Replies

First, let me start by saying what a tragedy this is, and that my heart goes out to the families involved.

Second, let me warn that this is a rather long post. It is long only because of those people who have posted completely off-topic in a thread that was for those of us who wanted to share our prayers and empathy. Apparently, they believe their "holier than thou attitude" concerning young Elder Morgan Young gives them the right to attack his beliefs during this time of mourning. I guess, at least they didn't do it while "pulling the trigger" like what happened to the Savior while he was dying.

If I remember correctly (and I know I do) the Savior himself said, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me." He was distinctly taking about service, and I don't read anywhere in the New Testament that he qualified what that service had to be. So there should be no problem in interpreting that to mean ANY service where the person involved was trying to serve his fellow man in the best way he knew how at that time. So I have no problem thinking that anybody that loses his life when they are truly giving of themselves to their fellow man no matter what religion, race, or whatever, has a pretty good chance of making it back to our Eternal Father. (To those who want to argue with something silly like "What about suicide bombers, they truly believe ... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!" Sorry, Islamic fundamentalists who think they are giving service by blowing themselves up for their people don't qualify for the previous statement because they end up being selfish. In the end, they've selfishly removed themselves from being able to continue to serve others which is contrary to Jesus Christ's teachings.)

So, to Californiajones and others, I say you are completely out of line to scrutinize this young man's personal beliefs when he lost his life doing what he thought the Savior had asked him to do. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. According to the Savior's own words, by questioning this young man's beliefs in the face of his death while he was following in the path of the Savior through service, you have done the same to the Savior himself. Don't even try to think you can say something like, "Well, it's different because this young man was preaching a false gospel ... or some junk," and get away with it because then you would be defining for the Savior what He meant (Which you have already done). I have a feeling you'll be held accountable to the Savior himself for trying to qualify what he meant when he spoke of service and the way you have degraded Him through proxy.

I will now "defend" this young man's beliefs since he cannot do it himself by answering the previous attacks of the LDS Church which have been intentionally misrepresented by Californiajones and others as "questioning" this deceased young man's beliefs (Pretty shameful seeing as how they practically started before he even reached room temperature). I realize I may be wasting my time, but I also realize that people like Californiajones get a hold of anti-Mormon propaganda and run with it not even realizing that most of the sources they read it from don't even come close to telling the truth.

{Wolfgang_Blitzkrieg-"They don't teach salvation through the atoning blood of Christ on the cross. They teach a 'works' salvation. So, they're not in the same boat. They're not even in the same ocean."
Peter said Paul's writings concerning salvation were hard to understand. I am sure this is why Luther wrote in Philip Melanethon, "We must sin as long as we are in the flesh...Sin cannot separate us from God, even if we were to commit a thousand adulteries and as many homicides." (Christian Apologies Vol. 2, Page 417) This doctrine of saved by grace is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in the world today. Rev. 20:12-13 speaking of judgment day informs us that all were judged, "according to their works." Matt. 16:27 informs us of Christ's declaration that, "the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Paul said in Phili. 2:12, "Work out your own salvation through fear and trembling." The Jews were firm believers in the "works of law" and so these great Apostles would often write and tell them that these works would not save them. We are all going to be saved by the grace of Christ, but be rewarded for our works done in the flesh. Christ did provide three main works to show that it was by his grace we should be saved--therefore, erasing our boasting. These three we could not have done for ourselves, and are thereby saved by his grace.
1. He created the earth upon which we are privileged to live. (Co. 1:16-17)
2. He atoned for the transgression of our first parents who had brought death into the world, thus bringing resurrection from the grave, or reuniting the body and and spirit. (1 Cor. 15:22, James 2:26)
3. By giving us the everlasting gospel, "he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Heb. 5:9)
These things we could not do for ourselves, and therefore it was his grace that made it possible. However, as Heb. 5:9 teaches, he was the author "unto all them that obey him." If you replace the word "grace" with "the plan of salvation", all the scriptures with the word grace in them would make more sense.

