, I don't think many people read it - it's so darn long. It took me three weeks to be bothered. But if anyone out there is curuious as to any of the points and would like to discuss them, I would be happy to oblige. I don't pretend to be an expert about the Mormon church or the Book of Mormon, but I have read it several times, I've also read the bible and have a testimony that they are both the word of God and that the Book of Morman does NOT contradict the Bible. I have come to this conclusion to through study and prayer.

The one thing you can't deny is that I have this testimony the the Book of Morman is true and that I have felt the Holy Ghost confirm this to me. You can say I'm crazy, in denial or just plain dumb, but you cannot say with a certainly that I have not had this feeling because only I can know that.

I suppose that's why religion is so darn controversial. Because can anyone really question the faith of another person? I mean really, would anyone believe in crazy ideas like supreme beings, magical powers and eternal souls if they had only logic to go by.

Well, you're wrong. The book of Mormon does contradict the bible.

And you're "11 million people" argument is weak. Just because many people believe something, doesn't make it true. So yes, 11 million people have been duped.

Now am I to assume that you're the same Anonymous? Really this is a wee bit ridiculous. If you are going to be rude, could you do so under a name? Please?

To anonymous:

Well, you're wrong. The New Testament does contradict the Torah.

Same thing. How do you like it when it's turned around.

To the Moderator: Sorry about the flame. Feel free to delete this when you kill anonymous' posts as well.

Extending this line of reasoning, the second chapter of Genesis factually contradicts the first. However, whether or not something is *true* does not necessarily mean that something is *factual*; the truth transcends the facts.

And then you (and Pontius Pilate) have to ask, what is truth? Probably a subject for another board.

Anon.,

(I'm too lazy to type out the full name.) You expect any rationality in religion? Faith and reason are two different things. In the end a Mormon, Jew, Lutheran, Hindu, etc. will say he believes it because he believes it.

Yup, one religion contradicts another -- big surprise.

One religion that does not contradict the others is the Gameranian Church. I'll tell you all about the wonderful things Gamera can do. But first, do you like cheese?

I found out something interesting today on the news while driving home after watching Die Another Day, and that's that Mormons sometimes baptize the bodies of Jews (and some other nonMormons) to ensure that they'll be saved and have a place in heaven, and that some Jewish elders are upset over just now finding out about that (at least I think they've just found out about it). Amongst those "saved" in the past after death were Joan of Arc, Genghis Khan, Buddha and, would you believe, Adolf Hitler?

Just to clarify, Mormons don't baptize dead bodies. I would assume you misheard what was said, Mark. Either that, or certain newspeople have to take a refresher course on how to do credible research. We do have "baptism for the dead", which is the baptism of living church members, who act as proxies for the dead.

I believe what has made certain Jewish people upset recently is that the LDS church was asked to remove a number of Jewish names from its genealogical database, and some names are still there. I don't know much more about it at the moment, so I can't really comment much further, I'm afraid.

We do perform baptisms for the dead when we have the names of deceased persons, and other sufficient prove of the fact that they lived (birth dates, death dates, etc.) It's church policy (currently, at least) that we should only submit names of our own ancestors for baptism, undoubtedly to prevent misunderstandings like this.

Hitler, huh? I wonder who submitted that name? In any case, baptism for the dead only has saving power to the same extent baptism for the living does, for the saving power is in Christ, and as such, neither baptism has efficacy without the presence of faith in Him and repentance of sins. I won't be shocked to find Hitler not in heaven.

sufficient "proof", I mean, not "prove"

Yeah, that's it, Matt. Sorry for any misunderstanding but it was only the first time I'd heard of that sort of thing and I besides I had to concentrate on my driving so it's possible I misunderstood and/or misheard something the reporter said.

Mark-

This is the news story that you might have heard read (or referenced) on the radio.

According to the report, The LDS Church agreed specifically in 1995, not to hold baptisms for Holocaust vctims. Apparently, however, a few such victims are still in some of the Church's databases as having recieved the gift of proxy baptism.

It is possible that reference to the proxy baptisms was removed from the Church's official records, but still appears in its semi-official genalogical records such as the Ancestral file and the Pedigree Resource File. I can attest to how difficult it is to get corrections made in the AF, and the data in the PRF is not owned or maintained by the Church, but by individual researchers. (These are the most likely places that an independant researcher like Helen Radkey would come across mention of the proxy baptisms in the first place.)

If this article is correct, then the "database" where Ms Radkey found the Jewish names is the IGI (Internationa Genealogical Index). This is merely a list of names (far from complete) which appear in one or more of thousands of civil and church records that the LDS has microfilmed to preserve. Using the IGI, I was able to obtain a copy of my great-great-great-grandmother's will, and the (Roman Catholic) parish records which show the baptisms and marriages of most of my grandmother's siblings, children and neices and nephews.

Because there are overwhelmingly so many names in these microfilms, the vast majority not indexed in the IGI, it is rediculous to make the assumption that "The index is a list of some 600 million names used by Mormons to perform ceremonies offering proxy baptisms on behalf of the dead." There simply isn't the manpower to go through them all for that purpose. I wonder that there is enough time and manpower to hold the proxy baptisms for those whose relatives are truly concerned.

