Latter day answers

So it's been a while

2007-12-10T14:30:00.001-08:00

I'm trying to start a new post on some ineresting facts about the church and government. my brother in law and I are creating a binder of information with random articles, talks, and posts that will help explain some of the mysteries (and basics) of the gospel....more to come.

2007-04-06T15:30:00.001-07:00

So this guy on this porter is my old missionary comp! I was getting a drink when i saw him! It's troy attridge

2007-03-16T21:46:00.001-07:00

“I said it could be easy and I said it would be worth it.”

2007-02-27T21:55:00.000-08:00

In my first apartment on my mission in Erie Pennsylvania there was a portrait of Christ with a familiar phrase below it that read “I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it.” Personally, I was never seriously motivated by this quote and I never really thought about it until my new companion came to the apartment; the first week he moved in he wrote on a piece of paper and taped it over the quote so that the portrait of Jesus quoted Christ’s own words from Matt 11:30 “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light,” the latter quote contradicts the first, and is more doctrinally correct.

Let’s consider the implications of the first phrase “I never said it would be easy.” It carries a connotation that living the gospel is harder than choosing another path and you are more likely to find problems the “Gospel way” rather than the “easy way” and that despite the roughness of the way we should chose it anyway. For anyone seriously considering changing there lives to be more consistent with the gospel standards it almost seems as if you have to take a deep breath, look at yourself in the mirror and repeat, “you can do this” over and over rather than looking forward with a peaceful confidence. According to Strong concordance of the bible easy is translated from the Greek word chrestos which means “Better, easy, good.” Repentance is not a “hard” thing in comparison to what the world’s requirements and consequences are. I should not be mistaken that repentance should be taken lightly or that it is not difficult but rather that its outcome leads us to and easier and more fulfilling life than other paths. The gospel standards do not solve all our problems, the gospel changes our problems and in doing so we find we are not tempted above what we are able, nor is there anything we face alone, in other words our problems are easier to handle. (1 cor 10:13) Let’s consider the change in problems from on who lives the gospel versus one who does not, looking at this critically let’s decide who’s problems are more bearable.

Trials faced living the gospel:

How to explain to your boyfriend/girlfriend that you must wait to have sex till marriage while trying to not hurt there confidence or lose the relationship.

Trying to learn to help friends cope with drug addiction while not coming off “preachy”

Sitting through 3 hours of church

Not being invited to certain parties

Getting made fun of for your standards.

Living up to friends and families expectations

Trials Faced choosing another way

Supporting a newborn while still in high school.

Being addicted

Finding something useful to do with your time

Living up to others expectations when you’re at parties.

Getting made fun of for your lack of standards

Not living up to your families expectations

2007-01-02T09:04:00.001-08:00

My picture of the vision of the tree of life in the book of mormon. For interpretation see nephi's writings.

FW: The Purpose of This Blog

2006-12-29T09:37:00.000-08:00

One of the purposes of this blog is to impress the reader enough so that you can have confidence in asking questions. Don't be so naive to think my purpose isn't to convert; and don't assume I'll be closed minded to your religion...or lack of religion. If you have any questions about the way Mormons do things whether doctrinal, historical, spiritual, or otherwise, please ask. If I don't know the answer, I'll find it. Anti-Mormon's please challange me with what you know and please don't just refer me to a book or website and expect me to find your argument. Thanks.

2006-12-26T07:51:00.001-08:00

General conference this year with my wife. I think this is a great picture.

On my way to the

2006-12-24T15:09:00.001-08:00

On my way to the families house for my first christmas married. I'm excited and hope she likes her presents. No appliances.

Miracles

2006-12-24T08:48:00.009-08:00

3 Ne. 17: 7-10
Have ye any that are sick among you? Bring them hither. Have ye any that are lame, or blind, or halt, or maimed, or leprous, or that are withered, or that are deaf, or that are afflicted in any manner? Bring them hither and I will heal them, for I have compassion upon you; my bowels are filled with mercy.
For I perceive that ye desire that I should show unto you what I have done unto your brethren at Jerusalem, for I see that your faith is sufficient that I should heal you.