{metmom-"The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus...Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both...I googled this topic and came up with this site...I was told these very things by a Mormon...He also told me that salvation is through works and not the blood of Christ alone"}
Anti-Mormons have long ridiculed the LDS Church for their acceptance of the Biblical teaching that God the Father is the father of the spirits of all mankind, including Jesus and Lucifer, thus making the Savior and Satan brothers. Yet their ridicule is directly counter to the conclusions of many Christian scholars. Ignoring the findings of competent scholarship, even of respected Christian scholars, is one of the identifying characteristics of the deceptive intent of anti-Mormon websites. Many Christian scholars recognize that Lucifer is a son of God. For instance, a prominent "fundamentalist" Christian scholar, Arno C. Gaebelein, acknowledged that Lucifer was a son of God when he wrote, "The sons of God, revealed as morning stars, include Gabriel and Michael. As stated in our opening chapter, Lucifer, the Son of the Morning, should also be included, though he became the enemy of God by his fall." and "We have stated before that, before his fall, the devil was probably originally an archangel, one of the Morningstars, as we learned from the Book of Job, which sang together God's praises in the hour of creation." (Arno C. Gaebelein, Gabriel and Michael, 1945, p. 7 & 92) Jesus is called the first begotten in the spirit (Heb. 1:6) and all mankind are His brother and sisters. Mormons do not attribute to Satan any special relationship--as a brother to Jesus he is only one of the billions of spirit children of God the Father. Anti-Mormon websites don't tell people the whole truth, intentionally withholding this insight when using this subject as one of their key bashing points. Yet Mormons, the Bible, and ancient Christianity agree that our Heavenly Father is truly the Father of the spirits of all mankind, and that Jesus is the First begotten in the spirit and the Only Begotten in the flesh. The great scribe Philo of Alexandria recognized that the "Logos" (Word) was "the first-begotten Son of God." Philo believed that the Logos, or Word of God, would take human form.
For you to say a Mormon told you that he believes salvation has nothing to do with the blood of Christ means one of three things: You are lying, This Mormon doesn't even go to church anymore, or He chooses to believe contrary to what the LDS Church teaches. This simply is not taught by the LDS Church or any of its additional books of Scripture.

{farmer18th-"Most Mormons don't know the range of absurdities endulged by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and--speaking from experience--they really don't enjoy their early history or doctrine being explored. The strange thing is that they live out new testament principles better, in most cases, than their evangelical counterparts."}
Actually, the lesser well-known teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are very well known among those who have actually researched them because they are not hidden like you suggest. We encourage non-Mormons to explore our history and "early" doctrine which was the same yesterday as today. Only twisted doctrine portrayed on anti-Mormon websites/materials is different than what is taught in the LDS church. The really strange thing is that Christ said, "By their fruits, ye shall know them." False doctrine (absurdities) cannot bring forth good fruit (living "out new testament principles better, in most cases, than their evangelical counterparts").

{Californiajones-"How come God spoke to Joseph Smith in 1840 (or whatever year Joseph Smith got the special magical glasses that allowed him to read the Egyptian hieroglyphics that translated into the Book of Mormon) -- how come 'God' spoke in the 19th century to Smith in King James (i.e. 12th Century) English?"}
You really seem to "know" a lot about the translation details, without any proof. If this was the way the Book of Mormon came forth it has nothing to do with its authenticity. Two explanations given by Joseph Smith are, that the plates were "translated by the gift and power of God" (History of the Church 1:315) and "through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record through the gift and power of God" (HC 4:537). You chose not to give Joseph Smith's version (after all, you seemingly state things like you know more about the LDS Church than it's member's). The Urim and Thummim are mentioned in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezra, and Nehemiah in connection with priestly functions and receiving the mind and will of the Lord, but you ignore this fact. The Old Testament mentions how they are fastened into a breastplate. Joseph did claim that when he found the Gold Plates (Book of Mormon), a breastplate containing the Urim and Thummim was with them (and there is logic that suggests this was the same breastplate that was handed down with the Israelite record keepers and eventually came with the families who settled the Book of Mormon lands).
The Gold Plates were written in an ancient language and the translator, Joseph Smith, put them into the best English of his day of which he was capable. Wouldn't any good translator put his translation into the vernacular of the people he was translating for? Isn't a translation considered to be a poor one when it doesn't use the word order, grammar or language that is currently in common usage? The vernacular for scripture in Joseph Smith's day was the King James Bible. It is not known whether Joseph was actually told by the Lord the King James wording or whether there is another explanation.

