h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You are asking two very important questions. First, why do we have a Book of Mormon and second, what is the difference between ours and other Christian faiths? Both deserve an answer. But let me answer the first question first.

1. The Book of Mormon does teach things the Bible teaches as you have noticed. For many this helps clarify the teachings of the Bible. Not all Christians agree as to what the Bible means - so a second book that gives the same witness (in some cases using the same words) is important in establishing what the gospel really is. Many issues, like baptism, the fall, the atonement, grace, works, priesthood, revelation, salvation, repentance, etc, etc are clarified in the Book of Mormon.
2. The Book of Mormon is also a written record of the gospel as presented by prophets and Jesus Christ himself to inhabitants of the ancient Americas. They did not have access to the gospel except by direct revelation. The book is therefore proof that God is willing to speak to all nations, and that the gospel is the same for all men.
3. The Book of Mormon also fulfils biblical prophecy [See Ezekiel 37 (2 Nephi 3:11-12), Isaiah 29 (2 Nephi 27), John 10:16 (3 Nephi 11-17) and Revelation 14:6 (Joseph Smith History 1:33)]. It testifies of many of the prophets of the Bible, including Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham and Moses and shows how they were taught about Jesus Christ and His atonement.
4. The Book of Mormon is proof that God can call men in this day and time as He had to direct and inspire Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon into English. Joseph translated the book “by the gift and power of God.” Hence, even though it is an ancient account it is also modern revelation. Therefore, those who accept it must believe in recent revelation. Similarly, those who chose to accept Christ during his mortal ministry believed in recent revelation.
5. The Book of Mormon does teach many “plain and precious” things that have been both lost and taken from the Bible during the many years of translating and transmitting it from one language to another. Those who were willing to kill Christ and His servants had no problem altering their words. The fact that they were doing this, even during the time of the apostles, is proven by the concern that both Paul and John showed about their written words being changed [Revelation 22:18-19]. That there are so many different Bibles today shows that the problems of transmission (and translation) are difficult to overcome. Hence, the Book of Mormon provides a pure source from which to learn the gospel and the meaning of the Bible.


All this means that belief in the Book of Mormon, instead of replacing the Bible, increases our faith in it. The Book of Mormon, properly understood, defends the Bible, rather than denies it. It also clarifies the Christian religion itself and removes the need for either confusion or contention (so evident in the various churches). LDS believe the Bible. In fact, they have greater reason for believing the Bible that any other people on the face of the earth.

The most important thing about the Book of Mormon is that it bears witness of Jesus Christ. Its witness of Him is pure and full of power.

I will answer your second question tomorrow. Thanks for listening.

Hi Not panickin Yet!

I hope you didn't feel like my last post was stuffy or preachy. It wasn't meant to be. It explains some of the reasons God would give us more good, more truth and more scripture.

When I read the Book of Mormon I feel the same spirit as when I read the Bible. They are from the same source. It gives me greater faith in the belief that God is still active, still involved, still alive and still intervening. God is the same - and that is great news!

By the way, I also like Star Trek and other science fiction. I was interested to read more about you. You're pretty busy with other conversations etc. Obviously your Christian faith means much to you. That is good. And you are from the Emerald Isle? There is certainly a great need for people to be able to see from different perspectives there.

Ok, so I was thinking that in order to answer the difference question I could ask you what you think the greatest difference is? There are several differences and some are more important than others. Even some of the similarities are different!!

For me, the greatest difference has to do with the nature of God. And that affects everything else we believe. Let me know what you have heard, or what you know, and then I can answer better.

I appreciate your time.

Your 'new friend'?,

Mormonman

Have to say that's a lot to take in! I'm just trying to get my head round it all and I'm having a look on the internet to find a copy of the Book of Mormon to compare those verses you mentionned.

Hi!

I'm at work, and just checked here. You'll find access to the Book of Mormon on www.lds.org or www.mormon.org.

Talk to you later,

Came across those ones. Having a good read. Don't want to be getting myself muddled before I start.

One of the big differences that I keep coming across seems to be in a vital point about God's very basic nature. This is, from an LDS view, that he is or was a man, human just as we are, and that we can one day become gods like him.

It's not even that I've read this on an anti-LDS site either. It's stated in the BBC Religion and Ethics section on Mormonism. (Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/ataglance/glance.shtml) And I'm sure the Beeb or all people would be careful to ensure they didn't get something like that wrong.

It just doesn't seem to sit right with verses in the Bible. And since LDS hold the Bible as a holy book too, it seems more than a tad bit odd that the Bible and the Book of Mormon can have such different views.

I came across this quote from Jospeph Smith (with the reference Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347):

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!"

