Conference tecrus::mormonism

This reply gives a correlation between the topics Leza discussed in 38.8 and
other discussions that are already in progress.


4.10  Authority From God
4.11  The Great Apostasy Begins
4.12  The Great Apostasy Continues
4.14  The Restoration Begins
4.15  Visitations of the Angel Moroni
4.16  The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ
4.18  Why Another Book of Scripture?
4.19  Biblical Prophecies of the Book of Mormon
4.22  The Restoration Continues

25  Mormon Polygamy
31  Evidences of the Book of Mormon
49  Prophecy on War
52  Why So Many Churches?
62  Translation of the Book of Mormon
67  The First Vision
69  Evaluating Historical Documents
80  Refutation of the Book of Mormon
81  Replies to Note 80
87  The Apostasy
88  Principles vs. Policies (Changes in the Church)
93  Secret Rituals?
104 Wordprints: An Objective Look at the Book of Mormon
136 List of the Forged Hofmann Manuscripts
138 Chiasms and the Book of Mormon

>I would like to clarify what I mean by "Anti-Mormon".  I have tried to 
>avoid using material that was written by researchers only, since to me 
>they, just don't have a "personal" interest.  Most of my information, 
>infact, came from Ex-mormons and not from Ex-mormons with a superficial 
>knowledge of the church.  These were devout Mormons who spent their lives 
>in the church, grew up in the church, served the church faithfully,  
>(Almost each had 20 or more years involvement with the church.)  Most 
>served in the temples.  Eventually, however, they found themselves asking 
>questions that in most cases were never answered, routed to someone else, 
>or just generally passed around and around.  Some were even told to "quit 
>asking these types of questions."  These people did not start out to prove 
>the Mormon church wrong.  In most every case, they were trying to prove the 
>Mormon church correct, but - they could not.  
>
>Their information proves to be the most valuable, for they have seen both 
>sides.  They have had the veils removed from their eyes and were able to 
>see the truth for themselves.  Many spent days crying when they uncovered 
>their findings.  Many could not believe that they had been lied to all 
>these years.  Yet, all were able to accept Jesus as their personal savior 
>and, as a matter of conscience, had their names removed from the Mormon 
>books.

Yes, Leza, it is obvious from your report that most of your information has
come from ex-Mormons.  I hope that you are aware that those persons are very
biased against the Church.  In most cases you have not identified your
sources, that is, you have referred to or quoted from the books you have been
reading without telling us the names of the books and the authors, so in this
reply I will have to speak in general terms rather than refer to specific
sources you have used.

Opposition to the Church has always been led by persons who have left the
church.  Joseph Smith explained why this is so.

    When you enlist to serve the Lord Jesus Christ, you leave neutral
    ground forever, and you can never get back to it.  If you leave the
    Church and Kingdom of God it can only be at the instigation of the
    evil one, and you will submit to him, and you will come to hate me and
    the Saints and even thirst for our blood.  (Lecture #4 by Truman G. Madsen
    in a series of eight lectures on Joseph Smith, "Joseph Smith and Trial",
    tape 2, Side B, Bookcraft Recordings, Salt Lake City, 1978).

The Mobs in Missouri and Illinois were led by apostates.  Attacks against the
Church during the 19th century and into the 20th century were led by apostates.
Today we have the Tanners, Ed Decker, Dick Baer.  These people are on a
crusade to destroy the Church!  They have left the Church, but they can not
let go of it!

As you read the literature from these persons who are attempting to destroy
Mormonism, Leza, please recognize the bias in their writings and make a
sincere attempt to obtain information from other sources (both Mormon and
non-Mormon) that you can use as a check on the credibility of the information
you are reading.  In a sense, you need to get "second opinions".  Likewise, we
LDS need to read non-Mormon sources so we obtain a balanced view and
second opinions.

You commented that you try and avoid material written by researchers because
they do not have a "personal" interest.  May I suggest for your consideration
that, yes, the researchers do not have the "personal" interest of hate that your
sources have, but they do have the advantage of being more objective and
being able to put their data into a proper perspective.

Allen

>Yes, Leza, it is obvious from your report that most of your information has
>come from ex-Mormons. I hope that you are aware that those persons are very
>biased against the Church.  

Allen, I think your focusing on the word "biased" is misleading, since 
the whole idea of these discussions is taking opposite stances on the 
subject of Mormonism. Of course they are biased. You are biased. I am 
biased. Everybody is biased. Now that we know it, let's try to decide 
what to think of the things Leza has gone to so much trouble to put 
together...

Mormons are fond of asking people to consider whether or not Mormon 
beliefs *might* be true. Well, let's turn it around and ask the same of 
the information Leza has put before us. Could it be true? Might it be 
true? If there's even the slightest possibility that it it may be true, 
then anyone who is betting their eternal destiny on the teachings of the 
Mormon Church had better give some *long* and *hard* thought to these 
things, and not simply seek out the assurance of someone who says "don't 
worry, these people are evil apostates, they can't possibly be right, 
don't let them upset you with the bad things they say."

>Today we have the Tanners, Ed Decker, Dick Baer.  These people are on a
>crusade to destroy the Church!  They have left the Church, but they can not
>let go of it!

It should be obvious to any thinking person that if these people are
right, then they *ought* to be against the LDS Church, because if they're
right, then the church is wrong. It's that simple. If they are right, 
they are modern day Luthers, crying out against the wrongs of a church 
that has betrayed the true gospel. If they are wrong, then they are going 
to an awful lot of trouble for nothing.

Since much of the basis for opposition to Mormon teachings is based on
historical documentation, why doesn't the Mormon Church just allow access
to the documents locked in their vaults to prove these accusations false?
That should be easy enough. 

>In most cases you have not identified your sources, that is, you have
>referred to or quoted from the books you have been reading without
>telling us the names of the books and the authors, so in this in this
>reply I will have to speak in general terms rather than refer to specific
>sources you have used. 
.
.
>yes, the researchers do not have the "personal" interest of hate that your
>sources have...

"Hate" is a very strong word, Allen. You say you are speaking in general
terms, then you say the motive of Leza's sources is hatred. This seems
very unfair. I think you are trying to unduly influence the readers of
her notes, hoping they will dismiss them as hateful anti-Church
distortions and falsehoods. I've read all of her installments, and I find
very little that could possibly be interpreted that way by anyone with an
open mind. 

Respectfully,

Ed

    re .-1
    
    I too, agree with the previous note.  I think things need to be
    examined in their correct context.  I can see how easily it is to
    read something and misinterpret it when ignoring the context of
    why it was written.  I think it was referred to earlier as "scriptural
    railsplitting".  I think Joseph Smith or Brigham Young said learning
    why things are written is a key to understanding what is written in the
    scriptures.  It certainley helps when studying the teachings of
    the apostles Paul and John.
    
    While Leza has raised some interesting points, if it bothers us
    as members of the church, then it is our responsibility to investigate
    what she is saying to resolve the issues in our own minds.
    
    Of course, we can always take the easy way out and say that it all
    boils down to whether or not the Book of Mormon is the word of God
    and whether or not Joseph Smith was a true prophet.  My own feeling,
    is that the Church has withstood the test of time and will continue
    to do so as President Hinckley has said.  After all, there is really
    nothing new that is used to attack the church.  It has all been brought
    up before.  Does anyone know of any new technological evidence which
    has been used to attack the church?  Or put another way, does anyone
    know of any uses of technology which support the truthfulness of
    the church?
    
    Your brother,
    
    scott

     Leza,
    You have revealed nothing that most of the people that have studied
    the Church's history didn't already know.  None of this is revelation
    nor is it not talked about in the Church.  There is no big cover
    up to keep the truth from those that wish to know.  A lot of people more
    intelligent I have spent years going over this stuff, and surprise
    surprise, there has not been a mass exodus from the Church. 
                                                                
    I asked you at the beginning and I will ask you again.  What are
    you going to do when all of you points have been answered and you
    have to make some sort of decision?  From your contention that you
    can be saved either way, in or out of the Church, I suspect that
    you never really have settled the question in your mind and you
    were hoping that by making this report you would have us indicate
    to you that yes indeed you had made the right decision.  That is
    why you have done this isn't it, so if someone was to leave the
    Church you can then justify your decision by theirs.  BTW, the spirit
    you die with is the spirit you will have in the afterlife, and if
    you can't accept truth now it isn't going to be any easier then.
                                                                
    Regarding why the record known as the Book Of Mormon was kept in
    reformed Egyptian, I was having a conversation with my dad a week
    ago and he told me that the Jews did not have their own form of
    writing until about 400bc and then they adapted the Greek form.  He has
    been doing extensive research into the origin of languages for the
    last couple of years and I trust he had it right.
                                                                  

RE: Note 138.3 by CASV01::PRESTON  -< Where's the bias? >-

>Mormons are fond of asking people to consider whether or not Mormon 
>beliefs *might* be true. Well, let's turn it around and ask the same of 
>the information Leza has put before us. Could it be true? Might it be 
>true? 

Fair enough. However, given my understanding of the issues raised by
Leza, plus all the rebuttal information provided by Allen, there isn't
much left that I find troubling. And as I have stated before, I have
faith that I will eventually find the answers to any residual
questions through further study and prayer. 

I have this faith becuase I have *never* failed to find satisfactory
answers to my questions if I give it enough study and prayer. In this
vein, BTW, I appreciate Allen's efforts to provide further light and
knowledge, and his patience. 

>If there's even the slightest possibility that it it may be true, 
>then anyone who is betting their eternal destiny on the teachings of the 
>Mormon Church had better give some *long* and *hard* thought to these 
>things...

Forgive me for saying this, but you have this backwards. I gave some
*extremely* long and hard thought (AND PRAYER!) to my eternal destiny
prior to finding this Church, and I believe the reason I found it and
joined it is *because* of this long, hard thought and prayer. Any
Mormon with a real testimony of the Church has received it - could
*only* receive it - through thought and prayer. There is no element of 
chance involved. 

>It should be obvious to any thinking person that if these people [the 
>Tanners etc.] are right, then they *ought* to be against the LDS
>Church, because if they're right, then the church is wrong. It's that
>simple. 

Absolutely true. One side is right and one side is wrong.

>If they are wrong, then they are going to an awful lot of trouble for
>nothing. 

Absolutely false. If they are wrong, then they are denying and
denigrating sacred things. It is not a question of 'going to a lot of
trouble for nothing.' 

>"Hate" is a very strong word, Allen....you say the motive of Leza's
>sources is hatred. This seems very unfair. 

Let's face it. There is a *great* deal of hatred in this world, with a 
lot of it directed at this Church. *That* is what is unfair; and to 
deny it is untrue. And let us remember the source of hatred. And let 
us remember the source of love.

I personally appreciate your response, Ed, because it exemplifies that
one can honestly question the Church and its teachings without
bitterness and hatred. Such honest questions are not only welcomed but
encouraged. 

Respectfully,
/kevin

    I have read these past notes with great interest and admire all
    the participants for discussing these varying views in a rational
    manner.  I have a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ and have
    had many truths revealed to me through the power of the Holy Ghost
    only after searching out the scriptures prayerfully and asking for
    guidance to lead me to the answers I've sought out.  I have read
    through many of the notes and replies and agree with Kevin that
    many of these points Leza has brought out have been analyzed by
    various experts and to this date, I know of no points of evidence
    that has been sustantiated on her part.  I do believe, however
    that all of us, whether member or non-member, need to search these
    points out for ourselves and be guided by the Holy Spirit as to
    the truth of things.
    
    We hold all our beliefs through faith; I cannot convince others
    that what I believe is true, nor can others convince me of their
    beliefs. It is therefore imperative that we search out the scriptures
    continually to seek out the truthfulness of these things.  This
    process is non-stop and is the way we grow.  I make it a habit to
    read the standard works, Journal of Discourses, and History of the
    Church often to name a few works.  I have noted in reading these works
    that if you have a spirit of contention when you investigate any
    question it will be reinforced; the converse is also true.  If you
    are prayerful and are honestly seeking the truth, it will be revealed
    to you. Don't take anyone else's word for it. Search it out for
    yourself.  Leza, keep studying and keep praying for guidance. It
    is my prayer that you don't reject the gospel outright, keep searching
    and seeking answers. 
    
    Kevin St Thomas 
    
    
    
    

    First, I would like to reply to 138.7:
    
    I have decided which way I believe, as I will show later and I
    challenge the statement that the Jews had no form of writing until
    400 bc.  The old testament was written in mainly Hebrew with Ezra,
    Daniel, and Jeremiah being written in Aramaic.    Israel entered
    Canaan land in approximately 1406 b.c.  Moses had already written
    down the laws and the history of the Exodus by that time.  So how
    did he write this down if he had no formal language?  He did NOT
    write in Egyptian of any form!  The gold plates were written in
    REFORMED Egyptian, which by the BOM, NO MAN could translate until
    God provided the means to that person in the future.
    
    Second, before I get started with the real reason for my reply,
    I want to say something.  YES, I am frustrated.  Not, however, in
    the way some of you think I am.  I have such a burden for lost souls,
    you wouldn't believe it.  When I sought out the Mormon church, I
    really thought they were the church for me.  But when I prayed,
    sincerely and earnestly, about it, God told me "NO".  I can't stress
    this enough.  From there, I felt the Lord leading me to learn as
    much about the Mormon Church as I could.  Now, let me progress with
    my reply to further explain.
    
    Allen, I am slightly hurt that you claim my use of material is not
    documented.  If you will read the overview of my report, you will
    see that I listed all the books that I have used, both pro and con.
     Also, any time I added new information I listed the source of my
    information.  Elsewhere, how could you have received the information
    from the Illinois State Library and the stuff from Chenago County
    Courthouse.  I have always tried to be up-front with my information.
     I chose not to detail every comment to the book located or where
    I discovered it because it would take too much time and they all
    basically said the same things.
    
    Also, I did alot of reading in the library.  There are alot of pro
    mormon (if you wish to get into this type of comparisons) books
    and books from non-biased people.  The pro books are full of history
    that everyone knows and there is nothing new there.  It is full
    of fluff and pretty stuff about Joseph and Brigham Young.  If that
    was all I read, I too, would admit that the founders of the Mormon
    church were above reproach and worthy to be followed.
    
    Also, I am not stupid.  I was a straight A student and made the
    Who's Who of America's High Schools.  I have won several awards
    in DEC for academic acheivement.  If you give me two books (one
    written in 1830 and one written in 1970) and tell me to compare
    them, I can do so without any help from any literature, pro or con.
     So, when that is what I did, and came up with all the descrepensies,
    that is when I turned to outside literature for clarification as
    to why.  Because if you compare the new Book of Mormon, it does
    not document the 3900 plus changes made and why they were made.
     It's not faith to believe in a lie - it's blindness.  
    
    The non-biased information from researchers was in some ways worse 
    than that from Ex-mormons.  They were almost brutal in some of 
    their statements. Also, alot of their information (negative) was wrong
    - such as sexual acts being practiced in the temple - the Ex-mormons clearly
    stated that that information was false.  But in most cases, their
    information was no different than what I had already discovered.
     So I chose not to use their stuff.
    
    Also, Allen, you know for a fact that the reason for my report was
    not born out of "hatred" of anything.  I can't believe that such
    a thought could even be addressed by you or anyone else.  You know
    from our personal notes that I haven't wanted to offend or hurt
    anyone, but that I was only offering my viewpoint, from my burdened
    soul.  To me, it is quite clear, the Mormons follow a false prophet,
    who created a false church.  You stand behind Joseph Smith
    DESPITE the documented facts that:
    
    1.	He committed adultary
    2.  He disobeyed the words of wisdom
    3.  He dabbled  in the occult
    4.  He lied about where the temple endowmments came from
    5.  He couldn't remember the day he supposedly met God and therefore,
        4 different versions of a vision were created
    6.  He kept changing the documents supposedly given to him by
        "devine" intervention - without stating as to WHY they were
        changed.
    
    You have believed everthing that he and others have said and written
    about him, despite the fact that his diary entries contradict what
    was written down - despite the fact that much of it was written
    and/or changed AFTER his death!  You make Joseph out to be a man
    of God, when by these creditials he would be considered a wicked
    man who needs Jesus.  If this is your opinion of a godly "prophet",
    then NO THANKS.  What kind of example is he?
    
    Your religion is founded on the man Joseph Smith, who made himself
    to be a prophet; a lying, adulterating, drinking, smoking prophet.
    
    My religion is based on the rock - Jesus Christ, who was sinless,
    blamless, humble, long suffering, loving - who was God come down
    in the flesh to die for our sins.
    
    Do I sound frustrated?  Its because I cannot understand how you
    cannot see through the lies and the deception.
    
    My comment of my salvation, that either way I'm safe is valid.  
    I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour.
     I believe that I will be immediately in the presence of God - the
    Father, Son and Holy Spirit when I die or get raptured.
    
    I can sum it up in the words of a song:
     
    My hope is built on nothing less 
    Then Jesus's blood and righteousness
    I dare not trust the sweetest frame
    But wholly lean on Jesus name
    
    On Christ the solid rock I stand
    All other ground is sinking sand
    All other ground is sinking sand
    
    In His Love and Admonition,
    
    Leza
    
     

 re 138.8, MORGAN::OSSLER

	Thank you.

 re 138.7, VAX4::ALLEN

>    I asked you at the beginning and I will ask you again.  What are
>    you going to do when all of you points have been answered and you
>    have to make some sort of decision?  

	From the speciousness of most of the answers to Leza's - and 
	other's - points, I doubt that a "decision" of the type you
	are alluding to needs to be made. Frankly I am very disappointed
	with the integrity of these "answers" - they prove little other
	than it is easy to answer without answering - like politicians.
	This is not meant to be insulting, it's my honest opinion.

>    Regarding why the record known as the Book Of Mormon was kept in
>    reformed Egyptian, I was having a conversation with my dad a week
>    ago and he told me that the Jews did not have their own form of
>    writing until about 400bc and then they adapted the Greek form.  He has
>    been doing extensive research into the origin of languages for the
>    last couple of years and I trust he had it right.

	I'm sorry to have to correct you - and your father - on this,
	but that statement is simply and completely wrong. Hebrew is 
	one of the oldest written languages in existence. A copy of the
	Hebrew alphabet has been around from 1200BC, and a Hebrew calendar 
	was found in Israel that dates back to 900BC which gives the months, 
	seasons, harvests, etc. You can call the Brandeis U. dept of 
	Religious Studies if you want to find out for yourself, or go to
	the library. Besides, doesn't it say right in the Book of Mormon
	that they *could* have written in Hebrew if they'd only had enough 
	gold pages? Sound fishy to me, but hey, what do I know?

> A lot of people more intelligent I have spent years going over this
> stuff, and surprise surprise, there has not been a mass exodus from the
> Church. 

	Neither was there a mass exodus from the Roman Catholic Church
	when Luther et al pointed out the errors. That only proves that 
	few are able to distiguish salvation from religion.

Ed

    

    
    It is quite evident to me that Leza has a genuine and sincere concern
    for the souls of our Mormon friends.  Her integrity should not be
    attached.    
    
    My prayer is this: If you are truly ** serious ** in your desire to 
    know what is truth and what is false, if you will pray a sincere
    prayer for Spiritual discernment, the Holy Spirit will reveal truth
    to you.  But you must be sincere and willing to read and study the
    Scripture.
    
    As Jesus said, "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set
    you free."
    
    Matt Jolma
    

>    Allen, I am slightly hurt that you claim my use of material is not
>    documented.  If you will read the overview of my report, you will
>    see that I listed all the books that I have used, both pro and con.
>    Also, any time I added new information I listed the source of my
>    information.

Leza, in .2 I said the following:

    In most cases you have not identified your sources, that is, you have
    referred to or quoted from the books you have been reading without telling
    us the names of the books and the authors

Please let me explain in more detail with some examples.

In 38.8 you gave quotations from Joseph Smith's diary.  If you had access to
the actual diary, fine.  If not then you you should have told us where your
information came from that you quoted.  Do you have photo copies of the diary?
If so, where did you get them?  Were the quotations you gave from a book or
newsletter you are reading?

You quoted Emma Smith from the Saint's Herald.  Did you have actual access to
that issue?  If not, where did you get the quote from?

You quoted a dialog with Lorenzo Snow from the Temple Lot case.  Did you
have actual access to the court records?  If not, where did you get the
quote?

In 38.7 you quoted an article from the Nauvoo Expositor.  Did you have actual
access to that issue?  If not, what was your source for the quote?

When I spoke of "your sources" I was referring to the actual and specific
book, newsletter, photocopy, etc. that you have in your possession.  At least
for me, it is important to know exactly what records you are referencing in
your report.  The anti-mormon literature is infamous for taking historical
references out of context, and I need to know if you are making your own
judgment of historical events by having access to the actual newspapers, etc.,
or if you have been reading books by others and are just passing on their
judgment; if you have been reading books by others, then those books are
your sources not the sources they quote.  Unless you have either the original
issue of the Nauvoo Expositor, for example, or a photocopy made from the
original issue, you can not say your source is the Expositor.  


