I’ve read the thread a little more closely and it appears that there are many misconceptions about Mormonism, Mormon Doctrine, and Mormon Life in general.

Someone upthread mentioned that they thought that depending on what “temple” you belong to you may have a different set of doctrine taught. This could not be further from the truth. In every LDS/Mormon congregation the teaching materials and reading materials for Sunday School classes is the same throughout the entire world. Personally, I’ve attended Church meetings in 15 different cities in Norway, all over Pennsylvania, Ohio, Utah, California, Wyoming, Vermont, and New York and in every case they are using the same lesson materials and teaching the same doctrines. If there is a stereotype about Mormons that is correct it is that we are very detail oriented and as such the doctrines taught throughout the church are in total agreement.
Someone also mentioned that you only get to know certain things the longer you are a member of the church. Well, in the Book of Luke it is written that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man.” Even he had to learn and “increase in wisdom.” So no one on earth should expect a new Mormon to know as much as a life long Mormon at the age of 75. You learn as you go.
You are correct in that missionaries don’t present everything when they teach potential converts. This would be simply impossible due to the sheer volume of doctrine and teachings that would have to be presented. I have been a Mormon for 29 years and I learn something new every day, it adds to my faith and increases my testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel and Divinity of Jesus Christ. I hope I will always be learning new things. What the missionaries do present are the basic tenets of the Gospel including the following: God lives and has a plan for us to be happy, his son, Jesus Christ, died for our sins as part of that plan, God has revealed this plan to mankind through prophets, much like he used Isaiah, Moses and others in ancient times, he uses prophets today to lead and guide us, the Book of Mormon is used in companionship with the Bible to clarify and expound upon all of these doctrines, and finally the missionaries do teach in the church approved lessons they use that mankind does have a divine potential to become like God. There’s other stuff as well that is taught but I served my mission 8 years ago and I’m a little rusty.
For the first year you are a member of the church you will attend a Sunday School class known as Gospel Essentials. The lesson book for the class is provided to you and I have often been known to comment that if you knew everything in that book, you would know everything there was to know about Mormonism. So we try very hard to teach them everything within the first year of their membership. We’re not about secrecy as some people believe and you’d find out as much if you attended a Mormon worship service and the Sunday School classes that follow. We are just like every one else. After being a member for one year, you may attend the Temple if you wish. Being the house of God, one must attain a standard of worthiness in order to enter into the Temple. There are temples all over the world and the same things happen in each and every one (I know because I’ve been in approximately 25 different temples all over the country). We do not speak very openly about what goes on within the temple because it is a very sacred and personal experience, not to be taken lightly. When you talk about it with other Mormons just remember that it is sacred and not secret. What I don’t mind sharing with people is that we partake in holy ceremonies in which we covenant with God that we will be obedient to the laws and commandments contained in the scriptures, we learn about God’s plan for our eternal happiness and how we can attain sufficient grace in order to return to live with him someday. Our marriage ceremonies are performed in temples and the only real difference is that we are married “for time and all eternity” rather than “til death do us part.”
That’s all for now, I’ll check back later to see if anyone has any questions.

Welcome Joel, you've been busy typing

Too much to tackle at once, so I'll begin at the top and work down.

To me, the concept of 'the Trinity' is one of those spiritual arguments that is something that doesn't make a difference in the bigger picture. I know it makes a huge difference to some, but I think it's one of those points that we'll find out the answer to in eternity... in the meantime it doesn't make a difference in our salvation or in how we're supposed to live.

Second, it doesn't matter much how Joseph Smith says he came up with his theology if it doesn't line up with Biblical scripture. We are to test all future (after the Bible was written) 'prophets' against Biblical scripture, not find a verse here and there to fit into another theology. There are many of Smith's original 'prophecies' that never came about... if you can't believe all of what he says, where do you draw the line to believe any or none of it? The 'golden' plates found near Kinderhook, Illinois were actually brass plates created by the very men who signed affidavits to its 'validity'.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
In 1980, ... the Mormon scholar Stanley P. Kimball was able "to secure permission from the Chicago Historical Society for the recommended destructive tests." Professor Kimball described the results of the tests in the official Mormon Church publication, The Ensign, August 1981, pp. 66-70: "A recent electronic and chemical analysis of a metal plate... brought in 1843 to the prophet Joseph Smith... appears to solve a previously unanswered question in Church history, helping to further evidence that the plate is what its producers later said it was - a nineteenth-century attempt to lure Joseph Smith into making a translation of ancient-looking characters that had been etched into the plates.... As a result of these tests, we concluded that the plate... is not of ancient origin.... we concluded that the plate was made from a true brass alloy (copper and zinc) typical of the mid-nineteenth century; whereas the 'brass' of ancient times was actually bronze, an alloy of copper and tin."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">John 10:16 is interpreted to say those who are not Jews - this is one reason why the Jews became so angry a couple verses later It gave Paul his charge to share the Gospel with the Gentiles. It's a bit of a stretch to say that it meant He was headed to North America to present a gospel that conflicts in so many areas with the one He's been preaching throughout His life up until the point between resurrection and ascension.

Hi, as fast as I get my thougts together the thread takes off faster

First welcome to the Cafe Joel, Glad you are here and are interested in sharing.


I want to take a bit of a different tangent and I don't want to pressure you into feeling you have to answer in the morning or even tomorrow.


I want to talk about Jesus coming to America. You claimed that he came during the fourty day period prior to his ascension. The bible records inarguably that he was seen several times during that fourty days. So if your statement were true then Jesus could have had at the most say 33 days to come and go, and those would be interspersed not contiguous, if we follow scripture. Now I won't say that he did not come, but all evidence does dim hope that he did.

1. Fact Jesus could not have spent more than two contiguous weeks in America at a time.

2. No evidence of his visit has ever been unearthed in any archeological digs. (pictographs, writings, paintings, carvings etc.) While we do have evidence that dates to within about 10 years of his death that mentions him by name from Israel(dead sea scrolls)

3. The state of the Americas natives (north or south) was unchanged during that time period, ie no spiritual, cultural or knowledge shift.

4. There was no divinity worship as an intangible Godhead, there was only sun, moon, ancestral spirits etc, until the spanish conquest began in the 1500s.

5. If Jesus had come and preached his own Gospel to a peoples with rudimentary languages skills he would have had to accomplish in three ten day spurts over two continents, what is took him three years to accomplish in one 70 mile radius. Not saying he isn't empowered, but it doesn't fit the mold.

6. If he came to the americas to preach his own Gospel, then would not his covenant be with the natives of this land and not us. More especially a 18th century white guy of roughly german descent? Joseph Smith would have fallen under one of the apostles directives and indeed was educated in Christianity through the apostolicly recorded Gospels.

7. Why if four Gospels were enough to convert the entire civilized world, would another be necessary to be given to decendants of those same converts 1800 years later?

8. No book in the bible was "given" to a man to copy. The bible except for genesis was written by eyewitnesses to each of the accounts, not visionaries or scribes (true Moses was told Leviticus and Deuteronomy but it was through direct contact with God himself not an angel), even the book of Luke begins with "Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[1] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

That is one of the qualifying parameters that was used in the cannonization of the bible as we know it. Even the Mormon church recognizes that cannonization process of 300 ad. Why would God change his working method in mid stream and why does the Mormon church not apply that qualifier to Mr Smiths writings that it accepts from the Bible?