Yet Bible verses state clearly that God *is not* a man:

John 4:24 (NIV)
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

And:

Numbers 23:19 (NIV)
God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

And:

Hosea 11:9 (NIV)
I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man - the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.

It is true that this is a big difference. It is probably the biggest difference. But the difference is not between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. For the following reasons:

1. The source of the doctrine is revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith that go beyond what is made known in the Book of Mormon. The quote "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" is from a 'sermon' Joseph Smith gave toward the end of his life. It represents the highest understanding he gained about the relationship between God and Man.
2. From his earliest revelations Joseph Smith learned that God was different from what creedal Christianity says about Him. In his first vision, received when he was just 14, he "saw two personages, whose glory and brightness defy all description". He saw the Father and the Son. He said they exactly resembled each other. The Father spoke to him by name, and then invited young Joseph to hear his “Beloved Son!” In the Doctrine and Covenants (a compilation of revelations received by Joseph Smith and his successors) we read: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”
3. The Bible actually teaches, and most Christians surely believe, that Jesus Christ himself “was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!” This is the key to understanding Christ; to accept that He is both God and Man. Indeed, that may be one reason He repeatedly called himself – “Son of man”. Our understanding of scripture is such that when it speaks of God as our Father or Jesus as the Son of God etc – we take it literally. We feel that it was intended that way and we have independent revelation to support that interpretation.
4. The Bible is more subtle than simply saying that God is not the same as mortal men. There are verses that indicate the similarity of God to man, especially in comparison to the rest of creation. For example, man was created in the image and likeness of God. There are also many passages that suggest that God is a Man, but an exalted Man. Consider the following:

John 8:17-19
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

Here the Father and the Son are identified as two men, both bearing witness of Christ.

John 10:31-36
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

The Jews recognise Jesus as a man and accuse him of 'making' himself God. Jesus responds to this accusation of blasphemy by quoting the Old Testament wherein God called his children “gods”. Father's create after their own likeness and in their own image. Children have the potential to become like their parents.

John 17:20-26
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

Here Jesus tells us in what sense He and the Father are one by inviting us to become one with them. The union isn’t physical (except that we can go and dwell with them in heaven). The union is one of character. They have the same character. This is why we need to develop a Christ-like character or gain the “mind of Christ” as Paul says. Interestingly, the doctrine that sets the New Testament apart from the Old Testament is the doctrine of the fatherhood of God. There a many names for God in scripture – but Christ only uses one – “Father”! That is the name that He made known to his disciples. That is the doctrine that brings life to the whole plan of salvation.

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Here Jesus after his resurrection but prior to his ascension testifies to Mary that He is going to ascend to his Father, who is also our Father. The difference is that God is the Father of our spirits but He is the Father of the body of Jesus. Hence Jesus is “the only begotten” of the Father.

Finally, as another instance of the invitation to become as God is consider the following:

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The scriptures speak of men seeing God “face to face” and describe him as walking and talking etc. They make reference to various ‘parts’ of his body. This is all in the Old Testament prior to Jesus Christ coming to the earth. What do we make of this? The Bible can be read to show that the Father and Son are separate, that the Son only does what He sees the Father do, that the Son looks like the Father, and that the Son has returned to the physical presence of His Father. So just as the Son has a body and was once a (mortal) man and is now an exalted man so the Father may have a body and be an exalted man. To believe that Christ is like that but the Father isn’t could mean denying that Christ is the “exact representation” of the Father. [John 14:6-9 & Hebrews 1:1-2].

However, the reason I believe it is because God has made it known through living prophets in our own time. All I’m saying here is that it doesn’t clearly contradict the Bible. The Bible doesn’t “prove” it but it doesn’t disprove it either. I admit it is a big difference from how people traditionally interpret the Bible – but that is the point of saying that this is a restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We see different things in the Bible because modern revelation has opened our eyes. Otherwise, we would be just as blind to these things as everyone else.

The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that we were created by God and that we can become Christ-like. It also teaches that Christ is God and that He became a man.

Therefore, could say Christ, who is God, became a man so that we, who are men, could become “gods”! We will never ever replace Him or the Father though. If you believe you can become as Christ then you believe we can become as the Father, because they are “one”.

Hope this helps.

I'm sorry, but you still haven't convinced me. It just doesn't seem to fit right.

While the Bible teaches that Jesus was at one point a flesh and blood man living on earth, it teaches that he *became* man and was only a man for those 30ish years.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth."
John 1: 14

Kinda gives the impression that he wasn't a flesh and blood man *before* he came to earth 2000 years ago. Wouldn't you agree?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1: 1

Doesn't trhat verse support the Trinity, the Three-in-One rather than the three seperate entities? The Word is Jesus and he was with god and he *was* God right at the dawn of time. Therefore, can't have been a completely seperate being.

