Polemical Issues 64-100

#64. THE CRITICS USED THE "STRAW MAN" APPROACH IN THEIR ATTACK, IN SOME CASES. In a Historian's response to the Tanners, the unknown historian charged that the Tanners & other critics have used the "Straw man" approach.1* "The `Straw Man' Approach." "Another tool of polemics that the Tanners frequently use is the "Straw Man" approach. Briefly this method sets up an easily refutable and non-representative argument that is supposed to represent the position of one's opponents, and once the opponent has been set up in this manner, the polemicist proceeds to devastate the "Straw Man," leaving the audience with the impression that the real opponent has been defeated. The common addition of the Tanners to this device is to create their Straw Man by quoting from their opponents' own sources, in this case from the prominent advocates and defenders of Mormonism. One use of the Straw Man by the Tanners involves quoting General Authorities of the Church on doctrine and history, and then showing how the doctrines in question are disputed by other General Authorities or by written scriptures, and also by showing how specific historical statements and explanations of the General Authorities are inadequate or contradicted by the historical evidences. The Tanners are aware that the official position of the LDS Church is "that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (HC 5:265), but they also know that despite this denial of infallibility, Mormons tend to give special significance (if not outright divine status) to anything said by an LDS President or other General Authority. Therefore, the Tanners use Mormon gullibility and misplaced allegiance to priesthood authority as weapons to destroy confidence in the foundations of Mormonism. Although Brigham Young is commonly regarded as an autocrat who demanded unquestioning acceptance of his word, throughout his service as President Brigham Young criticized the indiscriminate acceptance of the statements of prophets, seers, and revelators: "These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals...say they,...I depend upon you brother Joseph, upon you brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate..."I do not wish any Latter-Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied... "How often has it been taught that if you depend entirely upon the voice, judgment, and sagacity of those appointed to lead you, and neglect to enjoy the Spirit for yourselves, how easily you may be led into error, and finally be cast off to the left hand?... "I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence... "Now let me ask you, if you trust to my faith, to my words and teachings, counsel and advise, and do not seek after the Lord to have His Spirit to guide and direct you, can I not deceive you, can I not lead you into error?... "Now, let me ask the Latter-Day Saints, you who are here in this house this day, how do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright?... How do you know but I am teaching false doctrine?...live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God."(*21) General Authorities have the limitations of all men in the matters under discussion here. They can engage in doctrinal speculation, defend valid or invalid doctrinal interpretations from a faulty understanding of written scripture, and make assertions or denials about sacred and secular history that are founded on inadequate research or misunderstanding.(*22) This should be no more startling than to freely admit that the biblical prophets and apostles accepted the ancient belief that the earth was a flat, rectangular surface, supported at its four corners by pillars, as indicated by the references of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and John the Revelator to the "four corners of the earth,"(*23) by the references of Moses, Job, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Zecharaiah, and Paul to the "ends of the earth," (*24) and by the statement in 1 Samuel 2:8: "for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them." We should also remember that when Moroni wrote of the "mistakes of men" in the preface to the _Book of Mormon_, the men he referred to were the Nephite prophets and scribes. Another Straw Man approach of the Tanners is to quote some Mormon defender about his view of what would constitute a refutation of Mormonism, and then demonstrate (or try to) that the refutation has been accomplished. The Tanners quote from two recent Mormon defenders (on pages 35-36) that if the 1826 court record as published was accurate, then (according to Francis W. Kirkham) Joseph Smith's "believers must deny his claimed divine guidance," and (according to Hugh Nibley) "it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith." Leaving aside the fact that no contemporary evidence has verified the alleged testimony in the 1826 trial (contrary to the Tanners' effusions), I wish to comment on the approach of accepting someone's simple standards of refutation. I cannot say whether Kirkham and Nibley actually would regard the verified 1826 trial testimony as a refutation of Mormonism (the Tanners would lead the reader to believe so), but I can state as an historian that simply verifying the 1826 testimony would not invalidate Mormonism or repudiate Joseph Smith's prophetic claims. Both Mormons and anti-Mormons have compulsively used either-or argumentation: if such-and-such happened, the LDS Church is false or true. All possible evidence of support and refutation for any ideological or historical proposition must be put into perspective, and it is such perspective that prevents a rush to judgment. Debaters and polemicists resort to the Straw Man technique precisely because total refutation is not an easy achievement.(*25)" (FOOTNOTES) 21-25. "21. Journal of Discourses, 1:312, 3:45, 8:59, 9:150, 13:171, 14:204. 22. "Though general authorities are authorities in the sense of having power to administer church affairs, they may or may not be authorities in the sense of doctrinal knowledge, the intricacies of church procedures, or the receipt of the promptings of the spirit. A call to an administrative position itself adds little knowledge or power of discernment to an individual, although every person called to a position in the Church does grow in grace, knowledge, and power by magnifying the calling given him." Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, 1958), s. v. "General Authorities," 284. 23. Isaiah 11:12, Jeremiah 49:32, Revelation 7:1. 24. Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 28:24, 37:3, 38:18; Psalms 22:27, 48:10, 59:13, 65:5, 67:7, 72:8, 98:3, 135:7; Proverbs 17:24, 30:4; Isaiah 26:15, 40:28, 41:5, 9, 43:6, 45:22, 52:10; Jeremiah 10:13, 16:19, 25:31, 51:16; Micah 5:4; Zechariah 9:10; Acts 13:47; Romans 10:18; I Corinthians 10:11. 25. Let me acknowledge that in this response to the Tanners I do not claim that I am refuting every major and minor proposition they have made against Mormonism. I do feel, however, that Jerald and Sandra Tanner have presented an argument that is as weak as it is hypocritical. They have asked and answered wrong questions, answered the right questions by dubious methods, and yet have paraded their approach as the courageous, unflinching, "reality" of Mormonism." While the "straw man" approach is a common tactic used in polemical situations, & other situations. It is an approach that has been also used by the ancient critics, or [EAC]s also. Origen noticed that Celsus sometimes would use quotes & sources from heretics, & would thus build up an issue that was not really an issue, then he would proceed to cut it to bits as if the issue was of great concern & importance. This is one way in which Celsus would build up a "straw man" issue, that he could "cut to shreds", thus making it appear that he had won some great victory over his rivals, ("the Christians" in general). Origen points this out, & wrote that the charges that Celsus brought up concerning "Christian" magical symbols, etc. have nothing to do with the Christians, but that they are, if anything, were things done by heretics, which Celsus had lumped together with "the Christians" as if they were part of the Christian body of true believers, when they were not. Origen responded to Celsus in these words: "Our noble (friend), moreover, not satisfied with the objections which he has drawn from the diagram, desires, in order to strengthen his accusations against us, who have nothing in common with it, to introduce certain other charges, which he adduces from the same (heretics), but yet as if they were from a different source...." Origen also wrote that the charges of magic symbols, circles & other shapes used for the purpose of magic, etc., they (the Christians) disapproved of such things, "...we also disapprove of them...." "Moreover, if those who pride themselves upon such matters profess also a kind of magic & sorcery,--which, in their opinion, is the summit of wisdom,--we, on the other hand, make no affirmation about it, seeing we never have discovered anything of the kind. Let Celsus, however, who has been already often convicted of false witness & irrational accusations, see whether he is not guilty of falsehood in these also, or whether he has not extracted & introduced into his treatise, statements taken from the writings of those who are foreigners & strangers to our Christian faith."2* Later in his response to Celsus, Origen again points out that Celsus had built on an issue that was not an issue, for it had nothing to do with Christian believes. Celsus again lumped into the "Christian" body of believers, the concepts that may have had similar elements to the beliefs of Christians in general, but those things which were considered by other Christians such as Origen, Tertullian, etc. to be concepts invented by "heretical sects." Or at least, misinterpretations of similar concepts shared, but which had been perverted by the different heretical sects. Thus Celsus used again the heretical writings, or concepts of Marcion, & others, in order to attack "the Christians" in general. From Celsus's point of view, all these different "Christians," though he knew that there were splinter sects that were rivals amongst themselves on different points of doctrine, interpretations, methods of ritual practices, etc. He still insisted on lumping them all together into one group, in order to attack them as a whole, or in general under the name "the Christian," which he says they each called themselves. We know from other charges that he made that Celsus was aware of the differences & conflicts that were within the Christian movement, for he wrote: "At the start of their movement, they were very few in number, & unified in purpose. Since that time, they have spread all around & now number in the thousands. It is not surprising, therefore, that there are divisions among them--factions of all sorts, each wanting to have its own territory. Nor is it surprising that as these divisions have become so numerous, the various parties have taken to condemning each other, so that today they have only one thing--if that--in common: the name "Christian."3* "But despite their clinging proudly to their name, in most other respects they are at odds. I suppose, however, that it is more amazing that there are any points of agreement at all, given the fact their belief rests on no solid foundation...."4* Origen noticed that when Celsus wanted to bring up a "straw man" attack, he would lump in the different heretical teachings, (in some cases) in with other Christians. Or he would use just the heretical concepts alone, in order to attack the Christians in general as a whole. It may be that in some cases Celsus may not have bothered to check which Christian sect's concepts or interpretations he was making reference to. It didn't seem to bother him at times, that his contentions may have also been shared by even some of the other Christians, who also disagreed with the sects that Celsus used as if from "the Christians" in general. Origen wrote that "...although there have been among the Greeks many sects who differ as to the nature of good & evil, he" (Celsus) "hastily concludes, as if it were a consequence of our maintaining that this world also is a work of the universal God, that in our judgment God is the author of evil....I am greatly surprised if the inference regarding God's authorship of evil, which he thinks follows from our maintaining that this world also is the work of the universal God, does not follow too from his own statements....It is indeed the greatest error in reasoning to accuse those who are of different opinions of holding unsound doctrines, when the accuser himself is much more liable to the same charge with regard to his own."5* Origen again: "...have we not grounds for holding Celsus up to ridicule for thus ascribing to Christians words which they never uttered?"6* In modern times similar situations have arisen again amongst polemical rival groups that oppose each other. Because of ignorance, some outsiders or critics may have confused different concepts, beliefs, ritual practices, etc., of the different splinter sects or break-off branches that have left the main body or the main Church, & thus such people may confuse the "doctrines", concepts, etc., in such splinter groups, with those found in Mormonism, & so they consider such things to have been, or to be part of the main Church. Perhaps because of the similarity, or because the splinter group still maintains many basic elements, & beliefs. But which have been blended in with their own ideas, interpretations, & beliefs, which also still has hints to it's origins as having been derived from Mormon concepts, beliefs, practices, or those said to be,7* but which are not or were not official doctrines, practices, etc., in the first place. "On March 26, 1907 the 1st Presidency issued a statement entitled: "An Address. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World." It was adopted by vote of the Church in General Conference, April 5, 1907....published in the Improvement Era 10 (May, 1907) p.481-495, & later in the Deseret News, & also in a booklet. The Salt Lake Ministerial Association challenged the Address in the Salt Lake Tribune, June 4, 1907. In their statement the Ministerial Association presented their version of Mormon doctrine which they had pieced together from statements made by various individual members. On June 9 at the LDS MIA Conference B.H. Roberts responded to the Ministerial Association. An enlarged version of his address was published first in the July issue of the Improvement Era. Robert's discussion of the whole affair is found in his Comprehensive History of the Church 6:435-441...."). While at the same time, some may know that there are differences between splinter groups, or break-off sects from the main Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or The Mormon Church. And yet they will attack Mormonism in general, claiming that some extreme teaching, practice or doctrine is part of Mormonism, because some group did some terrible act. Or because they, (or the people who are in the splinter heretical sects), were at one time Mormons. Or because they are break-off sects still maintaining basic Mormon teachings. Or like Celsus, they have lumped all the different splinter sects & their extreme practices, crimes, & distorted uses of Mormon concepts, etc., as if they were all part of the same group in general, generalizing that "the Mormons" did this, or "the Mormons" did that. And they do this, in some cases, without acknowledging that the sect is a splinter break-off branch, or is consider an "apostate" sect by the Mormon Church, who also condemns the splinter groups extreme actions, beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. having even denounced them in public during conferences, etc.8* While it is true that some critics have made some false conclusions, & have misrepresented the actions, doctrines, practices, rituals, etc., of some of the different splinter heretical sects & break-off branches away from Mormonism, as if they were part of the Mormon Church in general. (Again out of ignorance, or dishonesty with the use of the "straw man" approach, etc.). It may also be, that in some cases, some of us Mormons have been guilty of the same sort of things, in our attempts to represent others' faith, beliefs, practices, doctrines, rituals, etc. perhaps because of our own ignorance concerning what other around us believe & practices, etc. But also some of us may be biased to the point that in some cases, some Mormons amongst us may have willfully misrepresented others, & may have used the straw man approach also. At this time I can't think of any such cases, but I suspect that our critics will point this out to us. Perhaps at time we have also spoken in general terms when some of us talk about what the modern "Christians" are guilty of, or what they are doing. It such be noted here, then, by the reader, that this writer acknowledges the fact that not all anti-Mormon Christians in general have been guilty of all the said tactics, but that some of them have used different tactics at different times. And that when this writer, or when I have said that the modern "Christians" have done this, or believe that, etc. It is not to say that this is typical of all Christians of modern times. For I acknowledge that there is vast differences of points of views held by the different Christian sects. And that even the Christian [AM]s have differences amongst themselves, & have even written against one another. Some of them have even attacked, (as with also some Mormons), the different conclusions that their fellow critics have made. Some examples of this are seen in the discussions that have been taking place, & the writings, disagreements & conflicting conclusions between the Tanners, Ed Decker, & CRI, etc.9* The Tanner also wrote a book that some of their fellow critics didn't like, because it went against the conclusions of their own book: Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon, which brought back the Spalding theory & charges all over again. Thus the Tanners wrote a book which disagreed with this old anti-Mormon claim, entitled: Did Spalding Write the Book of Mormon?. And came out with this book before the other critics did with their own.10* So there is this challenge of making sure that we all don't present others' beliefs in general terms, or as if it was the beliefs of a religion in general. Bill Forrest & Van Hale [PMD], discussed this tactic: "the straw man approach", as it had been used by some critics. Some time in Feb. 1988, (Feb. 7-9, 1988)? on their "Mormon Miscellaneous" radio program on KBBK in Utah. Bill & Van showed that Ed Decker had taken things out of contex, distorted some references, & used the "straw man" tactic in order to make some of the different charges against the LDS faith, in his movie (TGM) & his other [AM] publications. * STAR NOTES * FOR #64: 1* [PMD] Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Distorted View Of Mormonism: A Response to Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? by A Latter-day Saint Historian, reprinted by Mormon Miscellaneous, Bill Forrest & Van Hale. p.10-12, (Typescript by W.R. Jensen SLC. UT. 1977). The author of this tract is unknown, as far as I know, although there has been rumors & speculations by critics & Mormons, as to who the Historian is.) 2* (TANF) Vol.4 p.590 bk.6 chap.38, see also p.588-9 chap.34-37. (OAC). 