One of my Revolutionary War ancestors and his immediate family has been baptised by proxy, and has had his marriage "sealed" and his children "sealed" to their parents, but this was done at the request of a cousin, not by strangers.

That's it, Tom, thanks. Since it was during a news brief on the radio there wasn't very much said about it but that's what the DJ reported on (this was a local rock station I heard it on, btw).

After doing a little research, i learned that Ms Radkey is a (disgruntled?) former member of the LDS, who has converted to Judaism. She seems to be trading on her status as an "independant researcher" and the fact that too many people won't bother to research the facts for themseleves to stir up animosity against the LDS.

She should realize that eventually the truth will out and it is the people that she is misleading who will be seen to be at fault. It is not honoring her new religion to commit and cause others to commit a chillul Ha-Shem.

TomM, just out of curiousity, can you translate the Jewish term you used at the end there?

"An act that causes God or Judaism to come into disrespect or a commandment to be disobeyed is often referred to as "chillul Ha-Shem," profanation of The Name." Judaism 101

I'm sorry if this is off the current path or has already been stated- I didn't go and read through the entire board.


In the Bible, in the book of Revelation (sp) it says that any other sources that claim to be the word of God in the future are fakes. I'm sorry I don't remember the reference (can someone else post it?)

Nonetheless, doesn't that put a fairly big dent in Mormonism? Is in, that means that the Book of Mormons is fake?

Are you referring to Revelations 22:18,19?

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=Revelation+22

Zarm Rkeeg, that's an excellent question, and I'll do my best to answer it, although I don't claim to be an expert on Mormanism.

As far as I understand it, when the Book of Revelations was written, the New Testement had not even been compiled as we know it. So the "this book" that is being referred to in the above scripture, is the book of Revelations and not "The Bible". So in other words, the scripture is saying that no one should add to or take away from the book of Revelations. There's a simalar verse of scripture in the Old Testament (I wish I knew the reference - maybe someone can help me out!) and yet the New Testament was "added upon" the old testament, because the Bible is made up of individual books by many different prophets.

Mormans believe that the Book of Morman is an additional witness of Jesus Christ (but does not alter - ie add to or take away, anything from the book of Revelations.)

I hope this helps.

Zarm, this topic is not at all off the current path, and hasn't been dealt with on this board until now, so I’m glad you brought it up.

Revelation 22:18-19 brings to mind a similar verse, probably the same one Sandy was thinking of, found in Deuteronomy 4:2,

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

I’ve yet to meet anyone who would interpret these words to mean that no new scripture would ever be given after the days of Moses, because it’s rather straightforward what Moses means. God is commanding, through Moses, that no one add to or subtract from the words which Moses was delivering.

I agree with Sandy that when John says "this book" he is referring to Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole, which wasn't compiled in the form we now know, with Revelation at the back, until many years later, just as she said. (By the way, many scholars believe that the Gospel of St. John was written some short years after John wrote Revelation, so if 22:18-19 were a statement that no more scripture was ever to be written, John violated it himself!)

Of course, I suppose some people might counter, "Nope, ‘this book’ refers to the whole Bible, not just Revelation, and that’s that!" Since I doubt anything I could say would change their minds once they’re made up, I won't make that argument. My argument, then, is that the verses never say that all new revelation has ceased, or that no true scripture will ever come forth after Revelation (or even after the Bible). Going back to Deuteronomy, God is giving a commandment not to add to or take away from. The warning in Revelation is essentially the same, that anyone who adds or takes away from the scriptures will be plagued, will lose salvation, etc.

The point is that through these verses God is expressly forbidding man from tampering with the scriptures, adding and taking away as they see fit. Or are we to conclude that in warning against “anyone” adding to the scriptures He is also placing such a limitation on Himself? I don’t think so. However it is, Revelation 22:18-19 says nothing about no new scripture ever being given.

The Book of Mormon is true, and was inspired of God. It testifies of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and of his Atonement for all mankind. It contains his words. I'd encourage everyone to look into it personally before dismissing it.

A good read on the early history of Mormonism
written by a Mormon historian is:
Joseph Smith And The Origin Of Mormonism.
(or is it Genesis of Mormonism,one or the other.)

Very interesting background on Smith and his
family.

No,I'm not Mormon myself,Presbyterian.

Also the about.com Religion section has a Mormon
topic webpage.

Personally myself I believe the best evidence is that The Book Of Mormon was plagiarized from a novel.

Tonight and last night, PBS programs American Experience and Frontline presented a two part program, 2-hours each, "The Mormons", which runs through the history of the LDS church. The producers interviewed not only writers, historians, and such, but also both members (and leaders) and non-members (and ex-members) of the church, both supporters and critics, and the program covers a lot of ground, including the big controversies.

The nitpicker in me wants to dive in and correct some piffling factual errors I noted (example: the President of the Church in 1890 was Wilford Woodruff, not Wilfred Woodruff, and other such fundamentally crucial details ), but generally I was pleased that the view of the show was as balanced as it was. Pretty interesting, overall. PBS still has the program online, and some supporting information:

The Mormons

Some have asked if a new edition of the Book of Mormon be published
In the Modern Language of
the NIV Translation of the Bible

Good for you.