While it's clearly stated in the Bible that man was made in the image and likeness of God, that doesn't mean that we *are* gods or that he is man. A photo is an image of something or someone, but while you can recognise the original from it, the picture *isn't* that same as the original. Same can be said of lots of images - a mirror reflection, a statue, a painting.....Even you could say that your chld might be the image of you, but they're not you and they have different traits and characteristics that make them different to you.

We are made in his image and likeness, but we are below him. We are called his children, but we are not the same "species". If you don't believe me, and you think we're that same as him, try making a man in the way he did.

"What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him? Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor."
Psalm 7: 4-5

Or the King James puts verse 5 as this:

"For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

Sounds like a definate hierarchy rather than us being children in the sense of biological/genetic stuff. Like you say, we can become Christ-like in terms of character, but not in terms of eventually becoming like him in heaven. We are below him. We will seve him in Heaven. He sits on the throne, we serve, and he comes and moves among us.

"And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes."
Revelation 7:13-17

Hi again,

First, Jesus wasn't a flesh and blood man before he came to earth and he isn't a flesh and blood man now. He shed his blood for our sins while he was on this earth. Those 33 years were the only time when Jesus had a body of flesh and blood. When he was resurrected he had a physical body - not one of flesh and blood, but one of flesh and bones. (Luke 24) Does he still have that body? That is the question.

Second, is the image and likeness of God physical or mental? The Bible is open on that question. References to the body of God (the Father) are many (just read the entire Old Testament). References to the body of Jesus (the Son of God) are obvious (just read the New Testament). So does man *look* more like God than a mouse, a mountain, or a melon or is the image and likeness only mental or moral? All the images you mention *look* like the thing they are images of - though they are not the same. So it is an open question whether man actually looks like God. Certainly the scriptures can be read that way.

Third, we are children of God. That is clearly taught in scripture. The Old Testament is quoted by Christ in John 10:34 as stating "I have said: Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High" (Psalm 85:6) Jesus then asks them how they accuse him of blasphemy in saying he is the Son of God, when the scriptures teach we are all the children of God. In fact, the scripture says that he calls them gods. What could this mean? Obviously, not everyone on earth is or will be saved, so what could this verse mean? Are there any of God's children that he is entitled to called *gods*? If so, why? That is a biblical question - not an LDS one.

Fourth, no one will ever replace Jesus Christ. He is the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. (As an aside, who are these kings and lords that he rules over?). We will always worship the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. No Latter-day Saint believes that we will take the place of God. In fact, the great desire of Latter-day Saints is to serve God. We want to enter into his presence with our families.

Fifth, the Bible is not the origin of the trinity - Christian philosophy is. There are verses that can be read to support the trinity and there are verses that contradict it. How do we decide between them? We can't be selective in our study of scripture - or else we become like the Jews of Christ's day who were so concerned about Sabbath worship that they rejected the Lord of the Sabbath!
The truth is God, the father, God, the Son and God, the Holy Ghost are not "completely separate". They are infinitely more one than they are separate. They are separate persons (as the trinity affirms) but they are also separate personages. Yet overriding all this, they are united in both purpose and power. Salvation consists in our becoming "one" with them.

Sixth, God cannot be compared with mortal man. God is perfect and sinless. He cannot die, grow old, get sick or even get tired. Mortal man is not God-like in these ways. That is the result of the Fall of Adam. The resurrection is an entirely different thing. The resurrection flows from the Atonement of Jesus Christ. What kind of body will I (or you) have in the resurrection? One that even "Superman" would be jealous of, no doubt! The doctrine is that we can become god-like in these ways. We will no longer see corruption. Also our knowledge, wisdom, goodness and truth will be vastly increased when we are in heaven.

Seventh, the Bible does not settle many of these questions - both you and I have quoted it. (Hopefully, you noticed that I agreed with most of your readings of it - how do you read those verses I mentioned?) The Bible alone cannot convince you. The Bible does not even settle which church is true - as all Christian churches claim to accept the Bible. Often people contend over the meaning of the Bible. Surely God could dispel the confusion? How would He do it?

Eight, we must accept that God can call prophets in our own time just as he has always called prophets. The Bible was written by those who had the spirit of prophecy and revelation. It can only be understood by those who have that same spirit. Why would God change? No one in the Bible had a Bible - so what did they have? And why can't we have the same?

Nine, the foundation of the faith of Latter-day Saints is the voice of God himself. The heavens have been opened. He has spoken to men again on the earth. He has revealed himself in plainness to his children in our own time. The same God that spoke to the ancient prophets and apostles has spoken again in our own time. Why wouldn't he? Why would those who accept the Bible say God would cease to speak? Are they afraid of what he might say?