3* (COTTD), op. cit., p.133, (n.57. "Celsus here echoes a complaint also voiced by Justin in his 1 Apology (26): factions & dissention make it difficult for outsiders to determine precisely what Christians profess. Justin's argument is designed to suggest that true Christianity has been obscured by the false teachings of the heretics, especially the Marcionites. Celsus' point is that the factions can only have arisen because the new religion lacks a solid basis for its doctrines.") 4* (COTTD), op. cit., p.70 & n.57 on p.133. 5* (TANF) Vol.4 p.597-8 bk.6 chap.liii. 6* Ibid., (TANF) Vol.4 p.625 bk.7 chap.37 (OAC), see also p.653 bk.8 chap.37 & 39. 7* Scrapbook of Mormon Polemics Vol.1 #1, p.1 Oct. 1985 by Bill Forrest & Van Hale, citing B.H. Roberts under the heading entitled: "What Is Mormon Doctrine?" 8* The Ensign Jan. 1973 p.104-8 General Conference talk given in the Tab. on Temple Sq. in SLC UT., by the Prophet Harold B. Lee entitled: To the Defenders of the Faith. See also: The Ensign May 1985 p.33-5, talk given by Elder Boyd K. Packer of the 12 Apostles. Also: The Ensign May 1982 p.25-27, Elder Gene R. Cook of the 1st Quorum of the 70, entitled: Spiritual Guides For Teachers of Righteousness. 9* Salt Lake City Messenger Sept. 1987. Issue #64, entitled: Hofmann Speaks, op. cit., see p.24, "Devils All Over?" Also: Mormonism, Magic & Masonry by Jerald & Sandra Tanner 1983, p.62-4. 10* The Browns [PMD] in their books "They Lie In Wait To Deceive" Vol.s 1 & 2. also deal with this situation. #65. THE CRITICS ALSO HAVE USED UNOFFICIAL QUOTES OR UNOFFICIAL OPINIONS, AS IF THEY WERE OFFICIAL, OR AS IF IT WAS WHAT THEIR RIVALS HAD "REALLY" BELIEVED IN. In my own studies of the different [AM] publications, movies, tracts, tapes, etc. And after having gone to many [AM] meetings, & having talked with many [AM]s over the years now. I have noticed that some, [AM] Christians, Atheists, & other critics, have (out of ignorance, or dishonesty) used a number of quotes, sources, & certain selected references from unofficial statements, sayings, writings, letters, tapes, journals, & publications in order to present Mormonism in the most negative way that they can.1* "...It seems that any "evil" that can be found, or any mistake, etc., is gathered together & expounded upon. The critics use the most negative parts of someone's letter, journal, etc., to make it appear that they have discovered a "cover-up!," or "suppression & censorship," of writings that they say was taught as "official doctrine," or was something that was "...such a secret," that "...even Mormons don't talk about it," because they are suppose to be "...embarrassed by it too," for these earth shattering "new discovery" is suppose to be what the "Mormons really believe," & have "covered up" & "suppressed" these things.2* Is this why Mormons are so missionary minded? During the Mark Hofmann Forgeries & Scam. One of Hofmann's forged documents, a letter called: "The Salamander Letter" was reproduced & passed around (by many [AM]s), as if it was to be consider the Mormon Church's official doctrine, or history. Some [AM]s that I talked with, wanted the LDS Church to change the official history of the Church, to fit in with the subject matter & their biased interpretations of the letter.3* These letters were later found out to be forgery,4* "...A non-Mormon historian who has spent many years recently commented that the Tanners choose only the most negative evidence to portray the "reality" of Mormonism, while ignoring or denying the existence of contrary evidence. If Mormon defenders have on occasion been guilty of some of the polemical techniques used by the Tanners, that still does not justify or sanctify distortion....In writing about the past, the historian must also select the topic as well as the available evidence that can be used to present the issue in an understandable manner. But the selective use of evidence to provide a distorted view of the historical subject is a deception, even if inadvertent or well-intentioned. It is a deception because the reading public expects the historian to digest the existing evidence of a particular issue and to present that historical event or subject "as it was." Because the historian's tools include diaries, letters, newspaper accounts, reminiscences, civil documents, he often has the potential of understanding an historical event or subject better than any single participant. But human lives and events are complex and historical evidence is continually being discovered, recognized, and reevaluated. Therefore, the writing of history never achieves its absolute goal of describing the past "as it was," and so each new historian and historical work tries to add to the previous efforts at achieving and historical work tries to add to the previous efforts at achieving perspective. When persons disregard perspective in historical writing, then their works represent the lowest characteristic of polemics, forensics, and propaganda: doing whatever is necessary to win the argument. The Tanners are guilty of such distortion as they seek to repudiate Mormonism by applying inflexible standards of criticism that they seem unwilling to apply to the rest of sacred history. For example, in the 1972 edition of Shadow-Reality (page 60)."5* Because some [AM]s are in the habit of quoting unofficial sources as if they were "official." Bill Forrest & Van Hale did a number of radio shows responding to such tactics. Also in their Scrapbook of Mormon Polemics Vol.1 #1 p.1, Oct. 1985, they present some information that puts into perspective this polemical situation that arises often in polemical situations & discussions. "WHAT IS MORMON DOCTRINE?": "Mormonism has produced a great body of literature in 150 years, & much of it has been..." written "...by Church authorities. Themes begun in scriptural passages have been developed & expanded, & much has been written from the ponderings & speculations of individual leaders. From this broad scope of material opponents of Mormonism have frequently by the pick-&-choose method, formulated a statement of Mormon doctrine, which Mormons do not even recognize. Since these opponents have used Mormon writers as their sources they feel their statements of Mormon doctrines are justified. However, Mormonism has always denied that all the words of all Church leaders are Mormon doctrine. Also, there are many ways of arranging bits & pieces with widely diverse results...." "B.H. Robert wrote: "...for a long time the Church has announced over & over again that her standard works in which the word of God is to be found, & for which alone she stands, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. All else is commentary, & of a secondary character as to its authority, containing much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of Church, & yet liable to have error in them for which the Church does not stand. "Well," says one, "do you propose to repudiate the works of men holding your priesthood, & who are supposed to speak & act under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Do you not destroy the effectiveness of your Church ministry when you take this attitude?" Not at all. We merely make what is a proper distinction. It would be a glorious thing for man to so live that his life would touch the very life & Spirit of God, so that his spirit would blend with God's Spirit, under which circumstances there would be no error to his life or utterances at all. That is a splendid thing to contemplate, but when you take into account human weakness, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of prejudice & pre-conceived notions, & the utterance of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, & having the requisite authority, & holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre-conception, & stand ready & anxious to receive the divine impression of God's Spirit that shall plead, "Father, thy will & thy word be made known now to thy people through the channel thou hast appointed." There is a wide difference between men coming with the word of God thus obtained, & their ordinary speech every day & on all kinds of occasions." "In thus insisting that only the word of God, spoken by inspiration, shall live & be binding upon the Church, we are but following the illustrious example of the ancient Church of Christ. You do not have today all Christian documents of the first Christian centuries. These books that you have bound up, & that you call the word of God, Holy Bible, were sifted out by a consensus of opinion in the churches running through several hundred years. They endured the test of time. But the great bulk of that which was uttered & written, even by apostles & prominent servants of God in the primitive Christian Church, the Church rejected, & out of the mass of chaff preserved these Scriptures--the New Testament. The Christian world up to this time is not quite decided as to all that should be accepted & all that should be rejected. You Protestant gentlemen repudiate several books called Apocrypha which the Catholic church accepts as of equal authority with the rest of the books of the New Testament. And so I say in this procedure of ours, in refusing to accept only that which time & the in this procedure of ours, in refusing to accept only that which time & the inspiration of God shall demonstrate to be absolutely true, we are but following the example of the ancient Church of Christ."6* Another point to consider is that a Prophet only speaks as a Prophet when he is acting as such in his calling as a Prophet.7* Every word that comes out of a prophet mouth in his everyday conversations is not to be taken as "Thus saith the Lord."! For example, such as during dinner time, "Thus said the Lord, please pass the salt & pepper."!? And when such a time that the Lord wills it that his Prophet should speak, it must be remembered that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Pet.1:19-21). Or in other words we should not take a doctrine to the limits of an interpretation of our extreme views, & then go around & teach it as if it were an official interpretation & doctrine. Bill Forrest & Van Hale, & at different times, Mr. Hale & myself (DaRell D. Thorpe), have talked on the radio about a certain tactic that we have noticed that the critics have used in some cases, & of which we have witnessed at different times. When we have been in polemical discussion with different critics, it seems that we have asked our critics to be fair with us, & let us present what we believe rather than having them give some sort of biased presentation of their own on what they think we believe. "Would it be asking to much to let us Mormons tell what we believe?" At this the some critics have responded with a list of strange quotes, references, some of which have been misinterpreted, distorted, taken out of context & selected in a biased way, then arranged together. "O.K. a "Mormon" said this, or one of your leaders said that, & in such & such a time, & in this journal by one of your early Mormon leaders, he said that, so you see that it is in your printed word like such & such a news paper, etc., so it must be a thing that was taught & believed for years!" Then the critics, after having claimed that this is what we are suppose to "really believe", (while all during the time, we would saying, "No, No! That's not what I, or we believe, let me explain, let us tell you what we believe." The critics will then turn around & tell us or how ever, what is wrong with what we believe. When it was not what we believed in the first place, but was some sort of distorted compilations of private opinions, misquotes, things taken out of context, & sayings, etc. from someone who they have said represents Mormonism, or from some past or present Mormon, & even some other [AM] somewhere, that they have mixed & blended together, in a biased way in order to come up with what they have claimed is the "truth" about what we Mormons are suppose to "really believe." Perhaps some people who read this book may ask themselves: `But is not this what you have done with the different sources in early to later Christianity?' And certainly, I would have to say to you, the reader here, that you all have the right, & are justified in the same questions & observations that you might make of my presentations & sources etc., as I have placed on the critics here. I certainly do not want to be guilty of a doubled standard here. I should therefore remind the reader of what I have said before, & that is that each source should be considered in it's historical perspectives, settings, & with the understanding that the different early Christian sects had their own dogmas, beliefs, & that there was many differences as well as similarities between them. That one source from one writer, though he may have been a "Christian," did not represent the "official" positions of all the different Christian sects. For there may have been many who would have had a different point of view. Nor have I suggested here that the early Christian beliefs are "official" doctrines for all of modern Christianity. So as in the ancient situations, so also it should be noted that in this modern situation we all should ask ourselves, as we remind our critics that: "Just because that it is in print, or is written, spoken, or it in someone journal, letter, or just because a member of a church said it, or wrote it, or a past & present bishop, or some other leader wrote, or said something, does not necessarily mean therefore, that it suddenly becomes official world wide Church doctrine! For it is the canonization process of the Church that makes the official doctrines of the church.8* All other things out side this canonized book of scripture is either commentaries, personal opinions, speculations, rumors & or gossip, & perhaps even private interpretations of different ideas & scriptures, in many cases. There is some differences between how the Mormon Church accepts different things as doctrine, as compared to some modern Christian sects. There is no "creeds" within the Mormon Church as there was & is in some early to modern Christian Churches. There is official declarations from the 1st Presidency from time to time, but their is no official "creeds" that I know of. And "Generally, the First Presidency issues official declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement..."9* It should also be noted that there may be even in the canon of scriptures, (Which for many different Christian sect of modern times, is now their present different versions of the Bible, while for Mormons the canon is not closed, & it includes other books of Scripture besides just the Bible only). But even in the scriptures there is another thing that we see, & this may be the practice of many modern Churches of our time. For there are some passages of scripture that I don't think any one would accept as having to therefore be some sort of world wide official doctrine, just because it is in the canon. Animal sacrifices as it was practiced in Moses's time, etc. was rejected or discontinued in the days of Christ & the Apostles. And I don't think that anyone who claims to believe in the bible, & it's high moral standards that are presented with in it, would be willing to accept Ezk.4:12-15 as some literal official standard practice for all the world in modern times. In that bible believers would therefore have to mix human & cow dung in with "barley cakes" in order that we can eat "their defiled bread among the Gentiles". Nor would I think that any one would want to take Paul to literally in that just because we find this strange statement in the New Testament that it is therefore suppose to be considered amongst all Bible believers to be an official world wide doctrine & practice. (See: Gal.5:11-15). There are many other examples of this kind that we can find with in the canon, of which would not be considered as being an official world wide doctrine & practice for our time. There are other elements that have added to the confusion from time to time, It was a problem that haunted the early to later Christian sects, & it is a problem that haunts the Mormon Church today, as well as other churches of modern times, & that is GOSSIP & THE SPREAD OF RUMORS! For sense when do rumors, gossip, or someone's personal opinion, writings, etc., become suddenly official world wide Church doctrine in anybodies' church? Here again, is another doubled standard that I think we all need to watch out for, including myself. We would not expect others to accept any thing that appears in print, or some rumor, or some unofficial source, as "official doctrines," when they make the claim that such things are uncertain, or have not been generally accept as being an official position by the religious group in general. I have noticed that some critics have been caught up in a double standard, in that some critics will say: `Anything outside the Bible is not to be added to the Bible, or accepted as an official Christian