In 38.1 you listed four sources (Ropp, Hoekma, Decker and notes from
unidentified ex-Mormons) that might be the sources of the quotes given in
your report, but you did not identify the quotes as coming from any of the
sources.  The problem with giving quotes without *your* sources is that
you imply that you had access to the original, that you have carefully
checked context and accuracy, and that we can accept the quotes at face
value.  If, however and only as an example, you tell us that the quote
actually came from Ed Decker then I at least will be suspicious of the
context and will not take it at face value.


>    Also, Allen, you know for a fact that the reason for my report was
>    not born out of "hatred" of anything.  I can't believe that such
>    a thought could even be addressed by you or anyone else.  You know
>    from our personal notes that I haven't wanted to offend or hurt
>    anyone,

Yes, Leza, I do know that your motives were not "hatred".  In writing .2 I
tried to choose my words such that it would be clear that I was talking
about the many anti-Mormon documents being based on "hatred" not about
you.  I'm sorry for any implication that your motives were insincere.

Ever since we began discussing the LDS church in the CHRISTIAN conference
I've felt that you were a sincere person who truly wants to serve God, and
I've tried to assist you in what-ever ways I could to learn more about my
Church and to use this conference as a medium for you to explain your attitudes
and beliefs.  We disagree on many things, Leza, but we have a common love of
God and Christ, and I hope that we can use this common faith to strengthen
and support each other.

Allen

Re 38.8

>Allen has made references to 'source material' to the effect that if the 
>material is not 'primary', (written by the person) you can almost throw it 
>out as being useful.  I don't 100% agree with that,

I don't agree 100% with that either.  I'm sorry, Leza, if I gave the impression
that only primary documents should be considered.

The creditibility of historical information depends on the accuracy of the
documents providing the information.  Primary documents are obviously more
desirable than secondary ones, but both kinds have value.  Regardless of
whether documents are primary or secondary, any bias of the authors must be
considered.  It is common for historical documents to disagree, and the
historian has to make judgement decisions about the value of the information.

Allen

    Well, Ed and Leza, I could very well be wrong on the date.  I was
    not really paying much attention to that aspect of our conversation
    but was focusing on what my father was telling me about the OT of
    the Bible being compiled late in OT times and not being written
    down for several hundred years after that and the fact that there
    is not any description of ordinances there in and how the Bible is
    for the general populace, so to me his statement about Hebrew was
    unimportant.  I'll ask him about it next time I see him.  Likewise
    I do not think your focus on the method the BOM was kept and brought
    forward is as important as the content and the witness people get
    when they read it and ask sincerely if it is true.
    
    And yes Ed, I think that an answer without answering is what I did,
    and others did, because there is no answer that would satisfy Leza coming
    from any of us.  She is going to have to find that answer herself.
                  
    But I will tell you this, the Church is not based on a man, nor
    was it begun by a man, nor did the growth come about by a man. 
    If that man never lived the work still would have come forward.
    Whether JS was imperfect or perfect has little to do with every members
    own testimony of the Church.  In fact I gained mine in spite of
    JS.  
         
    rich allen

Re: a few back, by Ed Preston


>>yes, the researchers do not have the "personal" interest of hate that your
>>sources have...

>"Hate" is a very strong word, Allen. You say you are speaking in general
>terms, then you say the motive of Leza's sources is hatred. This seems
>very unfair. I think you are trying to unduly influence the readers of
>her notes, hoping they will dismiss them as hateful anti-Church
>distortions and falsehoods. I've read all of her installments, and I find
>very little that could possibly be interpreted that way by anyone with an
>open mind. 

>Ed


Ed, I think that what Allen was trying to do (and I'm confident he'll
correct me if I'm wrong) was illustrate the statement of Joseph Smith from
the Truman G. Madsen lecture:

    >When you enlist to serve the Lord Jesus Christ, you leave neutral
    >ground forever, and you can never get back to it.  If you leave the
    >Church and Kingdom of God it can only be at the instigation of the
    >evil one, and you will submit to him, and you will come to hate me and
    >the Saints and even thirst for our blood.  (Lecture #4 by Truman G. Madsen
    >in a series of eight lectures on Joseph Smith, "Joseph Smith and Trial",
    >tape 2, Side B, Bookcraft Recordings, Salt Lake City, 1978).

This statement was originally made by Joseph in response to Frederick G.
Williams, one of Joseph Smith secretaries, who had observed much of the
persecution of the church and its leaders by apostates, many of whom were
once closely acquainted with the prophet.  He said (paraphrased), "If I ever
left the church, I would not turn against you (speaking to Joseph). I would
just keep to myself and leave you and the church alone." (Same ref. as above)

A prime example of the truthfulness of the statement of Joseph Smith is the
author of the following piece that Leza quoted:

>"Resolved, 2nd, Inasmuch as .... Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith and many other 
>official characters...have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the 
>church, such as plurality of Gods above the God of the Universe, and his 
>liability to FALL WITH ALL HIS CREATIONS..." (Article from the Nauvoo 
>Expositor dated June 7, 1844)

The editor of the Nauvoo Expositor was William Law. He was a counselor in
the First Presidency of the church.  He did not accept the doctrine of plural
marriage, but ironically, he was excommunicated from the church for adultery.
This man then turned angrily on the prophet and founded the Nauvoo Expositor,
a newspaper with the declared purpose of "exposing" the "truth" about the
church.  The articles he wrote, including the one Leza quoted from, were
filled with hatred and contempt.  William Law was one of the leaders of the
mob in Carthage that attacked and killed in cold blood Joseph Smith and his
brother Hyrum Smith and savagely wounded John Taylor.

I suppose it is only fair to acknowledge and consider all viewpoints, but
please don't ask us to give the same weight to the words of murderers and
adulterers and those who quote such as we would give to those who seek more
calmly to research (and report) completely, while reserving their conclusions
until the conclusion of their research, or to those who speak with authority
as verified by the Holy Spirit.

A wise man named Gamaliel once gave some sage advice concerning a fledgling
group considered by many to be a blasphemous cult:

	"...Take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching
	these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself
	to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined
	themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as believed him, were
	scattered, and brought to nought.  After this man rose up Judas of
	Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after
	him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were
	dispersed.  And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and
	let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will
	come to nought:  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest
	haply ye be found even to fight against God.  (Acts 5:35-38)

Amen.

Dave H.

Leza,

   This reply is to several of the comments you have made, not necessarily all
of which belong in this topic.
    
>                              I have such a burden for lost souls,
>    you wouldn't believe it.  
 
Please define lost soul. If you mean it to include everyone who does not believe
exactly as you do, then you've got a burden of over 5 billion souls. If you mean
it to include everyone who does not accept Christ as their personal savior and
rely in faith on His atonement for sins in order to be saved, then the number
is cut down to around 4 billion maybe, and many Mormons (including most in this
conference) are not included in that number. I take it, though, that you
consider the souls of all Mormons lost until they conform to your interpretation
of the Bible (or at least an "orthodox" interpretation [one of the many]). Is
that right?
     
>PEARL OF GREAT PRICE
>--------------------
>
>This too is not worth discussing here.  It has been proven to be totally 
>fake.  Egyptologists have all confirmed that the papryus Joseph claimed to 
>translate pertained to a burial ceremony and had nothing to do with Abraham 
>or the curse on blacks.  This has been a source of major embarassment to 
>the Mormon Church.

Leza, Leza, Leza,  I am very disappointed in you. If you ask questions or make
assertions, please read the answers and rebuttals. I feel that the answer I
posted to this assertion (105.45 on 1-Jun-88, 16 days before you entered the
above paragraph) refutes it completely. What Eqyptologists have all (*ALL*?--I
doubt that *ALL* Eqyptologists have ever even heard of the Joseph Smith papyrus)
confirmed is that the papyri (which Joseph Smith once owned) found in the Museum
of Art are not the source of the Book of Abraham. Not one (*ZERO*) of them have
shown that Joseph ever claimed to have used *those* papyri to translate the
Book of Abraham. The Mormon church is not embarrassed by this at all. You should
be embarrassed yourself for treating this in such a frivolous manner. Please
read the reply if you have not already done so, and then respond to it. This
is worth discussing here.

>    It's not faith to believe in a lie - it's blindness.  

Exactly. That's why it's important that you read the reply to the above
assertion.

>I could go on and on with my findings.  But I think I have said enough.
>     The Holy Spirit, that lives and dwells in me, has born witness
>    to my heart that Mormonism is not Biblically based and that I am
>    no longer to worry about it.

If that is what the Holy Spirit has told you to do, then I suggest you do it.
I think it would be great if you longer worried about it. :-)

>But, as I said to that person:  I'm safe either way.  I am firmly confident 
>that if I were to die tonight I would go to heaven.  And the reason I would 
>go to heaven is because of my belief in Jesus Christ and his death upon the 
>cross for my sins.

>If Mormonism is false and you continue to follow in it, you will go to 
>hell.  Either way I am ok.  But if you are wrong.....

Wait, this doesn't follow. I have at least as much faith in Christ and his death
upon the cross for my sins as you do. If you will go to heaven for that reason,
then I shall, also.

>    My comment of my salvation, that either way I'm safe is valid.  
>    I have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour.

Me too.

I realize this is somewhat fragmented, but I hope you get my points. It's good
to see the activity level in this conference pick up a notch. You've done a
fairly good job of that, Leza.

Till next time,

Dave H.

    I am sensing increased contention about Leza's notes from both sides.
      Maybe we should all "give it a rest". I have had so many similar
    fruitless discussions that when "baited" I ignore it.
    
    

RE: < Note 138.17 by USADEC::HANSEN "Be nice." > and others...

I agree that we have probably reached a point where further 
engagements on this topic will only produce contention, but may I 
raise once again a subject that has been touched on here and 
elsewhere.

When Leza says:

>If Mormonism is false and you continue to follow in it, you will go to 
>hell.  Either way I am ok.  But if you are wrong.....

I blow all the fuses in my logic circuits. Would someone *please* 
explain - clearly, succinctly, and once and for all - *why* I am going 
to hell? If all it takes is to have a born again experience resulting 
in faith in Christ, his death, and his resurrection, then I am just as 
*Saved* as anyone. Why, how, and by what method do my further beliefs 
in what Joseph Smith taught nullify being Saved.

And if there are further beliefs that nullify the saving experience, 
then could there not be some other beliefs that perhaps some BAC's
harbor that nullify theirs, or can only Mormons have their saving
experience nullified? 

Either Mormonism is true or it is false. If it is true, then it is the 
only true Church on earth. Thus people who belong to it and follow its 
precepts would seem to be at an advantage. But those who lash out
against it and repent not, should not go around saying they are safe. 

If it is false then I am totally deluded (a proposition which I 
reject, BTW) about needing *more* than a 'born again' experience to be 
'saved.' Then both Leza and I, for example, *are* saved, because we 
have both had that experience.

So it seems to me that the *opposite* of what Leza said is true: 
Either way, I have my ticket punched. But if Leza is wrong.....

Where does this logic fall down?


A brother in Christ,
/kevin

RE: 138.19

I cannot speak for Leza, nor for any other non-LDS who are participants
in this conference.  I am a member, and can only share the experiences
that I have had.

My experiences with my family, with close non-LDS Christian associates, and
with others I have worked with, is that most Latter-Day Saints will accept
that people of other faiths do have true religious experiences with God.
However, I have not fond a single "born-again Christian," who, when I have
told him/her that I have received direct answers to my prayers from God,
which answers testify to the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, have they
accepted my born-again experience, because of my claim that the same source
has ave told me that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
teaches true doctrine, and that Ezra Taft Benson is anointed of God as a
prophet.  Some have tried explaining to me (and Latter-Day Saints in general)
that we do not truly worship Christ.  Personally, I know that I do, but I
haven't found a single "born-again Christian" who believes it.

When someone tried to "save" me without having any idea what my experiences
with the Lord have been, I tend not to trust their judgment.  I don't mind
someone sharing their personal experiences with me, and try to build my faith
through teaching what they believe true doctrine to be.  However, I have found
that those who outwardly are contentious, always bring the wrong spirit (not
the Holy Spirit) with them.

None of the above comments necessarily apply to any of the discussions in this
conference, only to experiences I have had personally.

    RE: .19 by Kevin Ossler
    
    Kevin,
    
    Thank you! That's exactly what I was trying to say.
    
    Also, Amen to .20 by FSTRCK::RICK_SYSTEM.
    
    Thanks, both of you guys.
    
    Now can we get on with the uplift we all so enjoy from this conference?
    
    Dave H.

    Before I start.  I wanted to say something regarding .20
    I have had some choice experiences with other Christians.  I have
    gone to church with a Baptist friend and we enjoyed sharing
    our enthusiasm for Christ and I enjoyed my treatment by
    others in the group. 
    
    

>I have tried to make it very clear, from the beginning, that this entire 
>report is from my viewpoint.  I have also tried to be very careful about 
>injecting my personal feelings and comments, and I apologize for those 
>times when I deviated from this.  In addition, I tried not to use any 
>blatant information from so called "Anti-Mormon" literature.  Again, 
>approximately 90% of my report came from Mormon documents (both cannonized 
>and non-cannonized.)


	I appreciate the effort to use documents that are in most 
	cases, familiar to us.  As has been mentioned, I would have 
        appreciated a more conscientious effort to connect the 
        conjectures with the source documents.  
  

	I will not respond to all of the subjects introduced, now, 
	but I will respond as I have time, submitting each at its 
	completion rather than amassing all subjects into single 
	novel.  

	I have appreciated all the ideas expressed by others thus 
	far.   Some very fine ideas have been expressed.  I have 
	increased my understanding on some key points.  

	I too feel that all this has been expressed many times before.  
	I should be getting good at it.  But I am not.  I am not an 
	intellectual giant and I too have the grades to substantiate 
	my claim.  The Lord councils us not to put our faith in the 
	arm of flesh or trust the understanding of men.  I believe 
	this applies to our own arm and understanding also.  So when 
	it comes to the word of God, He has made provision for even 
	those not so well endowed mentally like myself.  It always 
	gave me great solace for my sloth, to read of the Lord referring 
        to the rich, proud and learned of men in the same breath.  I 
	would think; "boy, I am safe on all 3 counts".   Yes, I know 
	there are still a lot of Scriptures dealing with the faults I 
	do have.  


	Ex-Mormons as sources...

>Their information proves to be the most valuable, for they have seen both 
>sides.  They have had the veils removed from their eyes and were able to 
>see the truth for themselves.  


	Most Mormons have seen both sides also.  We have walked out of 
	the dark into the light.  I feel that that is a good analogy.
	That is what it was like for me.  In fact some of us who were 
	born in the Church have gone from the light to the dark and back 
	to the light.  Most of us have searched long and hard for 
	answers, on our knees and in the libraries, yes and in other 
	churches asking questions.  We have confronted most of the 
	ideas presented  here and have had to search out the truth.
	


	There has been some discussion about sources and why it is 
	important to know who they were. This also touches on the 
	context concept.  Let me try to illustrate.

>Amasa Lyman, of the first presidency related:

>"Joseph Smith tried the faith of the Saints many times by his 
>perculiarities.  At one time, he had preached a powerful sermon on the Word 
>of Wisdom, and immediately thereafter, he rode through the streets of 
>Nauvoo smoking a cigar.  Some of the brethren were tried as was Abraham of 
>old."  (From Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, May 1969, page 161)

	Amasa Lyman is my Mother's Grandfather. (I forget if the there 
	is "great" or maybe two in there also)  Last January she showed 
	me a letter from the first Presidency, accepting him into full 
	fellowship just before his death.   He was very anxious to get 
	it and let everyone know that he had been accepted back.  It was
	never formalized and he was buried in black.  
	
	Was the quote, above, made while he was disaffected from the 
	Church?  I will try to find out.  You see this makes it quite 
	clearly a matter of context.  It would not be proper to refer 
	to this quote without also printing his bias.  That he had left 
	the church at the time that he said it (if this applies) and 
	that he later rejoined the Church.  All critical elements to 
	to the contextual understanding of how his statement is to be 
	weighed for consideration.

	Speaking from my position of dubious "authority" I can say that 
	it is true as Allen quoted, you do leave neutral ground.  When 
	I was away from the Church I was quite hostile toward some of 
	its members, never the doctrine, but some members.  To me, the 
	objectivity of an "Ex Mormon" is VERY questionable.  Come to 
	think of it the objectivity of an "Ex" anything is dubious.  I 
	remember fights between some of our disenchanted Motor Cycle 
	Association (gang) members and the body proper, in Idaho.  Bloody.  
	It seems that when ever someone rejects the values of a former 
	group or association, there is a search for validation and 
	ratification that involves discrediting the group representing 
	the rejected values and thereby distorts objectivity. But I am 
	rambling far afield with my generalizations...

	I believe that Joseph Smith Jr was and is a Prophet of God.  
	Like many others in the LDS Church I believe that he is one of 
	the greatest men who ever lived.  No amount of printed lies can 
	tarnish his image in my eyes because I have studied his life 
	diligently.

	Before I believed that, I came to a certain faith that the Book 
	of Mormon is the word of God and I love the light it brings into 
	my life as a second witness for Christ who is The way back to
	my Father.


	In His Love,
	-gary


    

> I blow all the fuses in my logic circuits. Would someone *please* 
> explain - clearly, succinctly, and once and for all - *why* I am going 
> to hell? If all it takes is to have a born again experience resulting 
> in faith in Christ, his death, and his resurrection, then I am just as 
> *Saved* as anyone. Why, how, and by what method do my further beliefs 
> in what Joseph Smith taught nullify being Saved.

I will not take it upon myself to tell you the reasons people go to hell, 
it is plain enough in the Bible for anyone who wants to read it - in 
fact, Christ talked nearly twice as much about hell than about heaven, so 
it must be very important...

However you, and others, who express confusion over why BAC's (Born Again 
Christians) do not believe you are saved, are, I think, overlooking a 
very signifigant point:

Yes, you say you believe in God and have faith in Christ, but it is a
*different* God you believe in and a *different* Christ you have faith in,
so it is no wonder that they do not accept your salvation, for that is 
different, too.

The Bible says that in the last days there many false Christs and false 
prophets will appear, and many will be led astray by them. It follows that 
we should be extremely careful about what we accept as truth, and the 
method we employ for determining truth - a "satisfying" method is not 
necessarly a right method.

Ed

    to Preston in .23
    
    I have heard this "different" Christ, "different" God statement
    mentioned by BACs other times.  As an ex-Catholic and ex-Protestant,
    the LDS concept of God & Christ differs, not in fundamental beliefs,
    but rather in enhanced interpretations.
    
    What I mean is this.  Mormons believe that God, Christ and the Holy
    Ghost are the Godhead.  Earth created by Christ (John1:1), Holy
    Ghost is the Comforter, the medium by which humanity may have a witness
    of truth.  Christ, the Savior, is the only way/means for salvation
    and Eternal LIfe.  He atoned for mankind's sins.
    
    Having studied both Catholic and Protestant doctrines on the Godhead
    (the Trinity Concept) and Christ, I cannot see how LDS believe
    in a "different" God.  What separates
    LDS belief from "orthodox" Christianity is:
    
    1. The belief in 3 separate beings as God (not the Triune one)
    2. God, the Father, having a body.
    3. Christ having established a formal, organized Church and giving
       it the authority to act in his name.
    
    All the rest are perhaps additional things LDS have been given or
    chose to understand that pertains to the Godhead, Plan of Salvation
    and Eternal Life (heaven).
    
    But in the final analysis, Mormons believe in a 3 person Godhead
    and in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, that faith in him is essential
    for "salvation" and that he promised his followers that they would
    share in his inheritance (Eternal LIfe) with the Father if they
    believed in him and followed his word/example.
    
    After reading so many of these notes, and having had so many similar
    discussions with BACs, perhaps we could start a new discussion of
    how we are "alike" rather than how we are "different".  Unlike many
    other Christians, Mormons rejoice when people find Christ, chose
    to live a Godly life, search the scriptures and seek to do good
    to/and for mankind.  What Mormons disdain, ignore and generally
    disklike is the attacking and the spirit of contentiousness that
    accompany such fruitless encounters.  Rather than tear down, perhaps 
    we can build each other's faith in Christ and his gospel, and hope that
    we all come to a greater understanding of it.
                                                                              
    Paul
    

I have a small pamphlet called "Are Mormons Christian" by a LDS named Bill
Forrest that makes come interesting comments.

    Mormons do not accept the trinitarian doctrine of God.  They do not find
    this doctrine in the Bible and do not think that God expects his followers
    to subscribe to such late developments in theology.  I am referring, of
    course, to the doctrine that God is but one indivisible substance manifest
    in three personages.  Those who believe that acceptance of this concept
    of God is a prerequisite to being a Christian are not anxious to extend
    the hand of Christian fellowship to Mormons.  However frequently the
    Mormons proclaim their acceptance of Jesus Christ, their devotion to
    him, their faith in his atonement, etc., some of their grim critics
    insist that only by accepting certain creedal statements devised by
    theologians several centuries after Christ will Mormons gain entrance
    into the privileged group of accepted Christians.

    This seems to be a very unreasonable and narrow definition of Christian.
    To find two people in any denomination who agree as to what the triune
    nature of God is would indeed be an achievement.

    Scholars have recognized that the triune doctrine was a post New Testament
    development.  The renowned Bible commentator J. R. Dummelow said, "The
    exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity was the result
    of a long process of development, which was not complete until the fifth
    century, or maybe even later..."