Tenth, the real question is not whether the LDS faith is in line with what the world says the Bible means. The real question is whether God is speaking? Is the Book of Mormon scripture? Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God? These are the real questions. Once you know the answer to that you can know whether it is worth studying the deeper doctrines of the LDS faith. You start with the Book of Mormon, you read it, you think about it, you pray about it. And when God answers then you know. You know whether it is true or false. You know for yourself.

Let me finish with the promise, and this is what it really comes down to, that we can know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

We may know! That is the promise of all true prophets. We may know through prayer. That is the only way to be certain. Of course, the choice as to whether we want to find out is our own. What a perfect test of spiritual honesty this then becomes! We can go directly to the source.

Hi, I just re-read some of those verses you quoted. Let me tell you what I think as I read them.

John 1:14 - the word "became" flesh though he was (as a man) full of grace and truth. That is good at showing how one man (Jesus) was also god-like. My question is, after the resurrection did Jesus give up his "flesh". If not, he is still flesh and still a man - though certainly full of grace & truth.

John 1:1 equates the Word with God in the beginning. In truth this does not defend the three-in-one but rather a two-in-one! Christ says what the Father wants said. He is the Word or the "Messenger of the covenant" {Malachi 3:1}. Christ even prays that he will do the will of the Father and not his own will! That speaks of two who have become one. So, even those verses that appear to support the trinity may not be as strong a support as we think.

Psalm 7: 4-5 seems to show that mortal man is important to God because he is a "little less than God" or "a little lower than the angels". This is mortal man he is talking about. Wow. Plus he clearly says he has crowned him (through the gospel) with glory. Jesus prayed that his glory would come upon us (John 17) and is called King of Kings. Interesting.

Revelation 7:13-17 shows both the joy of reuniting with God in heaven and the joy of remaining with him. The redeemed man, dressed in white robes, is so different from the mortal man, who is still being washed, that it is unfair to compare them. No more hunger or thirst? No more tears? This is the great change. But it shows that we continue to serve and worship and *need* the Lord Jesus Christ, the lamb. We would thirst and hunger and weep without Him. Heaven is not heaven because we are there - it is heaven because He is there.

Well just some thoughts. The Bible is a beautiful book. It is also the word of God.

Talk to you later, have a nice weekend.

Fair enough, you said that no one replaces God or Christ in the afterlife. But I've still come across info on the LDS that states that LDS believe that more than one god exists and that we become gods in the afterlife.

Perhaps I'm reading these sources wrong, or they mean a different type of god to the one that God himself is. But when it says that there's only one god, and it's God, then this serems just a tad contradictary and throws a big question mark over LDs doctrine.

Mark 12:32
And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he."

Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Also, I've read that LDS believe that Jesus was concieved through physical intercourse between God and Mary. Surely this contradicts the miraculous nature of the whole pregnancy? If Jesus was the result of a one-night-stand, even with God, then the prophecies would not be fulfilled?

As it says in the first chapter of Matthew:
"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

If the conception was anything other than a miracle - ie that God had come down and done what any human bloke does to father a child - then Mary would no longer be the virgin mother. She can't have had that kind of intimacy with someone for this to work.

Hi again,

There is only one God. That is taught clearly in the revelations that Joseph Smith received. Consider the following two texts from the Book of Mormon:

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
3 Nephi 11:36

This is Jesus Christ speaking to the people in bountiful after his resurrection. He teaches as clearly as possible that the Father, Himself and the Holy Ghost are one. They are one in purpose and in power. They have only one plan of salvation for men.

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
2 Nephi 31:21

This is a prophet called Nephi who lived about 600-550BC. He clearly teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are “one God, without end.” Hence, Latter-day Saints believe that there is only one God. We usually call this the Godhead. These will always be the Godhead, or one God… without end. This is the doctrine of the Church and of our scriptures. Of course, we know that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons… but this does not automatically mean that we believe in a plurality of Gods. We believe in “one God, without end.”

Other scriptures that we have that speak of men becoming “gods” have to be understood in the same sense as those in the Bible. (Psalm 82:5 and John 10:34-36). Interestingly, in Genesis, God says “Let *us* make man in *our* image…” and then after Adam and Eve have partaken of the fruit He says “Behold, the man is become as one of *us* to know good and evil”. Who are the “us” to whom God is speaking? And under what conditions can God call others “gods” as he does in the Bible? The restoration answers these, and other, questions.