concept' for it (the present Bible) is `God's Word, Final, Infallible & Forever.'10* But when it comes to the Mormons, they (some of the critics) seem to want to think that we Mormons have to accept anything that is in the printed word, etc., from unofficial sources, as if it were "official doctrines." Toward the end of the year, in 1972, the Prophet & President Harold B. Lee (then Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon Church), gave a talk,11* "...There are 2 scriptures I would have you think of as applicable today as they were in the period following the advent of the Savior in the meridian of time in the post-apostolic period. In the Acts of the Apostles, the apostle Paul gave these charges to the elders of Israel. He said: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, & to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God....For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:28-30). "And then the apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, & would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you then ye have received, let him be accursed. For...I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal.1:6-12). "Today those warnings are just as applicable as they were in that day in which they were given. There are some as wolves among us, By that, I mean some who profess membership in this church who are not sparing the flock. And among our own membership, men are arising speaking perverse things. Now perverse means diverting from the right or correct & being obstinate in the wrong, willfully, in order to draw the weak & unwary members of the Church away after them. And as the apostle Paul said, it is likewise a marvel to us today, as it was in the day, that some members are so soon removed from those who taught them the gospel & are removed from those who taught them the gospel of Christ to be led astray into something that corrupts the true doctrines of the gospel of Christ into vicious & wicked practices & performances. These, as have been evidenced by shocking events among some of these splinter groups, have been accursed, as the prophets warned; & they are obviously in the power of that evil one who feeds the gullible with all the sophistries which satan has employed since the beginning of time...."12* Van Hale (Mormon Miscellaneous) again comments about the issue of what is & what is not "official doctrines" & practices, etc. During on of his radio shows, Jan. 4, 1988, (KZZI 1510 AM Radio West Jordan Utah). He read from a sermon by J. Ruben Clark Jr., (A Member of the 1st Presidency in the Church), years ago. This sermon took place on July 7th, He gave a sermon to the Seminary personal at BYU. entitled: "When our the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claims of Scripture?" It was published in the LDS Church News, July 31, 1954. "When Are Church Leaders' Words Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?" p.9). Later Van Hale & Bill Forrest, & other members of the Staff for "Mormon Issues" published portions of this same sermon from the LDS NEW. 13* Van Hale said that, J. Ruben Clark Jr. brought up a number of points, He (Clark) cited from D&C 68:2-4: "And, behold, & lo, this is an ensample unto all those were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth-- And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon my the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, & the power of God unto salvation." Clark went on to say: "The very words of the revelation recognize that the brethren may speak when they are not `moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' Yet only when they do so speak as moved upon, is what they say scripture? No exceptions are given to this rule or principle. It is universal in it's application. The question is, how shall we know when the things they have spoken or said, as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost? I have given some thought to this question. And the answer thereto, so far as I can determine is, we can tell when the speakers are moved by the Holy Ghost, only when we ourselves are move upon by the Holy Ghost..."14* Recently in 1991, in the News exploded a situation that they had received from [AM]s, the Tanners, who passed on to the different News outlets in Utah, concerning an inner Church letter that was written to one of the Church's Committees, dated July 19, 1990, by Bishop Glenn L. Pace. How the critics got of hold of this private inner Church letter, is not certain, & they have not said where & how they got it. Perhaps someone within the Church who claims to be a member, but who is not loyal to the Church, perhaps that someone gave it to the Tanners. The letter deals with claims of satanic ritual child abuse, & satanist or secret combinations having somehow infiltrated into the church. Or possible satanists having taken different elements of the temple endowment, & the different doctrines of the Church, after they perverted, counterfeited, reversed, & mocked them, these satanist claim that they can cancel out the Church's rituals, such as baptism, with satanic perverted rites of their own against the former rituals. The letter was not to be reproduced, or published, & the Tanners went ahead & did it any ways.15* Other articles & T.V. News reports were done, some biased & [AM] in their presentation of the situation. The Tanners sent out their biased interpretation of the letter, with their own theories concerning the situation. They published a copy of the letter in their News letter,16* despite how that it said on it, "Do Not Reproduce" written in at the top. I called them on the phone & talked with Sandra Tanner, Oct. 1991. She told me that they had had some reservations about publishing the letter, & didn't want people to misinterpret the situation or blow it out of proportion into charges that this proves that the whole church is involved in satanic worship. I told her, `Well you know what your fellow critics are going to do with this don't you? There going to take this thing & blow it up as if it was evidence for all their different wild charges, stories, & claims. And will generalize that the whole Church is part of it.' She said that they were concerned that this would happen, and so they had cautioned people in their News Letter, for their readers not to take this to the extreme. "...If the activities Pace speaks of are actually taking place, we would tend to agree with his conclusion that the church is the victim of a group of pernicious deceivers. The fact that "a stake president" & "bishops" may be involved does not indicate the church itself is implicated in a conspiracy. It should be pointed out that there are thousands of bishops in the Mormon Church...." The Tanners however promised that they would present some evidences that would show how that they think that the Church is "...vulnerable to infiltration by occultists who wish to use it for their own purposes..." And so this is what they attempt to do in the rest of their News Letter. In talking with her over the phone & in other discussions that we have had over the years. I have pointed out to her, many times, that the early Christians were faced with the same sorts of problems. And that this modern situation sound very much like similar things that happened in amongst the early Christians. I also pointed out to her, that this sort of problem was also a thing that the different modern Christian churches were faced with, that Mormons are not alone in this thing. Later, when I got their New Letter in the mail & read it, I noticed that they had also mentioned this, that other Churches, were faced with this same challenge. So they were aware of this before I pointed this out to her. They wrote that satanist were counterfeiting, & infiltrating in the different churches, in order to pervert things, & gain members to follow after their perverted ways. Elder Pace quoted in his letter a number of scriptures to point out that such things had happened amongst the Book of Mormon peoples, & that predictions had been made, that it would happen in the last days.17* The Tanners also wrote in the said News Letter: "We have been somewhat apprehensive about bringing Pace's memo to light because of the effect it could have on other people's lives. If his conclusions are correct & the perpetrators of these evil deeds are apprehended & brought to justice, we will be very pleased with the result. If, on the other hand, it causes a witch hunt which leads nowhere, we will certainly be disappointed. The serious implications of this whole matter cannot be overstated. We hope that our readers will use good judgment & not spread unfounded rumors...." They did ask, that if anybody knows of anything to contact them.18* On Nov. 3 1991, Martin Tanner, (Lawyer & Talk show Host on KTKK 630 AM Radio, "K-talk," Religion on the Line), presented some alternative evidences, after having talked with Police Officers, etc. He pointed out that many cases that are reported in the News are sometimes blow out of proportion. That the motives for different murders, in many of these cases that have been reported in the News, & that are said to have satanic elements to them, are later found out by police to be only a few or some young teenagers, freaked out on satanic heavy metal music, & drugs. And who then go do different crimes, & then put satanic symbols around, which have led some to conclude that their is some sort of satanic plot & conspiracy involved, when it was not the case. He acknowledge the fact that satainic plots, rituals, & ritual murders do take place, however. Different [AM] callers attempted to do the very same thing that I told the Tanners would happen. They started suggesting that the whole church was satanic, & was involved, that we have secret, satanic symbols, & prayers in the Temple, & they generalized that we were all of the devil. I called in & responded to the different claims that different [AM]s had brought up. I pointed out some of the similar situations that had taken place in early Christianity.19* The Tanners also mentions some of the different extreme sects that are said to be break-off sects from the Mormon Church. Some of these Polygamist groups that have been accused of all kinds of strange practices in which they have perverted the different rituals of the Temple Endowment into some strange, perverted, & twisted endowment of their own.20* Our earlier history also shows us that this sort of thing has taken place before, as mentioned by Lee in his talk.21* This is a problem & challenged that the different Churches have had to face all along. And certainly if the early Church set up by Christ, & during the centuries that followed, also had this challenge to deal with. We should not think that such things would escape us in the restored church now, or that the modern church, as well as other Christian Churches of today, are some how immune to this sort of thing. Or that it wouldn't or couldn't happen in modern times, for it we were, we would be ignoring or would be ignorant of the prophetic warnings, concerning the infiltration of the anti-Christs into the churches, that is said would take place in the last days, or in our day in time. Earlier, on Friday, Nov.1, 1991 I was up at the LDS Church Office Building In Salt Lake City, & I talked with Elder Pace's Secretary, Emma Carpentor, because I had questioned the authenticity of the letter, because Elder Paces's signature did not appear on the letter. She said that it was a authentic letter, that was not suppose to be published, & that someone leaked it out. It should also be pointed out here, that some of the people who have claimed that they were abused, have said to have been mental cases, or that they have had mental problems. I also talked with one of the public affairs representatives for the Church, a man by the name of Don Lefevre. And they helped me in understanding some elements of the situation as best as they knew of it. Elder Pace was reported to have been out of the Country on a Church assignments & so I was not able to talk with him in person. Some of the problems that arise from situations like this & others is the spread of false rumors, & gossip that blows this sort of thing out of proportion. The early Christians were concerned that the "outsiders" would misinterpret the actions, crimes, perverted rituals, extreme teachings, & practices of heretical sects, as being part of the general body of Christian believers. The critics didn't help much in this area either, & were responsible for many misunderstandings, misconceptions, & how many "outsiders" perceived & looked upon the Christians in general. How could the outsider know the truth to such wild rumors. Add to that the problems of apostate Christians turned bitter against their former faith, or people who were only Christians for a while long enough to learn some of the basic belief. And those who were pagans, & who were rivals against the Christians. Plus those pagans who became Christians, but who left the Christians, taking with them some of the Christian teachings, symbols, rituals, etc. & blending them together to make a perverted form of Christianity & paganism. And add to all this the fact that there were counterfeit occultist, & magicians also doing the same sorts of things. Or that some occult sects were also taking different Christian themes, rites, symbols, teachings, & blending them in with their own perverted ways. And you have one big polemical, mess to sift through. So how would we expect the outsider to be able to tell who was who? Which group represented the main body of Christians? Another problem was that there were different groups who claimed to be Christians, but after the death of the apostles many of them did not claim to be the main official branch that could speak for all Christians in general. Each sect had leaders of course, but these leaders didn't seek to set themselves up as being the Prophet or leader for all of the rest of the Christian sects. But for their own sect & brand of Christianity they did defend. Sometimes even defending their own sect against other rival Christian sects. In 1 Pet.2:12 we know that there was all kinds of voices crying out against the Christians in general, & these voices increased as this new religion grew & grew. Pliny had heard that the Christian practiced strange rituals, & barbaric blood drinking, ritual child abuse & murder. And started to check it out. He found out that the rumors were not true in the case of what type of food that the Christians were suppose to have eaten saying in a letter to Trajan that the Christians only took "...food of an ordinary, harmless kind." But because the sacrament perhaps had been claimed by [EAC]s & outsiders to be real "blood & flesh" he may have come across such rumors, & wanted to find out if they were true. It is possible, wrote Wilken, the "...he saw similarities between the Christians & the Bacchae. He knew that the Christians met together for a secret ritual & he must have wondered what went on in those gatherings. He may have heard other rumors about the new religion...."22* Even some of the other Christians had known of, heard of, or had received reports of different extreme Christian sects that had gone off the deep end, & who had perverted the teachings, rituals, & practices of Christ & blended them in with the cultic practices of the times, such teachings as those of the Bacchae cult, or others. The Thystean cultic banquets, the Oedipean unions, Bacchie orgies, plus many other crimes, black magical murders & rituals, etc., were all confused, & interpreted by the outsiders, [EAC]s, & others as if they were part of the Christian movement. Because there were cases, even admitted by the Christians themselves, in which different extremist & fringe groups of heretical Christians, or those claiming to be "Christians" had perverted bizarre rites! In which they could detect elements of Christian beliefs, practices, rituals, symbols, etc., that had been blended in & perverted & mixed in with the occultism of the time, in order to make this strange distortion of Christianity, paganism, & occultism together in one mess! Thus we see different ones like Justin Martyr writing in his 1 Apol. to a non-Christian official in the government, that such things were not to be confused with, as being part of the main body of Christianity. "He was concerned that people not think this behavior characteristic of all Christians," for it did not!23* But all these situations helped convince the outsiders & [EAC]s that the Christians were up to no good, for the "...rumors may have been fueled by the practices of these extremist & fringe groups...If a Christian sect in one city celebrated the Eucharist without clothes, or participated in a ritual in which human semen was offered to God & consumed, it is not difficult to imagine how stories would spread that Christians in general were depraved & guilty of unspecified "crimes." Outsiders could hardly be expected to distinguish one Christian group from another...."24* And certainly the restored Church has been faced with the same sorts of things that the early Christians were faced with. I have mentioned these situations in the early & modern Church to show some of the problems that the early Christians were faced with, are also problems & challenges that we are now faced with. But also to show how some times the "outsiders" may be led to false conclusions as to what is official & that which is not official. That sometimes the outsider will misinterpret the actions, sayings, writings, & practices of those in the Church, or those claiming to be members, inactive members, & inner spies, or different ones who have infiltrated into the Church, etc. & generalize that such things are official doctrines, actions, practices, etc., when they are not. Some modern [AM]s may have also caused outsiders to confuse the teachings, practices, & extreme false doctrines, interpretations, etc., of those who have left the Church, as being part of the main Church when they are not. Some [AM] critics have gathered together many false doctrines, sayings, extreme practices, rituals, etc. of those who have left the Church & who started splinter groups. And they present such things in a way that many