    To insist that a belief in the Trinity is requisite to being Christian,
    is to acknowledge that for centuries after the New Testament was completed
    thousands of Jesus' followers were in fact not really 'Christian.'....

    Is it not the height of arrogance and presumption to argue that someone
    is not a Christian because his concept of the New Testament Jesus does
    not happen to be identical with that of the anti-Mormon critic?  Those
    who think in this way are in danger of alienating themselves from any
    religious organization which does not happen to see things in the
    particular way of the critic....

    "Are Mormons Christian" by Bill Forrest, Mormon Miscellaneous Response
    Series, #1, Mormon Miscellaneous, 8865 South 1300 East, Sandy Utah 84092
    (801) 561-5103 or (801) 571-5185.

Re 38.8

>His changes to his first vision are too great.  First, in the earliest 
>account (written by Joseph in the 1830's), Joseph writes that he only sees 
>the Son, "while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year 
>of my age a pillar of light from above rested upon me...and I saw the Lord 
>and he spake unto me saying, Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven 
>thee...behold I am the Lord of glory, I was crucified for the world...".  
>There is NO mention of the father.

Leza, Joseph did not say that he saw *only* the Son.  I *have* already discussed
this in note 67, as follows:

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

As explained in 67.5 through 67.8, Joseph said he saw two personages in all
of the accounts except the 1832 account.  In that account he said 

    and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he Spake
    with me Saying Joseph my Son thy Sins are forgiven thee.

Please notice that he did not say he saw only the Lord, just that he
saw the Lord.  As a historical document, the 1832 account should only be
used for what it says, that he saw the Lord.  Other documents would be needed
to determine if he saw only the Lord.

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

>	"This afternoon, Erastus Holmes, of Newbury, Ohio, called on me to 
>	inquire about the establishment of the church, and to be instructed 
>	in doctrine more perfectly.  I gave him a brief relation of my 
>	experience while in my juvenile years, say from six years old up to 
>	the time I received the first visitation of angels, which was when 
>	I was about fourteen years old; also the revelations that I 
>	received afterwards concerning the Book of Mormon and a short 
>	account of the rise and progress of the church up to this date."
>

You are objecting to Joseph's use of the word "angels" to refer to the Father
and the Son even though I *have* already explained in note 67.10 that that use
of the word "angels" is correct.  In that note I discussed your objection to
George A. Smith using the word "angel" in the same way:

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

First, let's consider Elder Smith's use of the word "angel".  In 1843 Joseph
Smith gave the following instruction to the Church.

    There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are
    resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones--

    For instance, Jesus said: 'Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh
    and bones, as ye se me have'.

    Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not
    resurrected, but inherit the same glory.  (D & C 129:1-3)

Thus, we see that it was proper, although from our use of language today a bit
unusual, for Elder Smith to use the word "angel".

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

Joseph Smith did see angels in his first vision, because he saw two personages
having glorified and perfect bodies of flesh and bones.

When reading historical documents we need to interpret words with the context
and meaning used by the author rather than with our own context and meaning,
because often times the context and meaning will have changed!
We need to study *all* of the writings and sermons of Joseph Smith rather than
picking out isolated passages and presenting them out of context!

Allen

Re 38.8

>One more interesting note on the Book of Mormon:  on the title page of the 
>1830 edition it reads:  Joseph Smith, THE AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR OF THIS 
>WORK..

>Today, it has been changed to Joseph Smith, THE TRANSLATOR OF THIS WORK...

It is well documented in LDS Church history that at the time the Book of Mormon
was published, Joseph Smith claimed that the book was a translation of
ancient records; he never claimed it was his work.  Thus, we realize that the
phrase "Author and Proprietor" which was on the cover page of the first
edition *does not* mean that Joseph was acknowledging that he had written the
book rather than had translated the book.  The phrase was placed on the
cover sheet for copyright reasons.  On later editions, the phrase was changed
to "Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun." to more accurately reflect the correct
relationship between Joseph and the book.

The first edition itself is a testament to Joseph's claim that he had
translated the book rather than authored it.  Joseph placed in that edition
a special preface that discussed the 116 pages of manuscript that were lost
by Martin Harris.

    To the Reader--
   
    As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work,
    and also many unlawful measures taken by evil designing persons to destroy
    me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated, by the gift
    and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages,
    the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from
    the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon; which said account, some person
    or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions
    to recover it again--and being commanded of the Lord that I should not 
    translate the same over again....

Joseph briefly discussed the revelation to him that he should not translate
the 116 pages over again, and then he concluded the preface with the following
statement about the plates.

    I would also inform you that the plates of which hath been spoken,
    were found in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New-York.

                                                       The Author

Thus, we see that for legal reasons Joseph described himself as "author" while
at the same time explaining that the book was a translation from ancient plates.

Allen

Re 38.8

>"Q. - You (Lorenzo Snow) state now that Joseph Smith was sealed or married 
>to your sister in April 1843, and this so-called revelation was given in 
>July, 1843?
>
>A. - Well at the time I said it, it was all right.  According to my 
>understanding of this new covenant, the woman is sealed to the man and not 
>the man to the woman, and I stated THAT JOSEPH TOOK MY SISTER FOR A WIFE 
>WHEN HE HAD A WIFE LIVING, AND THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE GIVING OF THIS 
>REVELATION."  (Temple Lot Case, page 320-322)

>[Joseph practiced polygamy] A Full year BEFORE the revelation of plural
>marriage was given.]

Leza, notes 25.22 and 25.25 have *already* explained that the 1843 date for
Section 132 was only the date when the revelation was *recorded*, that is,
the date when the principle was given to the church; it was not the date when
the principle was revealed from the Lord!

When Lorenzo Snow said "and that was prior to the giving of this revelation",
he was referring to the revelation being given to the church by Joseph Smith not
by the Lord to Joseph Smith.  The fact that the principle was given by the Lord
to Joseph much earlier than 1843 is clearly brought out in LDS history, and as
president of the Church, Lorenzo Snow was certainly familiar with LDS history.

Allen

    RE 138.27
    
    Doesn't it say somewhere (I thinK in _The_History_of_Joseph_Smith
    by_Lucy_Mack_Smith_ ) that the contents of the title page of the
    Book of Mormon are contained on the last or first leaf of gold plates
    and was written by Moroni?
    
    scott

    RE 138.29
    
    I checked my notes and found the source of my information.  In a
    book called _The_Journal_of_Joseph_ it says the title page of the
    Book of Mormon is inscribed on the last leaf of the gold plates.
    Does that mean a portion of the title page or the whole page?  If
    it is the whole page, then somehow or other Moroni knew the name
    of the latter day prophet who would bring forth the record.
    
    scott

    Just take a look at the title page itself to answer the question.
    It's format does not suggest that Moroni knew that the name of the
    translator was Joseph Smith, or that (my copy) would be published
    by the Church in 1982. ;-)
    
    Steve

 re .27
    
>    To the Reader--
>   
>    As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work,
>    and also many unlawful measures taken by evil designing persons to destroy
>    me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated, by the gift
>    and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages,
>    the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from
>    the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon; which said account, some person
>    or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions
>    to recover it again--and being commanded of the Lord that I should not 
>    translate the same over again....
>
>Joseph briefly discussed the revelation to him that he should not translate
>the 116 pages over again, and then he concluded the preface with the following
>statement about the plates.


    If the purpose of the Lord was to restore the "true" church on the
    earth, and to provide "another testament" of Jesus Christ via the
    Book of Mormon, it certainly seems *awfully* strange that Joseph
    Smith was commanded not to re-translate the first 116 pages that
    were stolen from him. Why deprive the world of 116 pages of "the
    most correct of any book on earth", supposedly the word of God,
    just because a copy of them was stolen? It makes absolutely no sense 
    at all. 
    
    If, however, the Book of Mormon was simply a fabrication and not
    a "translation" at all, and the stolen pages were not translations
    but *originals*, then it makes perfect sense that they not be
    re-translated, because it would be impossible for them to come out
    the same, thus exposing the fraud. The possible only way out of
    that dilemma would be to have the "lord" tell Joseph Smith not to
    translate them again...
    
    If Joseph Smith truly had the "gift and power of God" to translate,
    then why not triumph over evil by simply exercising what god gave
    him and restoring what had been stolen? Why so easily thwarted...?
    
    Ed
    

Re 38.8

>MORMON CHURCH NOT DIRECTED BY REVELATION
>----------------------------------------
>
>Proof of this is the fraudulent documents sold to the Mormon leaders by 
>Mark Hoffman.  Since the letters would have proved that Joseph Smith was 
>involved in some shady deals, the Mormon leaders paid Hoffman thousands of 
>dollars to buy the documents so they could cover-up the incident.  It was 
later proved that the letters were frauds and that Mark Hoffman had dupped 
>the Mormon leaders.
>>
>If these Mormon leaders live in the divine revelation of God, why wouldn't 
>have God told them that Mark Hoffman was a deceiver and to not go along 
>with the cover-up?  I am reminded of a story of Ananias and Sapphira who 
>tried to lie to God.....

We do not claim that our General Authorities are inspired in 100% of everything
they do, and the General Authorities do not claim to be so inspired.  Also,
we do not claim that our Authorities follow with 100% accuracy the inspiration
they do receive.  Indeed, if our Authorities were so inspired they would be
infallible!  Only Christ was infallible!

Referring to the Hofmann forgeries, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said that ministers of
the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love.  "It is better for
a Church leader to be occasionally disappointed than to be constantly
suspicious."  (BYU Today, October 1987, p. 39)

Hofmann was very skilled in his forgeries.  He used period paper stolen from the
Niles Register in the University of Utah library.  To make the paper look old,
he treated it with chemicals, sprayed it with a milk-gelatin mixture, stomped
on it, and treated it with bread-mold.

He used iron gallitannic ink from a recipe from a book he stole from the Utah
State University library. He burned paper from the correct period, collected the
carbon, and mixed it with the ink to foil carbon-14 testing.  He sealed some
of the documents with a wax seal which was made from a real wax seal that had
been melted down.

To see if it was authentic, Steven Christensen sent the "Salamander Letter" to
Dean Jessee, historian with the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church
History at BYU.  Jessee sent it to a prominent document examiner Kenneth
Rendell in Massachusetts (he was the man who exposed the forged Hitler diaries).
After a year, he reported no indication of forgery.  Albert Lyter, the
forensic chemist who checked the ink, also reported no evidence of forgery.  

The Josiah Stowell letter was authenticated by Charles Hamilton, author of
"Great Forgers and Famous Fakes".  Hamilton is a world-renowned forensic
handwriting expert and is considered as the foremost authority on Joseph
Smith autographs.

    In a letter published in the June 1987 issue of the Maine Antique Digest,  
    Hamilton said Hofmann was the flawless low-key con man.  "He was always
    a little astonished that what he had was worth so much, and he played
    the role of the modest researcher--pleasant, soft-spoken, eager to learn."

    When Hofmann showed Hamilton the Josiah Stowell letter, "A one-second
    glance (about as long as I took with the Hitler papers) told me it was not
    Smith."  The handwriting was stiff, labored, upright, like a man walking,
    Hamilton said.  Smith's was bent over, like a man running and leaning 
    forward.

    "But you never even read it," Hofmann said.  He put it away in his briefcase
    and looked doleful, Hamilton said.  Then he said, "Would you look at it
    once more?"

    Normally, Hamilton refuses to look twice at a document, but in this case,
    he said, "I allowed myself to be seduced into taking a second look."  He
    looked at the date, 1825, and realized Smith would have been only about 19.
    The earliest letters he had seen until then were from 1835; his handwriting
    might have changed.  As Hamilton looked at the letter, he found more
    reasons to believe it might have been written by Smith.  Eventually, he
    authenticated the letter.

    Hofmann was successful in diverting the attention of these experts and
    scholars from their normal view to a narrow view involving the forged
    documents.

    "He appeared to be the quintessential scholar, immersed in his love of the
    arcane when, in fact, he was the quintessential con man whom we all liked
    and completely trusted," said Hamilton in a paper he prepared for the
    BYU symposium.  "It's easy to swindle someone who likes and admires and
    trusts you.  I never questioned anything he told me."

    Hamilton said no one in the LDS Church should be faulted for being taken in
    by Hofmann.  "He was, after all, a fellow Mormon scholar and, to all
    appearances, above suspicion."  (BYU Today, October 1987, p. 42)

Re .32

>    If the purpose of the Lord was to restore the "true" church on the
>    earth, and to provide "another testament" of Jesus Christ via the
>    Book of Mormon, it certainly seems *awfully* strange that Joseph
>    Smith was commanded not to re-translate the first 116 pages that
>    were stolen from him. Why deprive the world of 116 pages of "the
>    most correct of any book on earth", supposedly the word of God,
>    just because a copy of them was stolen? It makes absolutely no sense 
>    at all. 
>    
>    If, however, the Book of Mormon was simply a fabrication and not
>    a "translation" at all, and the stolen pages were not translations
>    but *originals*, then it makes perfect sense that they not be
>    re-translated, because it would be impossible for them to come out
>    the same, thus exposing the fraud. The possible only way out of
>    that dilemma would be to have the "lord" tell Joseph Smith not to
>    translate them again...
>    
>    If Joseph Smith truly had the "gift and power of God" to translate,
>    then why not triumph over evil by simply exercising what god gave
>    him and restoring what had been stolen? Why so easily thwarted...?
    
    
In commanding Joseph to not retranslate the 116 pages, the Lord explained
that the persons who had the missing pages had altered the wording, and
if Joseph were to retranslate the pages, these persons would use their
altered version to claim that Joseph could not translate twice.

    Now, behold, they [the persons having the 116 pages] have altered these
    words, because Satan saith unto them: He hath deceived you--and thus he
    flattereth them away to do iniquity, to get thee to tempt the Lord thy
    God.

    Behold, I say unto you, that you shall not translate again those words
    which have gone forth out of your hands;
  
    For behold, they shall not accomplish their evil designs in lying against
    those words.  For, behold, if you should bring forth the same words they
    will say that you have lied and that you have pretended to translate, but
    that you have contradicted yourself.

    And, behold, they will publish this, and Satan will harden the hearts of
    the people to stir them up to anger against you, that they will not
    believe my words.  (D & C 10:29-32)

In his infinite knowledge, the Lord knew that Satan would attempt via the 116
pages to thwart His work, and he inspired Nephi to keep a separate record on
different plates, and He inspired Mormon to attach this separate record to
his abridgment and write what we today call the "Words of Mormon" to tie the
two together.  Thus, we do have the information contained in the 116 pages, and
the work of the Lord goes on!

Allen

Re .34
        
> In commanding Joseph to not retranslate the 116 pages, the Lord explained
> that the persons who had the missing pages had altered the wording, and
> if Joseph were to retranslate the pages, these persons would use their
> altered version to claim that Joseph could not translate twice.
.
.
> In his infinite knowledge, the Lord knew that Satan would attempt via the 116
> pages to thwart His work, and he inspired Nephi to keep a separate record on
> different plates, and He inspired Mormon to attach this separate record to
> his abridgment and write what we today call the "Words of Mormon" to tie the
> two together. Thus, we do have the information contained in the 116 pages, 
> and the work of the Lord goes on!

This still sounds pretty fishy, Allen. For one thing, it is claimed
that Hebrew would have been the language of preference for the writers of
the Book of Mormon, but that the plates had to be written in "reformed
Egyptian" - an "unknown" language - because there wasn't enough room on
the plates, yet we are expected to believe that a full 116 pages was
reserved solely for this implausible eventuality. Had the "Lord" acted in
keeping with the delivering of past copies of His word, He would have had
Nephi, Mormon, etc, write in Hebrew as they said they had wanted to in
the first place, skip the duplicate information, and enabled the
documents to be verified and authenticated by any and all Hebrew and
linguistic scholars, just as the other books of the Bible are today. 

Or, had He somehow been determined to go through with the reformed
Egyptian idea, then why be afraid of such an unprovable accusation from
evildoers? They wouldn't possibly have been able to alter the
wording in any sort of convincing manner, since the translation was hand
written and it would have been easy to prove that it was not the stolen 
pages after all. On the other hand, if the Book of Mormon was an
ongoing fabrication, and in Smith's, Cowdery's, - or whoever's -
handwriting, then a set of "re-translated" (re-fabricated) pages, when
compared to the unaltered, stolen pages, would have been devastating
proof that the book was a fake. 

This frankly silly-sounding story about "duplicate information" contained
in an attachment just to thwart some questionable plot of Satan's (and 
conveniently help Smith avoid re-translation) says an awful lot, I think...

Ed

    Re: .35
    
    I can see how it could look like a convenient 'story' to skeptics that
    the Lord commanded to Joseph Smith not to retranslate the 116 pages of
    the Book of Mormon. Even so, I don't think we can second guess the Lord
    by saying, 'It would have been a lot {easier, more efficient, more
    easily verified, etc.} if the Lord had done it different way. We can
    develop scenarios all day long that would have been 'easier' for the
    Lord to accomplish many another things He has done, also. 
    
    The Bible is full of things that the Lord commands His servants to do
    that don't seem like the 'easiest' way to get the job done. The
    same concerns could and have been raised about the plausibility
    of many things in the Bible. Even so, the Bible does contain the
    word of God.
    
    I don't think the Lord is so concerned with the most efficient way to
    get things done. Often he is more concerned with trying our faith and
    obedience to him. If we will rely on Him, even when it may not make
    sense, and trust in His judgment, then He will bless us. If, on the
    other hand, we choose to reject His word because of skepticism, then we
    will not receive those blessings he intends for us to have. 
    
    I realize this is not a direct answer to Ed's assertions about the
    missing pages. I don't have a direct answer as to why the Lord does
    things the way he does them. Fortunately, I don't need to have those
    answers right now. I am content to rely on the testimony of the Holy
    Spirit to me that the Book of Mormon and the Bible truly do contain the
    word of God. Other answers will no doubt fall in place, if I am
    patient. 
    
    Rich

    As a little food for thought along these lines:
    
    In Exodus 32:19, Moses broke the plates that the Lord had made for
    him (Exodus 32:16).  So, Moses had to go back and get new tablets
    (Exodus 34:1-4).  It is worth noting that the JST adds some
    clarification to this event.
    
    I figure that God knew that Moses would probably break the first
    set of tablets.  He probably expected to create the second set.
    Of course, it could be argued that God could have created two sets
    for Moses, one being a spare.  But, that was unnecessary since there
    was more stone up on the mount as well as opportunity to create
    the second set of plates.  However, in the case of the Book of Mormon,
    there was no such opportunity and it probably made more sense to create an
    abridged copy (as opposed to a duplicate copy) than to require a
    complete rewrite of the plates.
    
    Steve
    
    
    

>    I figure that God knew that Moses would probably break the first
>    set of tablets.  He probably expected to create the second set.
>    Of course, it could be argued that God could have created two sets
>    for Moses, one being a spare.  But, that was unnecessary since there
>    was more stone up on the mount as well as opportunity to create
>    the second set of plates.  However, in the case of the Book of Mormon,
>    there was no such opportunity and it probably made more sense to create an
>    abridged copy (as opposed to a duplicate copy) than to require a
>    complete rewrite of the plates.
    
I'm sorry, Steve, but I guess I don't follow your reasoning. You seem 
to be drawing a parallel between Moses' broken tablets and these missing 
116 translated pages of the Book of Mormon.  No one has said anything 
about a re-write of the golden plates, I believe we're talking about the 
relatively simple task of Joseph Smith employing his powers of translation 
to replace the pages that had been stolen. So the pages were stolen, some 
work would have to be done over - a delay at worst, and, considering the 
remarkable rate at which Smith could supposedly translate, it would not 
be a great delay at that.

All consideration of "efficiency" aside (which was never the main trust 
of my comments anyway), just what would be the big deal to simply 
re-tranlsate those pages? The clear implication of this "revelation" 
is that Smith certainly *could* have re-translated them just as he did 
the first time, but if he did, these evildoers would have come forth 
with the stolen pages - then altered - and use them to discredit Mr. Smith
and derail God's plan to restore the "true gospel". That it would be 
nearly impossible for these malefactors to accomplish alterations to a 
hand-written manuscript is apparently overlooked... a petty plot at best. 
Hardly grounds for doing away with a large portion of scripture.

God is not careful to preserve His holy word only to have a "prophet"
throw away 116 pages of it just because some "evildoers" hatch a plot to
discredit him. It must not be awfully important if it's that dispensable.
I still say this far-fetched story only points to the human source of the
Book of Mormon, and, unfortunately also demonstrates the apparent
inability of those who so readily believe it to think objectively and
critically for themselves. I have heard repeatedly that the LDS Church
encourages its members to think for themselves, but I see little evidence
of that going on here. 

Ed
    

One point implicit in my reply is that sometimes the Lord will re-issue 
scriptures given.  He might have told Moses to put the tablets back together 
or to simply remember the commandments and have them written down, but He 
didn't.  Instead, he provided a way for the tablets to be restored.  

Similarly, the Lord provided a way for restoration of the lost manuscripts.
However, as has been indicated in a previous response, an extra twist involved 
was that the original translation had already been altered (re-written).  Other
notes in this conference indicate that not only would it be possible for 
someone to create authentic-looking forgeries, but it has happened and has led 
to the deception of experts.  