As for the manner of the birth of Jesus and whether Mary was a virgin both before and after she gave birth. Consider the following clear text from the Book of Mormon:

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!
1 Nephi 11:13-21

That is as clear as language allows. It means father means father, son means son, mother means mother, and virgin means virgin. This is definitely a miraculous conception. The idea of sexual relations is pure speculation and is not something I have ever heard at a Christmas devotional. It is certainly not a doctrine of the church. The doctrine is that Christ is the Son of God (not the Holy Ghost) and that it was a virgin birth. This is perfectly in line with the testimony of Luke:

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:30-35

It is important to get the doctrine as stated by the church rather than other people’s impressions of what our doctrine might be. People (sometimes innocently) often assume or assert we must believe certain things that we don’t. The other thing that comes out here is that the restoration clarifies many things in the Bible – not just the things that some people notice but many things that most people don’t. Truth has to be consistent. The revelations of the restoration clarify things so that they become consistent. I have no problem reading and believing many things in the Bible that others have to ignore to keep their theology consistent. The nature of God is the most important but there are some other examples of this too.

Again, I hope this helps and removes the question mark over LDS doctrine except one - "Is it true?"

Sincerely.

So, if these are such vague ideas, then how come they get listed by reputable sites as what LDS believe? A company like the BBC would do it's research well and check things out before putting statements like “They also believe that humans can become gods in the afterlife.” I know you can say that they were mis-informed or whatever, but I'd like to think that they would come direct to the LDS and ask them.

Obviously, I wasn't very clear. My mistake.

I was actually talking about the idea that God the Father and Mary had sexual relations in order to conceive Jesus. I’m not sure where you read that one but it is not official LDS doctrine. It is the doctrine to say that Jesus is the literal Son of God. We believe that from his mortal mother, Mary, he inherited the capacity to die while from his immortal Father he inherited the capacity to live forever or overcome death. This unique combination of mortality and immortality is what set Jesus apart from everyone else that has ever lived on this earth. That explains why he could overcome death and rise in glorious immortality. The reason he could pay the price for our sins is because he was sinless and so sin had no hold on him. He takes our sins away on condition of our repentance and our coming unto him. Now Jesus has to be the Son of God to atone for us. The question is whether he is literally the Son of God or not? We take it literally.

The doctrine that God the Father is an exalted Man, a Man of Holiness or Holy Man is not reducible to him doing what any “human bloke” does. Jesus was a man yet he was without sin. Jesus shows us what kind of being the Father is. That is the central message of the New Testament. Jesus is called the Son of Man, because he is the Son of Man of Holiness – meaning, the Son of God the Father, who is a Holy Man. “Be ye Holy, for the Lord your God is Holy” the scriptures declare. So God is Holy. God is a man. Therefore, God is a Holy Man. That is what LDS mean when they say that God is a man – not that he is like mortal or sinful men!

It is LDS doctrine that humans can become "gods" in the after-life. But that has to be understood in the context of us being children of God. We lived with God, our Eternal Father, before we even came to earth. Before the creation he presented the plan of salvation to us. This plan would allow us to come to earth, gain mortal bodies, be tested, die, be resurrected and then return to the presence of our Father. The atonement of Christ would be essential in all of this. When we returned to God we would be judged on whether we used the atonement and gospel of Jesus Christ during our probation. As Helaman 14:15-17 teaches all men will be brought back into the presence of God and all men will be judged by God:

15 For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come; yea, it behooveth him and becometh expedient that he dieth, to bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, that thereby men may be brought into the presence of the Lord.
16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.
17 But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.

You are not brought back into a presence that you have never been in. We have all been in the presence of our Heavenly Father. We were created in his image and likeness because he is our Father. Consider the following scripture restored through revelation in our own day:

Moses 6:8-9
8 Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God.

We are created in the image of the body of God, which is why we look like Jesus. Scripture speak of prophets speaking with God, “face to face”, because both prophets and God have faces! The real question is whether we understand all this “anthropomorphic” language as literal or figurative? Well, if you believe heaven is literal why wouldn’t you believe that this is literal also? It is literal. We are literally the children of God and the plan of salvation does not merely allow us to live with him but it allows us to live like him. We can become saints. We can become sinless. We can become “perfect” (Matt 5:48) as our “Father” is. This is what the scriptures mean about us becoming “gods”. We are to become like God – not that we take the place of God or that there is a plurality of Gods. There is only One God and we can become “one” with him. That is the doctrine of the Old Testament, the New Testament and the revelations of the restoration. Why would the greatest father who has ever lived expect anything less for his children that what the average good father hopes for his? He wants us to become like him. That is his whole plan. That is his will. This is how we become “joint-heirs” with Christ.

Now we do have clearer revelations about this (Doctrine & Covenants 76, 131 & 132) than anyone else but the question of why God would call his children “gods” is a biblical question not just an LDS one. What answer have you heard from anyone else about that? However, it is important to say that not everything has been revealed about some of these things, especially the concept that God was once a man. We know a lot about Jesus and that seems to be the way the Lord wants to teach us. Jesus is the great example.