OK that is plenty of stuff Like I said no hurry or pressure to answer today. I know you are involved with Allen and don't want to overwhelm.

God bless ya!

Sorry I know this is kind of long.

Kinderhook plates are not nor were they ever purported to be the source of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was translated in 1829 from the Golden plates which had been revealed to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni. The Kinderhook plates were given to Joseph Smith in 1843, 13 years after the Book of Mormon was published in an attempt to lure Joseph into translating them and then coming forth with the fact that they were fakes in order to discredit the Prophet. Joseph never attempted translating them and as such was not discredited by the folks in Illinois at the time. So I’m not really sure why you brought them up, since it does little to support your claim that many of Joseph’s prophecies did not come true. Which ones exactly haven’t come true? Was it the prophesy given in 1832 that the northern states and the southern states would soon be divided in war in part over the issue of slavery? Or was it his prophesy prior to going to the Carthage jail, where he was killed by an angry mob, that he was going like a lamb to the slaughter? Or was it his prophesy that the church would one day escape persecution by fleeing to the Rocky Mountains? If there are other prophesies that haven’t been fulfilled yet, well there are prophesies in the Bible that haven’t yet been fulfilled and yet you wouldn’t call John the Revalator or Isaiah a false prophet would you?

In regards to John 10:16, whose interpretation? You have one I have another. This in part answers one of Steven’s questions in the thread. He asked, “7. Why if four Gospels were enough to convert the entire civilized world, would another be necessary to be given to decendants of those same converts 1800 years later?” To answer that question, I think it’s pretty clear from the multitude of different interpretations in the Bible that have lead to the creation of thousands of different interpretations of the Christian faith that the four gospels aren’t exactly clear, and in some cases even contradictory. Wouldn’t it help to have a little more of God’s word to help us understand the real meaning and intent of the Bible?

At least it is clear that what Jesus says in John 10:16 is NOT the reason the Jews became angry a few verses later. In fact they were most likely angered by Jesus’ subtle allusion to himself being the Son of God in verses 17 & 18. I mean this is what had angered the Jews a hundred times previously, so why would it be different this time?

As for Steven’s questions:

1. Fact Jesus could not have spent more than two contiguous weeks in America at a time.

Uh yeah, so what? I just looked through the Book of Mormon in the chapters that are about Christ’s visit, as far as I could tell he was only there for 4 or 5 days tops.
I think people forget that Christianity in the Bible doesn’t really take off as a movement until the Book of Acts. Jesus just sort of set everything in motion and then performed the atonement. The work of conversion and sustaining the church was left to the Apostles.

2. No evidence of his visit has ever been unearthed in any archeological digs. (pictographs, writings, paintings, carvings etc.) While we do have evidence that dates to within about 10 years of his death that mentions him by name from Israel(dead sea scrolls)

Again, I’d be forced to disagree. You know the early conquistadors and specifically Cortez were embraced by the Mayan and Aztec cultures as the “Great White God who said he would return.” Sounds kind of like they thought he was Jesus at his second coming. As for the part about no pictographs well in Mesoamerica, the feathered serpent, Quetzalcoatl (coatl meaning serpent), was for centuries used as a symbol of a great white God who visited their ancestors, again sounds like a perverted form of Jesus Christ. You can see similar things in other cultures as well, the fact that every culture has a great flood mythology similar to the account of Noah recorded in Genesis indicates to me that indeed the Bible is true and that a form of the story of Noah has been preserved in all cultures (who would have descended from Noah) although some of the details have been changed and perverted.

3. The state of the Americas natives (north or south) was unchanged during that time period, ie no spiritual, cultural or knowledge shift.

Again I have to disagree, many archeologist bemoan the fact that the early conquerors of the Indians destroyed much of the culture and in fact that some Mayan achievements in science were superior to European achievements at the time. These people weren’t exactly uneducated or uncivilized.

4. There was no divinity worship as an intangible Godhead, there was only sun, moon, ancestral spirits etc, until the spanish conquest began in the 1500s.

Again Sun worship can easily be a perverted form of the true gospel that was given to them and then lost through apostacy and unrighteousness.

5. If Jesus had come and preached his own Gospel to a peoples with rudimentary languages skills he would have had to accomplish in three ten day spurts over two continents, what is took him three years to accomplish in one 70 mile radius. Not saying he isn't empowered, but it doesn't fit the mold.

He was a resurrected being and as such was known in the New Testament to ascend into heaven, conceal his identity on the Road to Immaeus, and appear in locked rooms. The same physical limitations that applied to him before the resurrection apparently no longer applied after his resurrection. Additionally, his work in the Americas as recorded in the Book of Mormon consisted primarily in establishing his church, preaching the Gospel, and ordaining men to carry the gospel to the people throughout the land, kind of like he did in the New Testament with the Apostles and the Seventy.

6. If he came to the americas to preach his own Gospel, then would not his covenant be with the natives of this land and not us. More especially a 18th century white guy of roughly german descent? Joseph Smith would have fallen under one of the apostles directives and indeed was educated in Christianity through the apostolicly recorded Gospels.

While Jesus was on the Earth in the New Testament, the Gospel was explicity to be preached only to the Jews. It wasn’t until after his death that he revealed to Peter through revelation that the Gospel was now open to the Gentiles. Unless you are a descendant of Judah, then your interpretation would indicate that his covenant in the Gospels does not include you and me.

7. Why if four Gospels were enough to convert the entire civilized world, would another be necessary to be given to decendants of those same converts 1800 years later?

Already covered above.

8. No book in the bible was "given" to a man to copy. The bible except for genesis was written by eyewitnesses to each of the accounts, not visionaries or scribes (true Moses was told Leviticus and Deuteronomy but it was through direct contact with God himself not an angel), even the book of Luke begins with "Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[1] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

Wrong again, every single book in the Bible was given to a man to copy. None of the original Bible texts still exist and the Bible has actually been given to several men to copy and translate. The difference here is that the translations of the Bible that exist today were done mostly by scholars. The translation of the Book of Mormon was performed by the gift and power of God through a divinely appointed Prophet. While I read the King James version, I prefer the German Lutheran Bible and I know that Martin Luther's intentions were at least admirable in translation. It is far superior to any English version I have read.

Look, at the end of the day, what is really so terrible about the Mormon position? Basically what we are saying is “Hey God loves everyone and he’s given us more of his word, you can read it yourself and pray and ask him if it is true.” Why is that so bad. I mean if God has truly given us more scripture and if there are living prophets today on par with men like Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Peter, and Paul, then great. It says to me that God loves us today as much as he loved his children in the Bible. What a terrible thing it is that we Mormons preach.

I’ve thought some more about some of the questions that were posed and I think it’s necessary to lay out another of Mormonisms fundamental beliefs in order to understand one another.

Some faiths (Catholicism, Greek Orthordox) claim to have descended in a direct, unbroken line from the time of Christ with Peter having been the first Pope. Others (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists – the Protestant movement) feel that Catholicism went wrong somewhere, and certain elements of True Christianity had been lost or perverted, so they established new faith movements to try and correct the errors. Others still (Pentacostal) are in the protestant tradition, but declare that religion is merely a personal commitment and any faith tradition can be satisfactory as long as one proclaims his faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons are a little different, to understand our point of view we have to go back and talk about Adam.