As to efficiency, this is more an observation on my part.  In one fell swoop, 
the Lord had provided a solution that not only solved the problem of restoring
lost scripture, but also of thwarting the designs of devious persons.  



Steve

Re .34&35

	I suppose it does sound pretty "fishy" if you try to explain
	the workings of God in terms and logic of man.  It gets back to
	that point of irreconcilable differences, as the key ingredient is
	faith in whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God.  Lacking
	that it, does seem rather suspect, I grant you.  But lets look at
        it from "Pro" instead of "Con". 
                                                                
        We believe that God did in fact tell Joseph not to retranslate as 
	Allen says here:	

        
> In commanding Joseph to not retranslate the 116 pages, the Lord explained
> that the persons who had the missing pages had altered the wording, and
> if Joseph were to retranslate the pages, these persons would use their
> altered version to claim that Joseph could not translate twice.
	
	To me, nothing could be more logical.  It would be difficult to 
	forge extensive changes of the original manuscript but it would 
	be a great deal easier to change punctuation, add a few letters
	like "not, un," or "ed" etc or to delete or omit, changing
    	completely the meaning.  
    
    	It is clear to me that those seeking to thwart the work of the 
	Lord (remember I am presenting a "Pro" position) have made use 
	of much less, than this would have been, to  mislead and to 
	deceive others.   To produce a document such as the altered
	116 pages of manuscript  would have been the most credible piece
	of "evidence" produced thus far against the Lords work.  



	
>This still sounds pretty fishy, Allen. For one thing, it is claimed
>that Hebrew would have been the language of preference for the writers of
>the Book of Mormon, but that the plates had to be written in "reformed
>Egyptian" - an "unknown" language - because there wasn't enough room on
>the plates, yet we are expected to believe that a full 116 pages was
>reserved solely for this implausible eventuality. 
	
	Ed,
		Where is it claimed that Hebrew is the preferred language
	of  *writing*?  I think the point is made very clear that Hebrew
	would have been to cumbersome and difficult to write considering
	they were "writing" by engraving metal plates.  A shorter more
	concise method was opted for.  Most scholars agree that Hebrew is
	a comparatively wordy language.  The reformed Egyptian was written
	right to left as was Hebrew.



>This frankly silly-sounding story about "duplicate information" contained
>in an attachment just to thwart some questionable plot of Satan's (and 
>conveniently help Smith avoid re-translation) says an awful lot, I think...


    
    	I do not see the need or place for such terms as "silly" or any
    	other subjective labels in what is presented as a logical argument.
    	I am sorry you feel that way Ed.  God does want us to use our
    	minds but as with everything there are limits and guides given
    	us as is inferred by Isaiah.
    
    
	ISAIAH 28:21-22
	For the Lord shall rise up as in Mt Perazim, He shall be wroth 
	as in the valley of Jibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work;
	and bring to pass his act, his strange act.
	   Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made
	strong; for I have heard from the Lord God of hosts a consumption, 
        even determined upon the whole earth. 
    
	
    	I have always wondered at that phrase "strange act".  It is
   	as if He does not want us to understand Him or more likely just
    	and indication that we are incapable of understanding His
    	ways.  
    
        	
	In His Love,
    	-gary
    

  We must also remember that at J. Smiths time, the technology was not
  there to do extensive testing of documents (if the 'evildoers' would
  have given them up) to prove them forgeries or not.  Today we can do
  all sorts of chemical and physical analysis, handwriting analysis, etc.
  Back then, it would have been very difficult to have proven that the
  pages had been changed if JS had retranslated and published it.  The
  way the Lord provided for this information to come to us anyway is
  logical and simple.  The reason I (and presumably many others) believe
  the way we do *is* because we think on our own.  We have heads and we use
  them, and when we recognize truth, we don't throw it away.  I have critically
  looked at many many christian religions (and have been exposed personally
  to people from them) and none are as complete, logical, etc. as the LDS
  religion.

	Chad

>>>>   < Note 138.41 by SQUEKE::LEIGH >
>>>>                         -< ...logically speaking... >-



    Which is not to say that that is what my testimony is based upon.
    That is only a support for my testimony that comes from the Holy Spirit.

	Chad

I think that the newspapers during Joseph Smith's time would have given great
publicity to the altered manuscript being different from the retranslation.
I doubt that the editors would have been concerned whether or not the altered
manuscript seemed authentic or was an obvious forgery.  Even today, in our
age of "professionalism", "objectivity", and "enlightenment", newspapers are
known to act in unprofessional ways.  Tomorrow, after I bring my copy of BYU
Today back to work, I'll enter an example of this in our time, concerning the
unprofessional conduct of the Los Angeles Times during the Hofmann episode.

Allen

Another point to remember is that there was a significant portion of
the gold plates that were 'sealed.' In other words, Joseph had *more*
gold plates than just those that are translated into the Book of
Mormon. Joseph was commanded not to attempt to break the seal, because
these passages were meant to come forth at a later time. 

Given this promise that there are additional scriptures yet to come
forth, I am unconcerned that the 116 pages were lost, because it
surely is only a temporary loss. I have always assumed that the 116
pages were meant to come forth at a later time. 

A brother in Christ,
/kevin

    Regarding the 'missing pages':
    
    It seems to me that it would have been very simple for the evil-doers
    to simply rewrite the lost pages, altering the text. No need to change
    the original document itself, if they wanted to avoid the problem of
    the document appearing to have been altered. The point has already been
    made that 150 years ago the technology to test the authenticity of the
    document and the handwriting did not yet exist. 
    
    Here is another possible way to look at this. The translated document
    probably already had lots of handwritten corrections in it, as part of
    the process of proofreading and verifying that the translation was
    correct. It wouldn't have been that difficult to scratch out or insert
    words in a manner that appeared consistent with the other such
    markings, yet totally changing the meaning of the text. 
    
    Ed is correct in saying that members of the LDS church are encouraged
    to think for themselves and to reason out all things best we can. Even
    so, this does not replace the need to trust in the witness of the Holy
    Spirit, and to trust that the Lord knows [much] more than we do.
    Evidence to this aspect is the *many* who have set out to prove the
    Book of Mormon false, and have instead come to know by the power of the
    Holy Ghost that it is true. 

    Those who fight against the Book of Mormon so often seem so ready to
    accept any old argument against it, without taking the Lord at His
    promise that He will reveal the truth of it to the sincere seekers of
    truth. The truth of the Book of Mormon cannot be known without the
    witness of the Holy Spirit. For those who have received this witness
    and remain faithful to it, no argument against the Book of Mormon will
    convince them otherwise. 
        
    Regards,
    Rich

Re 38.8

>There are over 3900 changes [to the Book of Mormon] (I have the documentation
>for every one of 
>them), in a Book supposedly written by God's divine guidance and therefore, 
>"the most correct book on the earth".  I won't go into the changes here.  
>Any one who wants to can find out for themselves.

Note 143 has been created to discuss the changes to the Book of Mormon.  143.1
gives an overview of the changes and is written by Robert J. Matthews of BYU.
The NOTES to that reply give several references to papers that discuss the
changes.

When Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on earth,
I think he was referring to the information or concepts or doctrine in the
book not to the language used in the book.  Joseph was personally involved
in making changes to the text for the 1837 and 1840 editions, because the
language of the 1830 edition did not clearly express the concepts that were
involved.  One problem in being a prophet is that one learns concepts and
ideas through revelation and then has to grapple with the weaknesses of our
languages to express those ideas.  Robert J. Matthews comments on this problem
in 143.1.

Allen

	Regarding the missing 116 pages.

	Since it has been stated that Joseph Smith did not translate
    word for word -- the 116 pages would have been different anyway.
    Even considering this, Satan felt it necessary to convince some
    men to alter the 116 page manuscript that Martin Harris lost, EVEN
    BEFORE the expected re-translation of the document. 
    
	Now if Joseph Smith was using his own words, and his own
    mistakes, then there was no need to alter the stolen
    manuscript, because Joseph would have made different mistakes the
    second time around and he would have used different words.

	Now others have supposed what would have happened with the press
    at the time if Joseph Smith would have just re-translated the 116
    pages.  In all fairness, let me suggest what would have happend
    from a non-LDS point of view.
    
    If the 116 pages were just made up:
    
    		Joseph Smith would have been found out to be a fraud.

    If the 116 pages were from God:
    
    		God could have:
    				Smote the men who stole the papers.	or
			    	Hidden the stolen 116 pages.          or
				Given Joseph a Word of Knowledge as
    				 to where to find the pages -
				 or a vision of where to find them.    or

    			        God could have just let him re-translate
    				and either give people the extra measure
    				of faith to believe or require the extra
    				faith to believe.
    
	If you think about it, there is no real reason why God had to
    command Joseph not to re-translate.  But if you suppose from the
    assumption that the BoM is a fraud, then it is logical that the
    revelation would follow.

RE: < Note 138.47 by GENRAL::RINESMITH "GOD never says OOPS!" >


>	Regarding the missing 116 pages.
>
>    If the 116 pages were from God:
>    
>    			        God could have just let him re-translate
>    				and either give people the extra measure
>    				of faith to believe or require the extra
>    				faith to believe.
    
Or:

God could have just *not* let him re-translate, told Joseph the 
reason, and either give people the extra measure of faith to believe
or require the extra faith to believe. 

You are right about one thing - faith is the essential element
involved in resolving this. 

/kevin

	This is turning into a rathole.  It seems to me that there
	is logical argument on both sides.  However, this does not
	make either side right or wrong, only logical.  What is left
	after each argument is a plea for introspection.  I suggest
	we all leave it at that with regards to this issue.

	Steve	

Forgive me if this information is entered elsewhere, but what is known 
about the contents of the 116 pages, other than that the 'Book of
Lehi' is contained in them? 

A brother in Christ,
/kevin

    Re: Note 138.50 by MEMIT1::OSSLER 
    
>   Forgive me if this information is entered elsewhere, but what is known
>   about the contents of the 116 pages, other than that the 'Book of Lehi'
>   is contained in them? 

    Kevin, you ask a very good question. As I have been studying the Book
    of Mormon this year, I, too have wondered about this. 
    
    The Lord commanded Nephi to keep two somewhat parallel accounts of his
    people, for reasons unknown to him. One was called the large plates of
    Nephi, which contained more of the governmental and military history of
    the people, and one was referred to as the small plates of Nephi, which
    were to focus on spiritual matters, including the prophecies and
    revelations that were received. This explains why there is a lot more
    talk about the government and military affairs of the people beginning
    in Mosiah than before Mosiah. 
    
    The large plates were handed down from king to king, while the small
    plates were handed down to Nephi's brother, Jacob, and to Jacob's
    descendants. Toward the end of the small plates, the writers write very
    little, and the last one, Amaleki, says the plates are full, and he
    delivers them to king Benjamin, who also has the large plates. From
    this point on, there is only the one record kept. 
    
    Mormon, when abridging the record of his people some 500 years later is
    inspired by the Holy Spirit to include in the record the smaller plates
    of Nephi, saying: 
         
         I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings
         and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my
         record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be
         choice unto my brethren, 
         
         And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me,
         according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is
         in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord
         knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh
         in me to do according to his will. (Words of Mormon 1:6-7)
         (Words of Mormon 1:6-7) 

    Both the Book of Omni, the last book from the small plates, and the
    Words of Mormon, which provides a transition between the two, briefly
    mentions Mosiah, the father of King Benjamin and King Benjamin. These
    men were great men of God, but very little is said about them. I find
    myself hungering to know more about them. The last two verses in the
    Words of Mormon say this: 
    
         For behold, king Benjamin was a holy man, and he did reign
         over his people in righteousness; and there were many holy
         men in the land, and they did speak the word of God with
         power and with authority; and they did use much sharpness
         because of the stiffneckedness of the people- 
         
         Wherefore, with the help of these, king Benjamin, by laboring
         with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole
         soul, and also the prophets, did once more establish peace in
         the land. (Words of Mormon 1:17-18) 
         
    The next thing we know, the Book of Mosiah begins, where Benjamin is
    very old, delivers a powerful sermon to his people, the entire kingdom
    is converted to Christ in a miraculous manner, and Benjamin turns over
    the kingdom to his son, Mosiah. Oh, how I would like to have more of
    the words of king Benjamin, who was such a powerful leader, as well
    as his father, Mosiah.
    
    I am very grateful for the 'choice' things that we have received in the
    first few books of the Book of Mormon. I also look forward to the
    possibility of learning more about Mosiah and Benjamin if and when the
    contents of the lost 116 pages should come forth again. 
    
    Regards,
    Rich
    

Re 38.8

>Since the [Hofmann forged] letters would have proved that Joseph Smith was 
>involved in some shady deals, the Mormon leaders paid Hoffman thousands of 
>dollars to buy the documents so they could cover-up the incident. 

The following is from a talk by Elder Dallin H. Oaks at BYU on August 6, 1987.
(Ensign, October 1987, pp. 63-68)

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

I will comment first on the charge of suppression.

One week after the bombings, in an effort to answer public questions, the
Church made known that it had acquired "forty-some documents" from Hofmann
by purchase, donation, or trade."  (Gordon B. Hinckley, remarks at 23 Oct.
1985 press conference.)  The Church operates under a divine mandate to acquire
and preserve the documents and artifacts that show its history, and these
acquisitions were part of that effort.  In succeeding weeks, and exhaustive
inventory of the Church's huge collections revealed the extent of Hofmann's
transactions with the Church.  These follow-up details were immediately
disclosed to the authorities making this criminal investigation.

In the midst of these efforts to inform its members and to aid in the pending
investigation, the Church's openness on its dealings with Hofmann was used
against it.  For example, the 'New York Times Magazine' of 12 January 1986
states:

"Hinckley said at a press conference that, starting in 1980, he had purchased
about 40 documents from Hofmann.  Only a few of them have been made public;
others are in a church vault.  Whether they cast any new light on the
church's past is not known." (pp. 43, 46)

What President Hinckley said was that he had purchased *two* documents, and
Church History Department personnel had acquired the rest.  Furthermore, the
unknown documents were mostly innocuous, unknown not because they were hidden
in a vault--they were not--but unknown because they were unimportant.

During this same month of January 1986, the Church turned all of its
Hofmann-acquired documents over to the prosecutors, at their request.  As a
result, the Church could not make its Hofmann documents public to answer
these innuendoes of suppression without seeming to try to influence or impede
the criminal investigation.

On 11 April 1986, after months of searching through its records and collections,
the Church published a complete list of the forty-eight documents and groups
of court records then known to have been acquired from Mark Hofmann.  That list
spoke for itself: It was a mixture of the already-published, the intriguing, the
routine, and the trivial.  Now, over a year later, we know that some of the
forty-eight are forgeries, because they were named in the criminal charges and
confessed by Hofmann during his questioning by prosecutors.

But Hofmann handled many documents that were not specifically listed in the
criminal charges and covered in the subsequent questioning.  So like most
owners of Hofmann-handled documents, the Church is still unsure how many of
such documents are forgeries and which are genuine.  As of this date, the
Church does not even have possession of all of the forty-eight it acquired.  The
prosecution has not yet returned the last thirteen, which include the documents
of greatest interest to the public.

Despite the Church's publication of a complete list of its acquisitions from
Hofmann, the allegations of suppression continued.  for example, an 11 February
1987 'New York Times' feature states:

"According to investigators, the church leaders purchased from Mr. Hofmann and
then hid in a vault a number of 19th-century letters and other documents that
cast doubt on the church's official version of its history."

This kind of character assassination attributed to anonymous "investigators"
has been all too common throughout the media coverage of this whole event.
One wonders why the 'New York Times' would not mention in its long article
that almost a year earlier the Church had published a detailed list of its
Hofmann acquisitions?  Is the 'Times'' motto still "All the news that's fit
to print", or has it become "All the news that fits a particular perspective"?

Also conveniently omitted from mention in most of the repetitious media recitals
of the Church's "suppression" of documents is the fact that the most prominent
Hofmann documents used to attack the origins of the Church--including Martin
Harris' so-called Salamander letter, Joseph Smith's treasure-hunting letter to
Josiah Stowel, and the Joseph Smith III blessing--were all made public by the
church many months before the bombings triggered intense public interest in
this subject.  We should also remember the Church's repeated cautions about the
authenticity of these documents.  For example, President Gordon B. Hinckley
said this about the Martin Harris letter:

"No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document.
However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no
indication that it is a forgery.  This does not preclude the possibility that
it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies."
(News Release, 28 Apr. 1985)

Another document that has been headlined in these charges of suppression is the
so-called Oliver Cowdery History.  This mythical manuscript has been the
subject of hundreds of column inches of newspaper speculation and innuendo
because an anonymous source claimed to have seen it in the Church's possession.
The so-called "deep throat" source also claimed that the manuscript's contents
were embarrassing to the Church--specifically, that it was Alvin Smith, not
Joseph, who found the golden plates.  This was the basis for the critics'
reasoning that the church had an Oliver Cowdery History and was suppressing it.

In a few minutes I will describe the conclusion of this particular allegation
of suppression.  Suffice it to say now that as far as we were able to determine
in the months that followed, the so-called Oliver Cowdery History was a figment
of someone's fertile imagination.  Mark Hofmann has now admitted that he was
the one who invented the story.  Hofmann's claims that the Church possessed a
damaging document acquired a life of its own because too many unsophisticated
persons were quick to repeat and embellish sensational rumors hurtful to the
church, and too many newspapers and television stations were eager to trumpet
the unauthenticated claims of an anonymous informant....In the transcripts
released 31 July 1987, Hofmann admitted that he fabricated the story about
the Oliver Cowdery History, lying in his interview with a 'Los Angeles Times'
reporter....

Did the Church seek to obtain the so-called McLellin Collection in order to
keep it from public scrutiny?

No!  At the decision-making level, Church authorities consistently made clear
that the Church was not interested in purchasing the so-called McLellin
Collection or in loaning money for its acquisition by another person.  In
the circumstances that prevailed in June 1985, to have the Church involved
in the acquisition of the papers of a prominent opponent of the Church would
simply fuel the then-current speculation that the Church was seeking to
acquire the McLellin Collection in order to suppress it.

In his interviews with the prosecutors, Mark Hofmann has recited conversations
he said he had with President Hinckley, claiming the President asked him to
help the Church purchase the McLellin Collection directly or indirectly.
President Hinckley has denied this.

Re 38.8

>MORMON CHURCH NOT DIRECTED BY REVELATION
>----------------------------------------
>
>Proof of this is the fraudulent documents sold to the Mormon leaders by 
>Mark Hoffman.  Since the letters would have proved that Joseph Smith was 
>involved in some shady deals, the Mormon leaders paid Hoffman thousands of 
>dollars to buy the documents so they could cover-up the incident.  It was 
>later proved that the letters were frauds and that Mark Hoffman had dupped 
>the Mormon leaders.
>
>If these Mormon leaders live in the divine revelation of God, why wouldn't 
>have God told them that Mark Hoffman was a deceiver and to not go along 
>with the cover-up?  I am reminded of a story of Ananias and Sapphira who 
>tried to lie to God.....

The following is from Elder Dallin H. Oaks in a talk given at BYU on August 6,
1987 (Ensign, October 1987, pp. 65-66)

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

Some have asked, how was Mark Hofmann able to deceive Church leaders?

As everyone now knows, Hofmann succeeded in deceiving many: experienced Church
historians, sophisticated collectors, businessmen-investors, national experts
who administered a lie detector test to Hofmann, and professional document
examiners, including the expert credited with breaking the Hitler diary forgery.
But why, some still ask, were his deceits not detected by the several Church
leaders with whom he met?

In order to perform their personal ministries, Church leaders cannot be
suspicious and questioning of each of the hundreds of people they meet each
year.  Ministers of the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love.
In that kind of atmosphere, they fail to detect a few deceivers, but that is the
price they pay to increase their effectiveness in counseling, comforting, and
blessing the hundreds of honest and sincere people they see.  It is better for a
Church leader to be occasionally disappointed than to be constantly suspicious.

The Church is not unique in preferring to deal with people on the basis of
trust.  This principle of trust rather than suspicion even applies to
professional archives.  During my recent visit to the Huntington Library in
Pasadena, California, I was interested to learn that they have no formal
procedures to authenticate the many documents they acquire each year.  They say
they consider it best to function in an atmosphere of trust and to assume the
risk of the loss that may be imposed by the occasional deceiver.

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

Elder Oaks explained in that talk that "almost all of his [Hofmann] contacts
with the church were with the professional personnel in the Church Historical
Department." (p. 65)  He explained further that "Church *leaders* made the
purchase or received the donation of only three documents from Hofmann or
his intermediary.  Acting for the Church, President Gordon B. Hinckley purchased
the Joseph Smith letter to Josiah Stowel from Hofmann.  At about that same time,
President Hinckley received from him as a gift to the Church a draft letter
of Thomas Bullock, dated 27 January 1865.  Third, Hofmann sold the Martin
Harris-W. W. Phelps letter to Steven F. Christensen.  Some months later, after
Christensen completed his research and authentication, he delivered this
letter to President Hinckley as a gift to the Church.  Church Historical
Department personnel were fully informed about all of these transactions."
(p. 65)

The remaining documents were purchased by Church Historical Department
personnel.