The main article of faith regarding Jesus Christ is that he is literally the Son of God, the Eternal Father. The process of his conception is not a matter that has been clearly revealed… however, it is clear that when Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane he said “Abba”, which literally means “Daddy”, and when Joseph Smith saw “two personages” in the Sacred Grove “one of them spake unto [him], calling [him] by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” Joseph said they exactly resembled each other in features and likeness. We take the testimony of God the Father literally. That is our belief. The Fatherhood of God and the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ are absolutely fundamental to our faith. Other issues, like becoming “gods”, are not spoken about as much as people may assume. We are interested in living the gospel here and now and then going to heaven in the hereafter.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

We attempt to believe everything that God reveals – even the difficult doctrines. But we know that God has much more to reveal regarding his Kingdom.

In conclusion, it wouldn't be necessary to believe in a restoration of the gospel if everything we believe was already taught in the other christian churches of our day. Joseph Smith restored the gospel in its pristine purity - including the knowledge of the nature of the Father and the Son. In fact, the source of his knowledge was the Father and the Son. The restored gospel explains things in an exciting way.

A good question in religious discussions is "What is the source of your doctrine, your belief, your teaching, and your testimony?" Real religion is revealed religion. It must come from God.

The Bible evidences its own divine origin as does the Book of Mormon and other revelations. The spirit of truth accompanies them.

Now, neither I nor the BBC officially represents The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Though, of course, I am a member of the Church. We only give you what we see in the faith. Even my testimony is not a direct or pure as the revelations that the Lord himself has given. That is why reading those revelations is the best way to find out what the faith really is.

Many people have false views of what the Bible teaches. The same is true of any book of scripture. The only solution is to read those revelations ourselves and then let the Lord speak. He can confirm what is true.

What is the source of your belief in the Bible, or in Jesus Christ? What is the source of my belief in the Book of Mormon and in the Lord Jesus Christ? Is it the same source? If so, why not read those revelations and find out how the Lord presents the gospel in them. If the Book of Mormon is really a book of scripture that the Lord has revealed in our day then surely he wants us to read it, to find out what it teaches, and pray about it ourselves.

That is the most important invitation I could give anyone who wants to know what we believe. Read the revelations for yourself.. don't rely on anyone else. I can already tell that you are smart and that you are sincere. I don't think there is any question about whether God could let you know whether what the Book of Mormon teaches is true. Let him direct you in your study - not me, or even the BBC.

That was really my central point. Often others present truths about our faith in a more prominent manner than we ourselves would. It is based on what they have heard or read but not in official sources. I wouldn't let anyone, save God, tell me what the gospel means or what Christians believe. That is why he has given us the scriptures - so we would have a sure source by which to know.

Try it out - see if the Book of Mormon doesn't enhance your understanding of the Bible, increase your faith in Jesus Christ, encourage you to do good and just generally help you feel the spirit better. My experience is that it does. I know it is the word of God... and that it teaches the gospel in purity, plainness and power.

No pressure - just a promise. It will make a wonderful difference in your understanding of the Word.

When we build a house we start witht the foundation and then work up. Similarly with our house of faith, we start with the foundation and then build up. The house of our gospel understanding comes gradually, a little at a time. It it built brick upon brick. As the Lord says:

For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.
2 Nephi 28:30

We must be willing to start with the basics and then let God build our understanding up from there. We start with the doctrine that God can speak and we go from there. He lets us know "precept upon precept" what is true. We must be willing to wait to "learn wisdom" and we must be willing to receive "more".

This is why we should start at the beginning not at the end. We start at the basics and then build up, brick upon brick, from there.

In our day, the basic brick is - "Is the Book of Mormon true? Is it the word of God?" That must be our foundation - the testimony of Jesus Christ as restored through a modern prophet. Once you know whether that is true or not, then the house of faith can begin because the foundation is laid.

The Book of Mormon - that is the basic brick. Start there and then let God build! There is much more that you can then receive.

Yes, obviously you must start at the start. You can't build a house and start with the roof or the windows or whatever. And as we grow and learn more so our faith grows.

Though I find it curious that you place the Book of Mormon as the foundation brick. If, as you say, it was imparted by God and written to support the Bible, then by logic, the Bible is the foundation. Or at least it's first in the building before the Book of Mormon. How can you suport and uphold something that is secondary to you?

In elections, meetings etc, someone proposes a person to take a role or proposes an issue or whatever, and someone else seconds it. Obviously the secondment is vital, but it's irrelevent without the initial nomination.

And besides, no book forms a foundation cornerstone for Christianity. Christ himself is the cornerstone. It all hinges on his death, sacrifice and ressurection. Not a book. If it all hinged on a book, then the Jews had it right all along when they spent hours as kids learning the Torah.