Adam walked and talked with God, he knew the truth about God and presumably passed it on to his descendents starting with Seth. Somewhere between Adam and Noah, things turned ugly. All of mankind with the exception of Noah had apostatized from following God, they were in a state of rebellion. So God sent a prophet named Noah to reclaim the people from their immoral ways. When they didn’t heed Noah’s warning God declared a “do-over” and wiped the slate clean. We can only assume that Noah taught his sons about God, but again we see that by the time of Abraham, most people (at least where Abraham was living) had turned away from God again. So God calls Abraham to be a prophet and Isaac and Jacob (Israel) follow in his footsteps. A while later after all of Israel has become enslaved to the Egyptians, a new prophet is called (Moses) to give them God’s law and lead them to the promised land. They do okay for a while, but as you read in the Old Testament, you can see several periods of Apostacy followed by a new prophet being called to bring the people back to God. Both Jeremiah & Isaiah are warning the people in Jerusalem to repent because of their wickedness and they weren’t listened to and so Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon at about 587 BC. In fact, one could argue that the Jews at the time of Christ were again engulfed by a state of Apostacy, had they not fallen away from the true Gospel, clearly they would have recognized Jesus as the Son of God in greater numbers and the Church leadership at the time (Pharisees) would have rejoiced at his coming. But they didn’t, so they clearly were missing something, at the very least they didn’t understand Isaiah.

The LDS church proclaims that following the death of the apostles, due to unrighteousness, the truth was again taken from the Earth as was God’s Priesthood which had been conferred upon the Apostles. So in some ways we agree with Protestants, in that we believe that the only ancient Christian church that has survived until today is grossly in error. We diverge from the Protestants because we don’t believe that just anybody can bring mankind out of this state of Apostacy that was prevalent from about 200AD until 1830. Oddly enough neither did Martin Luther, the Lutheran church did not evolve until after his death. This was in large part due to his personal belief that while the Catholic church was in Apostacy, he, Martin Luther, did not have the Authority to start a new church. We believe, much like Martin Luther, that a man must be called by God by the laying on of hands to receive the authority of the Priesthood in order to establish, lead and guide God’s church. We believe that, exactly like the pattern established in the Bible, God had to call a Prophet to Restore the true Gospel to the Earth and put an end to the Apostacy that arose following the death of the Twelve Apostles. So we’re not Catholics, Protestants, or Pentacostals, we’re Restorationists.

As such we believe that Christ’s church today should be organized along the same lines in modern times as it was anciently. Therefore we are led by a Prophet and Twelve Apostles today (when Joseph Smith died a new Prophet was called and so on and so forth up until today). There is also a Seventy, which is a body of men that were organized by Christ in the Bible to assist the Apostles in the work of spreading the Gospel (Stephen the Martyr was a Seventy). We are lead by revelation as was the Original church as evidenced by revelations given to Peter the senior apostle and head of the church following Christ’s Ascension. We believe in an open Canon of Scripture and that God has not closed the heavens in regard to his dealings with mankind. This too is akin to the Original church with the Apostles writing the Gospels and Epistles to encourage and uplift the Saints.

It's not a bad thing to have a living Prophet who can speak out about issues today. Sometimes the Bible doesn't have the answers to deal with todays issues, God did not intend for us to be clueless, he has provided a mouthpiece on the Earth today.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Joel33:


Kinderhook plates are not nor were they ever purported to be the source of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was translated in 1829 from the Golden plates which had been revealed to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni. The Kinderhook plates were given to Joseph Smith in 1843, 13 years after the Book of Mormon was published in an attempt to lure Joseph into translating them and then coming forth with the fact that they were fakes in order to discredit the Prophet. Joseph never attempted translating them and as such was not discredited by the folks in Illinois at the time.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does it not bother anyone that these golden plates are no-where to be found? That only Smith had seen them?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
While the Kinderhook plates have often been put forth as evidence for Joseph Smith's claims concerning the Book of Mormon, there is another side to the story. Evidence now shows that the Kinderhook plates were actually modern forgeries created specifically for the purpose of entrapping Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith accepted these plates as authentic and even claimed that he had translated a portion of them. The evidence comes from the diary of William Clayton, Joseph Smith's private secretary. The information in Clayton's journal was deemed so important that it was put in the first person and used as a basis for the story of the Kinderhook plates which is printed in the History of the Church vol. 5, p. 372. The following is attributed to Joseph Smith:

"I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook,...

"I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth."

After the plates were found, nine "citizens of Kinderhook" certified that R. Wiley took the "six brass-plates" from "a large mound, in this vicinity." Unfortunately for the Mormon position, it was later revealed that the plates were forgeries. On April 25, 1856, W. P. Harris, who was one of the nine witnesses to the discovery of the plates, wrote a letter in which he stated that the plates were not genuine: "...I was present with a number at or near Kinderhook and helped to dig at the time the plates were found... I... made an honest affidavit to the same.... since that time, Bridge Whitten said to me that he cut and prepared the plates and he... and R. Wiley engraved them themselves.... Wilbourn Fugit appeared to be the chief, with R. Wiley and B. Whitten." (The Book of Mormon?, by James D. Bales, pp. 95-96)

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
He accepted these forged plates without question and even went so far as to "translate" a portion of the fake writing found on the plates. Later the perpetrators of the fraud confessed that the Kinderhook plates were modern forgeries created specifically for the purpose of entrapping Joseph Smith.

On May 1, 1843, the Mormon Church's own publication, Times and Seasons, reprinted an article which claimed that a "resident in Kinderhook" dreamed "three nights in succession" that in a mound near his home "there were treasures concealed." Ten or twelve men dug into the mound and "found SIX BRASS PLATES." The plates were later brought to Nauvoo. In a letter written from that city, dated May 2, 1843, Charlotte Haven said that when Joshua Moore "showed them to Joseph, the latter said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them." (Overland Monthly, Dec. 1890, page 630)

There is definite proof that Joseph Smim claimed he had translated a portion of the plates. The evidence comes from the diary of William Clayton, Joseph Smith's private secretary. Clayton wrote the following:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
"I have seen 6 brass plates... covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth." (William Clayton's Journal, May 1, 1843, as cited in Trials of Discipleship - The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, page 117)
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The information in Clayton's journal was deemed so important that it was used as a basis for the story of the Kinderhook plates which is printed in the History of the Church. The following is attributed to Joseph Smith:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
"I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook...

"I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth." (History of the Church, Vol. 5 page 372)
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since Clayton's journal was apparently used as the major source for the statement attributed to Joseph Smith in the History of the Church, it shows that the highest leaders of the church at the time the History was compiled believed that Joseph Smith did, in fact, "translate a portion" of the plates. It is evident that President Brigham Young and other church leaders seriously believed in Joseph Smith's work on the Kinderhook plates for at least eleven years after the plates were discovered.

In 1854, eleven years after Joseph Smith translated a portion of the plates, the account was written into the "Manuscript History of the Church." Book D-1. It is obvious that the Mormon leaders would never have added this material to the Manuscript History unless they thought it was true.

According to Dr. W. Wyl's book, a "Mormon elder" told him that in "1858" the Apostle Orson Pratt said that he "was well convinced the plates were a fraud." (Mormon Portraits, 1886, page 211) Nevertheless, the story became an important part of Joseph Smith's History of the Church, and is still found in that work!