There are still miracles that happen today the same as they did in biblical times.
First, let’s remove some of your wrong assumptions about miracles:
If a miracle were to happen it would be all over the 9 pm news.
Miracles will ‘wow’ you much like a magic trick
Miracles should be unexplainable.
If a miracle does not take place either there is no God, he does not love us if there is a God, or I didn’t have enough faith.

Anyone familiar with the bible knows you did not have to be member of Christ’s church to see a miracle, but the miracle did always come by faith (either by your own or someone else’s). Examples is the story of Alma the Younger in the Book of Mormon and Moses parting the Red Sea. Not many miracles done in the past were done in public eye, some were but not most. The example of raising the young girl from the dead:
Luke 8:53-54
“And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. And he put them all out, and took her by the hand, and called, saying, Maid, arise.”
It is apparent that God does not often perform miracles in the company of people who won’t appreciate them, especially people who would laugh at others who do believe in them. You should be able to easily relate with Christ; it’s very common to avoid sharing something you consider sacred to someone who will mock it.
Are you the type of person who laughs at someone who believes in miracles? Do you spend a lot of time with people who are like that? Then chances are you’ve never seen one unless you change
I’m not the sentimental type person who will tell you, “Everyday is a miracle” but I do believe modern medicine, science, the birth of a child and answers to prayers are miracles. IT doesn’t matter that I can explain how a doctor healed a patient, the fact is that 20 years ago that patient would have died; it is miracle that we have the medicine we do.
Personally, have seen many miracles, especially recently.

Answers to Questions Part I

2006-12-24T08:48:00.008-08:00

Answers for a Friend

Why are innocent people punished for the sins of their forefathers?
My understanding is that the “sins of the fathers” this scripture is referring to consists of not teaching their children the gospel; by not teaching their children they are “punished” by not having it to bless and protect them. It does not mean that their children lose all hope of salvation or that God hates them; we know God is just and will give them the opportunity to learn the gospel. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the children lose very accessible blessings because their parents are too stubborn to accept the truth and administer it to the child. Even with prophets today, parents are the most important teachers. Without faithful parents how will the children learn? Another Latter day scripture I would refer is:
Moses 6: 54
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.

How do you know the difference between coincidence and divine intervention?

I assume this question comes from one particular experience or multiple experiences; I do not believe everything happens for a reason nor do I believe God wants us to be sidetracked pondering petty coincidences, however, there are also events that force us to wonder if God is trying to tell us something. Many times Satan’s trick is to make us believe God is trying to give us something and usually it means we have to take a certain action to attain it. If it’s of Satan that action always requires you to break a commandment. A few questions to help you tell the difference, if the event was an opportunity from God then:

-The event will be an opportunity for you to become a better person.
-The event will encourage you to pray and ask God for guidance as to the correct choices to make for or because of this event.
-(Does this event significantly persuade you to believe in Christ and follow his teachings?
What good comes from this event? Does it benefit anyone other than your self?
If this event was not of God and you knew that, would it upset you? If yes then it’s possible this is a sign that you are trying to force yourself to believe the event is of God, thus rationalizing the choices you may have made or want to make.)
-Does the event persuade you to break a direct commandment?

Another thing to keep in mind is that God NEVER takes away your agency. It is never correct to say that because something happened “you were forced” to take a certain action. For example, let’s say that you have been praying for help with your finances and by “chance” you get invited to a dinner with an old friend who is rich. While at their home you use the rest room and find a wad of cash in a pair of pants he/she left on the floor. Because of your sincere effort to find God’s help with money you may see this event as divine intervention. It is not divine intervention that forces you to take that money nor is it of God that you take it. Granted, God may be testing you, he must test you before he can bless you, it’s the law. Because you know it’s wrong to steal, seeing this wad of money is not the blessing, it’s a trial, and God will not “force” you to take the money. It just doesn’t work like that.