{Bellflower-"...The Mormon 'Christ' is a man who worked his way up to being a God...Mormons believe that male Mormons can also work their way up to being a 'God' with their own universe..."}
According to Christian scholar G.L.Prestige, the ancient Christians "taught the destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified," and that we are "Sons and Gods by reason of the Word within us." (God in Patristic Thought, 1954, p. 73)
Irenaeus is considered the first Biblical theologian among the ancient Christians. He was a disciple of the great Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the Revelator. It was Irenaeus who was instrumental in determining what gospel manuscripts should be combined into the New Testament. According to Irenaeus: "...While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord.”, "We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.”, "How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How can any be perfect when he has only lately been made man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one's duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God.”, and "Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is." (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, 1956)
Well, it seems like the doctrines about man becoming gods believed by the ancient Christians falls more in line with the Christianity of the LDS Church than with "traditional" Christianity.

{JRochelle-"Joseph Smith was a sexual deviant, pervert, whatever. It makes my skin crawl when I think of what he did and claimed was sanctioned by God."
I could just jump up and call you a sexual deviant too without any proof. It makes my skin crawl to see you write this without anything to back it up. If you are referring to the practice of polygamy, since when is a practice that was sanctioned by God at certain times throughout the Bible sexual deviance? Joseph Smith kept resisting living this practice sanctioned by God in the past. It wasn't until an angel with a sword appeared telling him that if he didn't start practicing polygamy he would die. (If anyone says that an angel with a sword is impossible, then they must also discount the cherubim and flaming sword incident in Genesis. If he was such a pervert, why would he go through all the turmoil, abuse, suffering, arrests, and imprisonment that he did? He could have easily satisfied his passions the way many others do--by illicit sex relations and not a statement of religious principle that was bound to provoke opposition and persecution.

{Californiajones-"With all the pixie dust Smith was smokin', these 'scriptures' from the Book of Mormon read like a poor man's approximation of the real Word. The 'Spirit' would never make such an obvious mistake as to say Mary gave birth at Jerusalem."}
2 Kings 14:20 "And they brought him on horses; and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the City of David." According to your logic, the whole Bible should be ignored too. Now, if the City of David, according to the New Testament, is Bethlehem, how could the Savior be buried at both Jerusalem and Bethlehem? This question was already answered but I will recap. Alma, a Book of Mormon prophet, knew his ancestors hundreds of years earlier came from Jerusalem. Alma had no idea where Bethlehem was and had probably never heard of it and was told by the Lord that He would be born "at Jerusalem". The Oxford Dictionary defines "at" to mean "exact or approximate position." I tell people outside the state of Colorado that I am from Denver even though I live in a suburb 15 miles away it. I guess that makes me a liar too (and you also since I'm bettin' you've made similar claims as to your home).

{Californiajones-"Whoever 'Alma' is" ... "Jerusalem is NOT Bethlehem and would never be construed as such by the Holy Spirit"}
Earlier you claimed that every time you had read the Book of Mormon it got more ridiculous, yet your lack of knowledge of a person who has a majority of pages from it penning his life hints that you have never read more than a few selected passages pointed out to you from anti-Mormon sources as being contradictions. Apparently, you are now calling the Holy Spirit a liar, which would really be the same as calling God a liar. (See above answer which includes the reference from 2 Kings)

{Californiajones-"Mormonism isn't Christianity, because they teach ... that we can be baptized after we die by our descendants..."}
Rev J.R.Dummelow, a respected commentator of the Bible, has said, "The Resurrection alone gives motive for baptism for the dead." (A Commentary on the Holy Bible, p. 919)
Guess what, you don't understand Paul at all. If you did, you would know that he never used false doctrines to teach true ones at any time. Your interpretation that he was talking about getting baptized "for the sake of the dead" would mean the people he was talking to were involved in some kind of ancestry worship, which again, would be a false doctrine.

{Californiajones-"So, do it if you are a real Christian. I'll listen."}
Then listen to this. You are implying that this person is a fake Christian which is a category contrary to what he believes. This is an underhanded form of name calling which you claim you haven't been involved in.