On January 15, 1844, the Mormon publication, Times and Seasons, boasted that the Kinderhook plates helped prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
"Why does the circumstance of the plates recently found in a mound in Pike county, III., by Mr. Wiley, together with ethnology and a thousand other things, go to prove the Book of Mormon true? - Ans. Because it is true!" (Times and Seasons, Vol. 5, page 406)
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Significantly, over seven pages in the History of the Church are devoted to the Kinderhook plates. These pages not only contain the statement that Joseph Smith translated a portion of the plates but also drawings of the plates (see Vol. 5, pages 372-379)

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

A photo of the kinderhook plate in the chicago museum:

Hey Joel. Please do not get offended. It is hard to read voice inflection and or sarcasm etcetera into the typewritten word. Please let me preface this by saying that I am writing this with no harsh overtones or sarcasm or superior attitude, it is not my intent to be combative, insulting or mean. Sure, it is empassioned, but hey beliefs should be eh? I am not bashing the Mormon church, nor the people in it. I am trying to understand some of the inconsistancies its basic doctrine and beliefs seems to have with Scripture. Every godly principle in scripture occurs in at least two places as to provide a witness against those folks who enjoy using one sentence to make a theological statement. I am not implying that you do that, no, but that is the template that I use to anylize doctrine. That being said let me go over some of the issues.

1. Again, not implying that Jesus couldn't but why would he change his motus operandi and spend five days paving the way for a people when he had just spent three years doing it for a different people?

2. It is interesting that you would use that analogy about the Mayan people and there prophesy of a white man. Archelogical records show that Jesus would have been as dark as any Mayan with curly black hair, somewhat different than a light skinned spaniard. And a far cry from the fair skinned blue eyed brunett of renaisance era paintings. There vision doesn't fit who Jesus really was.

3.Without a doubt the mayan and aztec culture was far advanced compared to where it should have been. BUT there was still no significant change in their spirituality, knowledge or beliefs centered about 2000 years ago. It is well documented in the region the impact that Christianity had in the first 100 years AD. It so incensed Nero that he burned Jeruselem to the ground in 70 ad. The Roman pursecution of the Christians is well documented. There is nothing of impact found in the americas at that time to give any credence to a visit from Jesus.

4. Worshipping seasons and stars and such [could] be a twisted form of a gospel, but that is a real stretch. If Jesus came to them and they fell so far then why have not we?

5. I won't deny his ability to overcome the physical world. I question a shift in method. God is consistant in his dealings with man from the flood onward. I would even argue that he is consistant from the beginning. It took Jesus three years to teach and seed twelve men and a geographical area smaller than the city I live in. Why a sudden shift and seed two continents in two weeks?

6. I would have to go to the mat on this next one. Aside from the oration of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Scripture was recorded by eyewitneses. You are correct in saying that an original copy does not exist, true. But the levitical law that covered the copying of the orginal parchements carries through even today.

The Masoretic Scribes have been so careful over the years that each scroll had a letter count by letter, and total of letters and word. Each letter was enumerated so that an examiner could count to "x" number of characters and it should be a "so and so" character for example. (sorry I don't have the hebrew font pack) They knew that there are 78,064 hebrew letters in the book of Genesis. They were so precise that they could pinpoint the middle verse by letter count. (Genesis 27:40) When the scribe was done a master examiner would count every letter in the manuscript to make sure that there were no mistakes or interpretations. If there was a single error the entire copy was destroyed so that it could not be mistakenly used as a master in the future. The only writings that passed from God to man were the sets of stone tablets that contained the comandments. (on a similar note, speaking of tablets. God never gave something to man and took it away again. The gold plates of Mr. Smith do not fit that pattern.)

7. I prefer the NIV myself it was translated from far older scrolls than either the KJV or the ML version, some dating to about 80Ad. There have been over 24000 manuscripts unearthed so far. I figure the older the better, since the greek versions were not so meticulously copied as the Torah.


</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So God sent a prophet named Noah to reclaim the people from their immoral ways.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*quick note God did not send Noah, nor was he revealed as a prophet. Genesis 6:6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD .
Noah was already a righteous man and God singled him out.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> due to unrighteousness, the truth was again taken from the Earth as was God’s Priesthood which had been conferred upon the Apostles.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*That disagrees with the new covenant that we have with Christ.

I agree with you that the gifts of prophesy are alive and well but I disagree that God has sent/appointed a prophet to any nation other than his chosen people Israel. Again we must ask why 1800's America and since, and not Thailand or Canada or say Romania? Why the exclusion?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sometimes the Bible doesn't have the answers to deal with todays issues</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">**I competely disagree with ya there my friend. There is no principle behavior or circumstance that cannot be answered through the original 66 books of the bible.

God bless ya

No offense taken by anything anyone has said. I am well aware that as a means of understanding the inflection used in a persons voice, the internet is woefully deficient. Please to picture me as a blustering, frustrated Mormon who just can’t get his point across. Please afford me the same courtesy by not taking offense to what I say.

Kinderhook plates, there’s a lot to quote here so hang onto your seat. The material I’m quoting comes from the original article Allen quoted by Stephen P. Kimball. If you’d read the entire article by Mr. Kimball, we wouldn’t have had to spend so much time on this issue. Here we go…
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The plates greatly excited public curiosity in the area, and within a week of their alleged discovery they were brought to Nauvoo for a short stay. An editorial comment in the same Times and Seasons article indicates how important the eager writer felt these brass plates might be:
“Circumstances are daily transpiring which give additional testimony to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. … The following … will, perhaps have a tendency to convince the sceptical, that such things [metal plates] have been used, and that even the obnoxious Book of Mormon, may be true.”

The editorial further reported: “Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained. The gentleman that owns them has taken them away, or we should have given a fac simile of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning with them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it.”

A month and a half later the Nauvoo Neighbor press published a 12" x 15" broadside entitled Discovery of the Brass Plates. 2 (See p. 72.) This handbill contained a reprint of the Times and Seasons story, with the addition of facsimiles of all twelve sides of the six plates. Nothing further regarding the Prophet’s opinion of the plates appeared on the broadside—only a statement that “the contents of the plates … will be published in the ‘Times and Seasons,’ as soon as the translation is completed.”

These two oblique references to a “translation” were followed thirteen years later by a more direct published statement that until recently was wrongly thought to have been written by Joseph Smith himself. On September 3 and 10, 1856, the following paragraphs appeared in the Deseret News as part of the serialized “History of Joseph Smith”:

“[May 1, 1843:] I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. R. Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton, and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.