Re .40
>	I suppose it does sound pretty "fishy" if you try to explain
>	the workings of God in terms and logic of man.  It gets back to
>	that point of irreconcilable differences, as the key ingredient is
>	faith in whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God.  Lacking
>	that it, does seem rather suspect, I grant you.  
                                                                
Precisely. It seems to take a great leap of something like faith to 
arrive at the point of believing something is true in spite of so many 
"rather suspect" obstacles...
	
>		Where is it claimed that Hebrew is the preferred language
>	of  *writing*?  I think the point is made very clear that Hebrew
>	would have been to cumbersome and difficult to write considering
>	they were "writing" by engraving metal plates.  A shorter more
>	concise method was opted for.  Most scholars agree that Hebrew is
>	a comparatively wordy language.  The reformed Egyptian was written
>	right to left as was Hebrew.

I think you are somewhat misinformed about this, because it is very plain
in Mormon 9:33 that "if our plates had been sufficiently large, we would 
have written in Hebrew". That sounds like Hebrew is the preferred language 
of writing, but that they were somehow short of plates and couldn't fit 
it all in. 

Also, in the following verse it says that "none other people knoweth our 
language", so how do you know that reformed Egyptian was written right 
to left?

>>This frankly silly-sounding story about "duplicate information" contained
>>in an attachment just to thwart some questionable plot of Satan's (and 
>>conveniently help Smith avoid re-translation) says an awful lot, I think...

    
>    	I do not see the need or place for such terms as "silly" or any
>    	other subjective labels in what is presented as a logical argument.
>    	I am sorry you feel that way Ed.  

I don't think it's inappropriate to be honest. I think Smith's account 
of why he would not re-translate the stolen pages sounds silly, but I can 
still argue about it logically.

>	God does want us to use our
>    	minds but as with everything there are limits and guides given
>    	us as is inferred by Isaiah.

>	ISAIAH 28:21-22
>	For the Lord shall rise up as in Mt Perazim, He shall be wroth 
>	as in the valley of Jibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work;
>	and bring to pass his act, his strange act.

>    	I have always wondered at that phrase "strange act".  It is
>   	as if He does not want us to understand Him or more likely just
>    	and indication that we are incapable of understanding His
>    	ways.  

The word in Hebrew is "nok-ree" and can also be rendered "unusual", 
"unexpected", "wonderful". It does not imply inability to understand.
	
Ed
    

RE: < Note 138.51 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter" >


Thanks, Rich. Very interesting.


/kevin

Re 38.8

>D & C Section 84:21-22 states that no man can see the face of the Father 
>and live UNLESS he has the Priesthood.  Joseph didn't receive the 
>Priesthood until 1829, yet he said that he saw both the father and the son 
>in 1820.  Which is the error, section 84 or Joseph's account of the vision?

Neither is in error.  Let's take a closer look at section 84.

Section 84 is a revelation on Priesthood.  It was given in 1832 after the
Priesthood had been restored and the Church organized.  In this section,
the Lord explains the importance of the Priesthood and the benefits we gain
by having it among us.

In the first verses of the section, the Lord traces the lineage of the
Priesthood from Adam down to Moses, the result being His statement that the
"priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations".  In verse 20
He states that through the ordinances of the Priesthood "the power of
godliness is manifest", and in verse 21 He states that "without the ordinances
thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not
manifest unto men in the flesh;"  That is, without the Priesthood we can not
have the ordinances of the Gospel, and without the ordinances we can not
have a full relationship with God, nor can we act in God's name.

Then in verse 22, the Lord states, "For without this no man can see the face
of God, even the Father, and live."  That is, without the ordinances of the
Gospel and the Priesthood that makes those ordinances possible, no one can see
God.  In verses 23 and 24, the Lord explains that Moses tried to prepare *all*
of the Israelites to "behold the face of God; But they hardened their hearts
and could not endure his presence;"

The context of verses 21 and 22, then, is that whenever the Lord's Church
is on earth, the Priesthood and the ordinances of the Gospel will be in the
Church, and the people will be able to have a full relationship with God
and to actually be in His presence.  On the other hand, however, if the
Priesthood is not on the earth, the people will be without the ordinances
of the Gospel and will be limited in their relationship to God.

Now, let's consider the case where the Priesthood is not on the earth, the
people are limited in their ability to have a full relationship with God,
and the Lord would like to restore the Priesthood.  Does Section 84 mean
that the Lord can not initiate contact with mortals so He can restore the
Priesthood?  I don't think so.  The Lord can certainly appear to whom ever He
wishes in order to call persons to the ministry.  Section 84 is concerned
with our long-term relationship with God not with the short-term need of
God appearing to someone to initiate the restoration of His Church.

Allen

Re 38.8

>Also, the writers of the plates were supposed to be Jews.  Why then did 
>they write the plates in Egyptian?  The Nephites were born and raised Jews.  
>As most Jews, they probably despised the Egyptians.  Why then would they 
>defile themselves and write in a language that they did not even speak 
>among themselves?  Moses, raised as an Egyptian, educated by the best 
>teachers in Egypt (he was of the house of Pharaoh) did not write anything 
>in Egyptian, he wrote in Hebrew.  Why should they?

Dr. Hugh Nibley, in his book 'An Approach to the Book of Mormon' has
described the culture of the Hebrews in 600 B.C.  Although he is LDS, his
sources of information are not.

At the beginning of each chapter, Dr. Nibley gives an overview of the chapter.
In responding to Leza's comment, I will quote from the overviews.  Persons
wanting more details can refer to his book, which is currently available as
a reprint from F.A.R.M.S.

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

[the reader of the book] is warned to avoid the practice common among the more
sophisticated critics of the Book of Mormon of judging that book not in the
light of the ancient times in which it purports to have been written, but in
that of whatever period the critic himself arbitrarily chooses as the time
of its production.  The Book of Mormon must be read as an ancient, not as a
modern book. (p. 1)

The note of universalism is very strong in the Book of Mormon, while the
conventional views of tribal and national loyalties are conspicuously lacking.
This peculiar state of things is an authentic reflection of actual conditions
in Lehi's world.  Lehi like Abraham was the child of a cosmopolitan age.  No
other time or place could have been more peculiarly auspicious for the launching
of a new civilization than the time and place in which he lived....Lehi's
expedition from Jerusalem in aim and method was entirely in keeping with the
accepted practices of his day. (p. 26)

There are many indications in the book of First Nephi that Lehi was a merchant.
That title meant a great deal in Lehi's day; there is ample evidence that the
greatest men of the ages engaged in the type of business activities in which
Lehi himself was occupied.  But along with that these same men were great
colonizers, seekers after wisdom, political reformers, and often religious
founders.  He we see that Lehi was a typical great man of one of the most
remarkable centuries in human history... (p. 38)

Only within the last few yeas has it been realized that the ancient Hebrews
were not the primitive agricultural people that scholars had always supposed
they were, but among other things that they were always very active in trade
and commerce.  Their commercial contracts reached for many hundreds of miles
in all directions, which meant an extensive caravan trade entailing constant
dealings with the Arabs.  In Lehi's day the Arabs had suddenly become very
aggressive and were pushing Jewish merchants out of their favored positions
in the deserts and towns of the north.  To carry on large-scale mercantile
activities with distant places it was necessary for merchants to have
certain personal and official connections in the cities in which they did
business....Jewish merchants were very active in Arabia in Lehi's day,
diligently spreading their religion wherever they went, and settling down not 
only as tradesmen in the towns but permanent cultivators and colonizers in the
open country.  Lehi's activity in this regard is more or less typical, and
closely resembles that of his predecessor Jonadab ben Rekhab. (p. 47)

Here [chapter 6] we discuss Lehi's personal contacts with the Arabs, as
indicated by his family background and his association with Ishmael whose
descendants in the New World closely resemble the Ishmaelites (Bedouins) of
the Old World.  The names of Lehi and some of his sons are pure Arabic.  The
Book of Mormon depicts Lehi as a man of three worlds, and it has recently
become generally recognized that the ancient Hebrews shared fully in the
culture and traditions of the desert on the one hand and in the cultural
heritage of Egypt on the other. (p. 58)

The Book of Mormon insists emphatically and specifically that Lehi had
acquired at least a veneer of Egyptian culture.  Only within the last few
decades have students come to appreciate the intimate cultural ties between
Egypt and Palestine in Lehi's day.  Here [chapter 7] we note some of the
discoveries that have brought about that surprising realization.  Though
Lehi's loyalty to Egypt seems mainly cultural, there is a good deal in the
Book of Mormon to indicate business ties as well.  Here we present two
documents describing business dealings between Egypt and Palestine in
ancient times: the one depicts the nature of overland traffic between two
regions, the other gives a picture of trade by sea.  That Lehi was interested
also in the latter type of commerce is apparent from the prominence of the 
name Sidon in the Book of Mormon. (p. 70)

In Chapter 7, Dr. Nibley discusses the close ties between Palestine and
Egypt.  An example of this is the following:

Israel's Cultural Dependence on Egypt: Students have often speculated of
recent years on the strange and suicidal devotion of the Jews to the cause
of Egypt in the time of Zedekiah....It has been learned within the last
generation that cultural and economic ties between ancient Israel and
Egypt were far stronger than anyone had hitherto supposed.  J. W. Jack
noted in 1938 that "excavations have shown a closer connection with the land
of the Pharaohs than was suspected...the authorities at Lachish were
probably using, or at least were accustomed to the Egyptian calendar and
the Egyptian system of numeration in their local records."  Though this goes
for an earlier time, "all indications point to this connection with Egypt
continuing unbroken right down to the end of the Jewish monarchy." (p. 70-71)

At the conclusion of Chapter 7, Nibley says:

Let us summarize by recalling what we first learned about Lehi from the Book
of Mormon.  He was exceedingly rich, and his wealth took the form of all
manner of precious things, with an accent on gold and silver; his treasures
were portable and he and his sons knew and appreciated fine metal work when
they saw it. In a land that produced no precious metals, Lehi could have
acquired these things only by inheritance or trade.  What he got by inheritance,
however, was an estate in the country, and the origin of his wealth may be
confidently detected in his intimate knowledge of vine and olive culture.
That he traded is clearly implied by his close--almost sentimental--ties with
the great non-Jewish port of Sidon and with the great culture of Egypt.  That
he and his sons knew a good deal about caravan techniques is obvious, and yet
we are explicitly told that they knew nothing at all about shipbuilding.
Why should they?  Shipbuilding was the jealously-guarded monopoly of the coast
people.  As far as the business affairs of Lehi are set before us in the
Book of Mormon, everything is exactly as it should be. (p. 77)

Thus, Leza, we see that Nephi's use of Egyptian in recording his history
was a normal thing for the son of a rich Jew to do.

Allen

Re 38.8

>3.  Joseph committed adultery - and we are talking about out and out 
>adultery, never mind the polygamy issue.

>"Joseph Smith finally demanded the WIVES OF ALL THE TWELVE APOSTLES that 
>were at home then in Nauvoo

Joseph Smith did ask for the wives of the twelve apostles, but he did this
only to test them.  He did not intend to nor did he receive any of their wives.
He was inspired to try them, just as the Lord tested Abraham with his son Isaac,
to see if they would be obedient.  Just as Abraham was not actually required to
kill Isaac, neither were the Apostles required to give Joseph their wives, but
only to be willing to do so, if the Lord required it of them.

It may be useful for us to reflect on the words of the Lord to his disciples
in the Bible where he told them that they must be willing to forsake even
their families for Him. (Matthew 10:37)  Leza, this part of your note is an
excellent example of how anti-Mormon authors not only take an incident out of
context but also come to an incorrect and malicious conclusion.  We have to keep
in mind that polygamy had been introduced to the Apostles (but not the Church as
a whole), and when Joseph said he wanted their wives, they understood he was
referring to their obtaining divorces and Joseph taking the wives in polygamy.

Jedediah M. Grant, speaking in the Tabernacle on February 19, 1854, explained
why Joseph tested the Apostles.  His discourse was on the power of God and the
power of Satan in these last days.  He explained that we would be tested by God
to see if we would do whatsoever thing He would command.  God would test us,
Jedediah said, via the temptations of Satan and also via the prophets of the
Lord.

    I would ask you if Jehovah has not in all ages tried His people by the
    power of Lucifer and his associates; and on the other hand, has He not tried
    them and proved them by His Prophets? (JD 2:14)

Jedediah then gave two examples of the Lord testing us.

    Did the Lord actually want Abraham to kill Isaac?  Did the Prophet Joseph
    want every man's wife he asked for?  He did not, but in that thing was the
    grand thread of the Priesthood developed.  The grand object in view was
    to try the people of God, to see what was in them.  If such a man of God
    should come to me and say, "I want your gold and silver, or your wives,"
    I should say, "Here they are, I wish I had more to give you, take all I 
    have got."  A man who has got the Spirit of God, and the light of eternity
    in him, has no trouble about such matters. (JD 2:14)

Jedediah explained that the Lord tries us until we develop obedience to him
and become "like the passive clay in the hands of the Potter."

Truman Madson in his eight lectures on Joseph Smith gave another example of
the Prophet testing a member of the Twelve.  While meeting with the Twelve,
Joseph berated Brigham Young for something which he had not done; this was
not a mild rebuke but was very severe and apparently lasted for a long time.
Brigham sat there and said nothing.  When Joseph finished, Brigham said, 
"Joseph, what would you have me do?"  With tears in his eyes, Joseph came
over and embraced Brigham and said, "Brigham, you passed!"

We might ask ourselves, "Why would Joseph test the brethren in those ways?"
"What right did he have to do those things?"  First, as a prophet, Joseph
had the right to do what-so-ever the Lord inspired him to do.  Second, the
Lord knew that the Church would be placed under severe stress from the mobs
and persecution, and Joseph needed to know which Leaders would be strong
enough to endure the persecution and remain faithful; more importantly,
perhaps, the brethren needed to know if they would be strong enough to
remain faithful.  LDS Church history is full of accounts of leaders who
were not strong and who fell away and joined the mobs when persecution arose.
    
Leza, the first reference you gave to support the claim from the anti-Mormon
books you are reading that Joseph committed adultery was from "Mormon
Portraits".  That book is itself an anti-Mormon book and is not a reliable
source of history.  The author of "Mormon Portraits" is a "Dr. Wyl" who was a
Berlin, Germany reporter.  The book was published by the "Salt Lake Tribune"
newspaper, which in 1886 was very anti-Mormon.  The book had the endorsement of
W. S. Godbe, who had been excommunicated from the LDS Church and who started the
movement known in Utah history as the Godbeites.  Gilbert W. Scharffs, who wrote
"The Truth About 'The GodMakers'" referred to "Mormon Portraits" as "The
Godmakers" of its day. ("Truth", p. 229).

You also referred to "The Life of Heber C. Kimball" by Elder Orson F. Whitney.
I haven't been able to locate a copy of that book among my ward members, but
I would guess that the context of the statement about Joseph asking for
Heber C. Kimball's wife would be that given by Jedediah M. Grant not that
given by "Mormon Portraits".  If anyone reading this conference who lives in
the Salt Lake City or Provo area can obtain the book from the public library,
Salt Lake Institute Library, or BYU library and photo-copy the portion 
being referred to so we can check the context, I will be grateful.

You also referred to the "Confessions of John D. Lee."  I would be careful
about taking statements from that book at face value with out verifying the
context from other sources, because after the Mountain Meadow incident, Lee
became bitter against the Church.

Allen

Re: 38.8 by IAMOK::LEZAS

>"Joseph Smith finally demanded the WIVES OF ALL THE TWELVE APOSTLES that 
>were at home then in Nauvoo...Vilate Kimball, the first wife of Heber C. 
>Kimball, ...loved her husband, and he...loved her, hence a reluctance to 
>comply with the Lord's demand that Vilate should be consecrated...They had 
>a young daughter only getting out of girlhood, and the father apologizing 
>to the prophet for his wifes reluctance to comply with his desires....asked 
>Joe if his daughter wouldn't do as well as his wife.  Joe replied that she 
>would do just as well, and the Lord would accept her instead.  The 
>half-ripe bud of womanhood was delivered over to the prophet."  (Mormon 
>Portraits, 1886, page 70-72)
>
>This was verified in the book "The Life of Heber C. Kimball" written by the 
>Mormon Apostle Orson F. Whitney.

I located a copy of the book "Life of Heber C. Kimball", Third Edition, Orson F.
Whitney, in the local LDS Institute of Religion library. This book was
originally written by the grandson of Heber C. Kimball, Orson F. Whitney, in
1888. In this book, this incident is related twice, as follows: 
    
    A grand and glorious principle had been revealed, and for years had
    slumbered in the breast of God's Prophet, awaiting the time when, with
    safety to himself and the Church, it might be confided to the sacred
    keeping of a chosen few. That time had now come. An angel with a
    flaming sword descended from the courts of glory and, confronting the
    Prophet, commanded him in the name of the Lord to establish the
    principle so long concealed from the knowledge of the Saints and of the
    world - that of plural marriage. 
    
    Well knew the youthful Prophet the danger of this task. Well knew he
    the peril and penalty of disobedience. Fearing God, not man, he bowed
    to the inevitable, and laid his life - aye, was it not so? - upon the
    altar of duty and devotion. 
    
    Among those to whom Joseph confided this great secret, even before it
    was committed to writing, was his bosom friend, Heber C. Kimball. Well
    knowing the integrity of his heart, so many times tested and found
    true, he felt that he ran no risk in opening to Heber's eyes the
    treasured mysteries of his mighty soul. (Pages 312-322) 
    
    Before he would trust even Heber with the full secret, however, he put
    him to a test which few men would have been able to bear. 
    
    It was no less than a requirement for him to surrender his wife, his
    beloved Vilate, and give her to Joseph in marriage! 
    
    The astounding revelation well-nigh paralyzed him. He could hardly
    believe he had heard aright. Yet Joseph was solemnly in earnest. His
    next impulse was to spurn the proposition, and perhaps at that terrible
    moment a vague suspicion of the Prophet's motive and the divinity of
    the revelation, shot like a poisoned arrow through his soul. 
    
    But only for a moment, if at all, was such a thought, such a suspicion
    entertained. He knew Joseph too well, as a man, a friend, a brother, a
    servant of God, to doubt his truth or the divine origin of the behest
    he had made. No, Joseph was God's Prophet, His mouthpiece and oracle,
    and so long as he was so, his words were as the words of the Eternal
    One to Heber C. Kimball. His heart strings might be torn, his feelings
    crucified and sawn asunder, but so long as his faith in God and the
    Priesthood remained heaven helping him, he would try and do as he was
    told. Such, now, was his superhuman resolve. 
    
    Three days he fasted and wept and prayed. Then, with a broken and a
    bleeding heart, but with soul self-mastered for the sacrifice, he led
    his darling wife to the Prophet's house and presented her to Joseph. 
    
    It was enough - the heavens accepted the sacrifice. The will for the
    deed was taken, and "accounted unto him for righteousness." Joseph wept
    at this proof of devotion, and embracing Heber, told him that was all
    that the Lord required. He had proved him, as a child of Abraham, that
    he would "do the works of Abraham," holding back nothing, but laying
    all upon the altar for God's glory. 
    
    The Prophet joined the hands of the heroic and devoted pair, and then
    and there, by virtue of the sealing power and authority of the Holy
    Priesthood, Heber and Vilate Kimball were made husband and wife for all
    eternity. 
    
    Heber's crucial test was in part over. Vilate's trial was yet to come.
    The principle of celestial marriage was now known to them, so far as
    their own eternal covenant was concerned, but the doctrine of plurality
    of wives which it involves, was yet to be revealed. How Heber and
    Vilate received and embraced this feature of the principle is thus
    tenderly told by their daughter Helen: 
    
    "My mother often told me that she could not doubt the plural order of
    marriage was of God, for the Lord had revealed it to her in answer to
    prayer. 
    
    "In Nauvoo, shortly after his return from England, my father, among
    others of his brethren, was taught the plural wife doctrine, and was
    told by Joseph, the Prophet, three times, to go and take a certain
    woman as his wife; but not till he commanded him in the name of the
    Lord did he obey. At the same time Joseph told him not to divulge this
    secret, not even to my mother, for fear that she would not receive it;
    for his life was in constant jeopardy, not only from outside influences
    and enemies, who were seeking some plea to take him back to Missouri,
    but from false brethren who had crept like snakes into his bosom and
    then betrayed him. 
    
    "My father realized the situation fully, and the love and reverence he
    bore for the Prophet were so great that he would sooner have laid down
    his life than have betrayed him. This was one of the greatest tests of
    his faith he had ever experienced. The thought of deceiving the kind
    and faithful wife of his youth, whom he loved with all his heart, and
    who with him had borne so patiently their separations, and all the
    trials and sacrifices they had been called to endure, was more than he
    felt able to bear. 
    