{Californiajones-"I believe it is in Romans, where Paul tells us that every word of God is pure and every man a liar. So this is the standard set forth in the first century by Paul. Not the 19th Century when the Book of Mormon was written -- or in the case of Islam --- the 5th Century (when the Koran was written)."}
This would also exclude the 4th century dogma of the Nicene Creed that was born of men commanded by Constantine, a pagan worshipper. Later this creed was revised to "add to" its understanding by St. Athanasius and from then was called the Athenasian Creed. You seeming set Paul on a pedestal even higher than Christ and discredit His words. No wonder it is so easy to see why the words of this creed supersede even the Savior himself for the "traditional" Christian religions since this is their standard on the nature of God. It begins by stating that the church worships one God in trinity, but does not divide the substance. Then in the next verse we find three different substances in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost introduced, and near the end again that they are undivided. If the creed teaches us anything, it is that the belief of the church [during that time] is that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are incomprehensible. The dictionary defines "incomprehensible" as "that which is not understood." Judging from the explanation in the creed of the Godhead, that is the understatement of all time. You will find that in any book of antonyms that the opposite of incomprehensible is knowledge. John 17:3 "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent," and yet according to your creed I can't because they are "incomprehensible." You say you hold the Bible as the standard (only Paul's writings, not the words of Jesus Christ), but you really hold the interpretations of man as your standard and just don't realize it.

{Californiajones-"So, how does, for instance, wearing holy underwear, align with the Bible? And why didn't the disciples have to wear those things?"}
How does wearing a cross align with the Bible? Did Christ's disciples wear them? (One can only wonder how insulting that practice would have seemed back then.) There is nothing remarkable or unusual about religious persons wearing special clothing as a reminder of their religious obligations or status. Clerical garb, yarmulkes, or other religious vestments are familiar to all people; so are crucifixes and religious medals. Official LDS Church writings about the "special underwear" have made it clear that it has no supernatural protective powers, but one who keeps the covenants that it represents is entitled to protection from the Lord. Again, you fail to acknowledge official LDS Church doctrine and instead choose to believe anything anti-Mormon sources have said which are pretty much false (as I will demonstrate later) or have taken the purpose of the undergarments out of context of their true meaning.

{Quester-"I guess I would have thought that God's truth would matter to a christian."}
One would think. Again, another underhanded attack.

{JRochelle-"As for needing modern revelation thats just poppycock."
Christ taught "I am the way, the truth and the life." Paul clarified the exactness of truth when he said "Apostles and Prophets" were necessary to bring people to a "Unity of the Faith" and a "Knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man." With thousands of "Christian" churches and religions there is no unity, and with the creeds no knowledge of the Son of God. It's pretty obvious why there's a need for modern revelation.

{Quester-"... and that it doesn't make as much sense ... for someone who had never seen or heard of a Bible ... to write this?"}
Well, then it doesn't make much sense for Isaiah or John the Revelator to have written of things they had never seen or heard.

{JRochelle-"'In Carthage, they used bullets to kill a prophet.' ... 'They' means other mormons."}
Where is your proof or sources? Well then, you must have pulled this from where we all know where. You must have an accurate source to be able to say something like this. Again, you fail to learn about what really happened from unbiased sources.

{Quester-"Hey, yeah, and I was so unsurprised when the MSM hid the fact that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were deciphered, there was not one deviation from the Psalms or the Book of Isaiah found. Our Bible is sure and without revisions."}
How do you know that those who translated the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't just use the same language of the King James Bible? Or are you saying that both original texts had the exact same wording? Also, if you are vouching for the accuracy of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then why isn't it accepted as a whole by Christendom, as the Bible is accepted? How do you know there are no revisions of the Bible? Only the words NOT PRINTED IN ITALICS throughout the whole Bible are the ones agreed upon UNANIMOUSLY by ALL THE DOZENS OF SCHOLARS commissioned by King James to produce it. 1 Cor 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." How is it then, that you and others claim the infallibility of the Bible when there was still confusion about the correct translation of it by those doing the translating? You hold it to a perfect standard in the face of facts that say otherwise.

{Californiajones-"Notice, my Mormon friend, that Paul says 'received' in the past tense ..."}
What does this have anything to do with anything? Paul was writing to early Saints in Galatia who had been taught the Gospel by the Apostles, so of course they had already "received" it. Everybody Paul wrote to had already been taught the Gospel. Your interpretation that it means Paul was talking about anything written or preached after the Bible is false and erroneous. He wrote it to the Galatians and meant it for the Galatians. He was telling them that the Apostles and those they had given authority to, were the only authorized servants of Jesus Christ to preach the true Gospel. That sounds very contrary to someone who says they have authority from a book to preach it. (Coincidentally, the LDS Church is the only church that claims their Apostles and those they have given authority to, are the only authorized servants of Jesus Christ to preach the true Gospel.)