“I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.” (Then followed a reprint of material from the Times and Seasons article.)
Although this account appears to be the writing of Joseph Smith, it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. It has been well known that the serialized “History of Joseph Smith” consists largely of items from other persons’ personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet’s life “in his own words.” It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work, even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him; thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example, the words “I have translated a portion” originally read “President J. has translated a portion. …” 3
Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown. However, as will be pointed out later, speculation about the plates and their possible content was apparently quite unrestrained in Nauvoo when the plates first appeared. In any case, this altered version of the extract from William Clayton’s journal was reprinted in the Millennial Star of 15 January 1859, and, unfortunately, was finally carried over into official Church history when the “History of Joseph Smith” was edited into book form as the History of the Church in 1909. 4

By 1912, however, at least two items of evidence had come to light indicating that the Kinderhook plates were not authentic. One was a letter written in 1855 (but not published until 1912) by Dr. W. P. Harris—the same W. P. Harris who authored the statement that appeared in the Times and Seasons article. In this letter he wrote that in 1843 he had accepted the discovery of the plates as genuine. “I washed and cleaned the plates and subsequently made an honest affidavit to the same,” he said. “But since that time, Bridge Whitton [a blacksmith in Kinderhook, Illinois] said to me that he cut and prepared the plates and he (B. Whitton) and R. Wiley engraved them themselves, and that there was nitric acid put upon them the night before they were found to rust the iron ring and band. And that they were carried to the mound, rubbed in the dirt and carefully dropped into the pit where they were found.” 5

The other item was a letter written in 1879 by Wilbur Fugate (another of those present at the excavation of the plates) to an anti-Mormon in Salt Lake City. 6 Fugate declared that the alleged discovery of the Kinderhook plates was “a HUMBUG, gotten up by Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitton and myself. … None of the nine persons who signed the certificate [a document included in the Times and Seasons article] knew the secret, except Wiley and I.

“We read in Pratt’s prophecy that ‘Truth is yet to spring out of the earth.’ [The quote is from Parley P. Pratt’s 1837 missionary tract Voice of Warning.] We concluded to prove the prophecy by way of a joke. We soon made our plans and executed them. Bridge Whitton cut them out of some pieces of copper; Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid and putting it on the plates. When they were finished we put them together with rust made of nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron, covering them completely with the rust.”
Fugate then went on to tell how they secretly buried the plates and faked their discovery.
These accounts have generated much controversy for more than a hundred years since the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, the question being twofold: (1) are the Kinderhook plates authentic? and (2) did Joseph Smith attempt to translate them? In general, Latter-day Saint scholars and laymen have sought to confirm the story of the Kinderhook plates, feeling that such authentication would both defend the Prophet and make more plausible the account of the Book of Mormon having been taken from plates of gold.

Antagonists, on the other hand, have sought to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">At this point in the article there is a bunch of scientific stuff proving the Kinderhook plates to be a forgery. It is then followed by this…
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But what does the above conclusion mean in relationship to the earlier references to a “translation” of the Kinderhook plates by Joseph Smith? Did he actually attempt to translate any of the plates?

To answer that question, it is necessary to look at the events of April and May 1843 in sequence:
The plates were “discovered” on Sunday, 23 April 1843, and taken home by Dr. Harris for cleaning, Then, according to a story in the Quincy Whig, they were exhibited in Quincy during the following week. 11

There is some question about who brought the plates to Nauvoo. The Quincy, Illinois, certificate printed in the Times and Seasons article said, “The above described plates we have handed to Mr. Sharp [a Latter-day Saint present at the excavation] for the purpose of taking them to Nauvoo.” However, Wilbur Fugate wrote in his 1879 letter: “The Mormons wanted to take the plates to Joe Smith, but we refused to let them go. Some time afterward a man assuming the name of Savage, of Quincy, borrowed the plates of Wiley to show to his literary friends there, and took them to Joe Smith. The same identical plates were returned to Wiley.”

Charlotte Haven, a somewhat antagonistic non-Mormon who was visiting her sister (a Mormon) in Nauvoo at the time, wrote a letter on May 2 that gives the following account:

“We hear very frequently from our Quincy friends through Mr. Joshua Moore, who passes through that place and this in his monthly zigzag tours through the State, traveling horseback. His last call on us was last Saturday [April 29] and he brought with him half a dozen thin pieces of brass, apparently very old, in the form of a bell about five or six inches long. They had on them scratches that looked like writing, and strange figures like symbolic characters. They were recently found, he said, in a mound a few miles below Quincy. When he showed them to Joseph, the latter said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them.”

It is possible, then, that Mr. Joshua Moore was the one who obtained the plates by pretense and brought them to Nauvoo. In any event, the plates had apparently arrived in Nauvoo by Saturday, April 29, and had been shown to Joseph Smith.
William Clayton evidently had access to the plates at some point, for in his journal entry of Monday, May 1, he included a tracing of one of the plates. (Whether or not he was present when Joseph Smith saw the plates is unknown.) Two days later, on Wednesday, Brigham Young also drew an outline of one of the Kinderhook plates in a small notebook/diary that he kept. Inside the drawing he wrote: “May 3—1843. I had this at Joseph Smith’s house. Found near Quincy.”

Very soon afterward the plates were removed from Nauvoo, for the Times and Seasons editorial, which was written perhaps on Wednesday or Thursday (May 3 or 4), said: “Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained. The gentleman that owns them has taken them away, or we should have given a fac simile of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning with them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it.”

The plates were apparently in Nauvoo, then, from Saturday the 29th through Wednesday the 3rd—a period of five days—and were then taken away. Later, however, they were evidently returned to Nauvoo for a time, for by June 24 the Nauvoo Neighbor press had access to them and was thus able to produce facsimiles for the published broadside. A History of the Church entry for Sunday, May 7, says: “In the forenoon I [Joseph Smith] was visited by several gentlemen, concerning the plates that were dug out near Kinderhook.” 14 Whether or not the plates were actually returned on that day—or indeed, whether Joseph Smith himself ever had the plates again—is uncertain.

In any case, the translation for which hope had been expressed in the Times and Seasons did not appear. In a letter dated April 8, 1878, Wilbur Fugate recalled: “We understood Jo Smith said [the plates] would make a book of 1200 pages but he would not agree to translate them until they were sent to the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England.” Furthermore, a review of other entries in Joseph Smith’s history indicate that he was occupied during the following weeks with mayoral duties, Church business, the Nauvoo Legion, and four different trips to neighboring cities; there is no indication of translating activities. 15 Then on June 23, just one day before publication of the broadside that repeated the Saints’ hopeful expectation of an eventual translation, the Prophet was abducted by Missourians who tried to get him to Missouri for prosecution on charges of “treason.” He made it back to Nauvoo on June 30, but the habeas corpus proceedings took up more than two weeks of his time.

Just when the plates were taken from Nauvoo for the second and perhaps final time is uncertain. But we know that by fall of that same year they were back in Robert Wiley’s possession, for on November 15 he wrote a letter to one J. J. Harding suggesting that he was interested in selling the plates to “the National Institute,” and that he was also interested in the “opinions of your different Entiquarian friends.” In reference to having the plates examined by “the Antiquarian society at Philadelphia, France, and England,” Wilbur Fugate went on to say: “They were sent and the answer was that there were no such Hyeroglyphics known, and if there ever had been, they had long since passed away. Then Smith began his translation.” (The reference to Joseph Smith having begun a “translation” of the plates is in error, since they were never returned to Nauvoo. The Prophet died a martyr the following year.)

However, the question of when the plates were taken from Nauvoo is not as important as the fact that they were taken away. In spite of the considerable excitement they generated in Nauvoo after their “discovery” the plates were allowed to leave the Saints, apparently without fanfare. No known record exists which intimates that Joseph Smith or those around him ever purchased or attempted to purchase the plates, even though their owner, Wiley, was prepared to sell them.
That the plates had aroused interest in Nauvoo is evident from two accounts that were not published until years later. In a letter written to a friend on Sunday, May 7, Parley P. Pratt said: “A large number of Citizens have seen them and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.” A few lines previously, he had begun his comment on the plates as follows:

“Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground.” 16

This calls to mind the statement from the William Clayton journal referred to above:

“I have seen six brass plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth which was nine feet high. … President J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found, and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.”