Ephesians 2: 19 and 20
"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone"

Christ is central, with apostles and prophets after that in terms of foundation. And is it merely words written by these people, or is it their lives? They were people who lived by example, who died to take the gospel out from Jerusalem, who travelled and knew Christ, and without whom, the rest of the world wouldn't have heard of Christ.

In your last post you said this in describing the Book of Mormon:
"the testimony of Jesus Christ as restored through a modern prophet."

I find your use of the word "restored" interesting. Has Christ's testimony fallen into decay or in some way become warped?? Funny that this has not come out in the Christian church, especially since things like the Dead Sea Scrolls support modern translations of Biblical texts.

Hi again,

I appreciate your response. It is good to hear from you.

I don’t want to be misunderstood or generate misunderstanding. I will try to respond clearly to the issues you raise:

1. The relationship of the Book of Mormon to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Book of Mormon represents the theological foundation (the doctrinal foundation) of Mormonism. It teaches the gospel in clarity. Its message is the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. In fact, Joseph Smith said:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

It is the message of the book that is the Keystone message. Christ is the central character of the Book of Mormon. My point is that if you want to understand the LDS faith you start with the Book of Mormon. You don’t start with other deeper (sometimes hearsay) doctrines. It was in the context of our own discussion that I was talking. Check out the Book of Mormon if you want to find out what the Latter-day Saints ought to believe about Christ. (Or most other doctrines for that matter!)

2. The relationship of the Book of Mormon to the Lord Jesus Christ.

The book itself repeatedly points to Jesus Christ as the foundation:

And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.
Helaman 5:12

The Book of Mormon is the most Christ-centered book ever written. There is no question that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the religion that Joseph Smith restored. That is because Joseph Smith was called as one of those apostles and prophets that you mentioned. No book, however inspired, can take the place of these.

You have made a very good point. Just as the Torah was not sufficient, neither is the Bible nor the Book of Mormon. These can support our faith; maybe even supply it in some cases. But we must build our foundation of faith on Christ. We must live his gospel. We must follow his apostles and prophets. The interesting thing about scripture is that it always points us to Christ. His apostles and prophets also do that. That is why we can accept them. He is the foundation. Anything that leads to him or comes from him can be accepted. What we don’t do is say to the Lord “I have enough – don’t give me any more!”

We can use what is true to reject what is true. Some Jews used the Torah to reject Christ, his servants and the New Testament. This was so even though Jesus told them that Moses had written about him! Some Christians use the Bible to similarly reject Christ, his modern servants and the Book of Mormon. This despite the numerous promises in the Bible that Christ would manifest himself in our day and time. The key issue is always whether we will allow God to speak in the present not just in the past. We can start with the books of scripture but we can never stop there. There is always more. No book of scripture can baptise, forgive sin, heal bodies, raise the dead or seal families. Only Christ, or his authorised servants, can do these things. Christ is the center. He is the cornerstone. He is crucial.

3. The relationship of the Book of Mormon with the Bible.

I did expect you to sound surprised that I said the Book of Mormon was the foundation brick instead of the Bible. The truth is that we must accept both to really understand Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is a support to the Bible but it is not secondary to it. The Book of Mormon actually repeats and restores the biblical message.

The Bible was originally written by prophets and apostles. The book of Mormon was similarly written by prophets and apostles. Here is the great difference. The Bible has gone through the hands of many uninspired men before it was published to the world. It was kept in a papal prison for many years. The protestant frenzy about Sola Scriptura has not prevented the publication of numerous translations of the Bible all with slightly different theological positions. Nor has it prevent people adding their own interpretations to it. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls were not written by apostles and prophets and the support they give to the Bible is limited. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, was translated by a prophet of God. It was never in the hands of uninspired men prior to its publication. This means its message is pure and full of power. This is why it can support (just like a foundation) the Bible. We use the King James Version of the Bible, of which there is an LDS version with footnotes etc, but we will use other translations also in our personal study.

The Bible and Book of Mormon do not compete but actually become “one” in our hands. We do not teach anything that contradicts these books of scripture. There are in our canon. They are known as the standard works, because they provide a standard by which to measure doctrine. There are two other books of scripture in our canon – the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. These four scriptural witnesses make it easy for us to discern true doctrine from that which is false. But it is an article of faith with us that God can continue to speak, call prophets and pen scripture. We see things in the Bible that others don’t see because we have all these other things.

4. The message of the “restored” gospel.

The central message of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that it the restored church of Jesus Christ and that it teaches his restored gospel. What does this mean?