Is it not possible this world is in fact purgatory?
Let’s understand that purgatory is an older Catholic belief that children who die and sinners who do not repent go to a place that is between heaven and hell; purgatory can be hell itself. No one desires to go to purgatory. As LDS members we do not belief in purgatory but we do believe there is a place between earth and heaven where everyone goes when they die, we call it the ‘spirit world.’ The spirit world consists of paradise and prison, a type of heaven and hell. Whichever one you go to depends on your faithfulness and all states there are temporary until the judgment.
I think your real question is, “Can this life be Hell?” My answer; yes it can. I believe hell to be a physical place but I also consider it to be a state of mind. The physical hell is not here but the state of mind can be achieved in this life, depending on you actions and your thoughts. You make this world what you want it to be, it mostly depends on who you choose to follow. (ex: Satan or God) I don’t think that needs much more explanation. I’ll leave you with one last thought. Perhaps heaven is what it is, not because of the golden streets or the mansions, but because everyone there is trustworthy, kind, and they think the way God does. Heaven is to live in a world where everyone loves you as much as our Supreme Creator. Surround yourself with love and make yourself Godlike and you’ll find this world becoming a heaven to you.

Why do people have doppelgangers?

I have got to be honest. I have no idea.. However, I will look into it.

True Nature of God

2006-12-24T08:48:00.007-08:00

Triune God and the God Head
Taking a look at the other Christian churches views on God and on the LDS-Christian views on God. We all believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost but there are many questions raised from this point. What are God’s characteristics? What is he like? Is he a man or a woman or neither? Etc. Let’s compare the LDS view on God to the rest of the Christian world. For confusion sake we will refer to the LDS view on God as the “Godhead” and the mainstream view on God as the “Triune God.” (Both views consist of God the Father, God the son, and God the Holy Ghost)

Similarities
God Head and the Triune God is:
Perfect and Sinless
Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient
Loving
Aware of the Affairs of man
Will answer prayers
Interjects with the affairs of men when called upon to do so in faith
Inspired men to write the bible
Sent Jesus Christ to the earth to be an exemplar and perform the atonement

Differences
God Head Triune God
1. Three Separate personages 1. Not separate, three in one
2. Has a body of flesh and bones 2. No body parts or passions
3. Need to know God to have eternal life 3. God is incomprehensible
therefore no one can know him.
4. Speaks to prophets face to face 4. No one can see God
5. Still calls prophets 5. No longer calls prophets
6. When on the earth, Jesus visited many countries 6. Only a small portion of
after his resurrection people saw him in Jerusalem.
7. The Father is the literal father of our spirits 7. He is symbolically our father
8. We believe the knowledge we have about God comes from a prophet physically seeing him. (num. 12:6) (Amos 3:7) 8. Knowledge of God comes from a counsel of men who claim God cannot be seen or understood. Then they told us who he is.

Contrast Joseph Smith’s Teachings of God to the Athanasian Creed
Athanasian Creed

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

Joseph Smith’s teaching
(Doctrine and Covenants 130:22)
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Joseph’s teaching seems much more biblical than and much less confusing than the Athanasian Creed. I know he is a prophet, only a man of authority and prophecy can teach the true nature of God, no counsel of men who know as much about the heavens as a child on his mother’s lap.

“God can be known only by revelation. He must be revealed, or remain forever unknown” (BD: God)

For the Atheist

2006-12-24T08:48:00.006-08:00

I know many people who are atheist and I do not immediately dismiss the theology that is produced from the idea of no God or Supreme Being. After all why is it not a valid way of thinking and living life? Many atheists I meet believe in some supreme power but not in God, or Jesus Christ. I think my interpretation of an atheist is a little narrow.
(Google search "define: atheist" ="someone who denies the existence of god")

In my experience, those who deny an existence of God also believe in chance, this world was not "created" by anything or anyone and that no one was capable of planning its creation. Ex: the big bang theory, which I do not completely dismiss. (Side note: As Latter-day Saints we believe true science always follows true religion. God is the master of science and creation, he does not break natural laws, he uses them and is governs by laws that are existent, we are just not aware of all of them yet. Another example would be the resurrection of Christ. It is scientific, but for the moment unexplainable.")

I begin this entry clarifying my audience, I assume as an atheist you do not believe in the bible, any kind of organized religion, or in anything that resembles "God". This poses a new challenge for me, because most religions I have come across place the bible on the table of truth and use it as a constant to measure the discussion against. With atheist Theology there is no table to place anything on because there is no such thing as “truth”. I will attempt to show there is truth, not yet that there is a God, but there has to be something organized that created the world and us.