outsiders might be led into thinking that such things were part of the official teachings, practices, & doctrines of the Mormon Church when they are not. Some critics also take these different statements that have bits & hints of some of the "doctrines", or things claimed to be "doctrines," practices, etc., which are not, & which things have been perverted by the splinter group. And some critics may have lead the outsiders & others in thinking that such extreme doctrines, etc., are still part of the Church when they are not, & never were. Certainly not in the distorted way in which the splinter sects, have distorted it, & the biased way in which some critics have misinterpreted it. They seem to want to justify such a practice, by claiming that such things must have belonged to the main Church because these people were at one time members of the Church. But now, like many of the critics, such apostates, are also seeking to get members to leave the church25* also, so how can they be considered as being part of the main Church? The Tanners, for example seem to want to put the blame on the Mormon Church for Dan Lafferty's "brutal murders committed in 1984" in Utah. Ron & Dan Lafftery "...were members of the Mormon Church: Both Dan & Ron...are excommunicated members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 9, 1985). Ron Lafferty was quoted in Aug. 11, 1984, issue of the Tribune as saying `"I love the church will all my heart...but I don't believe that the leadership of the church today are prophets...."26* The LaBarons (The Church of the First Born), & others such as in this case the Laffertys "...had been associated with a Mormon fundamentalist group known as "The School of the Prophets." Robert Crossfield, the founder of the group,..."27* One problem that has perhaps lead to the confusion is that the name & title of "Mormon" has become a name in which many people have become accustom to as being a short way to describing in general a certain group of people in Utah. Thus many people & outsiders would confuse the name, if it was used in certain ways, with those of the main Church. When in fact, in some cases, the organization thus generalized under the name, has really nothing to do with the main Church, & in fact may even be a bitter rival against the main church, as some Christian sects are. In the early centuries of Christianity, the outsiders had been the ones who really got the name "Christian" going, just as in the 19th cent. it was the outsiders who got the nick-name "Mormon" going, earlier "Mormonites,"28* "The Romans did not use the term ecclesia to refer to the new movement. They simply called it "Christian." Indeed, this term Christianus, which would become the characteristic name for followers of Jesus, was first used by outsiders (Acts 11:26). Pliny, too, calls them Christiani, identifying them by reference to their founder, just as the followers of Pythagoras were called Pythagoreans, the followers of Epicurus, Epicureans, the worshipers of Dionysus, Dionysiacs. Had Pliny heard the term ecclesia, he would have been puzzled, for in common usage in Greek & Latin ecclesia referred to the political assembly of the people of a city, as contrasted with the smaller group of elected officials who comprised the council (boule)...."29* Professors Daniel C. Peterson & Stephen D. Ricks, cite in their book from a few biblical passages in which the title of "Christian" was used. One example that they gave is Acts 11:26, which shows that the disciples were first called "Christians" in Antioch. Suggesting that "outsiders" had given the name to them. They cite from E. H. Trenchard, & others to show that this name was mainly used by outsiders & enemies. Or those who wanted to distinguish between the Jews & the followers of Christ. (Offenders For A Word, op. cit., see p.24-32.) With different people in times past, as in our modern time, sometimes using general terms, & or names for a group of people. It is also inevitable, at times, for the outsiders to confuse which group is which, unless they have been provided with the full story & complete facts involved in the different situations that they may hear reports, rumors & stories of. And if the situation has been presented in a biased way, it can only add to the confusion. Break off groups from the Mormon Church develop their own dogmas, doctrines, practices, ordinances, scriptures, etc.30* And some of these splinter sects have claimed that some of their doctrines was revealed & taught by earlier Mormon Church Prophets like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. They also attempt to get others to follow after their own ways, & practices based on such claims. The Mormon church however, does not give any approval for their interpretations, etc. And so why should they be confused & thought of as being part of the main body of Mormonism? Why should critics & writers generalize that they are part of the "Mormons"? But even in the Church there are those who spread around different things as if it were the official positions of the Church. Thus different leaders have attempted to deal with this inner Church problem, which again was a problem that the early Christian faced.31* In modern times the leaders have also been aware of this sort of thing, & the different leaders have made comments on this problem that causes added confusion from within & without the Church. Harold B. Lee spoke of this in his talk one of the 1972 General Conferences: "...I should like now to make reference to some of these. The first is the spread of rumor & gossip...when once started, gains momentum as each telling becomes more fanciful, until unwittingly those who wish to dwell on the sensational repeat them in firesides, in classes, in Relief Society gatherings & priesthood quorum classes without first verifying the source before becoming a party to causing speculation & discussions that steal time away from the things that would be profitable & beneficial & enlightening to their souls...I would earnestly urge that no such idle gossip be spread abroad without making certain as to whether or not it is true." "The lst Presidency in August 1913 issued a warning to the members of the Church which could bear repeating today..." To the officers & members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: "From the days of Hiram Page (D&C 28), at different periods there have been manifestations from delusive spirits to members of the Church. Sometimes these have come to men & women who because of transgression become easy prey to the Arch-Deceiver. At other times people who pride themselves on their strict observance of the rules & ordinances & ceremonies of the Church are led astray by false spirits, who exercise an influence so imitative of that which proceeds from a Divine source that even these persons, who think they are `the very elect,' find it difficult to discern the essential difference. Satan himself has transformed himself to be apparently `an angel of light.'" (1 Tim.4:1). ""When visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions or an extraordinary gift of inspiration convey something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the Church or contrary to the decisions of its constituted authorities, Latter-day Saints may know that it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear. Also they should understand that direction for the guidance of the Church will come, by revelation, through the head." (From God to the Prophet) "All faithful members are entitled to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for themselves, their families, & for those over whom they are appointed & ordained to preside. But anything at discord with that which comes from God through the head of the Church is not to be received as authoritative or reliable. In secular as well as spiritual affairs, Saints may receive Divine guidance & revelation affecting themselves, but this does not convey authority to direct others, & is not to be accepted when contrary to Church covenants, doctrine or discipline, or to known facts, demonstrated truths, or good common sense. No person has the right to induce his fellow members of the Church to engage in speculations or take stock in ventures of any kind on the specious claim of Divine revelation or vision or dream, especially when it is in opposition to the voice of recognized authority, local or general. The Lord's Church `is a house of order.' It is not governed by individual gifts or manifestations, but by the order & power of the Holy Priesthood as sustained by the voice & vote of the Church in its appointed conferences." ""The history of the of the Church records many pretended revelations by impostors or zealots who believed in the manifestations they sought to lead other persons to accept, & in every instance, disappointment, sorrow & disaster have resulted therefrom. Financial loss & sometimes utter ruin have follow. We feel it our duty to warn the Latter-day Saints..." (Lee went on to list a few schemes that had arisen during that time),32* Lee continued: "It never ceases to amaze me how gullible some of our Church members are in broadcasting sensational stories, or dreams, or visions, or purported patriarchal blessings, or quotations, or supposedly from some person's private diary...Brethren of the priesthood, you defenders of the faith, we would wish that you would plead with our Saints to cease promoting the works of the devil. Spend your time promoting the works of the Lord, & don't allow these things to be found among those under your charge, for they are the works of Satan, & we are playing his game whenever we permit such things to be heralded about & repeated & passed about on every side....Brethren, I repeat, don't allow the works of the devil to be paraded in our midst & become the subject of discourses or lesson materials. Speak of the works of righteousness, & the power of the devil will begin to cease among you...." "If our people want to be safely guided during these troublous times of deceit & false rumors, they must follow their leaders & seek for the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord in order to avoid falling prey to clever manipulators ..."33* In a Conference talk given in the Tab. on Temple Sq. in SLC., Ut., April 1985, Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the 12 Apostle spoke concerning spiritual guidance & leadership. The Ensign May 1985 p.33-5 contain his talk in full, we shall consider portions of his talk as follows: "The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy of perilous times & apostasy to come in the last days. He listed the many evils that would be abroad in those perilous times, such things as false accusers, despisers of those that are good, & traitors, & he warned, "From such turn away," (2 Tim. 3:1-5.) "Evil men & seducers shall wax worse & worse, deceiving & being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned & has been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them." (2 Tim.3:13-14.) "That phrase, knowing of whom thou hast learned them, has great significance. Paul taught that a knowledge of the scriptures was our immunization against these evils. Repeating what the Lord said: "Again I say unto you, that is shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or build up my Church, except (1) he be ordained by some one who has authority, & (2) it is known to the Church that he has authority & has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church." (D&C 42:11) "The Church will always be led by those who have been called by the regularly ordained heads of the Church." "Now, this does not prevent any member from sharing the gospel in a missionary attitude; that is our duty. There are duties, such as home teaching, & ordinances, such as blessing the sick, which go with the priesthood, & no special setting apart is required.34* But, for any & every office, there is care to see that anyone given authority receives it from one who has authority & it is known to the church that he has authority." To continue with Packer's talk: "There is purpose in members of the Church everywhere in the world being able to identify the general & local authorities. In that they can know of whom they learn." "There are those who claim authority from some secret ordinations of the past. Even now some claim special revealed authority to lead or to teach the people. Occasionally they use the names of members of the 1st Presidency or of the 12 or of the 70 & imply some special approval of what they teach. There have been to many name presented, too many sustaining votes35* taken, too many ordinations & setting apart performed before too man witnesses; there have been too many records kept, too many certificates prepared, & too many pictures published in too many places for any one to be deceived as to who holds proper authority...." Packer cont.: "A member, at any given time, may not understand one point of doctrine or anther, may have a misconception, or even believe something is true that is in fact is false. There is not much danger in that. That is an inevitable part of learning the gospel. No member of the Church should be embarrassed at the need to repent of a false notion he might have believed. Such ideas are corrected as one grows in light & knowledge. It is not the belief in a false notion that is the problem, it is the teaching of it to others. In the Church we have the agency to believe whatever we want to believe. But we are not authorized to teach it to others as truth. If someone approaches you individually or invites you to very private meetings, claiming to have some special calling, whatever you do, follow Paul's counsel-- "for such turn away." "There is another area where caution means safety. There are some who, motivated by one influence or another, seek through writing & publishing criticisms & interpretations of doctrine to make the gospel more acceptable to the so-called thinking people of the world. They would do well to read very thoughtfully the parable of the tree of life in the 8th chapter in 1 Nephi, (In the Book of Mormon) & to ponder very soberly verse 28. "And after (meaning after they were members of the Church) after "they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; & they fell away into forbidden paths & were lost." If their spirits are pure & their motives worthy, they will do not harm either to themselves or to others. If they are not, we would all do well to follow Paul's admonition & "from such turn away."..."36* In the Sunday afternoon session on April 4th 1982, Pres. Ezra Taft Benson, then, of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, gave a talk that can be read in full in The Ensign May 1982 p.62-4, entitled: Valiant in the Testimony of Jesus. The Following is a few quotes to consider from this talk: "Considering some of the challenges which the Church faces currently, & which it will continue to face in the future, three statements of former Church leaders come to mind. President Joseph F. Smith said, "There are at least 3 dangers that threaten the Church within,...they are flattery of prominent men in the world, false educational ideas, & sexual impurity."37* "These three dangers are of greater concern today than when they were identified by President Smith." "Heber C. Kimball,..."The time will come when no man nor woman will be able to endure on borrowed light. Each will have to be guided by the light within himself...." "Harold B. Lee..." "There will be inroads within the Church...we will see those who profess membership but are plotting & trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this Church38* ...We must learn to give heed to the words & commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet,..." Benson continues: "There are some who want to expose the weaknesses of Church leaders in an effort to show that they, too, are subject to human frailties & error like unto themselves."39* [See also: APPENDIX B.] Lord has sometimes called the human beings, (who all have made mistakes from time to time), as leaders of his people all throughout history. The bible points this out, (1 Cor.1:25-27), & it seems that Paul acknowledged the fact that even the different spiritual gifts (1 Cor. chap.12), were just "seeing in part" the whole perfect picture. Or in other words, those who were called, & given the different spiritual gifts, did not have a perfect understanding of all things, in all areas, & at all times of their life. For "...Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, & we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away...."40* Paul acknowledged the imperfections of their situations. That though many had been given different spiritual gifts they didn't know everything, they couldn't do everything, see everything, they were not yet perfected in all things, all of the time, but only at times when the Lord would enlighten them with the divine knowledges, & abilities to do miracles, according to their diligence, faith, & their needs & His Divine will. (See: 2 Pet.1:18-21). And then it seems that he (Paul) acknowledged that at such times, it was only "in part" it was not a perfect endless, (every second of the day), flow of pure & perfect revelation & knowledge on all things, all of the time, for they were still human. The perfect & endless horizons of knowledges would be opened up at some future time, perhaps in the realms to come. But for now they had to make the best of what little bits of truth & gifts of the spirit that God granted unto them, as he & we have had to do the best we could with other prophets' revelations, etc., in times before. Paul seemed to have acknowledged then, that such gifts served their purposes for the situations that would arise or had arisen in that realm, or in the life of the body of flesh, or in the earthly body. But that in the realms ahead, or when "that which is perfect is come" such gifts will be like child's talk, or would be insignificant when compared to the endless horizons of knowledges, powers, gifts, glory, & perfection that awaited those who had proven themselves worthy of gaining the higher knowledges that God & Christ & other holy beings had, as the worthy become "...heirs; heirs of God, & joint-heirs with Christ..."41* And when they finally got to see those things that God had "...prepared for them that love him...." (1 Cor.2:9-14, Isa.64:4). When they had been changed from glory to glory "...into the same image from glory to glory,..." (2 Cor.3:17-18). When they had finally been "...fashioned like unto his glorious body..." (Phil.3:20-21). When they had been "...partakers of the divine nature..." (2 Pet.1:4), And had been purified "...even as he is pure...." (1 John 3:1-3), in that they had become perfect even as the Father in heaven is perfect, (Matt. 5:48), in that their resurrected bodies glowed like unto the sun in their righteousness, (Matt.13:43, 1 Cor.15:40-42). That having fought the good fight, & having finished the course, & having kept the faith, & having overcome the things of the world through Christ's atonement, they had at last obtained "...a crown of righteousness,..." (2 Tim.4:7-8), & been granted to be able to sit with Christ in his throne, just as he had overcome the world & had sat down with the Father in his throne. (Rev.3:21, John 17:1-11, 17-24). That despite they had once been sinners, imperfect, & done good or evil, they had become gods through the atonement of Christ.42* But until such a time as such things did come to pass for them, as with us all. They remained human while in this life, they still had to overcome the things of the world, as all of us, they still had to resist the temptations of the devil, as we also. And they still made mistakes, as we also. But this should not stop us from accepting the great insights, the higher knowledges, & truths, (though it is in part & is not a perfect understanding of all things), that God had given to them, to give unto us! For we should be thankful for such things, & should try to make the best of what fragments of truth God does give to us from time to time. Perhaps God is testing us all, to see how we will react to what little bits of truth He has given us, give us now, & will yet give us. (Articles of Faith 5-9). Will we use such truths to further uplift one another? Or will we abuse the higher knowledges & pervert them, as some have done, for evil purposed, & thus drag one another down? If we should show ourselves to be worthy of higher knowledges, them perhaps more will be given to us. (Luke 19:11-27; Matt.25:14-30). But if we abuse the knowledges that we have obtained, perhaps it would have been better that we had not known them, for we will be held accountable to how we use or abuse the knowledges that we do obtain in life, what ever degree of knowledge it may be.43* So despite, & though such leaders have their own weaknesses to overcome, & they may mistakes, nevertheless the Lord has given them to us as leaders, & as inspired witnesses of the truths of God, thought they be "in part" & though they do not give unto mankind all that God reveals unto them. But only those things that the Lord wills, & see fit that the world should have at the times He wills that they should have it.44* Despite all this, He has, as in times past, given us such leaders for the same sorts of reason as He had in the New Testament times, "...for the perfecting of the saints..." etc., (Eph.4:11-14). And so we might as well make the best of it all, & not reject them because of their weaknesses, as the ancient to modern critics would have us do. I remember, back in my youth going up in the Church. At those earlier times I had misunderstood, at times, that everything that different ones were saying in the church, were not to be consider as being the "official doctrine" as "thus saith the Lord" truths. I some how had thought that a lot of things were of some sort of an official position of the Church. I didn't realize until later, that many things were the personal testimonies, opinions, & beliefs of the different members, leaders, etc. of the ward that I grew up in. As I grew in the gospel & learned more about different things, I was able to put many things into perspective, & I learned to recognize the fact that not every thing, or every word that came from different members, leaders, etc., in my ward was to considered as being all an "official" world wide doctrine. During a my mission to California between Nov.20th 1980 to Nov.20th 1982, during a missionary conference in 1981 Elder Paul H. Dunn came and spoke to us (missionaries). He brought up some situations that happens from within & without the Church that has added to the confusion on the part of many people within & with-out the Church, who get confused at time concerning what is & is not official doctrines, practices, etc., of the Church. He said that many things are passed around the Church, copies, of letters, blessings, dreams, visions, claims to revelations, stories, etc., which are not official, but which are confused as being as if they were "official." "The Apostles are the interpreters as to what the Lord revealed to the Prophet." (This is not to say that the Prophet could not interpret things for himself & the Church for He would be able to of course). "The question of what is official as to Church doctrines? 1. The scriptures (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). 2. Who is the Official interpreter? The Prophet is. 3. From Joseph Smith on up to George Albert Smith, the Prophets spoke their own points of views, & also the Lord's will, "Thus saith the Lord". The Church was not a world wide Church as it is now. Then when radio & T.V., were invented, from George Albert Smith to the present day, they (the Prophets) would speak more on an official basis, & stick to the basics more. They also would not give as much anymore their own opinions, but would speak in the Conferences more of the will of the Lord as they were so moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet. 1:19-21). 4. The current practice of the Church always constitutes the interpretations of the scriptures. Some may come along & say. "This "doctrine" was practice by your earlier Prophets & earlier Mormons, now why isn't it practiced now in our day?" The answer may be, as mentioned above in #4. For example: The scriptures before Noah's day may have predicted the coming flood, but he received revelation from God, as to his day in time, on how to build the ark. Another example would be when Christ came to the Jews & offered to them his higher laws over the laws of Moses that had been given earlier, many of the Jews rejected his higher laws, & the revelations that he offered to them. The same hold true for our days in time, new revelation take a higher priority over the earlier, or older revelations, for the current revelations are for our day in time. 5. What is Official Doctrines & programs? That which is signed by the 1st Presidency. 6. Just because it is in print, or is written, doesn't mean in every case, "Thus saith the Lord!" But what about unofficial? These are books by General Authorities. When they speak they sometimes give their own opinions, & this is so also in the printed word. They sometimes speculate & this is not official doctrine. Also books & talks by members, group meetings, or fireside gatherings, someone's personal journal, etc., is not official to be consider as all being "official doctrines." Why? Because we all give our own personal opinions & speculate now & then, based on our own personal reasoning, & background, & these things are not official doctrines." "There are many different opinions to answers in the gospel, & in other gospel oriented subjects, as well as in Life's subjects in general. All of our opinions all can't be the same in all areas of research, thought, expression, interpretations of doctrines, sciences, history, religion, etc. For we all have been given a mind to think & reason with, & we all sometimes come up with different points of views from time to time, depending on our own particular backgrounds & reasonings. The Lord has given us a way to keep from being led astray, & "...tossed to & fro, & carried about with every wind of doctrine..." (Eph.4:10-14, see verse 14), for he has given us a Prophet to help us. But it is up to us to listen to them, & it is up to us to follow them, & choose right over wrong."45* Stephen E. Robinson wrote of an experience that he had, under the heading in his book (Are Mormons Christian?), "Let Then Speak for Themselves". He tells us of a time he was asked to teach a class on Catholic Thought at a Methodist college, & being a Mormon, he thought it a challenge but also a rewarding experience. He says that he read Catholic theologians explaining their beliefs, & he said that his first pre-conceived notions on what he at first thought was the beliefs of the Catholics began to fall by the way side. "...The experience strengthened my already firm conviction that any religion must be allowed to speak for itself & interpret its own doctrines, & it must allow the same privilege to all others." (See our 11th Article of Faith). Robinson goes on to explore the question: "What Is Official Doctrine?" Is it doctrine if some Mormon somewhere believes something? If someone in the past who was LDS, said something, is it doctrine? He tells us that this issue was also explored in the 50th Semiannual Conference of the LDS church, Oct. 10, 1880, when President George Q Cannon addressed the Conference: "I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine & Covenants, & also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine & Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church & the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books & their contents as from God, & binding upon us as a people & as a Church."46* Robinson also points out that the subsequent changes of content in the standard works have been presented to the general body of the Church during the General Conferences, for a sustaining vote. James L. Barker shows that sustaining votes were also practiced by some early Christian sects.47* It is the "sustaining vote" that makes the changes, & other revelations etc. officially binding on the membership as the doctrine of the Church. There are cases in Mormon history that show this basic process in action. Robinson mentions some of these, such as when Wilford Woodruff, (as the Prophet) during the 60th Semiannual General Conference, Oct. 6, 1890, in which the practice of plural marriages was officially declared to be discontinued, "the Manifesto." Another case was in 1978, the Prophet Spencer W. Kimball presented a revelation before the Church members in the Conference, that was also voted upon & sustained, on Sept. 30 1978. All worthy male members could then hold the priesthood. Robinson also mentions B.H. Roberts's comments on the issue of what is & what it not official doctrine, etc.48* * STAR NOTES * FOR #65: 1* In 1987 I wrote in my unpublished book: When Our Faith Is Challenged Vol.1 p.21-23, op. cit. 2* The Tanners quote from Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p. 271 & The Young Woman's Journal, O.B. Huntington 1892, Vol. 3, p.263-4, as if they were official sources, (MSOR?) 4th ED. 1982, p.2-4, op. cit. 3* Some of the [AM] tracts that I collected during this time were: Salamandergate: What's Behind The Utah Bombings? A newsletter by James R. Spencer (Through the Maze 1985 #12) p.1-4. Also: Why all the fuss over the....`Salamander' Letter? (and what about the Joseph Smith Letter?) by Wally Tope, Calif. see p.a-d. 4* Deseret News Aug. 8, 1987, LDS Church News, entitled: Hofmann Confession tells of Hunger for Money & Fame, p.4, & 13. Also: (MSOR?) 1982, p.5-13f, 174-178D. The [AM] movie (TGM). [PMD] They Lie in Wait to Deceive Vol.2, p.vi-50. [AM] Book: (TGM) by Ed Decker & David Hunt 1984, p.12, "We will give overwhelming evidence concerning what Mormons really believe & practice,..." And: [AM] SLC Messenger Issue #58, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Tanners, Aug. 1985, Probing Black Holes in Mormon History p.1-2. 5* Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Distorted View of Mormonism: A Response to Mormon: Shadow or Reality, 1977 by A Latter-day Saint Historian, op. cit. 6* Scrapbook of Mormon Polemics Vol.1 #1, p.1, Oct. 1985. 7* History of the Church Vol.5 p.265, Feb. 8, 1843, Joseph Smith. And: Be Not Deceived by Elwood G. Norris Chap.1 p.19 n.2 pub. by Horizon Pub. 1978. 8* History of the Church, Vol.5, p.265, Feb. 8, 1843, Joseph Smith, And: A Response to Mormonism Shadow or Reality? 1977, op. cit., p.8-12, Be Not Deceived, by Norris, op. cit., p.19 n.2. 9* The Ensign Feb. 1982, p.39, Gerald N. Lund. 10* Floyd C. McEleen's [AM] book: God's Word, Final, Infallible & Forever, 1985. 11* Harold B. Lee's talk was entitled: Admonitions for the Priesthood of God. This talk was later published in: The Ensign Jan. 1973 p.104-8. Earlier in 1970 he had given the basic elements of this talk, in an earlier Conference. The Era published this under the title: To the Defenders of the Faith, see: The Era, June 1970 p.63-5. 12* The Ensign Jan. 1973, p.104-8, op. cit. 13* Mormon Issues #2, p.7, May 1991, under the heading: "Blind Obedience?" p.5-7). Ezra Taft Bension mentions Clark's talk in: The Improvement Era, in 1963. 14* Tape ran out, turned it over to side B. Van went on with Clark's sermon, Clark quotes from Brigham Young. (Journal of Discourses Vol.7 p.277 & Vol.9 p.150), & a number of other references. 15* Different Media outlets, such as: The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah Friday Oct. 25, 1991 published articles on the situation under the title: LDS Church Reviewing Abuse Claims (Satanic Rituals Copy Sacred Ceremonies), by Dawn House, front page, & A-2, col.1. Another News Paper, also published an article: The Deseret News, Friday, Oct. 25, 1991, (142nd Year- #133), p.B1 & B2, entitled: Church evaluating reports of satanic cults in Utah, by Patty Henetz. 16* The SLC Messenger Issue #80 Nov.1991 p.3-8. 17* Moses 5:29-31, 50-1, 6:15, 2 Nephi 9:9, 10:15, 26:22, Alma 37:21, 25-8, Hel.2:3-4, 8, 3:23, 6:18, 21-6, 29-30, 8:1, Mormon 1:18-19, 8:27, Moroni 9:10, Ether 8:20-24. Are cited in Pace's letter p.6-11, (SLC Messenger #80 Nov.1991, p.5-8). 18* Salt Lake City Messenger Issue #80 Nov.1991, op. cit., p.2, etc., Ritualistic Child Abuse & The Mormon Church, by Jerald & Sandra Tanner. 19* (TCATRST), Wilken, op. cit., p.15-25. 20* SLC Messenger #80 Nov. 1991, Tanners, op. cit., p.12-13. 21* The Ensign Jan. 1973 p.104-8, op. cit. 22* (TCATRST), Wilken, op. cit., p.17. 23* Wilken, ibid., p.17-29. 24* Ibid., p.20-1, see also p.22-25 & (COTTD), op. cit., p.15-24. 25* (The Magazine), Inside Detective, article entitled: God Commanded Them to Slaughter Two! by Emerson McIntyre, 1985, "Brenda Lafferty unknowingly signed her own death warrant when she opposed her relatives' radical religious beliefs." "Detectives had also been busy checking into Brenda's background. She was a devout Mormon, but Ron & Dan Lafferty were excommunicated Mormons & had been pressuring Brenda to leave the church & join their fundamentalist religious sect." "It was clear to Chief Johnson after reading the journals that Ron & Dan had been actively trying to convert Brenda's relative to their radical beliefs. Brenda was actively involved in the Mormon faith & was vehemently opposed to what Ron & Dan were trying to do. She supported the brothers' wives when they filed for divorce from the 2 men. Those women had also opposed the men's radical religious beliefs." `"She (Brenda) didn't like them, & she hated everything they stood for,"' said one family friend. "She said what they (Ron & Dan) believed in was of Satan. She said she could feel it." "It was clear Brenda's open opposition to Ron's & Dan's religious beliefs created considerable friction in the Lafferty..." family that led to the 2 killings by the 2 brothers Ron & Dan in July 1984. 26* Salt Lake City Messenger issue #56, March 1985, Utah Lighthouse Min. by Jerald & Sandra Tanner, p.7-9. 27* SLC., Messenger March 1985, Tanners ibid. p.7. 28* The Painesville Telegraph (New Paper Articles) which was printed & published every Tues. morning, at Painesville, Geauga County, Ohio. On Tues. Oct. 25, 1831, Vol.III, E.D. Howe published some articles by Ezra Booth on "Mormonism." Other articles were written, #2 From the Ohio Star Nelson Portage Co. Oct.2, 1831, E. Booth. The Telegraph, Mormonism No.1V. Nelson, Portage Co. Oct. 31, 1831, Booth, here the Mormons are called "Mormonites." & #V. Nov.7, 1831, #VI, Nov.14, 1831, reprinted in the Telegraph, from The Ohio Star. And: Mormonites in Missouri, from the Missouri Republican, St. Louis, Aug. 9, 1833. The Painesville Telegraph Vol.3, Tues. Sept. 13, 1831, from the Ravenna Courier, "Secret Bye Laws of the Mormonites" And: From the Rock Spring (Illinois) Pioneer. The Telegraph under the dates Oct. 20, 1832, & Tues. April 17, 1832, Dec. 27, 1831, etc. mention the Mormons under the nick-name "Mormonites." 29* (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.33. 30* For example: James J. Strang of the "Prophet" & break off sect of the 1850s, The Book of the Law of the Lord, 1856. 31* Gal.2:4; 2 Thess.2:1-3, Rom.16:17-18; Acts 20:28-30; 2 Tim.3:1-5. 32* Messages of the 1st Presidency, compiled by James R. Clark (Bookcraft 1970 Vol.4, p.285-6). 33* The Ensign Jan. 1973 p.104-8 Harold B. Lee, & The Era, June 1970 p.63-5. 34* "Setting apart" is similar to the early Christian practice of the "Imposition of hands" that was done in many early to later branches of Christianity, in which the person who was said to have authority or the priesthood, would place their hands on the head of those who were about to enter, or re-enter the Church, as new members after baptism. Or those who wanted to come back into the church as repented members. Or those who were becoming an ordained leader within the Church, or to receive the Holy Ghost, etc., (TN&PNF) Vol.13 p.82-3, & Caesar & Christ, by Will Durant 1944, p.600 n.28. Acts 8:14-17; 19:1-6, n.29. Cath. Encyc. 4, p.217-8, "By the year 200 the laying on of hands took added form of "holy orders," by which the bishops assumed the exclusive right to ordain priests capable of administering the sacraments validly." (Durant, op. cit., p.600). Note here has been added by me. 35* In some cases in Early Christianity, the "selection of officers" in the Church was done by the group of people meeting and giving their sustaining vote with the "Xeirotonein"--greek = to: choose or vote with the raised hand. (Apostasy From the Divine Church, by James L. Barker 1960 p.104-106). 