After the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ his valiant apostles travelled the world (not America though which is why he visited there also) preaching about Jesus Christ and baptising all who believed. They received great opposition. Most were rejected and killed. After the death of the apostles many pressures on the church lead to it being left without proper priesthood authority. Men ordained themselves instead of being called by God. Doctrines and ordinances were changed over time as uninspired men took over the church. The “dark ages” occurred in Europe. The reformers attempted to remove the changes and go back to the pure religion of the Bible. But these men were also without authority. And by that time the bible had already been changed. People debated doctrines and there were no prophets to clearly mark the path. (Just look at Paul’s attempt to clarify doctrines in his epistles! This shows that even during his lifetime and with his direction some people were trying to change the church from the inside. This just got worse after the death of the apostles). Hence, the multiplicity of Christian churches.

In 1820, Joseph Smith was wondering which church he should join. He believed the Bible. But he couldn't tell which church was true. He read James 1:5 and was deeply impressed that he should ask God. This in did in a quiet grove of trees. He describes what happened:

I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

This was his First Vision. He saw the Father and the Son. He heard their voices. He asked which church he should join and was told to join none of them but was given the promise that the fulness of the gospel would at some later stage be made known to him. Some years later, he was directed to the gold plates which had the record from which he translated by the gift and power of God, the Book of Mormon. Then the priesthood was restored. John the Baptist appeared and bestowed upon him (and Oliver Cowdery) the Aaronic Priesthood. Peter, James and John later bestowed upon him (and Oliver Cowder) the Melchizedek Priesthood. Then the church was organised on the 6th April 1830. Joseph continued to learn more and more. The knowledge was too much for any one man to generate. The doctrine is just too great to come from the mind of mortal man. Of the doctrine restored through Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon the Lord said:

Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them, and, behold, they shall not deny that which you have received, but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.
And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.
D&C 10:61-62

And of the Church organised by Joseph Smith the Lord said:

And after having received the record of the Nephites, yea, even my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., might have power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon.
And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—
D&C 1:29-30

The Lord has restored the fulness of his gospel on earth. We believe all the truth that the Christian world already possesses and also the “more” that God has brought back to the earth or given in our own day. We have more than books of scripture. We have living prophets and apostles. There is priesthood once again upon the earth. This is what allows us to baptise, send forth missionaries or build temples throughout the world. The foundation of our faith is not a book… it is the God of heaven. Included in the foundation is Christ, the cornerstone and living prophets and apostles, together with the gospel message itself (as taught in scripture).

“Religion” means “to tie back to” and our religion ties us back to God. When I say the gospel is “restored” I mean that it is the restoration of every truth, every power, every principle and every practice of the Church that Christ organised in ancient times. Everything lost is brought back. This is the fulness of his gospel on the earth again. Only a church that has a speaking God together with apostles and prophets can claim to be the same church as the one Christ organised. This will certainly mean they will have more scripture than just the Bible.

One small change about what I wrote about Paul:

"This shows that even during his lifetime and with his direction some people were trying to change the church from the inside."

This should be:

"This shows that even during his lifetime and despite his direction some people were trying to change the church from the inside!"

The point is we should accept everything God gives to clearly mark the path back to his presence. A church without prophets and apostles, a church with scripture only... will lose it's way. The message of scripture is simple - Follow the prophets!

That is the real issue - where are the living prophets and apostles?

If you would like, I can awnser some that. I to am a member but I will say that I have struggled and questioned and come to the conclusion that it is true.

Your very right in pointing out that the Book of Mormon and the bible have a lot in common. This is because obviously God and his gospile have a lot in common wherever it was preached. In fact, I have found that by understanding the Book of Mormon, you better understand the Bible and the reverse is true.

One unique thing is the purpose of the Book of Mormon when compaired to the Bible. As you may or may not know, the Bible (especially the new testiment) is a combination of verrious letters or other comunications which were preserved and collected by latter christians. They were revelation by men of God to the members who often had some confusion on doctrine as happens. This means that it was written for the people of that age or, in otherwords, the first church that Christ set up.
The Book of Mormon, however, was meant for the modern world. The words in it were written by men of God in the americas and originally to the people of that age, like the Bible. However, the people who collected all of the materials and put the actual Book of Mormon together were recording it for use today. The difference is the focus.

By the way, any LDS family who doesn't use the Book of Mormon as often as the Bible in learning are denying themselves a divine gift. It is as sad as those LDS members who don't use the Bible.

I would say for your final question the some of the biggest differences between our church and others you may be familliar with are:
1. Our understanding of the nature of God and Jesus Christ, and their relation to humanity
2. Our view of revelation (as has already been adressed).
3. Our understanding of God's plan for humanity including Heaven and Hell.
4. Our understanding of the priesthood.

There are many things other then these but these four items I would say are some of the biggest. By the way, some other churches do hold similar views in one or two of these items but not usually all four.

I know that this is a bit long, sorry, but I don't know any other way of putting it. If you have any questions on this or other items, feel free to ask.