The first question: Do you believe anything is consistent and true? Anything? If it is raining for me is it raining? If I hold an apple in my hand is it only true for me that it is an apple, if you believe it's an orange (not simply you call it another name but that matter is different) does that mean one of us is wrong and one of us is right? Or all we all right. Any rational mind would conclude that there must be an answer therefore two contradicting theories cannot be right.

Hence Joseph Smith's words when he first investigated religion. "In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?"

Let's assume you do believe is some sort of standard truth that applies to all. One real example, it is not ok to murder, ever. Notice I did not say to kill, but murder; to take innocent blood for no reason other than to kill. I don't think anyone would disagree. If you agree then you believe in truth.

So now that we have a table let's admit, if you disagree with me than one of us is right and one of us is wrong or we are both wrong. There is a supreme and organized something that created this world or there is not, two contradicting theories cannot both be correct.

Let's now discuss the impossibility that this world was created by chance. A gospel scholar gives us a great view on the creation of the earth. I will try to condense his article to be straight forward and to the point.

The Meaning of the Temple By Hugh W. Nibley Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, taken from http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=58&table=transcripts.

(Professer Nibley begins talking about Archdeacon Paley, for those not aware, his theory is similar to an atheist perspective, in short, everything is chance.)

"If you're walking on the beach and find a beautifully made Swiss watch, you should not with Archdeacon Paley conclude that some intelligent mind has produced the watch. It proves nothing of the sort. Finding the watch only proves, quite seriously, that mere chance at work, if given enough time, can indeed produce a fine Swiss watch or anything else. Indeed, when you come right down to it, the fact that Swiss watches exist in a world created and governed entirely by chance proves that blind chance can produce watches. There is no escaping this circular argument, and some people use it. Today Professor Matthews states the same problem more simply:If, after seeing a room in chaos, it is subsequently found in good order, the sensible inference is not that time is running backwards, but that some intelligent person has been in to tidy it up. If you find the letters of the alphabet ordered on a piece of paper to form a beautiful sonnet, you do not deduce that teams of monkeys have been kept for millions of years strumming on typewriters, but rather that Shakespeare has passed this way."

So now lets place this entire world in place of the swiss watch:

"... the domain of the second law of thermodynamics and a mathematical description of this concept....."The logarithm of the number of different states in which a system can be found is called the entropy. Thus the entropy of tidy or ordered states is very much less than that of untidy or disordered ones." To give us an idea about the magnitudes of the numbers we are dealing with, he presents the analogy of a deck of cards:The rate at which numbers build up in the Second Law situation can be illustrated by considering a pack of playing cards. We can define an ordered, or tidy, state to be one in which the cards are arranged by value in successive suits. There are just twenty–four such configurations which arise from the different possible orderings of suits. This is itself a surprisingly large number, but the number of different ways the fifty-two cards can be arranged is about ten thousand million, million, million, million, million, million, million, million (1052). The chance of finding a shuffled pack in an ordered state is the ratio of these two numbers [24/1052]."

And my favorite part of this article and my conclusion to his quotes:

"There is matter. That is the first law: matter was always there. There is unorganized matter. Or as Lyall Watson says, "The normal state of matter is chaos." It always is and it always will be. The normal state of matter is to be unorganized. There is unorganized matter; let us go down and organize it into a world. That mysterious somebody is at work, bringing order from chaos. It would be easy to say we were making up a story, if we didn't have a world to prove it. Somebody went down and organized it. Matter was always there, always in its normal state of chaos; and long ago the protons should have all broken down, yet here is the world. Matter is unorganized."

To the reader of this you cannot deny that this world is organized, it is not simply the fact that we can't explain its existence that forces me to believe in God. It's the law itself that helps me, according to scientific law there should never be any organized matter...ANY, according to the law. The only way organization can exist is by something else that is organized. ex: the Swiss watch company; to organize it.
Now you can understand a quote by a prophet named Alma in the Book of Mormon. When he confronted an atheist he said:
"all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator." (Alma 30:44)

I believe faith is different than what you think I think it is:
I very much enjoy this title. This is my temporary conclusion to this article as I expect comments to challenge my theology. I will tell you what "faith" is to me; it’s not to just blindly believing in God. Many religions accept this idea, LDS members do not. For more of an understanding read Alma chapter 32 in the Book of Mormon (I promise opening this book won't kill you, and you can read it in entirety at lds.org)
Process which I find faith:
1. Finding out what the words that are considered from God and reading them
2. Realize most the words found there are based on a "if you do this then ______ will happen"
3. Do what the passage asks
4. If the promise is fulfilled then you have faith in this one principle and it has been proven.