    "He realized not only the addition of trouble and perplexity that such
    a step must bring upon him, but his sorrow and misery were increased by
    the thought of my mother hearing of it from some other source, which
    would no doubt separate them, and he shrank from the thought of such a
    thing, or of causing her any unhappiness. Finally he was so tried that
    he went to Joseph and told him how he felt - that he was fearful if he
    took such a step he could not stand, but would be overcome. The
    Prophet, full of sympathy for him, went and inquired of the Lord. His
    answer was, 'Tell him to go and do as he has been commanded, and if I
    see that there is any danger of his apostatizing, I will take him to
    myself.' 
    
    "The fact that he had to be commanded three times to do this thing
    shows that the trial must have been extra-ordinary, for he was a man
    who, from the first, had yielded implicit obedience to every
    requirement of the Prophet. 
    
    "When first hearing the principle taught, believing that he would be
    called upon to enter into it, he had thought of two elderly ladies
    named Pitkin, great friends of my mother's who, he believed, would
    cause her little, if any, unhappiness. But the woman he was commanded
    to take was an English lady named Sarah Noon, nearer my mother's age,
    who came over with the company of Saints in the same ship in which
    father and Brother Brigham returned from Europe. She had been married
    and was the mother of two little girls, but left her husband on account
    of his drunken and dissolute habits. Father was told to take her as his
    wife and provide for her and her children, and he did so. [Footnote
    reads: Heber was told by Joseph that if he did not do this he would
    lose his Apostleship and be damned.] 
    
    "My mother had noticed a change in his manner and appearance, and when
    she inquired the cause, he tried to evade her questions. At last he
    promised he would tell her after a while, if she would only wait. This
    trouble so worked upon his mind that his anxious and haggard looks
    betrayed him daily and hourly, and finally his misery became so
    unbearable that it was impossible to control his feelings. He became
    sick in body, but his mental wretchedness was too great to allow of his
    retiring, and he would walk the floor till nearly morning, and
    sometimes the agony of his mind was so terrible that he would wring his
    hands and weep like a child, and beseech the Lord to be merciful and
    reveal to her this principle, for he himself could not break his vow of
    secrecy. 
    
    "The anguish of their hearts was indescribable, and when she found it
    was useless to beseech him longer, she retired to her room and bowed
    before the Lord and poured out her soul in prayer to Him who hath said:
    'If any lack wisdom let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally
    and upbraideth not.' My father's heart was raised at the same time in
    supplication. While pleading as one would plead for life, the vision of
    her mind was opened, and, as darkness flees before the morning sun, so
    did her sorrow and the groveling things of earth vanish away. 
    
    "Before her was illustrated the order of celestial marriage, in all its
    beauty and glory, together with the great exaltation and honor it would
    confer upon her in that immortal and celestial sphere, if she would
    accept it and stand in her place by her husband's side. She also saw
    the woman he had taken to wife, and contemplated with joy the vast and
    boundless love and union which this order would bring about, as well as
    the increase of her husband's kingdoms, and the power and glory
    extending through the eternities, worlds without end. 
    
    "With a countenance beaming with joy, for she was filled with the
    Spirit of God, she returned to my father, saying: 'Heber, what you kept
    from me the Lord has shown me.' She told me she never saw so happy a
    man as father was when she described the vision and told him she was
    satisfied and knew it was from God. 
                                                          
    "She covenanted to stand by him and honor the principle, which covenant
    she faithfully kept, and though her trials were often heavy and
    grevious to bear, she knew that father was also being tried, and her
    integrity was unflinching to the end. She gave my father many wives,
    and they always found in my mother a faithful friend." 
    
    Helen also refers in her narrative to the sensation caused in Nauvoo,
    one Sabbath morning, prior to the return of the Twelve form England, by
    a sermon of the Prophet's on "the restoration of all things," in which
    it was hinted that the patriarchal or plural order of marriage, as
    practiced by the ancients, would some day again be established. The
    excitement created by the bare suggestion was such that Joseph deemed
    it wisdom, in the afternoon, to modify his statement by saying that
    possibly the Spirit had made the time seem nearer than it really was,
    when such things would be restored. 
    
    These facts serve to show something of the nature and extent of the
    sacrifice made by the Saints, in accepting this principle, and likewise
    the pure, lofty, religious motives actuating both men and women who
    could thus heroically embrace a doctrine against which - as is
    generally the case with the gospel's higher principles - their
    traditions and preconceived notions instinctively rebelled. 
    
    Soon after the revelation was given a golden link was forged whereby
    the houses of Heber and Joseph were indissolubly and forever joined.
    Helen Mar, the eldest daughter of Heber Chase and Vilate Murray
    Kimball, was given to the Prophet in the holy bonds of celestial
    marriage. (Pages 323-328) 
  
This is the second telling of this incident, in connection with a similar
event:  

    At this point in our history we deem it proper to introduce a series of
    anecdotes and reminiscences relating to President Kimball, nearly all
    of which were contributed, at the author's invitation, especially for
    this work. These flowers of incident culled from the gardens of
    recollection, cannot fail to interest the reader, while they
    illustrate, as nothing else could, the character and conduct of this
    remarkable man. (Page 431) 

    James Lawson's narrative: 
    
    "In 1855, Heber C. Kimball sent for me (I had just been married
    thirteen days) and said, 'Brother James, I want you to give your wife
    Betsy a divorce.' I said 'Brother Kimball, what is the matter? There is
    nothing wrong with us, and we think everything of each other.' He said,
    'Nothing is the matter, but here is the divorce and I want you to sign
    it.' I signed it and he told me to send her home to her mother (Sarah
    Noon [footnote reads: Heber's first plural wife.]) which I did. At the
    same time I asked her if she had been making any complaints to Brother
    Kimball about me. She said, 'Never, to anybody.' I did not sleep a wink
    that night, and no one knows what I suffered in my feelings. I prayed
    frequently to the Lord and inquired of Him what all this meant. Towards
    morning I received an answer to my prayers. The Spirit came unto me,
    'Be comforted, my servant James, all will come out right.' Soon after
    this Brother Kimball went to the Legislature, which was held at
    Fillmore, and was absent from home about two months. When he returned
    he gave me a mission to Carson Valley and told me to get Betsy and
    bring her to the Endowment House with me. I did so and he sealed us for
    time all eternity. 
    
    "After this took place I said, 'Brother Kimball what did you do that
    for?' He said, 'Brother James, I did it to try you as I was tried. I
    will tell you. After I had returned from my second mission to England
    in 1841, the Prophet Joseph came to me one evening and said, "Brother
    Heber, I want you to give Vilate to me to be my wife," saying that the
    Lord desired this at my hands.' Heber said that in all his life before
    he had never had anything take hold of him like that. He was
    dumbfounded. He went home, and did not eat a mouthful of anything, nor
    even touch a drop of water to his lips, nor sleep, for three days and
    nights. He was almost continually offering up his prayers to God and
    asking Him for comfort. On the evening of the third day he said,
    'Vilate, let's go down to the Prophet's,' and they went down and met
    him in a private room. Heber said 'Brother Joseph, here is Vilate.'
    "The Prophet wept like a child,' said Heber, 'and after he had cleared
    the tears away, he took us and sealed us for time and all eternity, and
    said, "Brother Heber, take her, and the Lord will give you a
    hundredfold."'" (Pages 439-440) 
    
Leza has accused the Prophet Joseph Smith of adultery. She has cited sources
that clearly take out of context what happened, with respect to Heber C.
Kimball. She has jumped to the erroneous conclusion that Joseph Smith committed
adultery. In my view, she has participated in the slander of the name of a great
prophet of God. 

The church and its leaders, including Joseph Smith, have always clearly taught
the principle of chastity, which means that sexual relations outside the bonds
of marriage are in violation of God's laws. It is and always has been the
practice of the church that those who will not repent of such sins and forsake
them are removed from membership in the church.

Rich

    Re:57 That was great Allen.  It lays some good ground work for my
    entry here although it will not be in anyway of comparable quality.
    Re:58,59  Also great!  I recieved some information I was seeking. 
    RE:.54  CASV02::PRESTON "NO Dukes!!"  -< Not yet a rathole... >-


	Hi Ed,
		Sorry for the delay in replying to your note.
		I think the points that we were discussing were
	minor but they peaked my interest.  I say minor because you 
	made the point that Reformed Egyptian was used while they would
	have rather used their native tongue of Hebrew but the plates
	were not large enough.  Which means that Hebrew was to big.
	     Then I tried to make the point that they opted for an 
	easier means of writing expressions due to the difficulty of the 
	medium.  Which means they did not use Hebrew because it was too
	"wordy" (big?).  Minor?  
	     When the entire Scripture of Mormon 9:33 is considered I feel 
    	it shows that another consideration was accuracy.  Notice the last 
    	idea:

	MORMON 9:33
	And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have 
	written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; 
	and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold we would have 
	had no imperfection in our record.

	The one who was writing this was the lone survivor of the 
	Nephite nation.  Since he was trying to avoid discovery, setting
	up a kiln to smelt ("molten") more ore to make plates (and smoke) 
	might not have been too good of an idea.  I feel that this is why 
	he bemoaned the lack of plate space.  At that time.  I 	believe 
	others during the 1000 years of the Nephite existence, could have 
	made more plates so that space would not have been a major concern 
	to them. Maybe they did.  Nephi knew how long the book would be but
	did he make all the plates then?  There were two sets up until
	King Benjamin who combined the role of king and prophet then the 
	need for two sets ended.   I did not look that up again but I believe
	that is correct.  
		If space was not the problem for them then why did they 
	still use R.E.?  After making that entry which Moroni must have 
	thought to be his last, ever, he obviously made some more plates 
	as he entered the book of Ether and the book of Moroni.  He lived 
	another 30 or so years.  He now had the time.  He even felt he had 
	so much plate space he started to enter letters from his father 
	Mormon.  Why did he not use Hebrew then if space was the only 
	restraint?   Im sure there was more to it than that and you may have 
	ideas or know where they are found, that answer these questions.
	Please feel free to share them with us.
        
	I will have to agree that it is not "obvious" from the writings
	in the Book of Mormon alone.  As I so ineptly misstated.  If I can
	get this foot out of my mouth, let me share what I found that sheds
	some light on this subject.  Just what is "reformed Egyptian" and
	why did they use it? 




	Taken from Book of Mormon Student Manual Religion 121-122 used by
	BYU published by Church Educational System Edition revised. 1981
	pp 13,14
	
	   In Mormon 9:32,33, Moroni indicated that the plates were 
	   written in reformed Egyptian that had been altered by the 
	   Nephites after their manner of speech.  Some scholars believe 
	   that reformed Egyptian  was a type of shorthand. Moroni 
	   stated (vs 33) that if the plates had been larger they would
	   have been written in Hebrew.  It also suggests that it must 
	   have required less space to write reformed Egyptian than to 
	   write Hebrew.  This helps us to better appreciate just how 
   	   efficient the reformed Egyptian language must have been.  
 	   Compared to English and many other western languages, Hebrew 
	   is very compact. A typical English sentence of fifteen words 
	   will often translate into seven to ten Hebrew words .  Below 
	   is an example of how compact Hebrew can be.  (It shows a page
	   of Hebrew writing about 6 inches square) This is a translation 
	   of 2 Nephi 5:20 through 2 Nephi 11:3, a section that takes 
	   nearly fifteen pages in the English version.  Obviously, the 
	   Hebrew characters are smaller in this example than the usual 
	   type in the modern Book of Mormon, but even if one tripled 
	   the size of the characters they would still occupy only about 
	   two pages, compared to fifteen.  We have no indication of what 
	   size character Mormon and Moroni wrote, but obviously if they 
	   rejected Hebrew because the plates were not "sufficiently 
	   large" (Mormon 9:33), then reformed Egyptian must have been a 
	   language remarkable for its ability to convey much information 
	   with few words.

	Ed, concerning your question:

>Also, in the following verse it says that "none other people knoweth our 
>language", so how do you know that reformed Egyptian was written right 
>to left?
	
	There is also some very interesting information concerning The Book
	of Mormon relative to Semitic languages brought to light by Dr
	Sammi Hanna as relayed to me at a seminar by noted Mormon author
	and speaker Brenton Yorgason.  Much of this lecture is also
	on an audio tape by him called "Little known evidences of the 
	Book of Mormon".

		
	Approx 1979 the LDS Church leaders sought to have the Book of Mormon
	translated back into its Semitic tongue.  They felt that there
	was no one in the Church that was qualified to do this.  They 
	went to the University of Utah Middle East Studies Center and to 
	a Dr Sammi Hanna (sp?) who was teaching Arabic at the University.  
	Dr Hanna was a Muslim and is Aramaic by birth.  He agreed to do 
	the translation.  Quoting Brenton,"As he read he said 'This is
	amazing. This is not terrible English' (he referred to some "Anti"
	material Dr Hanna had read) `like I have been told.  This book 
	is not English.  It is the most beautiful Semitic book I have 
	ever read in my life' He was so thrilled that by the time that 
	he got to Third Nephi he knew that Jesus really is the Christ
	the resurrected savior of mankind. He also knew that the Gospel
	of Jesus Christ had been restored.  He was baptized."

	Some time later Brenton met Dr Hanna's assistant in Da Haran (SP)
	Saudi Arabia at a priesthood meeting.  He learned that Dr Hanna
	was now teaching at the University at Rihad.  

	He gave to Brenton 10 Semitic characteristics that reveal the 
	Book of Mormon to have been translated by Joseph Smith and
	not authored by him or by Solomon Spaulding or Sidney Rigdon
	who Joseph had not even met yet or anyone else.
	
	1. Semitic Languages are Recorded and read Right to Left.
	   
	   When Joseph began his translation, it is recorded in 
	the journal of his wife Emma Smith that he complained about 
        how the reformed Egyptian was read Right to Left.



	2. Semitic Languages use no capital letters.		
	   
	   Brenton said "I was reading the original manuscript today
	and Jerusalem was not even capitalized."  
	
	3. In the Semitic language there are no paragraphs.
	   
	   The Book of Mormon had no paragraphs.


	4. Semitic languages have no punctuation.
	   
	   The Book of Mormon had  no punctuation.  The first printed
	copy did have some punctuation etc as E.B Grandin hired John H
	Gilbert to go through the entire manuscript (A copy. The original,
	never left Joseph's side) and punctuate it. "to add periods, commas, 
	and question marks.  He spent several weeks"
	


	5. Semitic language has two verb tenses.  
	   
	   The Book of Mormon has only two verb tenses.

	
	6. Semitic language uses function words.   
	   
	   The Book of Mormon uses function words.  An example
	is in Helaman 3:14.

		But behold, a hundreth part of the proceedings of 
	     this people, yea the account of the Lamanites and of 
	     the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and 
	     dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, 
	     and their shipping and their building of ships, and 
	     their building of temples, and of synagogues and their 
	     sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their 
	     wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, 
	     and their plundering, and all manner of abominations 
	     and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work.

	There are 17 "and"s where we would put 16 commas and one "and".
	Another example is to be found in 1 Ne 2:4 with the use of 
	the pronoun "his". They all have to be there or it would not
	be Semitic.


	7. Semitic uses Cognate Accusatives.
	
	   The Book of Mormon uses Cognate Accusatives.  This is where 
	the verb is matched with the Noun.  i.e. He dreamed a dream.  He
	worked a work. He built a building.  etc


	8. The numbering system separates each digit with a function word
	as in 400 and 20 and 7 years.
	   
	   The Book of Mormon uses this numbering system.

	   Semitic names are easily identifiable as such.
	   Shakespear created 60 names in his life time.  There are 183
	new names in the Book of Mormon.  How many of these are Semitic?
	183. {Pretty good for an illiterate farm boy who had no idea of
	what Semitic meant...   OK I will try not to editorialize.}

	"They have two vowels we don't have. One of them is used as a name
	`Chemish'.  Dr Hanna said that Chemish is one of the most beautiful
	Semitic words he has ever seen" says Brenton.

	
	9. Sentence structure.  Sentence suffix and prefix words are very 
	important to the meaning of the word.
	   		
	   The Book of Mormon follows this Semitic convention. In Enos 1:5

	     And there came a voice saying: Enos thy sins are 
	     forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed.

	   If the last "thee" had not been there (which is the way we talk)
        it would have been totally meaningless.  Semitically.
	The book of Mormon is full of these structure-critical words usages.


	10. Idioms.  An idiom is an expression that is idiosyncratic to a 
	culture.  It is almost impossible to talk without using them.
	   
	    There are 160 Semitic idioms in the Book of Mormon. It would be 
	hard to write without subconsciously using them.  Some are quite
	subtle and it would be difficult to eliminate all of them from 
	anything we write.  So how many idioms, peculiar to our day or
	more accurately, Joseph Smith's day, do you suppose crept into
	the Book of Mormon. 
	Zero.

	
	Some Semitic idioms.

	They used body parts to express what was going on.
	Alma 32:6  "..he turned himself around.."
	  "   ":7  "..He stretched forth his hand.."
	  "   ":8  "..Lowly of heart.."

	Here are some common ones.
	Many waters
	turned aside their ears
	face of the land
	plates of brass
	sword of Laban
	
	Since Joseph was a Jr you would think that he would refer to 
	the son of someone as a Jr at least once.  No. 
	...the younger
	...son of
	
	We would have used the word "said" instead of the rather 
	laborious "spoken by the mouth of".  Five words.


	Dr Hanna explained that "Reformed Egyptian" is a scribal language.
	My daughter used a scribal language on our walls.  I believe
	however that he meant that the scribes, minute takers, record
	keepers used this language as a convenient language just as we
	use short hand. May I quote Brenton.

	"The Egyptian language that was learned by Lehi's people was 
	actually a scribal language.  It wasn't eve a common second language 
	like Spanish  might be for us.  It was a scribal language because it 
	was a short hand way to write things down.  So as we think of Gold 
	plates and how precious each one of those metal plates would become 
	we know that Egyptian was a lot more practical to write than the long 
	and cumbersome Hebrew language"	

	Moroni knew that his writings were rather unsophisticated as to our
	way of speaking. He was a prophet and had seen our day. He had
	fears about its reception by us.


	ETHER 12:25-26 
	     Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that 
	   we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our 
	   weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and 
	   I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

	      And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying:  
	   Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient 
	   for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of you weakness.

	

	I hope this answered some questions.  I have called Brenton
	in Utah to get answers to some of mine and learn of other sources.  
	If there are further questions about these concepts I am sure he 
	will help me locate the answers.  
	    I already asked.  Dr Hanna has not written a book yet. He has
	lectured some.
 
	I have entered some of these ideas in another entry a few weeks 
	ago.  Please forgive the repetition.

	
	I apologize for the poor spelling and all the other mistakes.
	I am not a literary genius. I could claim to be a wit but I 
	would only be half right.  

	I find all this fascinating but I try not to forget that no matter
	how impressed I am, it is not with by my imperfect understanding  that 
	I may come unto Father through Jesus The Christ but by the changes 
	within my heart. 

	In His Love,
	-gary
 


    
   

Re .57
    
Allen, you can't possibly support your conclusion from the contents of your
note! 

> "..the authorities at Lachish were probably using, or at least were
> accustomed to the Egyptian calendar and the Egyptian system of numeration
> in their local records."  

Fair enough, but it's one thing to be familiar with a foreign calendar
and number system, and quite another to record your history in their
language. Of course any ancient merchant would need to be familiar with
other systems, just like today we must be familiar with the metric system
as well as our own system of weights and measures. That doesn't enable us
to record our history in French, however. 

> Thus, Leza, we see that Nephi's use of Egyptian in recording his history
> was a normal thing for the son of a rich Jew to do.

That's an EXTREMELY misleading statement, Allen, and cannot be supported
from the evidence you provide...

It's incredible, to me, that whenever evidence is presented that puts the
Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith in question, you are relentless in your
efforts to discredit, questioning every aspect and detail and demanding the
utmost in historical integrity and reliability. Also, you are not above
creating the impression that any one who writes "against" the Mormon
church is an "enemy" or an "apostate" and not to be believed. On the
other hand, when it comes to accepting support for something as highly
questionable as a learned Jew turning to Egyptian in preference to Hebrew
for recording history and prophecy, you are very easy to please indeed. 

If this one example is indicative of the rigor with which you approach
the historical reliability of the Book of Mormon, and Mormonism itself,
then I seriously question, in spite of all your study, whether you have
ever truly examined these things at all. 

Ed

    Thank you Allen for entering the note on Hugh Nibley. I have read
    a few of his writings and learned that very very few Biblical scholars,
    Egyptologists, etc. will debate with him because of his breadth and depth
    of knowledge in the field of Ancient Religions, cultures, practices,
    etc. He is recognized as a World Authority!  
    
    Paul

Re .61

Hi Ed,

>Allen, you can't possibly support your conclusion from the contents of your
>note! 

As I stated in .57, my reply only contained the overviews given by Nibley
plus my comment that persons wanting more detail could refer to his book.

I wasn't trying to present direct evidence upon which my conclusions would
be based.  I was giving some parallel evidence that pertained to Leza's
comments about the use of Egyptian. By only giving the overviews, I was
attempting to give the highlights of the first seven chapters without the
detail and justification that Nibley gives in his book.  (Persons not familiar
with the distinction between direct and parallel evidence may want to read
note 64).