{Californiajones-"The dead are not able to repent or believe, because 'the dead know nothing'"}
That's quite a broad interpretation. 1 Pet 3:18-19 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison" 1 Pet 4:6 "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." So why did Christ preach to the spirits in prison if "the dead know nothing." Here is an example of you taking scriptures out of context. I can do the same, "Judas went and hanged himself,"..."Go and do thou likewise."

{Californiajones-"No this is a discussion about the beliefs of the young man who was brutally and senselessly murdered."}
Who made you FR Forum God that you should decide it's OK to hijack a thread and turn it to your own purpose?

{Californiajones-"Do you really believe that God would allow the distribution of His Word to the world's people ... all the while knowing that ... they couldn't really understand it?”}
Matt 13:10-13 "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Sure sounds like the Savior answered that question himself. His parables are distributed throughout the world, yet He knowingly says not everyone will be able to understand them.

{Quester-"Per the Bible ... there are (3) which are God, ... but only (1) God. The best analogy I've heard for this is the nature of an egg."}
So, as I understand, you are saying that Jesus Christ is inside the Holy Ghost, and God inside Jesus? Or is it the other way around? The only logical way I can see this analogy working is its representation of 3 distinct beings with one purpose. The yolk is separate from the white which is separate from the shell. At least they are when I hard boil them. You must be shaking them up before you boil them. (I dun care hu yu ur, that thar is funny!)

{Quester-"Mormons also believe that marriage is eternal. But Jesus said that there is no marriage in heaven."}
Good example of taking scriptures out of context. Christ always answered people according to their knowledge. For instance, he would use parables to teach the farmer, shepherd, and common laborer. Here Christ had been confronted by a Sadducee, whom Luke 20:27 points out "deny that there is any resurrection." Therefore, Christ had a heckler before him--asking questions on something he didn't believe in, and trying to confuse the Lord. The Lord saw here a good teaching point, so he continued to listen. It consisted of Jewish Law, which commanded a woman to live with the brother of her deceased husband. In this particular case, the woman's first husband died, so went to the next in line and it continued to the seventh. She died after the seventh died. Now the question was "who shall she marry in the resurrection?" Christ said, "She will not marry in the resurrection, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage." He taught that marriage must be performed here on earth, before the resurrection. In Matt 22:29 Christ then says, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." You claim you have been a Christian for 40 and have taught Sunday school for 25 years yet it sounds like Christ was referring directly to you because you completely missed what he was teaching. This same question was asked by a Pharisee in Matt 19:4-6 and so he answered the Pharisee, who believed in a resurrection, a little differently. He said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." That's why in 1 Cor. 11:11 we read, "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

{colorcountry-”I don't see why comparing Babtist to Mormons suits your agenda. Are you saying Mormon's are just like Babtist? I thought it was your contention that Mormons were somehow different."}
The fact that you would purposely take this out of context when anyone could see the point that was being made, calls into question whether or not you have purposely taken other things (statistics, scriptures, quotes) out of context for you own agenda.

{Old Mountain Man-"People are the same, some of us can even spell Baptist."}
Now that was totally uncalled for and you should apologize for being insulting. You know better than that to belittle others based on what was probably an honest mistake that in the end hurt nobody.

{colorcountry-"For those of you who have not joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - please do not rely on a burning in your bosom after reading James 1:5. nowhere has God said (except in Joseph Smith's words) that this is the appropriate way to discern truth. Search the history - see how many times Mormons have changed their own story. Pray about it. DO NOT pray that you will be shown the 'truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.' That is brainwashing by the book."}
1 Cor. 2:13 "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." Gal. 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." It surely sounds like you are the one preaching a different Gospel than Paul taught. You are now calling Paul a liar when he said the Spirit teaches things that are spiritual and how we can know when we are feeling the Spirit. These feelings cannot be faked unless we are acted upon by something tangible outside of us such as alcohol or drugs. They are fruits of the Spirit.