Let's take my faith in the Book of Mormon for example

1. I read it
2. The "if-then" statement is if you read with sincerity and do what this books suggest (live it's principles) then you will know it's true. It does not say how but we can assume it will be in a way that you recognize. Also, attempt prayer and ask God if it's true.
3. I do what it says
4. My answer? My life is better in every aspect and I find that the more I continue this process the happier and more successful I am in every aspect of my life. When I don't obey it gives me the opposite.

Therefore me faith is not blind, I have tested it. After all, shouldn't we test the water before diving in? This is one example.

Why I believe in God...what separates this religion from the others:

Most religions believe God was last seen over 2000 years ago. I believe there are men living today who have seen him face to face. I believe that Joseph Smith saw him years ago, therefore proving he has not left us (and that he exist). I believe you can see him too, the requirement is to be pure I heart. If he is exsitant, could he not logically be seen?

The book of Mormon is scientifically proven to be an authentic history by many scholars. It proves God lived on earth, informs us of the promises, and establishes that the bible is on the table of truth.

The bible, an account of eye witnesses who saw the miracles of Christ

Personal experiences.

12 apostles and a prophet who are special witnesses of Christ (Numbers 12:6)

My proven faith, when I obey I am happy.

Conclusion:
I do not believe in dis-respecting anyone’s theories. If you find a miniature world on the seashore and it is inhabited the same as ours and you assume that it is by chance the elements of the ocean happen to come together to create it, that is your belief. I refuse to believe in the chance of the creation of the world because I don't find it reasonable. I don't understand how you can expect a Swiss watch that is found to be made by intellectual being but also believe a world that is much less likely to be created by chance was not created by an organized being. Thus something or someone who can plan, and can organize either existed of exists. Whether you call it God, a supreme power, or the swiss watch company is up to you. Do you disagree?

Would a Catholic Please Explain?

2006-12-24T08:48:00.005-08:00

I am not anti any religion. (Except the church of the devil) So this is not by any means a Catholic bashing session. Here is my question, does the catholic church accpet the Catechism as official doctrine? Do you as a catholic accept it as such. Either way what does the 460th passage mean when it says:
"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

I mean, I personally agree (psalms 82:6) but I thought the Catholics don't believe men can become like God. I'm trying to establish if this is a belief and if it isn't then do I misunderstand this passage? If so, what is the correct interpertation. Is this passage a mistake? If so please let me know.

Need Proof

2006-12-24T08:48:00.004-08:00

Want a scripture to prove a belief? Just ask please.

2006-12-24T08:48:00.003-08:00

This is the only true church; but your church is well needed:
EPHESIANS 4:5
The title of this page reflects exactly what I want to discuss. I have seen, within the church and without, a misconception of the Latter-Day Saints view on other denominations. Many believe we view other churches as devilish and wrong in every aspect. Some people think we believe that the ministers outside the LDS faith are deceiving and evil. If you are a non-member of the church a member of the church about this issue may have confronted you, or perhaps this has confronted members of the church by other member. The purpose of this page is to disprove many misconceptions on views of other denominations.
I will start by telling you what we believe:
We believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church on the earth.
We believe that baptism is necessary to live with God in the next life and one who has priesthood authority must perform that baptism.
We believe that priesthood must have a direct line of authority from Jesus Christ by the laying on of hands.
We believe the LDS church is the only church that has that authority; that authority was passed from Jesus to Peter, James and John and then to Joseph Smith as resurrected persons.
Therefore you must accept baptism into the LDS Church to Live with God in the next life.

Now that I have told you the hard facts let me explain how this affects my view on other churches.