36* The Ensign May 1985 p.33-5. 37* Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939, p.312-13. 38* Is interesting to note that this prediction may already have been fulfilled, at least in part, because it says, "inroads" & "those" suggesting to us that there will be more than just one or 2, but perhaps even many persons who will from within, (as they are from without), the Church, who will "...profess membership..." but who will be "...plotting & trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this Church..." Certainly Mark Hofmann was such a one as this: (See: The Deseret Mews 8-8-1987 LDS CHURCH NEWS, see: Hofmann Confessions Tell of Hunger for Money, Fame, p.4 & 13). Perhaps also we have seen the rise of others as well, who have given us cause to believe that this prediction is being fulfilled, as I have mentioned in earlier notes. 39* The Ensign May 1982 p.62-4, full this talk in full. 40* 1 Cor.13:8-10. 41* Rom.8:16-18. 42* Isa.41:22-24; chap.53, Psa. 82:1, 6-8; 73:23-4; Phil.2:5-11; John 10:34. 43* 2 Pet.2:20-22, Moroni 7:16-19, 8:22, Rev.20:12-15. 44* Amos 3:7; Rom.16:24-26; 1 Nephi 13:31-42; 2 Ne.3:11-24; 27:6-21; 28:28-30; 2 Ne.29:3-14; see also: The Times & Seasons, Vol.5, p.474 Nauvoo Ill. March 15, 1844, Hyrum Smith. 45* Again from my own Missionary experiences in California, Lecture given to us Missionaries during a Missionary conference in 1981, by Elder Paul H. Dunn, then of the lst Quorum of the 70. 46* Millennial Star 42 (15 Nov. 1880): 724. 47* Apostasy From The Divine Church, Barker, op. cit., p.104-7. 48* Sermon given by Roberts, July 19, 1921, delivered in Salt Lake Tabernacle. It was printed in the Deseret News, 23 July 1921. Are Mormons Christians? Robinson, op. cit., p.13-14, p.115. #66. CRITICS USED QUOTES FROM BREAK OFF SECTS AS IF BEING PART OF THE SAME BODY OF BELIEVERS. (See #65). #67. CRITICS DISTORTED, MISINTERPRETED & IGNORED CERTAIN SCRIPTURES. Some [AM]s, I have noticed, select certain parts of certain scriptures in order to make the points that they want to make. Certainly our critics have & will make these same charges against us, saying some of us Mormons do the same sort of thing. I remember having talked with one man who claimed to be a "born-again Christian."1* He passed out a typed letter-tract that he had put together, of which I read. One thing that I remember for sure about the situation was his use of the scriptures. He attempted to show from the scriptures that the bible "says that we don't need" some of the things that the Mormon Church has. He used portions of Matt.7:21-23 to say that "we don't need prophets, & the gift of prophesy in modern times. The thing that stuck in my mind, even to this day, is how he had taken all of the "works" out of the scripture. He believed in the common "born-again" concepts that all one needs to do is have "faith" alone, & thus by the "grace of God" alone, a person could be saved, "we don't need works," many of them claim. He quotes as follows, the part that he left out, I darkened in & underlined here. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." 7:21-23. I have noticed that many critics who follow this born again concept of "faith alone without works" salvation, have at times, & in certain cases, ignored the scriptures on works, that are contained in the bible that they claim to believe in. Or they will attempt to explain away such passages when it is pointed out to them.2* And yet such critics & others will then say that "good works are a product & results of a person being already saved." "...True Salvation Produces Good Works, Obedience to Christ."3* If that is the case, then what's all this fuss over how Mormons believe concerning being saved by faith & works together? 1 Peter 3:15 is used by some modern [AM] Christians, without dealing with the rest of the scripture. For as we read 1 Pet.3:15-22, 4:5-6, & as we understand many of the early to later Christian interpretations, beliefs, & later legends, art works, etc., concerning Christ preaching the gospel to the spirits in prison in the realms of the spirits. We would understand that this was one of the answers that the early Christians were to be ready with, in order that they could `be ready always to give an answer unto every man who asks you of the hope that is in you.' Many modern [AM] Christians reject this believe as it is also found in the restored Church or the Mormon Church, & even justify their attacks against the Church with such scriptures that they have distorted & taken out of context, while ignoring other parts of the scripture. Many modern [AM] Christians now fight against the concept & doctrine, or attempt to re-interpret these scriptures in order to fit it into their own biased concepts, & explain it away.4* Scharffs points out that "...The Urim & Thummim is mentioned in connection with priestly functions & receiving the mind & will of the Lord at least a half dozen times in the Bible, but the book" (TGM) "ignores this fact."5* Another [AM] Christian distorted & misused Col.1:16. He ignored verse 15 which would argue against his claims & charges against the Mormons. If he only also knew of the early Christians writings on this subject also, he would see that many early Christians taught that Christ was the "first born" in the pre-existence.6* John 4:24, or a portion of it is connected up with a portion of Luke 24:39. "...God is spirit...a spirit hath not flesh and bones,..." Some critics continue on with the scripture, while others select portions of these 2, in an attempt to claim that `the bible says that God does not have a body, but is spirit only.' The problem with this is that they need to read the rest of Luke 24. Here Christ is showing to his followers that he has a resurrected body. Now if there is only one God, as the critics say, or 3 in 1, then wouldn't that one God of Father, Son & Holy Spirit have that one body in the body of Jesus?7* Origen [ECD] claimed that Celsus [EAC], "...slanders the Gospel, not giving the words as they actually occur in the writings of Paul..."8* Origen also claimed the Celsus ignored evidences, "...either from ignorance or from an unwillingness (if he had read it & voluntarily passed it by in silence)..." (TANF) 4: p.411. Origen also wrote that "...he brings an accusation against the Gospel statement, grossly exaggerating the facts, & quoting what is not written in the Gospels, seeing it is nowhere found..." (Ibid., p.441). * STAR NOTES * FOR #67: 1* Our discussion took place outside the gaits of Temple Sq. in SLC. Ut., the exact date, I don't remember, but it was between 1984-6 I believe. Also recently, during the last weeks in Feb. 1992, on into March 1, & 2, 1992, on KTKK "K-talk" radio, 630 AM, in Utah, Religion On the Line, on Sundays & also Mondays. I called in to respond to some of the comments that a "born-again Christian" named Pete, had made concerning the "gospel" & grace. Van Hale [PMD] & 2nd Host to the show with Jim Kirkwood, on Mondays], Also responded to Pete's claims & charges. I made reference to the Hale's publication & handout. This hand out was passed out at the meeting held on Feb. 1, 1992 at the Whitmore Library, in Utah. Pete was at this meeting & had to have seen the hand out. On the page numbered "8," is a chart that list the different scriptures on grace & the ones on works. We discussed this list, & pointed out that many critics, like Pete, had passed by or ignored the many scriptures on works, which seem to out number the scriptures on grace. Van Hale made the comment: "Why dosen't Pete ever read from these others?, from James,..."?, etc., [speaking of a number of other New Testament writers]. I have also noticed this selective method approach in other presentations made by many other [AM] Christians. I have heard many others claim that "the gospel" is to "accept Jesus as your personal Savior" in order to be "saved by grace & faith alone, & not of works." They used certain scriptures to point this out, while ignoring or explaining away the other scriptures that would argue against their claims. 2* [AM] Tracts, entitled: Salvation by Works...a deadly Trap? by Wally Tope. Faith without Works is Dead...by Ed Decker & Saints Alive. 3* [AM] God's Word, Final, Infallible & Forever, McElveen, op. cit., p.178. 4* [AM] (Mission Monthly, Newsletter Vol.12, #9 Orange CA. Sept. 1991 titled page: The Christian & Mormon Debate of 1991, see: "From the Director:" by Utah Gospel Mission, Jude 3 Missions, Kurt Van Gordan, etc., op. cit. Also: [AM] Mormon Claims Answered by Marvin W. Cowan 1989 p.131. And: [PMD] Mormonism & Early Christianity, Nibley, op. cit., p.115-121. Also: [ECD] (TANF) Vol.2, p.490-2, op. cit. Clement of Alex. & Vol.4 p.448, op. cit. Origen. Monumental Christianity, Lundy, op. cit., p.73-4. (COTTD) Hoffmann, op. cit., p.65. Satan-(The Early Christian Tradition), Russell, op. cit., p.118-122, etc. 5* [PMD] (The Truth About "The God Makers" Gilbert W. Scharffs, 1986, op. cit., p.140. See also: Ex.25:7, 28:9-12, 17-21, 39; Lev.8:8; Num.27:21; Deut.33:8; 1 S.28:6; Ezra 2:63. Josephus Complete Works, op. cit., p.77. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary p.207, 1498. [AM] (TGM), op. cit., p.95-7. 6* (Note #4). Verse 15 calls Christ the "firstborn of every creature" See also: Rom.8:29. [AM] tract, Honest Questions for Honest L.D.S., p.2 #9, by Wally Tope, not dated). 7* [AM] tract, Rewriting the Bible According to Mormonism by Wally Tope p.2 #10. And Walter R. Martin, CRI., tape: The Maze of Mormonism. And: Why Mormons, Latter-day Saints, are not Christian by Shechinah Outreach Min. Fairbank AK. & Brigham Takes Another Look at Jesus p.5 Wally Tope. 8* (TANF) Vol.4 p.401 bk.1 chap.13. #68. THE CRITICS USED STANDARDS, TACTICS & TESTS THAT THEY THEMSELVES FAIL IN. HOW CRITICS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PASS THEIR OWN LOGIC, TEST, STANDARDS AND TACTICS. What would, or could happen if we were to turn the same logic, tactics, standards, & tests around on the critics to see if they would be able to pass their own tests, etc.? Perhaps these are questions we ourselves need to ask, if there are also some amongst us who are "guilty" of the same sort of things that we claim here that our critics are. Would we be able to pass also? Or would we fail? It is clear also that the critics themselves would not be able to pass their own tests, standards, logic, etc., as the following list will show. But first let me give a disclaimer for each point. The following list should not be taken seriously. For it should only be seen as being how the critics own doctrines, symbols, sayings, scriptures, rituals, history, statements, writings, etc. would appear, sound like, or could be misinterpreted as being. If the critics were their own critics, or if the situation was turn back on themselves so that they became the outsiders looking in at themselves, or their own judge. Thus I have only attempted to use the critics' own logic, standards, tactics, & tests, etc. on them to see is they can pass their own game that they are playing on Mormonism. Again, this should not be taken literal, or seriously, for these are not my personal beliefs, nor is it how I see the critics. Nor is it the way that I believe that other outsiders, or other people should conclude, believe, or think of the critics (or [AM] "Christians") as being. So with this disclaimer let us consider the following list of examples: 1. The [AM] Christian claims to being "born again"! Is it a pagan rite from ancient Babylon, in which the initiated passed through the Yoni in fertility worship, compare John 3:3-5, in order to become "born again."1* 2. [AM] Christian symbol, the triangle.2* Quoting from the critics' "own books" perhaps we could ask if it was "proof" & of these critics, the [AM] Christians, as being involved in the occult, because the occult also has triangles as a symbol? (of course not!).3* But also in voo doo rites the triangle is seen as a symbol. (see: 3*). 3. What about the [AM] "Christians" who use the fish as a symbol. [AM] movie (TGM) Ed Decker is seen near his car, there is a "born-again Christian" symbol, the fish, on the back bumper of the car, a common symbol used by the critics. But also other Christian sects as well, & by early Christian sects.4* Under the critics own logic, & interchanging of the meanings of symbols, couldn't the fish also be misinterpreted as "proof" that the critics are into the occult, because the occult also has used the fish as a symbol throughout history, & before the Christians?5* It could also be shown here that the cross, would not be able to pass this same test as well. I suppose also that if the "fish symbol" (that is seen on the back bumpers of some "born-again" Christians' cars, etc.) was misinterpreted, with the same sort of tactics that the critics use. If the symbol was turned down ward, wouldn't it look like a bomb! Therefore would this be a secret sign that hints to the great fire that shall come? (2 Pet.3:10). Of course not! Did these modern "Christians" really borrow the fish symbol of hate from the Egyptians? (TANF) 2: p.454. Of course not! 4. Would the Bible that the [AM] "Christians" claim to believe in, have to be considered an "occult" book because of the so-called "occult" practices that are mentioned in it? Magical stones?6* 5. Would SAndra TANner's name be derived from the name SATAN! If the critics had played the same sort of word game on their own names, or themselves?, as they have on names in Mormonism?7* 6. Would Wally TOPE be a shark or dogfish habitually & excessively drinking?8* If the critics had taken his name in vain, & done the same sorts of things with their own names as they have with names in Mormonism? (Of course not!). 7. When [AM] "Christians" say "Amen" (as also in the traditional Mormon prayer), after each prayer, or during an exciting preaching session in their churches, are they really taking an oath to a pagan Egyptian god, "Amen"?9* Of course not! Justin Martyr wrote that "...The word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to..." mean, "[so be it]." And it is a expression that the people give at the end of a prayer.10* 8. Do some "Christian" churches have symbols (ugly faces & demon heads: Gargoyles), which are "...so sinister that it makes your flesh crawl when you think about it..." & which "...will blow your socks off..." & which "...draw demons like fly paper..."?! In the architectural designs of their churches?11* 9. What would the [AM] Christians have us do with the Bible had they been it's critic? Changes, deleted, added, textual changes in words. Prophecies missing, contradictions.12* 10. Did [AM] Christians "borrow," "plagiarize" from [EAC]s writings? Wouldn't these many "parallels" suggest this to be the case? For the sake of the parallel hunting game? 11. Do Christians practiced, & believe in occult human sacrifices?13*, "...shed his precious blood...become a human sacrifice..." (This tactic is similar to how some [AM]s have distorted the different sources & publications in Mormonism, as we can see here, if the same sorts of tactics were used on Christian publications, a negative meaning & interpretation could be presented.) Now consider the source in it proper context: "The creator became flesh so that he could become a human sacrifice for your sins. That's why he went to the cross, to shed his precious blood for you & wash away your sins."14* Disclaimer: Of course most Christians in general do not believe in, or practice occult human sacrifices. If there are some cases in which some have, or do practice it. Such things would be rejected & considered heretical, terrible, satanic, & unchristian, & against the teachings of most Christians, & the Mormon Church. It would also be something that would cause the person or persons to be expelled or excommunicated from the main body of true believers, & criminal prosecution under the laws of God & the land. 12. Did Paul teach "blood atonement"? (See: 1 Cor.5:1-11, notice verse 5): "To deliver such an one" [a fornicator] "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 15* Origen asked why Celsus had intentionally omited some evidences that would support the Christians, (TANF) 4: p.445). Origen later claimed that Celsus used a selective method, ignoring the good & picking only the bad things in history, thus giving a one-sided distorted biased presentation of the different situations mentioned in scripture or "sacred history". Origen wrote of Celsus that "...he does not even mention the circumstance!..." (Ibid., p.519). Origen also says that Celsus claimed that the Christian said things that Origen says they never uttered. (Ibid. p.625). * STAR NOTES * FOR #68: 1* Papyri Graecae Magicae IV.475-830, cited in Morton Smith's Jesus the Magician, cited in Allen Richardson's An Index of Biblical Polemics, p.13, op. cit. 2* [AM] Christian tract: The Trinity: Nonsense or Good Sense? by H.I.S. Ministries, Park City Utah, p.1 or title page not dated. 3* [AM] Mormonism, Magic & Masonry by Jerald & Sandra Tanner, 1983 p.43, & The Salt Lake City Messenger Issue #49 Dec. 1982, p.5. See also: Drum & Candle by David St. Clair 1971 Doubleday & Co. Garden City NY., p.142-4. The Triangle is also used in occultic voo doo rituals, does that mean that the Christians who also use a similar symbol, (with differences also), are therefore also into the occult? Of course not! Expect if they (some of the [AM]s) were to have been their own critics, under their own standards, & logic, then they would not be able to pass their own tests. 4* Church Symbolism, Webber, op. cit., p.45-7, pl.iv fig.19, p.57 pl.vi, fig.4. And: Christ Lore ibid. p.249, etc. 5* Man, Myth & Magic, Vol.4 p.983-5 Cavendish, op. cit. Also: Richardson, op. cit., p.35. And: Ramses II p.25-6, op. cit. Treasures of Tutankhamun, op. cit., p.61 (the Egyptians used the fish as a symbol before the Christians). See also: Occult Signs & Symbols by Steiner, op. cit., p.15-29. The Symbolism of the Biblical World, Keel, op. cit., p.140 fig. 186 & 91, p.140 fig. 185. 