{colorcountry-"As you can tell, that quote is from the Mormon owned Deseret News dated 4/13/88 page A7>"}
I think the original question was along the lines of, "Did you personally read that article, or are you just [(unknowingly) being an attack dog for an anti-Mormon website and recycling their garbage]?" Other anti-Mormons have said, "Church members take more non-barbiturate sedatives, tranquilizers, anti-depressants, stimulants, pep pills, heroin, cocaine, and LSD than non-Mormons." These authors quote The Denver Post as their source. When the writers of the article in question were asked, they claimed their material came from Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience, p. 287. However, on that page it says, "There are to our knowledge no adequate figures indicating consumption of such products [marijuana, LSD, and other drugs] by Mormons." The Denver post authors (whom the original authors quote) did not quote their source accurately. This is a very common practice among all anti-Mormon publishers--either them or their sources hardly ever having all their "ducks in row" as far as accuracy goes when they go to print. Kind of reminds me of the CBS/Rather-gate scandal concerning George Bush. CBS/Rather wanted so badly to discredit Pres. Bush that they didn't care if the letters were a forgery or not. All anti-Mormon sources do the same. (Interestingly enough, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, wanted the same, got it, and took it as far as murder. An earlier post stated that a poster had been in a room where anti-Mormon propaganda was being viewed. At the end the general atmosphere was to get a shot gun and kill the Mormons. Seems like Satan keeps using the same tactics.)

{colorcountry-“It's too bad also that you will recieve exaltation from your own works (temple attendance, tithing, word of wisdom, meeting attendance, ward teaching, babtism, fast offerings, family home evening etc. etc. - which the Bible calls filthy rags.” … “Please don't preach to me. I am/was LDS, I've attended the temple and I know your answers.”
If you are still referring to home teaching as ward teaching, then you left the church decades ago. My ex-wife of 3 1/2 years left the church around the same time as our divorce. She wanted both so I let her go. In the short period of time since, she has forgotten a lot about the true doctrines of the LDS Church. She had also been through the temple. So I have a hard time swallowing your “expertness” in LDS Church doctrine because you have not been “reminding” yourself of true LDS Church doctrine, just anti-Mormon filth that has been regurgitated over and over. (Don’t cry for me. I met a non-Mormon who went through the discussions in a week and a half when I finally decided the timing was right and she was ready. I didn’t want her joining because of me. She needed to be the one to decide for her and was absolutely delighted at how wonderful the LDS Church is. She will tell you that after being in different Protestant churches all her life that no other church has had the fellowship and had such a service oriented people who claim to follow Christ’s teachings.)

{Quester-"This is where our faith comes in ... we trust God that He has told us everything we need to know." ... "There is a lot more evidence (of every sort) for the continuous integrity of the Bible."}
{Californiajones-"The Book of Mormon can only be judged by the standard of the Bible."
I can only chuckle at this sort of rhetoric because of how simple it is to blow this claim apart by using once again, only the Bible. (I think it is interesting to note that up till now, I have only used the Bible and the beliefs of those who learned the Gospel from Christ's Apostles back when the Church He established in Jerusalem existed, and well known Christian scholars.)

ON ITS OWN, THE BIBLE DOES NOT SUPPORT JESUS CHRIST'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS THE PROMISED MESSIAH! IN FACT, IT UNDENIABLY DISPROVES IT!

Where and how, you ask? Well, straight out of the "horse's mouth."

Christ himself said in Matt 12:40 "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

PLEASE, OH PLEASE, SOMEONE, ANYONE, DIRECT ME TO ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT TELLS HOW JESUS FULFILLED THIS PROPHESY? 'Cause everything I've read that's contained in those pages says that he was "in the heart of the earth" for 3 DAYS AND 2 NIGHTS!

So what is it? A misprint, a wrong translation of the original prophesy of all 4 gospels, Matthew not getting the prophesy right, all 4 Gospel writers getting the story about the Crucifixion and Resurrection wrong, Christ Himself confused about what he said, or getting so antsy-pantsy about the Resurrection that he didn't care about fulfilling his own prophesy? What is it?

According to the Bible, Jesus didn't even fulfill his own prophesy about his own death and resurrection. I find it really hard for anyone to put their own spin (interpretation) on this one as to say that the Bible stands on its own and the accounts in the Gospels do fulfill this prophesy.

Again, as I stated above, I have done nothing but use King James Biblical passages, beliefs and teachings of the Gospel that early Christians held dear (before the corruption by dogmatic, nonsensical creeds), and respected Christian scholars to defend and answer the charges put forth to "question" the beliefs of Elder Young. As for you who have made the charges, I have seen nothing but undocumented accusations, and scriptures taken out of context. One has to question your passion in wanting to undermine the religion of a murdered young man that encouraged him and all who share it to greater morality and which is having much success in doing so.