As a missionary I had opportunity to meet with ministers of other churches and discuss their doctrine. I was not surprised by the differences in our beliefs; I was surprised by the similarities. For example the following doctrines are taught in most Christian denominations and non-denominations:
Jesus is the Savior
Jesus was perfect
We should treat others with kindness
The bible is the word of God
We should love God and our neighbor as your self.
We should keep the Ten Commandments.
Church attendance expected and participation in church responsibility is expected.
We should pray
Baptism is necessary for salvation

All of these are very simple characteristics of some common foundations. Because of the Catholic church over a billion people know about the life and sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ; because of the Baptist many understand the importance of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; because of Jehovah Witnesses many understand the importance of understanding the word of God and being familiar with it, because of many protestant churches many have found the joy of song and worship in and out of church. Of course there are many other traits that these and other denominations offer. So why does it seem that I am praising these denominations when I believe they are “not true” because I am praising the truth in them.

A House of Truth

Imagine being asked to build a house being built with just wood. Could you do it? Of course you would need nails and many other items. When Christ and his apostles were on the earth the house was full and complete, each piece of the construction representing truth. The foundation of which was revelation and authority (the two pieces the Lord’s church must have) through prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) but that foundation was taken away, Jesus was crucified and the apostles martyred. When the foundation of your house is pulled away the entire house crumbles, yet it is still there, only the foundation is missing. So many honest, sincere, and God-fearing reformers took a door and window (Ex: the teaching of baptism and the Holy Ghost) and made a church. Just as a door and window is not sufficient to rebuild a home so a few basic truths are not enough to compromise the Lord’s church. Why? Because the Lord’s church will have every truth and all the pieces. In many circumstances when reformers were missing pieces of truth they would replace them with man’s wisdom and it was flat out wrong (ex: selling indulgences and forbidding marriage).

Today’s Ministers
The truth about ministers in our day (of course I speak in a general sense realizing there are corrupt ministers in every church of their own accord and not that of the church’s doing) is most are sincere, dedicated, and very friendly to me as a missionary. The ministers I met are, as are so many ministers, not trying to deceive anyone and who truly want everyone to come to Christ. I am glad they are there, I am glad they ask their followers to pray, I am glad that when, as a missionary, I knocked on people’s doors they already have an establish faith in Christ and the word of God because of their minister.

What Is the Bottom line?
The bottom line is this, while other churches can take you so far, while they can give you pieces that you could not get on your own, and while they can lift you out of despair by pointing to Christ, They can only take you so far. Other denominations do not have true Prophets and apostles or authority to baptize. They can take you to a better place and state of mind, but not the best place. Like I have said, the church of Jesus Christ is the only true church, but yours is sincere, respectable, and well needed. All the truth that is possessed in this world can be found in the LDS church and more that are only revealed from heaven.

Want To find out if this is true?

James 1:5.

Please Comment

2006-12-24T08:48:00.002-08:00

One of my weaknesses is that I can be arrogant, not that I think I'm better than someone else or that I treat other disrespectfully, but that I know most everything. Of course this is far from the truth but I do like to learn. Please leave a comment, wether a member of the church or not. Tell me when you think I'm wrong, ask me questions about the church or church history, challenge me and I will try to find an answer. I enjoy it immensly when people disagree with me. Just keep your comments away from mud slinging please.

I have met with ministers of many major christian religion and I have enjoyed talking with all of them. Though we have alternate views I beleive they are doing the best they can with the knowledge they have.

I have met with:
Jehova Witness Elders
Pentecostal
Catholic
Jewish
Muslim
Many Non-denominational
Baptist
Methodist

I have also met with other denominations, there has been so many I can’t remember them all. All of these ministers I have sat down with bible in hand and had multiple discussions with, the purpose of these meeting was to convert, both of us were trying of course. All of these discussions were left with a handshake and friendly “God Speed.” As I said, I have studied much and would enjoy conversation.

What is official Doctrine?

2006-12-24T08:48:00.001-08:00

What is official Doctrine?

A large portion of religious disagreement and discussion is wasted on quotes and wording from unofficial sources referring to quotes of early latter-day-saint prophets, apostles, or authors. The problem with most of these quotes is they are found in the strangest places; they are found in books that many saints have never read or heard of. We will establish today what is official doctrine and what anti-Mormons or critics are wasting there time with.