>> "..the authorities at Lachish were probably using, or at least were
>> accustomed to the Egyptian calendar and the Egyptian system of numeration
>> in their local records."  
>
>Fair enough, but it's one thing to be familiar with a foreign calendar
>and number system, and quite another to record your history in their
>language. Of course any ancient merchant would need to be familiar with
>other systems, just like today we must be familiar with the metric system
>as well as our own system of weights and measures. That doesn't enable us
>to record our history in French, however. 

We can sit around all day and rationalize with logic what ancient people
might or might not have done, but such comments mean little.  As far as I'm
concerned, the important thing is what scholars are learning about the
ancient peoples.  In posting .57, I was providing parallel information
that doesn't "prove" anything about the Nephites, but it does relate to
the plausibility of the Nephi story.  Based on the parallel evidence given
by Nibley, the claim in the Book of Mormon about the use of reformed-Egyptian
doesn't seem as far-fetched as Leza made it seem.  In his book, Nibley does not
claim that his information "proves" the Nephites used reformed-Egyptian.  He
is attempting to show that the Nephi story fits in reasonably well with the
times and conditions of that period.  Some people may challenge Nibley's
information, and they are welcome to open a new note and discuss that topic.


>> Thus, Leza, we see that Nephi's use of Egyptian in recording his history
>> was a normal thing for the son of a rich Jew to do.
>
>That's an EXTREMELY misleading statement, Allen, and cannot be supported
>from the evidence you provide...

I agree that I should have reworded the statement, perhaps something like
the following:  Thus, Leza, Nibley's book brings out that the people who were
contemporary with Nephi were involved with things Egyptian, and it seems to
me that it is not unreasonable to expect that the son of a rich Jew could
have known Egyptian.

>It's incredible, to me, that whenever evidence is presented that puts the
>Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith in question, you are relentless in your
>efforts to discredit, questioning every aspect and detail and demanding the
>utmost in historical integrity and reliability.

If people present what they believe is direct evidence, then the level of
detail, integrity, and reliability that you spoke of should be expected.
This statement applies to both non-LDS and LDS.   However, if they present
parallel evidence, as I did in .57, that level of detail and integrity can
not and should not be expected.


> Also, you are not above
>creating the impression that any one who writes "against" the Mormon
>church is an "enemy" or an "apostate" and not to be believed. 

Only those who distort our teachings and history.  "The God Makers" film and
the quote Leza gave from "Mormon Portraits" are two examples of such distortion.
On the other hand, Jan Shipps is a non-LDS historian whom I respect and enjoy
reading.

Allen

    > As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is what scholars are
    > learning about the ancient peoples.

	Perhaps this should be a different topic.  But please tell me
    what you mean by SCHOLARS.  Where can I find any information about
    these ancient peoples outside of Mormon literature?
    
    If you mean Mormon-scholars -- please call them that.
    

>Perhaps this should be a different topic.  But please tell me
>what you mean by SCHOLARS.

>If you mean Mormon-scholars -- please call them that.

I was referring to scholars in general, not just LDS scholars.  


>Where can I find any information about
>these ancient peoples outside of Mormon literature?

Many universities have research programs in both the mid-East and Mexico
and points south, and I assume they publish their research (Sorry that I
don't have particulars on them).  Libraries have tutorials on the layman's
level.  In my case, since my time is limited, I rely on the National Geographic
for layman articles on archaeology and ancient America; I stay away from most
LDS archaeology books because of their obvious bias.  At one time I subscribed
to a layman's journal on Biblical archaeology, but I haven't kept up with it.

Allen

Re 38.8

>It has been claimed that the Mormons (unlike the Reorganized Latter-Day 
>Saints) do not follow the revision of the King James by Joseph Smith, 
>because he did not finish them.  Therefore, they did not want to include 
>them in the standard works lest there be some error.
>
>Some interesting notes:
>
>In the History of the Church, dated Feb. 2, 1833, we find the following:  
>"I [Joseph Smith] completed the translation and review of the New 
>Testament, on the 2nd of February 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be 
>opened till it arrived in Zion."
>
>Then in a letter dated July 2, 1833, signed by Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon 
>and F.G. Williams the following statement is found:  We this day, finished 
>the translation of the scriptures, for which we return gratitude to our 
>Heavenly Father."  (History of the Church, Vol. 1 page 368)
>
>The Mormon Church has totally ignored Gods command in D&C 124:89:  "and 
>publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the 
>earth."  

Dr. Robert J. Matthews of BYU made an extensive study of the Joseph Smith
Translation (JST, more commonly known as the Inspired Version), and he
published his findings in a book called "'A Plainer Translation' Joseph
Smith's Translation of the Bible A History and Commentary", published
by Brigham Young University Press, 1975.  In performing his study, Matthews 
was given access to the original manuscripts of the JST by the Reorganized
LDS.  In Chapter 10, he discusses the question of whether Joseph Smith completed
the translation or not.

I am going to present in this reply some of the key points and conclusions
brought out by Dr. Matthews.  I hope that everyone will remember that I am
not presenting all of the details which are in the book.  If anyone has
questions about this information, I will be glad to do further research in
the book and see if Matthews answers the questions.


Statements About the Translation Not Being Completed
----------------------------------------------------

As Leza pointed out, Joseph made two statements that the translation was
finished.  However, there is historical information indicating that the
translation was not finished, and one question asked by Matthews is
"What did the Prophet mean in 1833 when he said he had finished the translation?
(p. 207).

Matthews points out that there "are a number of statements from persons
close to the Prophet" that the work was not completed.  First, from his
widow, writing to her son, Joseph Smith III on February 10, 1867; Joseph III
was preparing the manuscript for publication.

    My heart is made glad to your report of your progress in the New Translation
    as you know something of my fears with regard to its publication,
    on account of what your Father said about the unfinished condition of
    the work. (p. 208)

Brigham Young and  George A. Smith both said that the Prophet had told them
that the translation was not complete. (p. 208)

In 1898, George Reynolds, Secretary to President Wilford Woodruff wrote a
letter stating that the Church did not use the JST because it was not
finished; Matthews assumes the statements of Brigham Young and George A. Smith
represent the background for that statement.

Arthur B. Phillips, a former historian of the RLDS Church wrote in 1902 that
they had reason to know that Joseph Smith did not correct all errors found
in the KJV.  In that letter, he said, "There is reason to believe that Joseph
Smith intended to carefully go over his work after he had completed it on
July 2, 1833.  This is supported...by the fact that he retained it for about
eleven years and did not approve having it issued during that time....
(p. 209)

Matthews said, "During the years 1840-44, in Nauvoo, the Prophet Joseph often
expressed to the leading brethren of the Church his feeling that he was
hampered in getting the New Translation ready for the press by lack of funds
for himself and his clerks.  The shortage of funds forced him to lay the work
aside to labor for the necessities of life, and it prevented his having the
clerical assistance he needed....This telling situation affirms that the
manuscript was not ready for the press at that time and is probably the reason
too why many revisions [to the KJV] about which the Prophet spoke were not
incorporated into the original manuscripts. (p. 209)


Corrections made by Joseph Smith in Public Addresses But Not Included
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Manuscripts
------------------

Matthews says, "In addressing the Saints Joseph Smith occasionally explained
the need for the correction of passages in the King James Version.  Some of
these are contained in the manuscript of the New Translation, but many are not."
Matthews then discussed the following scriptures that were spoken of by the
Prophet in public but not found in the manuscript itself; significantly, they
were discussed by the Prophet after the "completion" date of 1833.

  Revelation 14:13, Genesis 1:1-2, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Romans 8:26,
  Revelation 13:2, Genesis 2:7, Malachi 4:6, and John 14:2.
  (pp. 210-212)

Matthews does not imply that these scriptures are the only ones spoken of by
the Prophet.  Matthews then says, "Why the corrections cited in this chapter
were not incorporated by the Prophet into the original manuscript of the
New Translation is not known, unless it was simply that he was unable to get
around to it because of the urgency and distraction of other matters.  Perhaps
they will be included in some future edition of the New Translation.  They
attest, however, to the fact that the Prophet made a number of textual
corrections subsequent to the time of "finishing" the translation in July 1833."
(p. 212)
   

Other Evidences of Incompleteness
---------------------------------

From Matthews, "In addition to the matters presented in the foregoing
discussion, there are certain features of the New Translation itself that give
evidence of its uncompleted condition.  For example, throughout the early
chapters of Exodus the Prophet corrected with great consistency the passages
asserting that the Lord was responsible for Pharoah's hardness of heart against
the children of Israel....A similar topic was dealt with in revisions of
Matthew 6:14, Isaiah 6:9, and Isaiah 63:17.  However, the same concept in
Psalms 105:25 was left untouched. (p. 213)

Matthews then discussed several other examples where the Prophet made certain
changes in the manuscript but did not make corresponding changes in parallel
portions of the scriptures, such as for example, 2 Chronicles 18:20-22 and
1 Kings 22:21-23.


Was the Translation Itself Or Only The Manuscript Unfinished?
-------------------------------------------------------------

From Matthews, "The information presented in this chapter points to the 
unfinished nature of the New Translation, not only because the manuscript
was not ready for the printer at the time of the Prophet's death, but also
because the Prophet made revisions and translations of passages of the Bible
that were never incorporated into the manuscript of the New Translation.
These later translations were apparently presented to the mind of the Prophet
after he had 'finished' the translation in 1833.

The experience of the RLDS 1866-67 publication committee is evidence enough
that the manuscript was not ready for publication....The chairman of the
committee said he found it to be a 'braintiring' task to get the work ready
for the printer." (p. 214)

"This brings us to the discussion of one final question: If the Prophet did not
finish the translation, how far did he get?  Such a question reflects a feeling
that the Prophet made all the corrections necessary as he went along, but
that he did not get all the way through the Bible.  The truth of the matter is
that the Prophet went over parts of the Bible more than once and made additional
corrections each time.  This we learn from observing the manuscripts, although
in general it appears that he went through the bulk of the Bible one time
only....the manuscript shows that the Prophet went all the way through the
Bible from Genesis to Revelation.  But it also shows that he did not make all
the necessary corrections in one effort.  This situation makes it impossible
to give a statistical answer to questions about how much of the translation
was completed or how much was not completed.  What is evident, however, is that
any part of the translation might have been further touched upon and
improved by additional revelation and emendation by the Prophet. (pp. 214-215)


A Concept of Revelation
-----------------------

From Matthews, "The ongoing nature of revelation that is reflected in the
original manuscripts of the New Translation of the Bible suggests a concept
about how revelation comes to the mind of a prophet.  The condition of the
manuscripts illustrates the principle that enlightenment comes 'line upon
line, precept upon precept' and grows 'brighter and brighter until the perfect
day' (Isaiah 28:13; D&C 50:24).  The whole of any principle of the gospel
cannot be grasped by man in a single moment.  No single revelation of which we
have record has contained all the knowledge of eternity, nor does it seem'
possible that all the divine revelations ever given to man have completely
elucidated a single principle to such an extent that no more could ever be
given on that subject.  On this basis, it is unlikely that the translation of
the Bible could be 'finished' beyond any possibility of improvement." (p. 215)

Matthews' final comment in the chapter is the following:

"Therefore it appears that the translation of the Bible was 'finished' as far
as the Prophet intended to go in 1833.  In the eleven years that followed, he
apparently gained additional knowledge, and therefore an occasional updating
or polishing of the original manuscript was in order." (p. 218)

Re 38.8

>April 2, 1843, just before Joseph gives his second account of the prophecy 
>concerning South Carolina.
>
>"Related the dream written on page 3 - Book B Interpretation by O. Hyde - 
>old man. --government of these United States, who will be invaded by a 
>foriegn foe, probably England.  U.S. Government will call on Gen. [Joseph] 
>Smith to defend probably all this western territory and offer him any 
>amount of men he shall desire & put them under his command."  
>
>This interpretation of his dream should appear in the History of the 
>Church, Vol. 5 page 324, just before the words "I prophesy".  But this 
>interpretation has been omitted.  The reason that it was suppressed is 
>obvious:  Joseph was already dead by the time the Civil War started, and 
>therefore the interpretation could NOT be fulfilled.

I'll have to withhold comment on this until I can locate comments from
historians who are familiar with the diary.  However, the wording is
peculiar; it refers to "Gen. Smith" in the third person, causing me to wonder
who gave the interpretation.  If Joseph were writing in his diary about his
interpretation, I would expect him to refer to himself in the first person
not the third person.  The phrase "Book B Interpretaion by O. Hyde" might
indicate that Orson Hyde gave the interpretation.  Also, from the brief
statement from the diary given by Leza, it isn't clear who had the dream.


>Also, the war did not 
>spread to all nations, as prohecied,

Note 49 has already explained that the prophecy on war (D & C 87) was *not*
a prophecy of the civil war.  It was a *general* prophecy of wars that would
begin with the civil war and continue to the Second Coming.  Since that
revelation was given, we've seen two "World Wars" and many smaller wars
involving many if not most of the nations of the world.  I'm sure we'll see more
wars involving "all nations" of the earth before Christ comes.

Allen

Re 38.8

>HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
>---------------------
>
>This document has been proven to be 40% written by Joseph Smith (altered 
>many times from what he wrote in his diary) and 60% written AFTER HIS 
>DEATH.  I won't go into much detail about it here.  Those who may be 
>interested in this can begin another note, but the proof is there.
>
>"Not until Willard Richards was appointed secretary to Joseph Smith in 
>December 1842 was any significant progress made on the History.  At the 
>time he began writing, not more than 157 pages had been completed, covering 
>events up to November 1, 1831.  By May 1843, he had written 114 pages 
>beyond W.W. Phelp's last entry.  At the time of Joseph Smith's death, THE 
>NARRATIVE WAS WRITTEN TO AUGUST 5, 1838...The Joseph Smith history was 
>finished in August 1856, SEVENTEEN YEARS AFTER IT WAS BEGUN."  (Brigham 
>Young University Studies, Summer 1971, pages 466, 469, 470 and 472)
>
>    On the title page to Vol. 1 of the "History of the Church", this statement 
>    appears:  History of Joseph Smith, Prophet by Joseph Smith, Prophet.  [The
>    claim is that Joseph himself wrote his history.  Yet it is evident,
>    even in 1971, that Joseph DID NOT write, at least 60%, of it himself!]

Leza,

I'm not sure I understand your concern about the History.  You seem to be
concerned about the well-known fact that much of the History was compiled
after the death of Joseph, and I seem to sense that you are implying deceit
by those involved with the compilation.  I felt that this topic was of enough
importance to be in its own note, and I have created note 154 for that
purpose.  The first entry in that note is an article by Dean Jessee, formerly
of the Church historian's office, in which he addresses the critics of the
Church who do charge deceit.

Allen

Re 38.8

>I do not believe the Temple Ceremonies were given to Joseph Smith by divine 
>revelation.  They are too closely related to the Masons and their rituals 
>[of which Joseph was was a member].  I won't get into detail due to the 
>fact that I was censored on this before.  But the ceremonies are based on 
>Masonic rituals and blood oaths that were performed in the 1800's and 
>practiced until 1931.  They have been changed to reflect the times.  But 
>they are still rooted in darkness. 

Leza,

It is well known that Joseph Smith was a Mason and that there are similarities
or parallels between Masonic ceremonies and our Temple ceremonies.  In your
report you said the Temple ceremonies were based on Masonic rituals.  I would
appreciate your posting your historical evidence for making that claim.

I suspect that you are making the claim merely because of the similarities
between the two ceremonies.  If this is the case, Leza, you are doing both
yourself and us an disfavor, because parallels can prove only *one* thing--that
the two ceremonies do have similarities; parallels *do not* prove that the
one ceremony is based on the other.

This incorrect use of parallels is discussed in a booklet that gives a response
of a LDS historian to "Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?" written by Jerald and
Sandra Tanner.

    In the presentation of their argument, the Tanners are often guilty
    of a classic misuse of parallels in historical analysis; because item
    Y resembles item X closely and because item Y existed in point of time
    after item X, the item Y necessarily or obviously derived from (was copied
    from, was influenced by, etc.) item X....

    A related misuse of parallels occurs once item X can be shown to be capable
    in point of time and place of influencing item Y.  The conclusion is
    made that item X necessarily influenced (was copied by) item Y, without
    seriously considering 1) that despite the proximity, both item X and
    item Y developed independently, and 2) that an item A, B, or C existed
    long prior to item X and may have been the direct influence on both X
    and Y....

    The Tanners' treatment of the relationship of Mormonism and Masonry 
    (pages 484-92) is a similar use of historical parallels.  The Tanners'
    claim that Mormon temple ordinance are the item Y that Joseph Smith
    copied from the item X of Masonry.  "We feel that there is only one
    logical explanation for the many parallels between the temple ceremony
    and Masonry, and that is that Joseph Smith borrowed from the Masons."
    (page 490).  This is the "only" logical use of analogy [only] if Joseph
    Smith's claim of revelation has already been rejected.  First, the
    Tanners ignore the fact that five years before Joseph Smith was introduced
    to Masonry, two essentials of the Mormon endowment were practiced at
    Kirtland....

    Joseph Smith's initiation as a Master Mason in 1842 may indeed have acted
    as a catalyst for him to seek further revelation about the ceremonies
    that Masons claimed came from the Temple of Solomon, and...it is
    possible that Masonic phraseology influenced the development of the
    wording used to teach the sacred elements of the LDS endowment.
    Nevertheless, before repudiating Mormon temple ordinances by historical
    parallel, one should consider the ancient rites and ceremonies in
    Egyptian documents, Semitic manuscripts and early Christian sources
    [that have parallels to the Endowment indicating the Endowment was
    well known in ancient times].  This is a more appropriate test, since
    the LDS claim is that the temple ordinances existed prior to Masonry
    and prior to Solomon's temple.  The existence of parallels in ancient
    rites and LDS ordinance therefore is of at least equal importance as
    Masonic-LDS parallels.  (Response to "Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?",
    Mormon Miscellaneous Response Series #6, pp. 9-10)

Re 38.8

Leza,

In your report you said you could not accept Joseph Smith as a man of God
because

>2.  Joseph did not follow his own teachings.  It is clear from entries made 
>in his diary, and in the History of the Church, Joseph DID NOT follow the 
>Word of Wisdom, which was supposedly given to him, by God, on Feb. 27, 
>1833:

It is well known that Joseph did smoke and drink on occasion, although I
don't think he was a habitual user.  He also had other faults, including
a temper.  He committed sins and had to be chastised by the Lord.  We have
never claimed the he or our other prophets were perfect - only Jesus Christ
lived a perfect life.  In fact, a number of the Biblical prophets had
faults, and we still accept them as men of God.

The fact that ancient prophets committed sin but were still accepted of God
is discussed in "Response to 'Mormonism - Shadow or Reality?' (Mormon
Miscellaneous response series #6, pp. 5)

"Although the prophets and authors of ancient religious history communicated
God's condemnation against all sin, they also presented the clear understanding
that God's servants continued to sin or 'make mistakes', and were thus fully
human despite a divine commission.  Noah occasionally drank wine to the point
of drunkenness and unconsciousness (Genesis 9:21,23).  Abraham acquiesced in
his wife's mistreatment of his second wife (Genesis 16:6).  Jacob 'with
subtlety' and deception obtained his brother's blessing from his blind father
Isaac (Genesis 27:12,35), and also hated his first wife Leah (Genesis 29:30-31).
Moses at the least committed manslaughter prior to his call as prophet
(Exodus 2:12-14), and after that call occasionally exhibited doubt in God's
word, fierce anger, and boastful arrogance (Exodus 4:10-14, 5:22-23, 32:19;
Numbers 20:10-12).  The Lord had to intervene directly to prevent Samuel from
choosing the wrong man as king (I Samuel 16:6-7).  Daniel sought forgiveness
for his sins while prophet (Daniel 9:20).  Jonah resisted the commandment of
God to him (Jonah 1:2-3), 4:1)."

The booklet gives other examples which I have omitted.


>Today, if you do not follow the word of wisdom, you cannot get a temple 
>recommend.  Based on the above, Joseph himself would not be allowed in the 
>temple today.

If Joseph were alive today, of course he would be allowed in the temple,
because he would be the Lord's living prophet, and he would live the
commandments of God.

I'm sure, Leza, that you are aware that when the Lord revealed the Word of
Wisdom to Joseph Smith, it was not given as a commandment.  The Lord told
the people his will concerning our health, but he let them use their free
agency and choose if they would voluntarily follow his will or not.  It is
well known in the Church today that the early Saints had a hard time living
the Word of Wisdom.  The Journal of Discourses contains many sermons showing
concern because the Saints were using substances that were harmful.  Finally,
the Lord through his living prophet changed the Word of Wisdom to be a
commandment, because the Saints were too weak to live it voluntarily.

People should make a decision whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or not through
personal prayer to God, not whether Joseph lived without sin or not.

Allen

Re 38.8

>There can be only ONE Melchizedek, one high priest, and since Jesus 
>continueth forever, it cannot be transfered to another.  JESUS IS OUR HIGH 
>PRIEST - there is no other!

We agree, Leza, that Jesus is our high priest; the point in question is if
he is the only member of the order of Melchisedec.