6* Ex.28:39, Lev.8:8, Nu.27:21, Dt.33:8 etc., Josephus Complete Works, op. cit., p.77; Art in the Early Church, Lowrie, op. cit. pl.144 b. & Joshua 4:1-3; 6-9; 20-4. (TANF) 2: p.453. And: The Wonderful World of Magic & Witchcraft by Leonard R.N. Ashley 1986 p.102-3, 107-8. Signs & Symbols in Christian Art by George Ferguson 1959, op. cit., p.24. Webber, op. cit., p.57 pl.vi fig.12. Richardson, op. cit., p.52). Rev. 2:17. Scharffs, op. cit., p.140. 7* [AM] (Mormonism, Magic & Masonry, Tanners 1983, op. cit., p.50, p.57, & Mormonism Unvailed, 1834, E.D. Howe p.21. (TGM), op. cit., p.72-3, 76 & 263. And: [PMD] Scharffs, op. cit., p.110-111. (Of course not!). 8* Funk & Wagnall's New Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1946, Vol.2 p.1375, see Tope, 1 & 2. 9* Richardson, op. cit., p.6. Tutankhamen, by Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt, 1963, p.24. 10* (TANF) Vol.1 p.185 1st Apol. chap.lxv. Justin. 11* SLC Messenger #64 Hofman Speaks! see p.24. "Devils All Over?" Tanners cite from Ed Decker & William J. Schnoebelen, Salt Lake City [AM] meeting with Walter R. Martin, June 29, 1987, & Capstone Conference. Here the Tanners disagreed with their fellow critics' conclusions & claims concerning the misinterpretations of some symbols in Mormonism. See also: Dictionary of Christ Lore & Legend, Metford, 1983 ibid. p.107. 12* Richardson, op. cit., p.15-16, A Bible of Bibles Kersey Graves. And: Was the Bible Inspired? R. Leslie. God Man & the Bible, McCarty. Acts 9:7 & 22:9, & (TANF) Vol.1 p.235, (DWT) chap.lxxii, see also n.1 on p.235). And: [PMD] Scrapbook of Mormon Polemics Vol.1 #1 Oct. 1985, p.2-3. Bill Forrest & Van Hale. [AM] God's Word Final, Infallible & Forever by McElveen ibid. [AM] 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon, 1965 Tanners. Ex.40:15 & Heb.7:12. 13* A Demon's Night Mare p.2 (Christian tract). 14* A Demon's Night Mare p.2 ibid. 15* [AM] (MSOR?), op. cit., p.398-404B. #69. SOME [AM] "CHRISTIANS" MAY HAVE USED SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES. The story behind the discovery of subliminal messages in the [AM] movie (TGM) is something that needs to be told as it happened. I will relate this story as best as I can remember. Fortunately I have written down the basic story as it began to unfold. I will also add here those words that I feel best presents the story from my memory, & from notes that I have taken & written down. Reflecting back on some of the experiences that I have had with anti-Mormon "Christians" sects. On Feb. 9, 1986 I wrote. "...I have lost count of how many times that I have seen the anti-Mormon movies: The God Makers & Temple of the God Makers. I have been to their" [AM] "meetings..." etc. "I have always come away from these meetings etc., with the most dull, bitter, sick, & satanic feeling that stayed with me for hours after" the experience was all over "like a dark heavy cloud. I had wondered about this many times. Why is it that these feelings have been described by, & felt by others?" Others that I have talked with have said the same sorts of things. They said that they have felt negative vibes, & feelings. "I noticed the music & the other effects that they used to play on the emotions." (of those who see the movies). "I felt that there was something to the sinister music & sound effects in the said movies, & began to do some research. Music can have a very powerful effect on the mood & the emotions of a person...." On "...Thurs. Nov. 21, 1985 around about 4:00 p.m. I heard Robert Verdin" [AM] "call in on a radio talk show, hosted by Bill Forrest & Van Hale" of "Mormon Miscellaneous. Robert" at one time stood "...outside the Salt Lake Temple grounds" & he was one of the ones who passed out [AM] tracts. "He told about a meeting that they were having the next evening at Faith Fellowship 317 E. 400 S. Salt Lake City Ut. Nov. 22, 1985 Friday night at 7:00 p.m. He said that they would be showing the God Makers. I made a note of it to go, & went." "I walked in & found that I was a little late. Robert was speaking to a group of people who had come. At the back of the room, sitting behind a desk was a young man who Robert told me later was "the Pastor's son. I wasn't sure who was in charge so I asked him if it would be alright if I taped the meeting." (I also got the permission from one of the Saint's Alive Representatives). "They didn't have a place to plug in my tape recorder at the back so He" (The Pastor's son) "told me that it was alright & that there was a plug outlet up front. After Robert spoke for a while, he came back & sat by me. He said that it was alright to record this time, but to be sure & check with him first. I told him that I wanted to make sure that it was alright first & had asked for the one who was doing the program & was directed to a Lady who was sitting at the back, who was from Saints Alive & I asked her if it was alright to record & She said "That's fine, go ahead." Robert said again that "It's O.K. this time but next time check with me first." (I told him that I would the next time). "They showed the Temple of the God Makers & then the God Makers, following with a question & answer period. Again I went home with the most sick, dull, satanic feeling that I have already described. This feeling stayed with me for hours like a thick dark cloud. Why is it that these people who claim to believe in Christ have such a satanic spirit about them? Surely this feeling does not fit the bible's description of the "Comforter, the Spirit of truth"? John 14 & 15. Surely this feeling does not fit the joy & peace that one feels in the heart when they pray & when the spirit comes & bears witness of truth? I realized that no matter how hard the Anti-Mormons try to make something appear to be true, they can not get the Holy Ghost to bear witness to it. How could God who is a God of truth, bear witness to sensational half truths, etc.? "Nov. 23-26 1985." "I started listening to the tapes & to the back ground music that was in the God Makers. I wondered why they would use such eerie music in the back ground? As I listened, I tried to focus in on the type of music, the scales, notes, & tempo, etc. As I was listening to what sounded like computerized" (music & sound effects) "or sounds made with a synthesizer, in the back ground of the part in the God Makers version of washing & anointings, I noticed that they put eerie sinister music to it. As I listened carefully I heard something between the Man & the Women being done." (They depicted, in a rather negative way, anointing for the man, then another scene for the women, the back ground was dark, when it should have been white, if they had been attempting to present it in a more accurate way). "The sound effects sounded like it was making a word. As I played that part over & over again it finally hit me" (or occurred to me), "with a chill of realization that there was a subliminal message that had been put in by someone. I played it to my family & as they listened carefully they could also hear it..." also. "On Thanksgiving day the Family got together & we had a feast. While the family was there we listened to the tape, I played the part in the movie were the subliminal message was. We all agreed that the computerized sound effect was making the word "accept." We were not sure about some of the other sounds but continued to listen for some more. We were all amazed & were shocked at what I later found in the part of the God Makers" (movie's) version of the battles between the Lamanites & the Nephites." (Saints Alive did a cartoon dramatization of their own, depicting their versions of Book of Mormon war scenes). "As we were listening to the sound effects I heard something that totally shocked me. I played that part over & over again to make sure what I was hearing. In the part were they show a battle, just after some arrows hit a man's shield with the sound effects you can hear, if you listen carefully, some man in the background say "F--- a-- hole!" I'm sure that some who will read this will find this hard to believe & will not want to believe this or admit that it's there, but it is. Check it out for your self! It takes a few times to hear it before most people will be able to pick it out. The reaction that I have observed is what when they hear it, they are shocked..." And they have wondered why such a thing would be in such a movie. (We didn't know who was the one behind the sound effects, so at that time we wondered). Why these so-called "Christians" who claimed to believe in Christ would put these things in their anti-Mormon movie that was claiming to be the "...truth about Mormonism..." And who also claimed to be "...motivated by love in presenting this to the world. Is it any wonder then that the movie leaves you with such a bitter taste in your mouth?" Like their other one: "The Temple of the God Makers"? "It is any wonder, that many" (others who have also seen these movies have made comments) "...about the terrible feelings that they get, & say "There's a satanic feeling & spirit about that movie the God Makers"? (And the other movie). Why would Saints Alive use satanic tactics to get you to be a so called Christian? Are they being influenced by the same spirit that influences these satanic rock music groups that use backwards messages & subliminal messages?" (These were some of the things that I had asked myself at that time, & more research was needed, to be able to check out if my charges had any facts to them, or my conclusions). "I took a tape over to Allen Richardson who I have been doing some research with on Anti-Mormonism. This was about the end of Nov. 1985, when I let him hear the tape. He listened carefully & could also hear the subliminal messages. At this point in time I was starting to wonder what to do with..." this discovery. And so I told "...Bill Forrest & Van Hale who have written a response series of pamphlets to Anti-Mormon issues, & the said radio talk show Mormon Miscellaneous...." (I went out to the radio station & met with them at KBBX, after I watched them from behind a sound proof window, while they did their radio show). "Bill & Van could hear the profanity & yet Van was a little skeptical about subliminal messages having any effect on people. I played the subliminal messages to a non-Mormon,..." man who was a Luthern, "...who lives next door to me & he also was shocked at the satanic spirit & at the profanity that is in the God Makers. He called me up on the phone & said "That movie has the most satanic feeling & spirit about it, I can't see why anyone would want to see it." (Jim Tigan). "I began to wonder how the Anti-Mormons would react to this. I drove by the Tanners" house many times in "...Dec. to see if they were home at their house on West Temple across from Derk's baseball stadium, (Derk's Field). It seemed to me that they had gone for the Christmas season for their sign on their door said closed. Sometimes they might have been open..." or at home, but I didn't know, or might not have known, because I didn't stop at that time to knock on the door. Nor did I call them on the phone. "After the New Years" (holiday) "some time into the next few weeks, an exact date, I'm not sure of. But for sure in the Month of Jan. 1986, I took a tape & played it to Sandra Tanner at her home. As far as I can remember, & to the best of my memory this is what happened." "Prior to this..." we had talked with each other about different things, & about the movie, the God Makers & that exact time, I do not remember, but it was in the last part of Nov. or early Dec. of 1985, before they closed for the Christmas holiday. "...We talked about the way that they had made the movie & the special effects that they used, to make the movie play on peoples' emotions. She said that "Had I done a movie, I would have based it more on documentation than so much sensational, emotional type of wording, I think they should have left out the eerie sinister music & the deep voiced narrator..." "I asked her if she knew who was the one who had done the sound effects & the music. She said that she did not know who was the one or ones who had done the sound effects & the back ground music. "They filmed us & used what parts that they wanted to." She said also that Ed Decker had gone through a Professional movie maker, & that this movie maker had done some movies for Hollywood. They had also used professional actors. I told her about the subliminal messages & show looked at me with an expression..." (on her face) "of, oh really? I told her that there was, & that it was put into the eerie music. I told her that I would come by at another time & show her" (by playing the tape for her) "so she wouldn't think I was crazy or making up a story." "As I said before sometime in Jan. 1986 I stopped by again & we talked a little more about the God Makers & about the bombings & other things. I told her that I had the tape with me & asked if she would like to listen to it. She asked" me "if I would leave it with her & that she would listen to it. I said that I would rather not, but that if she had a tape recorder, that it would only take about 10 minutes to listen to what I had. I explained to her that the first part of the tape was some examples of these different rock groups that put hidden messages in their music, & that the next part was the subliminal messages in the God Makers. We listened to it & her reaction was as if she was having a hard time trying to hear it. But it was recorded over & over again so that most any one could hear it. The tape came to the profanity part & played over & over again. She again appeared to not be able to hear it, & perhaps she didn't hear it. As the tape played I helped her a little. She said "I don't hear what you say is there, what am I suppose to hear? You came over here with this tape to play for me, why don't you tell me what he's saying?" (I wanted her to discover it on her own if she could, with as little help from me as possible). "I said listen carefully...to what he's saying, it played......I said, "street talk" (giving her a hint as to the type of words that are there, street talk meaning that there was some bad words there). "It played......" I asked her, "Can you hear it?" She said, "Sounds like, get out or something, no I don't know what he is saying, I still can't hear it." (We played the tape again, or turned it back to the portion that had the subliminal messages). "I said, "Now listen carefully & I helped her a little by saying `F ass hole', but I didn't use the word but gave her the idea, & it was at that time that the tape played it over & over again," (it being in the movie just once, but played over & over by me on the tape, in order to isolate the sound, & make it stand out more, so it would be easier to hear it). And it was then, & "...by the expression on her face I knew that she could hear it, but that she didn't want to admit to it because of reasons known only to her." (Of course I couldn't read her mind, as to what she was thinking, & I can only judge from the expression on her face that seemed to say to me that she could in fact hear it. It may be only fair to say here, that she may not have heard it, then again maybe she may have. She would not say, so there was no way for me to be able to make the full claim that she did hear it, for she claimed that she couldn't.) She looked as though she was trying to appear not to have been able to hear the subliminal message & again said, "I can not hear it." She stopped the tape & said, "Even if it were in there, that would not save Joseph from being an Adulterer behind Emma's back." (She pointed over to their book case of Anti-Mormon books that they have written). I said to play the tape again & to listen close to what the man was saying, but she didn't want to. I said that I have played it to many people & they have heard the man in the background profane, so there are a lot of people that are so called "hallucinating with their ears."...She said, "Oh, I don't deny that such things could be in some of these rock groups' music, but I don't think Ed Decker would do something like that. Ed Decker is a personal friend of mine & I know he might have gotten a little carried away in saying that the Mormon's God is an "Extra terrestrial humanoid," but to do this?" I said, "Now wait a minute, did I say Decker put this in his movie? I don't know if he did or not, that's why I came by to ask you if you knew who was behind the sound effects & music. I like to check things out before jumping the gun, & I'm the type of person that checks the situation out first before making" final conclusions & judgments. I said, "Perhaps Decker does not even know that it is in there,..." (and yet on the other hand) "...maybe if he is using sensationalism, & other tactics, maybe he does, I don't know, God knows the intent of his heart & will judge him," as he will also "with us all, but it is in there & it was put in there by someone. She said, "What are a little subliminal messages going to do to compare with all this documentation that I have anyway? A couple subliminal messages is not going to save the Mormon Church from the changes & contradictions that I have documented! Not to mention the suppression & other things!" I said that the Atheists have the same types of complaints, that of contradictions, suppressions, changes, etc., that they could also show by documentation in saying that there is no God, & it is the same type of complaints" (against the Bible & religions in general, as the Christian have against the Mormons), "...but that is beside the point. What are you going to do about these subliminal messages in the God Makers?" She answered: "I don't think that there is any thing there but a bunch of noise, & someone yelling something." I said, "Well don't take my word for it, get a hold of a copy of the God Makers & check it out for your self." I told her the parts were they were at & said that "If you listen carefully...you might also "hallucinate with your ears." "After talking with her a little longer I left,...." After that, I went up to Zion's (Sam Weller's) old & new book store & bought a few things. "...There was this man that I had met at the Salt Lake City Fair Grounds, (during one of the State Fairs at some time in the past). I told him what had just happened. "We went to my car & drove to anther old book store & sat in my car & listened to the same tape that I" had "played to Sandra Tanner..." earlier, "and this man also..." heard it. Oct 27 or 28? 