Before a stone is cast:
A prophet, apostle, bishop, or church leader is entitled to there own opinion. Hypothetically, let’s say you’re at a church activity and suddenly in comes a prophet; let’s say moses the prophet and author of the first five books of the bible. You decide to stay close to him throughout the night and try to listen to every side conversation he engages in. He walks to a gentleman he seems to know well and they talk between themselves; the subject turns to sports. “Looks like the Dallas Cowboys will win it again this year, don’t you think Moses?” says the man, “No, I’ve got my eye on the Green bay packers, they’ve got a great offense, I think they’ll win.” He replies.
What goes through your head at this instant? I must invest every penny of my income in the event that the Green bay Packers will win the super bowl! A prophet of God has spoken and it is scripture, they should win, no, they WILL win, for God has spoken it.

Then, in the fourth quarter, the Packers lose to the Cowboys 0-21.

So now you have a decision to make, you can either stone Moses for being a false prophet, write a bunch of anti Moses material, or you can accept the teaching of Jospeh Smith when he said "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such."

So when can I know?

This question is a very valid one and one that is asked in a different light by critics than by friends of they church; the critics would say “what can be correctly criticized?” I will tell you what can be tested. I will tell you the official transcripts that will measure up to the teaching of the bible and to sincere inquiries to God. Here is a short, concise list of what I consider to be official doctrine:
The Book of Mormon
The Old and New Testament
The Pearl of Great Price
The Bible dictionary
JST and history found in the Pearl of Great Price
General conference addresses at least since 1971
Official Church Reference books, stamped by the Church. Ex: The Priesthood and Relief society manuals
Other Official statements of the first presidency and official Church books with the church’s stamp on it.
Lds.org

Examples of excellent reading but not doctrine:
Mormon Doctrine
The Journal of discourses
The apocrypha
Commentaries on the scriptures by private authors
The dead sea scrolls
Most Cleon Skousen’s writings
Any unofficial related book that is not stamped by the church, whether written by a prophet or not.
Web sites written by private authors (Ex. This web site)
Diaries of the early church leaders and members

This doesn’t mean there is not truth to be found in these writings. These are just some examples of unofficial doctrine. Why? Because prophets have opinions and many are great authors who write those opinions. A classic example of
A misinterpretation is the Adam-God theory. In the Journal of discourses (which I took the privilege of finding the original book and copying the referred to talk) Brigham Young talks of how Adam is our God and Father. Is Adam who we worship? No he is not. I do not know what this means other than the journal of discourses is not official doctrine and should not be treated as such. One web site that seems to criticize this is http://www.irr.org/MIT/WDIST/wdist-adam-god.html. The author of this web site quotes from many books, all of which are either the Journal of Discourses, Diaries of individuals, and news clipping. Since when did these become official? Never! That is why I do not argue such points. It is not scripture; it is a question of the Cowboys defeating the Packers. If you want to know what Gods word is, go to official writings. Always test against the standard works.
I always get a laugh when someone quotes a man named William Law. His journal entry slanders the prophet Joseph Smith but because he lived in those days and knew the prophet it is considered fact. Yet anti-Mormons dismiss the hundred of other journals that praise the prophet Joseph Smith. As a member of the church, if you are confronted by someone who believes they know all about the church and have found some hidden belief that is against the bible’s teaching, ask yourself what the source is and if it is considered scripture. If it is not, the argument is easily dismissed.

A General Rule

It is very interesting and fun to speculate about many ideas of doctrine we don’t have definite information about yet. I personally take interest in the Dead Sea scrolls, book of Enoch, and the apocrypha; I also enjoy some talks from the Journal of discourses. When I read these books I try to use the spirit and my own understanding of the scriptures as a general rule to decipher what is and isn’t correct. It is not appropriate to quote these writings in church meetings or use them as proof to prove a theory the official writings have not confirmed. It is not appropriate to bear testimony of anything that is not official doctrine. They are good writings but we must spend our time testifying of the scriptures and the restoration of the gospel, most importantly the atonement of Jesus Christ. It would be a good idea of discussing unofficial doctrine with non-members or members who do not have an interest in unofficial doctrine. Keep your discussion within those who will be interested and who has a testimony that revolves around the core doctrines of Salvation.