In Hebrews 7, Paul talks about the need of the Melchisedec priesthood replacing
the Aaronic priesthood because perfection can not come via the Aaronic or
Levitical priesthood.  Paul talks of Christ being the great high priest of
the Melchisedec priesthood.  However, Paul doesn't say "yea" or "nea" about
there being other members of the Melchisedec priesthood besides Christ.  He
doesn't address that question at all.

Please consider this.  First, Melchisedec was a real man who was king of
Salem and to whom Abraham paid tithing.  He had the Melchisedec priesthood
and was such a great man that that priesthood was named after him.  Second,
the Melchisedec priesthood is referred to by Paul as an 'order', implying that
there are more than one person holding the priesthood.  These two facts imply
that mortal people can hold the Melchisedec priesthood.  In note 4.10 I
discussed in detail the fact that Christ ordained his Apostles by laying his
hands on them and giving them authority to perform his work.  The Apostles
in turn ordained Elders and other officers and gave them authority.  Since
Christ is the great high priest of the Melchisedec priesthood, since
Melchisedec was a mortal who held that priesthood, and since that priesthood is
an 'order', it seems to me that the authority which Christ gave his Apostles and
which they passed on to others was in fact the Melchisedec priesthood.


>In Christ, I am a priest; I can declare the praises of him.  My authority 
>comes from Jesus himself.

Interesting.  Did he lay his hands on you and ordain you as he did the Apostles?

Allen

Re 38.8

>Also, how could there be a total apostasy when there was at least one 
>apostle, John (and possibly four, if one considers the 3 Nephite disciples 
>as holding the office of apostle, as some in the Church do), when the 
>current teaching is that as long as one Elder remains alive HE has the 
>power to reorganize the Church and all its structured systems?
>
>And from Mormon theology, John and the 3 Nephites are still alive TODAY.

Leza,

A total apostasy occurs when God withdraws his priesthood from the people.
It is true that John and the three Nephites were still alive and held the
priesthood during the apostasy, but they did not give their priesthood to
others.  They did not ordain others.  They did not function as officers in
the Christian church during the middle ages.  As far as the Christian church
was concerned, there was no authority on the earth, there was no revelation
from God, and the earth was in a total apostasy. 

You spoke of the case where there would be only one Elder alive with the
priesthood and that he would have the power to reorganize the church.  That
is true *if* he were directed by Jesus to organize the church.  In this case
there would be no total apostasy because the church would continue.  However,
if he were directed by Jesus to *not* organize the church, then a total
apostasy would occur since the church would be gone from the earth, even
though the lone Elder were still living.

Allen

    Re: .72
    
    Interesting side note to what you've said, Allen. Jesus *did* direct
    the apostle John, as well as Peter and James to organize the church
    again. They came and ordained Joseph Smith and directed him in these
    matters. That is how the priesthood was restored - by those who
    held it in the early Christian church!
    
    Rich

    Just a brief note to add to Allen's about the Priesthood.  Leza
    raised the topic of the Priesthood not being transferable.  This
    idea came from Martin Luther.  This topic was discussed in detail
    in a recent Ensign.  I will look for it and enter it.  The gist
    of the idea is related to a passage in Hebrews in which Paul talks
    of an "unchangeable priesthood".  Luther interpreted this to mean
    untransferable.
    
    Paul
    

Re. 138.71             

Allen,

It is a very interesting argument that you present regarding the 
Priesthood of Melchisedech. However, neither your assumptions nor your 
conclusions can be supported by the writings of Paul in Hebrews. You 
appear to have made a common mistake, that of not considering all the 
relevant passages. This is a much deeper and more marvelous principle 
than the mere creation of just another order of priests...

> Paul talks of Christ being the great high priest of the Melchisedec
> priesthood.  However, Paul doesn't say "yea" or "nea" about there being
> other members of the Melchisedec priesthood besides Christ.  He doesn't
> address that question at all. 

I must disagree with you on this. He most certainly does address this 
question, and very clearly.

> Please consider this.  First, Melchisedec was a real man who was king of
> Salem and to whom Abraham paid tithing.  He had the Melchisedec priesthood
> and was such a great man that that priesthood was named after him.  Second,
> Melchisedec priesthood is referred to by Paul as an 'order', implying that
> there are more than one person holding the priesthood.  These two facts imply
> that mortal people can hold the Melchisedec priesthood.  

If you go back to Hebrews 7, you will see that Paul describes Melchisedec 
as being "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither 
beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; 
abideth a priest continually." This statement alone proves that 
Melchisedec was not a mortal, as you have suggested. 

In the previous verse his title "King of Salem" is also explained; "King
of Salem, that is, King of peace." Therefore we see that he was not the
mortal king of a physical place, but rather a type of Christ Himself. 

Paul further elaborates on the contrast between the imperfect Levitical 
priesthood and the perfect Melchisedec priesthood, how Christ fulfills 
the role of perfect High Priest on our behalf "Wherefore he is able also 
to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever 
liveth to make intersession for them." (v. 27) Since Christ performs this 
role perfectly, and lives forever, then we have no need for others.

> ...the fact that Christ ordained his Apostles by laying his hands on
> them and giving them authority to perform his work.  The Apostles in turn
> ordained Elders and other officers and gave them authority.  Since Christ
> is the great high priest of the Melchisedec priesthood, since Melchisedec
> was a mortal who held that priesthood, and since that priesthood is an
> 'order', it seems to me that the authority which Christ gave his Apostles
> and which they passed on to others was in fact the Melchisedec priesthood. 

An interesting logical progression, but not correct, since it is made 
plain in these chapters (7-10) that there is room for only one High 
Priest of this kind, to make one sacrifice, once, for all, and for all 
time:

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of 
Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and 
offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins: 
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat 
down on the right hand of God... For by one offering he hath perfected 
forever them that are sanctified." (see ch 10)

Incidentally, the word translated "order" can also be translated "rank", 
and therefore does not necessarily imply others.

In light of this, it seems improper to suggest that other than Christ 
could ever fulfill this high priestly role, nor does it make sense that 
it could ever be passed on to others. Whatever may have been passed on to 
the Apostles by Christ, it does not appear to have included the 
Melchisedec priesthood.

Ed

    Actually, the question can be asked of any Aaronic or Mechisedek
    Priesthood holder.  When given Priesthood (which is done via laying
    on of hands) one also receives  a Priesthood lineage which traces
    back to the Apostles.  But, I think that the trading of sarcasm
    here is a bit unfortunate and detracting.  Let's keep this friendly!
    :-)
    
    Steve

    re: 138.76
    
    In case anyone is confused, .76 was in response to the question
    Allen asked of Leza, "did Christ lay his hands on you and ordain
    you into the priesthood?" (not the exact wording, but close). I
    felt that it was fair to ask the same of him, since the Mormons 
    lay claim to this priesthood. Actually, Allen's question did seem
    a bit sarcastic, and my response was in the same vein. Though I
    don't think either was *that* sarcastic, just the same...
    
    In the meantime I put together what I felt was a better entry, deleted 
    the first .75, and replaced it with a new one. Apparently, at the very 
    same time, Steve Sherman was composing a response to the original .75, 
    which disappeared 2 minutes before .76 appeared.
    
    Ed
    

Yesterday, I began composing my answer to Ed's question but didn't have time to
finish it before he deleted his question.  I agree that my question to Leza
appeared to be sarcastic, although I didn't intend it to be such.

As I tried to explain in note 4.10, we LDS place a lot of importance on
priesthood authority, and we believe it must be given from one person to another
via ordination through the laying on of hands.  

Many people today disagree with this concept of priesthood and say that either
no priesthood is necessary for one to serve in a ministry of Christ, or that
a "spiritual" priesthood exists which is given via the Spirit as people feel
called to a ministry.  When Leza said her authority came from Jesus himself, my
question asking if she received it via the laying on of the Savior's hands
referred to the concepts I had presented in 4.10.  I apologize to Leza and Ed
for not taking more time to compose my thoughts more clearly and avoid the
appearance of sarcasm.

Ed asked an important question:  Can we LDS say that we were ordained by the
Savior's hands.  I would like to discuss that in the remainder of this reply.

No, we can not say that we were literally ordained by the Savior, but we do
believe we were ordained by persons who were ordained by persons who ... who
were ordained by the ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John, who were ordained
by Jesus himself.

In note 4.22 I discussed our belief that the resurrected John the Baptist
ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to the Aaronic Priesthood, and that
the three original Apostles of Christ, Peter, James, and John, ordained them
to the Melchizedek priesthood.  We believe that both priesthoods were given
by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and
that through our Apostles the priesthoods have continued down until today.
Thus, we do claim a direct priesthood lineage back to Christ.  As with the
Book of Mormon, and the Church in general, we ask everyone to study our
claim of priesthood authority and ask God in prayer if it is true.

Allen

    I promised to provide information about Martin Luther's interpretation
    of Hebrews 7 and an "unchangeable" priesthood.  Below is that
    information.  It comes from an article written by James Carver,
    of the University of Washington Institute of Religion. The article
    is long and my typing is not the best, so please forgive typos.
    
    The seventh chapter of Hebrews is used by many Protestants to aargue
    that there is no need for a priesthood function in the church apart
    from Jesus - that he alone held the Melchizedek Priesthood.
    
    When Luther rebelled against the Catholic priesthood, he developed
    the idea of a "priesthood of all believers" and taught the notion
    "that no man needed a priest to mediate between him and God, except
    Christ, who is the perfect priest for all men" (from William Horden,
    A LAYMAN'S GUIDE TO PROTESTANT THEOLOGY, MACMILLAN & CO, 1955). 
                                                               
    In his epistle to the Hebrews Paul refers explicitly to the Melchizedek
    Priesthood, assuming that his readers already understand its function.
     His purpose in writing the epistle is to prove the superiority
    of the higher covenant (gospel law) to the lesser covenant (Mosiac
    Law). In chapter seven, he continues to follow this pattern by showing
    that the Melchizedek Priesthood, which adminisers the higher law
    is superior to the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood, which administers
    the lesser law.
    
    Verse 24 is perhaps the one most often misunderstood and has caused
    considerable debate.  The confusion is over the Greek word translated
    as "unchangeable":  "But this man, because he continueth ever, hath
    an unchangeable priesthood".
    
    The confusion is illustrated by the alternate translation for
    unchangeable which the King James translators have given in the
    footnote or margin: "Or, which passeth not from one to another."
     This translation supports LUther's contention that the administration
    of the preisthood has occurred only in Christ, that his priesthood
    did not pass to others, that there is no formal priesthood in the
    church. 
    
    Unchangeable is translated from the Greek word APARABATON.  The
    usage of that word in ancient Greek has been examined for years
    and NO SCHOLAR THAT I KNOW OF HAS FOUND ANY RELIABLE EXAMPLE OF
    THE WORD BEING USED TO MEAN "CANNOT PASS FROM ONE TO ANOTHER". 
    However, the translation "unchangeable" or "immutable" has numerous
    attestations.  Thus, according to known Greek usage, the best
    translation would be "unchangeable".
    
    For example, this is the conclusion in Kittel's Theological Dictionary
    of the New Testament:  "We should keep to the rendering 'unchangeable'
    the more so as the active sense (non-transferable) is not attested
    elsewhere" (page 743).  Moulton's and Milligan's The Vocabulary
    of the Greek Testament, a compilation of attested Greek usage, says:
    "It is clear that the technical use, compared with late literary,
    constitutes a very strong case AGAINST (my caps) the rendering 'not
    transferable'." (page 53)
    
    The context itself of the seventh chapter of Hebrews welcomes the
    translation "unchangeable", but cannot tolerate the idea of
    "non-transferable".  There is nothing in the context to suggest
    that the priesthood is "non-transferable".
    
    The priesthood is organized into an order.  Christ was a priest
    "after the order of Melchizedek (v.21).  The fact that Melchizedek
    has an order of the priesthood indicates that more than Jesus held
    the priesthood.  If Christ had been the only one to hold the
    Melchizedek Priesthood there would have been no "order". The scriptures
    themselves attest that such an order did exist in New TEstament
    times.  Not only were the Apostles ordained to their position by
    the Savior (John 15:16), but others were also given the priesthood
    (Acts 13:3; Titus 1:5).
    
    Supportive of these conclusions is evidence from the Ante-Nicene
    Fathers.  Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who died in 135 A.D., stated
    that "the priesthood is the very highest point of all good things
    among men, against which whosoever is mad enough to strive, dishonors
    not man, but God and Christ Jesus, the First-born, and the only
    High Priest, by nature of the father". (Roberts and Donaldson, The
    Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol 1; page 90).
    
    Theophilus, a later Bishop of Antioch (circa 168 A.D.) said in reference
    to the man Melchizedek:  "At that time there was a righteous king
    called Melchizedek, in the city of Salem, which now is Jerusalem.
     This was the first priest of all priests of the Most High God...And
    from his time priests were fouind in all the earth". (Ante-Nicene
    Fathers, vol 2; page 107).
    
    The knowledge of an order of the Melchizedek Priesthood has faded
    from the biblical text.  The priesthood is essential.  It is the
    power of God that leads us to perfection.  This article does not
    cover all of the biblical passages that might allude to the priesthood-
    it focuses on passages that have been misunderstood by many Bible
    students.
    
    *********************************************************************
    In reading this article I wondered if because Luther interpreted
    that a priesthood was not needed, he replaced it with the concept
    of a ministry.  Thus, Catholicism (which claims itself as the
    legitimate descendant of Christ's Church) kept the priesthood order,
    while Protestants (and the 1600 religions that form this group)
    differentiated itself by picking up Luther's ideas and established
    a ministry order.  Anyone got any thoughts on this idea.  It seems
    from the above article that the concept of a non-tranferable priesthood
    is neither substantiated by scripture or by history since the early
    Christian Church (and its remanant, ie. Catholicism) practiced and
    still do have a Priesthood Order.
    
    Regards to one and all,
    Paul
                    

Re .75 & .79

Hi Ed & Paul,

>If you go back to Hebrews 7, you will see that Paul describes Melchisedec 
>as being "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither 
>beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; 
>abideth a priest continually." This statement alone proves that 
>Melchisedec was not a mortal, as you have suggested. 
>
>In the previous verse his title "King of Salem" is also explained; "King
>of Salem, that is, King of peace." Therefore we see that he was not the
>mortal king of a physical place, but rather a type of Christ Himself. 

I think that Melchizedek or Melchisedec was a real person.  In Genesis we read

    And the king of Sodom went out to meet him [Abram or Abraham] after
    his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that
    were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.

    And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he
    was the priest of the most high God.

    And he blessed him, and said Blessed be Abram of the most high God,
    possessor of heaven and earth:

    And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies
    into thy hand.  And he gave him tithes of all.  (Genesis 14:17-20)

The context of those verses is that Melchizedek was a real king of a real
city.  Thus, when we read from Hebrews

    For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who
    met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed
    him;

    To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by
    interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem,
    which is, King of peace;

    Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning
    of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a
    priest continually.

    Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch
    Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.  (Hebrews 7:1-4)

we realize that the reference to Melchisedec or Melchizedek was to a real
man.  I checked in Dummelow's commentary to see if he thought Melchizedek
was real, and he does.

Verse three is confusing.  "Without father, without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;"  If Melchizedek was real,
then verse three does not refer to him.  We believe that that verse is
referring to the priesthood held by Melchizedek, that is, the Melchizedek
priesthood is without father, without mother, without descent, having neither
beginning of days, nor end of life.

The author of Hebrews is comparing the Law of Moses with the Gospel of Christ
to the effect that Salvation comes through the Gospel not through the Law.
As part of this comparison, he compares the priesthood of the Law with the
priesthood of the Gospel.  The Levitical priesthood came through the lineage
of the Levites, and I think verse three is saying that the Melchizedek
priesthood is eternal and comes to us from Christ rather than through the
lineage of any tribe.  He talks about Melchizedek to explain that the higher
priesthood was older than the Levitical priesthood and was above the Levitical
priesthood.



>Paul further elaborates on the contrast between the imperfect Levitical 
>priesthood and the perfect Melchisedec priesthood, how Christ fulfills 
>the role of perfect High Priest on our behalf "Wherefore he is able also 
>to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever 
>liveth to make intersession for them." (v. 27) Since Christ performs this 
>role perfectly, and lives forever, then we have no need for others.

We agree on the contrast between the Levitical and Melchizedek priesthoods,
and we agree that "we have no need for others" in terms of the atonement.
That, however, does not imply that the Melchizedek priesthood is not given
to others.  We have to remember that Christ performed his atonement, not
because he held the Melchizedek priesthood, but because he was the Son of
God.  When we say that others held the Melchizedek priesthood, we are not
implying that others could have performed the role of Messiah.




>> ...the fact that Christ ordained his Apostles by laying his hands on
>> them and giving them authority to perform his work.  The Apostles in turn
>> ordained Elders and other officers and gave them authority.  Since Christ
>> is the great high priest of the Melchisedec priesthood, since Melchisedec
>> was a mortal who held that priesthood, and since that priesthood is an
>> 'order', it seems to me that the authority which Christ gave his Apostles
>> and which they passed on to others was in fact the Melchisedec priesthood. 
>
>An interesting logical progression, but not correct, since it is made 
>plain in these chapters (7-10) that there is room for only one High 
>Priest of this kind, to make one sacrifice, once, for all, and for all 
>time:

Yes, those chapters make it clear that there is only one High Priest to
make sacrifice in an atonement, but those chapters do not address the
question of whether Christ gave the Melchizedek to others.  Nor do those
chapters imply that Christ performed his atonement *because* he held the
Melchizedek priesthood.



>Incidentally, the word translated "order" can also be translated "rank", 
>and therefore does not necessarily imply others.

And, according to Strongs, a ranking or arrangement in time.  If a set has
only one member, there is no need for a ranking or ordering.  Strongs also
indicates that the phrase "high priest" as used in Hebrews means chief of
the priests.  If the Melchizedek priesthood has only one member, it makes
no sense to have Christ be the chief of himself.  If the Melchizedek
priesthood has others, however, it makes a lot of sense for Christ to be
the chief of the others.


>In light of this, it seems improper to suggest that other than Christ 
>could ever fulfill this high priestly role, nor does it make sense that 
>it could ever be passed on to others. Whatever may have been passed on to 
>the Apostles by Christ, it does not appear to have included the 
>Melchisedec priesthood.

We are not suggesting that others could fulfil the role of Jesus as the
Savior, the Christ.  Nor are we suggesting that that role could be passed
on to others.  We need to remember that Jesus performed his role as Christ,
not because he held the Melchizedek priesthood, but because he was the Son
of God.  We agree that he was and is the great High Priest, the head,
of the Melchizedek priesthood.  We are only suggesting that the authority
he gave the Apostles and Seventy was the Melchizedek priesthood and that he
was the chief priest of them.  With the Melchizedek priesthood, they were
authorized to perform acts in his name.

    re: -.1
    
    My own pet theory (only loosely based in the scriptures) is that
    Priesthood somehow correlates to the number of the hosts of heaven.
    That is, Priesthood power has something to do with the will and
    spirit of God the Father's children.  This then implies that Lucifer
    also has Priesthood, but that this is inferior.  It's just my own
    personal feeling, gang.
    
    Steve

Another verse that indicates that the New Testament church did have 
priesthood from Christ is the following

    But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a
    peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who
    hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
    (1 Peter 2:9)

I checked in Strongs to see if Peter actually meant priesthood rather
than a more general Christian fellowship.  The greek word used is "hieremias"
which means "priestly fraternity, priests office".  The word "royal"
indicates the priesthood referred too came from Christ, and even though
Peter didn't use the word "Melchizedek", I think he was referring to that
priesthood.

Allen

    RE: Royal Priesthood
    
    It was always my understanding that this was a reference to a future
    reality. First, in the scripture in 1 Peter, the word 'are' is
    italicized, meaning that it really wasn't in the original and tends
    to lessen the immediacy of the meaning. Second, while not overly
    conclusive we do read the following in Revelation 5:10:
    
        "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall
         [future tense] reign on the earth."
    
    Any kings out there? ;) But we do know that this does reference
    those who will reign with Christ during the Millenium:
    
        "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:
         on such the second death hath no power, but they _shall be_
         priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with Him a
         thousand years."      Rev. 20:6

    Charlie

Hi Charlie,

I re-read 1 Peter to see what the context of verse 9 is, and I still think
the verse applies to the present rather than to the future.

The epistle is addressed to the "strangers scattered throughout" several places
named in the first verse.  Peter encourages them to "be sober, and hope to the
end of the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Christ".
He further encourages them to "love one another", and to "desire the sincere
milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby".  In verse 5 of chapter 2, he
says that as followers of Christ they are "built up a spiritual house, an holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ".  In verse 7 and 8 he says that to those who believe, Christ is
precious, but to those who don't believe Christ is a stumbling stone because
those people will stumble in disobedience.  Notice that that his remarks are
in the present.

Then in verse 9 he says "But [meaning in contrast to those who stumble] ye are
a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;
that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of
darkness into his marvelous light".  

Verse 10 follows with "Which in time past were not a people, but are now the
people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."
That is, the people who now are followers of Christ were not that way in the
past, but they are now and are a peculiar people, a holy nation, a royal
priesthood, and a chosen generation.

I think the context of the two chapters is in the present.  In addition, that
word "now" in verse 10 ties it all together as being in the present not in the
future.

Allen