It seems, then, that there was considerable talk about the plates in Nauvoo—and apparently as much misinformation and hearsay was current among people as there was fact. Pratt heard of a discovery in Pike County; Clayton said Adams County. Clayton said that the find was made six feet underground; Pratt, fifteen. Elder Pratt spoke of a cement vase—an item mentioned in no other account. Clayton mentioned a skeleton nine feet tall—also unmentioned in any other account. Clayton said that the plates gave a history of an Egyptian; Pratt mentioned a Jaredite.

The elements that these two accounts have in common suggest a basic jist to the hearsay stories circulating in Nauvoo and also that Joseph Smith with others saw and wondered about the nature of the material that had been brought to Nauvoo. But there is, obviously, leagues of difference between an actual translation of sacred records and a consideration of artifacts of uncertain origin—the former requiring study, prayer, and revelation; the latter characterized perhaps by an examination for points of similarity, etc., in a setting where various suggestions are likely aired by those present and elaborated on as discussion continued. And the actual presence of William Clayton or Parley P. Pratt in any discussion on the topic with Joseph Smith is simply unknown.

It is hard to imagine that the Prophet Joseph Smith wouldn’t have been intrigued by the plates. When they were first shown to him, he may well have noted certain correspondence between some characters on the plates and “reformed Egyptian” and contemplated the possibility of authenticity and translation, as the Charlotte Haven letter suggests. 17 But how much of the conjecture that was current in Nauvoo at the time might be attributable to him would be a speculation in itself, impossible to verify from the available accounts. The one account that was published in the Times and Seasons, whose editors were equally as intimate with Joseph Smith as William Clayton and Parley P. Pratt, could only report that “Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is we have not yet ascertained.”

The central issue in the whole question of Joseph Smith’s involvement in the Kinderhook plate episode is that the expected “translation” did not appear. And this fact may well explain the characteristic that has made this hoax most interesting—that it was never carried to completion. That the Kinderhook plates were not authentic artifacts is no longer in doubt; but if the plates were faked, why wasn’t the hoax revealed right away?

It has been suggested that the whole Kinderhook plate incident was, as Wilbur Fugate said in his 1878 and 1879 letters, a heavy-handed, frontier-style “joke.” On the other hand, the conspirators’ objective might have been more pointed—to produce a bogus set of plates and then reveal the hoax in a shower of ridicule after the Prophet made a purported “translation.” In either case, they were frustrated in their scheme because no translation ever appeared. In fact, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever concluded the plates were genuine, other than conflicting statements from members who hoped that a translation would come forth—and in fact no evidence that the Prophet manifested real interest in the “discovery” after his initial viewing of the plates. The statement taken from William Clayton’s journal didn’t appear until September 1856 in Salt Lake City’s Deseret News. At that point, time itself had eroded away the opportunity for a hearty joke, if that were the hoaxers’ intent; and the absence of an actual translation in spite of the Clayton entry in the “History of Joseph Smith” could only have added to their frustrations—assuming that the hoaxers even knew of the Deseret News account, which appeared thirteen years later and a thousand miles away.

Another possible explanation for the hoax never having been carried through may lie in Robert Wiley’s desire to sell the plates as genuine artifacts. For him to have exposed the hoax before the attempted sale would, of course, have scuttled any negotiations; and to expose it afterward may have landed the sellers and conspirators in jail for attempted fraud—turning the tables and making them the object of ridicule instead of Joseph Smith.

Significantly, there is no evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith ever took up the matter with the Lord, as he did when working with the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. And this brings us to the other side of the story, for those of us who believe that Joseph Smith was the Lord’s prophet: Isn’t it natural to expect that he would be guided to understand that these plates were not of value as far as his mission was concerned? That other members may have been less judicious and not guided in the same way cannot be laid at the Prophet’s feet. Many people, now as well as then, have an appetite for hearsay and a hope for “easy evidence” to bolster or even substitute for personal spirituality and hard-won faith that comes from close familiarity with truth and communion with God.

So it is that in the 100-year battle of straw men and straw arguments, Joseph Smith needs no defense—he simply did not fall for the scheme. And with that understood, it is perhaps time that the Kinderhook plates be retired to the limbo of other famous faked antiquities</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So to sum up Joseph was only ever in posession of the plates for 5 days, and during that time was consumed with his duties as President and Prophet of the Church as well as duties as Mayor of Nauvoo. No mention in Joseph's personal records are made to efforts of translation (which is not in order with his practice while tranlating other sacred texts), and accounts claiming to know of a translation are basically heresay or speculation derived from the excitement about the plates that existed in the community locally, not from any statement made by Joseph Smith. Can we drop the Kinderhook plates now and move on to more interesting issues?

Lastly, it is interesting you think that no one has seen the Golden Plates and that it is strange that people can still accept them. Well, I haven’t seen God and I don’t know if you have or not, but I accept that he exists. It’s a little concept called “Faith.”

But people have seen them. I give you the testimony of the three witnesses and the testimony of the eight witnesses. These are printed in the first few pages of every single copy of the Book of Mormon in the world.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
OLIVER COWDERY, DAVID WHITMER, MARTIN HARRIS
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
CHRISTIAN WHITMER, JACOB WHITMER,PETER WHITMER JUN., JOHN WHITMER, HIRAM PAGE, JOSEPH SMITH SEN., HYRUM SMITH, SAMUEL H. SMITH
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Absolutely lastly, this goes back to John10:16, something I forgot to ask the other day... How do people interpret Jesus saying that the "Other Sheep" should hear "my voice" means that the Apostles would take the gospel to them. It seems pretty clear to me that Jesus is saying, "There's some other folks out there and I will speak to them. Not Peter's voice, not Paul's voice, but MY voice." I've never understood how people have interpreted "my voice" to somehow mean the Apostles and not Jesus himself.

Let’s not get caught up in semantics. I mean, yes, the Lord did not Send Noah, but Noah was chosen and God spoke with him. In my book this makes you a prophet. Whether he was sent or just stumbled upon due to his righteousness isn’t really the point of contention, but rather that there is an established pattern in the Bible of God revealing the truth to the people through a Prophet, they live righteously for a time and then fall away only for God to send them a new Prophet to restore the truth. If you don’t believe that this pattern exists then you need to carefully reread the Old Testament. It’s not one or two verses being quoted to support my position but the entire book of the Old Testament as a whole establishing a pattern of human behavior and God’s response. The only reason we don't see it more clearly in the New Testament is the compressed time horizon in the NT. I mean the OT covers a couple thousand years or so while the NT covers about 70.

I couldn't agree more with the following: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Every godly principle in scripture occurs in at least two places as to provide a witness against those folks who enjoy using one sentence to make a theological statement. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In fact that principle is established in Matt 18:6 and again in 2Cor13:1. 2 Cor is my favorite. You'll note that I rarely give isolated passages of scripture to illustrate a point but generally provide at least two references as well as explaining the background to the scripture. Moreover, the Bible as a whole is a witness of Christ's divinity, the Book of Mormon is a second witness of his divinity.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is interesting that you would use that analogy about the Mayan people and there prophesy of a white man. Archelogical records show that Jesus would have been as dark as any Mayan with curly black hair, somewhat different than a light skinned spaniard. And a far cry from the fair skinned blue eyed brunett of renaisance era paintings. There vision doesn't fit who Jesus really was.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I’m glad you saw that special on the History channel as well. I watched very closely waiting for someone to point out that if we are to believe the Biblical account to be accurate, we have to accept that half of Jesus’ DNA came from God. Accepting that premise, we have absolutely no idea what he would have looked like. We do know that </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> he (grew) up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe it’s because his skin was a different color that he was not seen as “comely” or attractive and that he was despised and rejected. My point is who really knows.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Without a doubt the mayan and aztec culture was far advanced compared to where it should have been. BUT there was still no significant change in their spirituality, knowledge or beliefs centered about 2000 years ago. It is well documented in the region the impact that Christianity had in the first 100 years AD. It so incensed Nero that he burned Jeruselem to the ground in 70 ad. The Roman pursecution of the Christians is well documented. There is nothing of impact found in the americas at that time to give any credence to a visit from Jesus. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps the impact of Christianity in and around Rome was so well documented because there was a continuous written history of that people from the time of Christ until today. Of course I would contend that the changes you are looking for in the Mezoamerican cultures are documented, they’re just documented in the Book of Mormon.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Worshipping seasons and stars and such [could] be a twisted form of a gospel, but that is a real stretch. If Jesus came to them and they fell so far then why have not we? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Um, I think my second post yesterday deals with this topic. From the Mormon perspective, the world has kind of fallen pretty far. Let’s face it when mainstream churches are dealing with issues on a daily basis as Pedophile Priests and whether or not to ordain openly gay Bishops (Episcopalians) then we have as a people and particularly as worldwide faith movements strayed quite a bit from what Jesus taught. Don’t ya think? Even more to the point, why were the tribes of Israel so quick to turn to idol worship despite being fed manna from heaven. I mean Moses was up on the Mountain for less than 40 days when they made the Golden calf. When people want to apostatize they can easily and quickly pervert the ways of the Lord. There is not an appropriate timetable for apostacy and it can happen within a few days or over the course of a couple hundred years. Moreover, the Book of Mormon records the violent suppression and eventual elimination of Christianity among those people at about 400AD.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I won't deny his ability to overcome the physical world. I question a shift in method. God is consistant in his dealings with man from the flood onward. I would even argue that he is consistant from the beginning. It took Jesus three years to teach and seed twelve men and a geographical area smaller than the city I live in. Why a sudden shift and seed two continents in two weeks? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was no sudden change, and whatever change you note, occurred in the New Testament as well. Jesus didn’t have a habit of concealing his identity by the power of God prior to his resurrection but he did it afterwards. Is this a change in m.o.? You bet it is. Moreover, Peter was a Fisherman. The man he called in a similar position to Peter’s in the Book of Mormon had been a prophet (Nephi)) for several years preaching that Christ had come and that the people needed to prepare themselves and live more righteously. Nothing Christ said to Nephi in the Book of Mormon probably came as much of a surprise as he had learned of Christ through his direct dealings with God. Different people, different circumstances, different approach. Personally, I’d rather think of Christ as a dynamic leader and not one who was rigidly devoted to preaching for three years to set things up and then taking off.

More important from this follow up question is that God is consistent. This is why he has organized his church today on the same pattern as the church organized in Christ’s time. A Prophet and Twelve Apostles. You can’t get more consistent than that. Even more to the point, if God is so consistent as you and I agree, why can you accept that he suddenly stopped producing scripture through prophets around 70AD. I can't accept that, I believe he still does speak to us and hasn't changed his method for doing so. He uses a Prophet.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would have to go to the mat on this next one. Aside from the oration of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Scripture was recorded by eyewitneses. You are correct in saying that an original copy does not exist, true. But the levitical law that covered the copying of the orginal parchements carries through even today. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Great, the Levitical law tells us how to copy original sacred texts. Do you trust that the Catholic church (the only one’s with any access to the Bible from its inception to the invention of the Printing Press in the 1400's) has followed that Law? I don’t, I don’t trust the Catholic Church any further than I could throw it. Anyone who has read any history knows that the corruption of the Catholic church goes way deeper than what we are witnessing today. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Bible. But you’ve got to remember what the Apostle John wrote in the last verse of his Gospel </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This may come as a shock, but I believe that there are probably more holy writings dealing with Christ out there that have yet to come forth. When they do come forth I will read them and pray about them trusting in God to tell whether or not what they contain is true.

If I were you, I would judge what the Book of Mormon contains by reading it and then praying to ask God if he will tell by the Power of the Holy Ghost whether or not what it contains is true.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Due to unrighteousness, the truth was again taken from the Earth as was God’s Priesthood which had been conferred upon the Apostles
That disagrees with the new covenant that we have with Christ. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Apostacy had already begun to creep into the ancient church, why do you think Paul, Peter and the other Apostles wrote all those letters. It was to clarify misunderstanding. Moreover, there are prophesies of the Apostacy in the Old and New Testaments, I won’t get into that now because I’ve already written too much, but suffice it to say that Amos, Isaiah, Paul and John the Revelator prophesy of the Apostacy and Restoration of the Gospel.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is no principle behavior or circumstance that cannot be answered through the original 66 books of the bible.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then why, why in all the world with the entire Bible at their disposal. Do Episcopalians submit to a vote the question of whether or not to accept homosexuality? Why in the world does the Catholic church fumble the issue of Pedophile Priests? Why are there several different forms of Baptism? Why is there even a debate about saved by Grace or saved by Works? Why is there a question in any Christian’s mind about the appropriateness of pre-marital sex? Where does the Bible talk about drugs? If the answers were that clear to everyone (the Bible gives clear answers to me) then why is the Christian world so fractured and splintered on doctrinal issues? That doesn’t make sense. God is not confused, it is the world that is confused and clearly could stand for a little more divine direction.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No offense taken by anything anyone has said. I am well aware that as a means of understanding the inflection used in a persons voice, the internet is woefully deficient. Please to picture me as a blustering, frustrated Mormon who just can’t get his point across. Please afford me the same courtesy by not taking offense to what I say.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gotcha!


I will tackle the last one first. I have much work to do tonight and it can be answered quickly.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then why, why in all the world with the entire Bible at their disposal. Do Episcopalians submit to a vote the question of whether or not to accept homosexuality? Why in the world does the Catholic church fumble the issue of Pedophile Priests? Why are there several different forms of Baptism? Why is there even a debate about saved by Grace or saved by Works? Why is there a question in any Christian’s mind about the appropriateness of pre-marital sex? Where does the Bible talk about drugs? If the answers were that clear to everyone (the Bible gives clear answers to me) then why is the Christian world so fractured and splintered on doctrinal issues? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As for the "why's" I agree with you. It is because Man is fallen and full of failings. Most religious organizations have unscriptural struggles and policies. Heck most churches are run by comittee and you can't find that in the Bible.

The reason that the world is so split on doctrine is that for years doctrine was handed out by a few in power and those few fought tooth and nail to prevent the bible from being published. When it did many people still felt dependent on others to read and interpret scripture for them. TO this day the majority of church goers and I will go so far as to say the mojority of saved people do not study the word of God and are not prepared to use it to adjudicate their own lives!

Most folks have not followed the instructions in

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

I believe the KJV says "rightly dividing the Word of truth" and to Study to show yourself approved.

Hey Americans are lazy, if we can't get it in a video... But all in all scripture is clear, man is muddled.

Couple more quick points and I gotta run.

I agree about the catholic churches strnglehold on informations for centuries. I am just thankful that we now have older and more accurate scrolls and writings with which to translate scripture (new testament)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree that most of what Paul wrote was correction and instruction to fledgling and sometimes failing churches. I can't agree that the truth and the ability to discern it were ever "taken" from us. Hey no doubt that mankind has turned his back on God many times through the ages but God's word has survived intact along with the gifts of the Spirit.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is my position in a nutshell. (seaking for me only anyway)

I believe in the authenticity of scripture. I do not see in scripture a prophesy of Jesus making a different or new covenant with America, nor do I see evidence of it in archeology. I beleive that the Bible is comlete and that when it was asembled for the first time that those invloved in its assembly (the 66 books) were led by God. I cannot find in Scripture a lacking that would necesitate another book to be recorded 1800 years later, for correction or reproof. I do beleive that there are several inconsistancies in that 200 year old book that disqualifies it as being God breathed and am not convinced that an adherence to those inconsistant teachings would continue to allow one to be saved. I don't have time to go into them tonight now but Allen addresed some of them such as the God vs Gods etcetera.

God bless ya. Thanks for takin the time to chat here!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As for the "why's" I agree with you. It is because Man is fallen and full of failings. Most religious organizations have unscriptural struggles and policies. Heck most churches are run by comittee and you can't find that in the Bible. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Au contraire. . . Christ left his church in the hands of a committee – The Twelve Apostles.

In Acts 15 we read about how the Apostles meet together to decide the issue of circumcision for the new Gentile converts who had not been circumcised because they were not Jewish. Some Pharisees who had converted to Christianity had stirred up trouble in the church claiming that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised. So the Apostles get together in Acts 15 to decide the issue. Verse 28 let’s us know how they came to their conclusion. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Basically, they got together discussed it and let the Holy Ghost descend upon them as a group to decide the issue for the whole church (they were inspired that circumcision was not required of the Gentiles). I hate to turn your words against you, but God is nothing if not consistent. Throughout the Bible he has decided doctrinal issues by revealing his will to holy men and then that information is disseminated throughout the church. No votes, just some discussion and then waiting receiving an answer from the Holy Ghost. So why doesn’t it work that way today? God is consistent right.

In Acts 1 we read about the first time the Apostles have to make a decision that would affect the church after Christ’s ascension. They needed to call a new Apostle to replace Judas. After much discussion it is narrowed down to a choice between Joseph called Barsabas and Matthias. Verse 24-26 shows us how they decide the issue </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here’s the pattern established in two different passages of scripture: a question arises, the Apostles meet and discuss it and finally, they pray and ask God to show them the way. Since the example in Acts 1 is prior to the day of Pentacost they trust that God will decide the answer as they cast lots. The Acts 15 example is after the day of Pentacost and they receive the answer by the Holy Ghost. In Both cases a major decision for the church was to be made and the Apostles were entrusted with the decision and God gave them the answer. Incidentally, the fact that in Acts 1 they are meeting to replace Judah could also indicate that in God’s infinite consistency he intended for the Twelve Apostles to continue as the ruling body of his church. If this is the case, where did they go? And how did the church survive without them?

Committee? Yes, as long as it’s the Twelve Apostles. Voting? No, rather pray and ask god for direction.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Most folks have not followed the instructions in

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I couldn’t agree more. However, even those who have followed the advice in Timothy sometimes forget the advice in Proverbs 3:5 and again in James 1:5
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The way I approach any question regarding truth, is to study it thoroughly in the scriptures and then go to God in prayer asking him to show me the truth. I lack wisdom and I don’t want to lean on my own understanding. Basically what I’m saying is that unless a person is willing to invest some time in reading the Book of Mormon and then praying to ask God if what it holds is true, then I can’t accept any rejection of it as legitimate. Additionally when someone says. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I believe in the authenticity of scripture. I do not see in scripture a prophesy of Jesus making a different or new covenant with America, nor do I see evidence of it in archeology.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I see the word “I” a lot which indicates a tendency toward trusting your own understanding and in the reference to archeology, I see trust in the arm of flesh and not in the arm of God. I see a bias that would be nearly impossible to overcome unless someone was willing to consider that maybe in part they have judged something too quickly or unfairly or even by a standard that is not fully supported in the Bible.

I can trot out all the archeological evidence in the world to support the Book of Mormon and you can bring out all the evidence in the world to counter the Book of Mormon. I can list dozens of references from the Bible supporting the Book of Mormon and you can probably find fault with all of them. Both you and I are imperfect and therefore our conclusions about what is accurate and what is inaccurate are woefully deficient. Without turning to God in prayer (which I have done) we cannot be certain of the truth.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I agree that most of what Paul wrote was correction and instruction to fledgling and sometimes failing churches. I can't agree that the truth and the ability to discern it were ever "taken" from us. Hey no doubt that mankind has turned his back on God many times through the ages but God's word has survived intact along with the gifts of the Spirit. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess I was unclear here. I never intended to imply that all of God’s truth was removed from the earth during the Apostacy. Truth was lost and other truths misinterpreted, in the end, the church that survived was not the one Christ established and did not enjoy God's authority. Enough truth was lost to muddy the spiritual waters and create the massive state of confusion in the Christian world that exists today. Here’s a few references from the Bible regarding the Apostacy that I didn’t have time for yesterday.

In Isaiah 24, Isaiah is prophesying about the state of the world prior to the Second coming when he blurts out in verse 5 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe he’s talking about that covenant with Christ you keep bringing up that hasn’t been broken? Well apparently, prior to the second coming the inhabitants of the earth (pretty broad group, huh?) will break it. As for the ordinance that Isaiah says has been changed as a sign of the broken covenant, I've always understood that to be a perversion of the ordinance of Baptism into infant baptism and sprinkling instead of immersion.

In Amos 8, Amos is talking about the last days prophesying of the downfall of Israel. He throws in this little gem in verses 11 and 12 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So apparently at some point in mankinds history, there will be a period of time when the Lord will send a famine, but not your regular type famine but a famine of hearing the words of the Lord. In fact it will be so widespread that the word of the Lord will not be found anywhere upon the face of the earth. You might say that this doesn’t prove this is to happen after Christ’s coming. Well there’s more scripture to clear this up.

In 2 Thessalonians, Paul is writing to the church in Thessalonica regarding the second coming of Christ. In chapter one he praises them for their patience and virtue in tribulation and then tells them that Christ will come and take vengeance on those that don’t obey the Gospel. In chapter 2, he wants to make sure that they don’t get their hopes up that the second coming of Christ is imminent and says in verses 1-3 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> NOW we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So according to Paul, the second coming of Christ will not occur until there has been a “Falling Away” or in other words an Apostacy.

In 2 Timothy, Paul warns Timothy about Apostacy and even identifies some Christians who have already fallen away. In other words, the Apostacy had already begun to creep into the early Christian church. Chapter 1:15 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Peter also talks about the beginnings of the Apostacy in 2 Peter 2:1-2 </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"