1987, KZZI 1510 AM Radio, I was on as a guest talking about this subject, with the host, Claudia, on "Claudia's closet". I presented some information, took calls, & we talked. We also play the tape over the air, that had examples of some of the satanic, anti-Christ, & other bad messages in the rock music, we also played a small portion of the God Makers. I pointed out that I did not know who was behind the messages. Claudia said that she had heard it in the office when I played it for her, also the station co-owner & manager also had said that he had heard it, said that we could not play the isolated portion over & over again on the air, because it was to clear. We played just a small portion of the regular part, twice, & let it go at that. The other message how ever we were able to play the isolated part over & over again. I told our listeners, that I was not sure who may have been the one who put this in the movie, (TGM), & that it could be that Ed Decker does not know about it. I had tried to ask him about it, & when he & Walter Martin had come to SLC Utah to talk, at Highland High school, at an evening anti-Mormon rally, on June 29, 1987. So earlier, before I went on the radio with this issue, I had attempted to get Decker's side of the story. During the question & answer period, I went up and attempted to ask some questions, & just as I was about to ask Decker about the making of his movie & the subliminal messages, Walter Martin cut me off, & went on to others who had questions. I was set up, in a way, so that a person could not make any sort of a response, for they wanted people to ask questions rather than attempt to give any sort of a response to the claims & charges that they had made. So responses had to be made later on the radio, & in the printed word, & even the Tanners got in on it. For they wrote a response to some of the claims that Ed Decker & others were making concerning the symbols on the Salt lake Temple & other buildings in Mormonism.1* Every time that I have brought this issue up, on the radio, I have never, as far as I can remember, charged that Decker & Saints alive are guilty of this whole issue, for I have said that they may be, but I have always tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. I have included in with the charges a disclaimer. I have pointed out on the different radio shows, that it could be that Ed Decker & Saints Alive also don't even know about it. I have a number of tapes of radio shows were I have made this disclaimer at the same time that I have presented the said issues.2* For a while I put the matter, aside & didn't look into it, because I was busy with other issues, writings books, & family life, etc. Then during 1991 I started writing to Ed Decker at Saints Alive, & told him in different letters what I had discovered. I told him that I felt that I could not put the blame on him or Saints Alive, at that time. I told him in these letters that I would like to find out who may have been the one behind the sound effects. I asked him to tell me how the movie was made? Who helped him make it? Who was the movie company that they went through? etc. He wrote back asking for proof, & evidences. I wrote back another letter, dated March 29 1991, saying that if he would give me written permission to make a tape of the God Makers, I would sent him the evidence. My letter was received in April 1991, he wrote back on the same letter, under my words, a the requested written permission with witnesses & signatures, dated "4\13\91." I sent another letter dated May 4, 1991, with a tape that had portions of the God Makers were the subliminal messages were at, with additional newly discovered strange sound effects, that I had discovered over the years from 1985-1991, at different times, when my interests were again directed to this issue again, with the help of other interested persons. I asked for a taped response & documentation, in which he could present his side of the story. I asked him again if he could find out for me who was the one behind the sound effects. I sent him another letter dated May 20 1991,3* I had written on the top portion of one of my letter series a little note to remind him again to send me a response of some kind. And again asked him who was behind the sound effects of during the making of the movie. I had sent copies of my letter others. But on Decker's copy I wrote at the tope a reminder note. He send the same letter back with a few comments attacking my type setting, but didn't respond to the contents of the letter. But in response to the note I had written at the top, he told me in this letter received by me on May 31 1991, that he had sent the material to "Patricsiana Marshianc" of "Jeremiah Films P.O. Box 1710 Hermet" "Ca." 92343. He wrote that he asked them to evaluate the tape, & for them to get back with him with a response of their finds. "...They did the sound tract...actually- They hired the company that does music/backgrounds. I haven't heard back yet- Ed Decker." I gave him some more time then called him on the phone, again I told him that I didn't blame Saints Alive or him for the sound effects. I asked him if he had heard anything back yet from the company that he sent the tape to. He said that he had not yet, & gave me the address again. And another name: "Lynne Girdlestone, of the Terra Center P.O. 6001 North Holywood Calf. 91603. At this time, we are at a stand still, until we can get a response of some kind from the said company that Decker claims that they went through, & who perhaps may have even hired out another company (if I am interpreting Decker's letter correctly), who did the sound effect. Perhaps someone in this company may have put the bad sound effects in the movie. Only time will tell. (Up dated comments by me, DaRell D. Thorpe Nov. 13-4, 1991). On 3-5-1992, I sent a letter to Jeremiah Films. I asked them if they could let me know what they found out about this issue. Jan. 7, 1993, I still have not received any answer to this issue. In Dec. of 1992, Decker's group came out with "The Godmakers II." In early Christian & early anti-Christian times, & polemical discussion, presentations, etc. They didn't have the modern inventions as we have now in these latter days, so there is no case in ancient times, what we could point to for a parallel situation. Thus this situation must remain as a modern & new approach. But also an abuse of the higher knowledges contained in the coming forth of the inventions of modern times that could be abused in different ways in order to produce these satanic & evil sound effects, for what ever evil purposes known to those, who ever they may be, who have done this thing. * STAR NOTES * FOR #69: 1* [AM] The SLC Messenger, Sept. 1987 Issue No. 64 p.24, op. cit. 2* This was during the years 1987-8, as a talk show host on KZZI, & as a guest, later in 1990 on a radio station in California. 3* The letter was: "A SERIES OF LETTERS & RESPONSES TO DIFFERENT ISSUES, QUESTIONS, & POLEMICAL TOPICS. Letter #1, May 19-20th, 1991 by DaRell D. Thorpe. Did Jesus Christ Go To Other Places to Preach The Gospel? Evidences of Christ in all the World." #70. SOME CRITICS HAVE MADE SOME SYMBOLIC THINGS SOUND AS IF THEY WERE LITERAL. When the anti-Mormon “Christian” and apostate Ed Decker was on Geraldo, A TV Talk Show in New York State, in 1991, he made different negative comments about the Church, & made it sound like the oaths that Mormons take in their temples are literal, instead of symbolic. Hence, he distorted the symbolism by claiming that if Mormons were to ever openly talk about their mysteries, such as their temple oaths, the consequences would be, according to Decker, that they would have their throats cut open, and their other parts of their body cut open. However, having openly shown the Mormon temple endowment to the public for many years now, the horrible things he describes would happen to apostates, like himself, hasn’t happened to him, or other apostates who have been through Mormon Temples. Hence his charge that should they expose the "secrets" of the Temple, it would be literally done to them, is false. However, inasmuch as many "outsider" or non-members, who may have heard this, may have not caught the tactics that Decker had used. The tactic would be like how someone could make it appear that the ritual of baptism were a life & death situation, because of how, (under the tactic of distorting the symbolical meaning, & making it sound as if it was literal), you go down into the grave (font) to be buried (in water), & rise from the dead, (out of the font), (Col.2:12). Hence, under Decker’s and other modern “Christian” anti-Mormons’ logic and tactics, Paul would be accused of literally killing those who were baptized, which wouldn’t have been the case, because baptism was the ritualistic type of Christ’s bloody death, burial, and resurrection, and thus was symbolic, and not literal. In other words, they didn’t literally die, even though Paul, writing to the Corinthians, mentions: “I die daily,” in reference to the resurrection’s ritualistic type, baptism for the dead. (1 Corinthians, 15:12—43, note verse 31 in the King James Version, see also: 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3—9; Colossians 2:12). Furthermore, how do you think the sacrament would sound under Decker’s logic, if it was to be taken literal? Wouldn’t the sacrament sound like people were eating the flesh (bread) & drinking the blood (water, or in some Christian churches wine) of Christ? Other anti-Mormon “Christians” have used these tactics during different [AM] meetings, radio shows, etc.1* The early Christian, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, (during the 4th cent. AD), explained in his Lectures on the mysteries, the symbolical symbolism behind the early Christian endowment. The symbols were not to be taken as being literal, in that when they symbolically went through the sufferings of Christ, they were not done in a literal way in which the initiated had to suffer. In fact Cyril says that these imitations of Christ sufferings, death, descent into the grave, & the resurrection, were done "without suffering or toil." So there was no bloody rituals, nor was the initiate in danger of being killed in a barbaric way, or harmed in any way during the endowment or mysteries, & thereafter. Nor is the modern initiate in the restored endowment in any danger, as the critics have falsely charged that they are..2* Bloody Gestures in Historic Christendom & other fragments of the Endowment In historic Christendom, especially in the legends and traditions about Christ’s post-resurrection world wide trek, some traditions and art works show the wandering Christ in the guise of a man of sorrows, displaying his wounds by making different gestures. Keep in mind that it was during Christ’s post-resurrection visitation that he taught his followers, and the nations of the world, the endowment or mysteries of the kingdom (Acts 1:3). Dr. Huge W. Nibley notes how the mysteries had been taught from the very beginning of the human race. And how that they passed through alternate phases of apostasy and restoration, which he says has “left the world littered with the fragments of the original structure, some more and some less recognizable, but all badly damaged and out of proper context.” In stories, art works and traditions, Christ appears to those who don’t realize, at first, who he is until he displays his wounds by making different gestures. For example, in a story by Roy H. Stetler, about the meeting of the big three, Christ appears to a guard outside the Crimean Castle of Livadia. Hence, Christ, “raised his hand to salute the soldier,” as he did the soldier notices scars in the Christ’s hands, and asked how he got them. Soon after this, Christ vanishes out of sight, before the soldier’s eyes. The guard then suddenly realized whom he had just turned away. “I should have known!” he exclaimed. “If only I had let him in!” At this, he slumped to the ground in great dismay. "What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet? Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God." Hand grasps of monks greeting each other was seen as being a type of what they aught to greet Christ, if, during his world treks, he should happen to pass that way. The grasp is also, like unto those that point to Christ the wounds of Christ’s passion, for the same types of ways in which monks greet each other, is the same types of ones in depictions of God, grasping Eve’s hands to raise her out of Adam’s side. Which raising out of the side, together with these hand grasps, remind us of the art works of Christ on the cross, with hand clasping descent into and out of hell depictions, right by the wound in his side. These numerous hand and wrist grasps, in historic Christendom, also symbolically represent Christ’s wounds, and are in fact, some of the fragments which Nibley talks about as being fragments of the temple endowment, in these cases, scattered all over historic Christendom. Parts of which shows scenes of what takes place in after life realms, or during ascensions, or descents into different realms, showing different types of hand and wrist grasping taking place, while entering and exiting the different realms. In earlier centuries, even the early anti-Christians, such as Caecilius, and Fronto were disturbed by this type of symbolism being used among the early Christians. Caecilius charged that “they recognize each other by secret marks.” Fronto ascribes, what seems to be one of early Christian hand shake greeting: “When they extend the hand for greeting at the bottom of the palm they make a tickling touch and from this they ascertain whether the person who appeared is of their faith.” In fact, having been driven underground during days of martyrdom and persecution, the early Christians developed secret symbols, signs, gestures, and hand clasps as marks of identifying one another. These types of symbols, etc., were passed down in later temple traditions among the different orders established by different monks. For they depict them in their hand and wrist grasping greetings between themselves, and the wandering Christ. Especially among those monks who knew about the prophecies concerning the manner of Christ’s suffering, and crucifixion. For upon having studied the earlier manuscripts, art works, and even producing copies, and compilations of the different versions of the temple traditions among themselves. Plus, having received what fragments of the mysteries they had preserved among themselves, during those later centuries, they still knew of many of the types, imitations, and the similitudes of Christ’s sufferings, when they passed through the Christian mysteries, and liturgies. Thus, they knew what types of wounds to look for in the strangers they suspected were Christ in different guises, such as the man of sorrows, or as a wounded wanderer. A belief which even earlier critics had noted, such as Cæcilius, at the beginning of the 3rd century, who charged that the early Christians’ god “runs about everywhere, and . . . wanders in and out in all places”. In his wanderings, during his world wide trek, some temple traditions have Christ appearing to his mother Mary to teach her the mysteries which she later passes through again when she dies. Thus, Christ appears, makes certain gestures, embraces Mary. Mary upon feeling with her own hands, the wounds in Christ’s hands, by clasping his hands, knows by this that her once dead son, whose dead hands she had once examined and clasped his wounds, is now resurrected (Matthew 27:52-53). When Mary dies she passes through the same types of mysteries on her way towards deification. Anti-Mormon “Christians’” own historic Christian roots, wouldn’t be able to pass their own tests, logic, tactics, word games and literalism, because of what we see in these temple traditions. Hence, under the critics own tactics, historic Christianity would have its own share of “bloody oaths, and gestures” too. For in the many portrayals of Christ’s post resurrection visits to show and teach Mary and his followers the mystery of the Kingdom. Christian artists depicted different bloody gestures, that of Christ raising one hand up, while the other is down near his side pointing at the bloody wound in his side. Blood flows down from the nail mark wounds in his hands too. In some cases, both his hands are raised up to make another bloody gesture, because of the blood that flows down from both his up lifted hands. These arm and hand gestures are same types of ones that religious leaders make during their sacramental gestures, & in masses for the dead, except without the blood. Thus, these gestures must have been types, to remind them of Christ’s wounds and passion. During the 4th century A.D., in The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, Cyril testified of the types of Christ’s suffering in their mysteries. In these mysteries, they took part in a similitude, a type of Christ’s suffering, but without having to endure the same pain which Christ did. He said that “we did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again; but our imitation was but in a figure, while our salvation is in reality.” He goes on to testify how Christ was actually crucified, buried, and rose from the dead. And how that these things were vouchsafed to them by an imitation communicating in his sufferings, he then exclaims: “Christ received the nails in His undefiled hands and feet, and endured anguish; while to me without suffering or toil, by the fellowship of His pain He vouchsafes salvation.” In an Apocryphal Christian source, The Acts of John, John says that Christ showed him, in secret, a symbol and type of his torment, piercing, blood, wounding, fastening, and death. “I held this one thing fast in my mind, that the Lord had performed everything as a symbol and a dispensation for the conversion and salvation of man[kind].” Thomas became a witness to the resurrection when he touched Christ's wounds too (John 20:24-31). Later artists depict Thomas' hand, or wrist being grasped by Christ, while he feels the wound in Christ's side. For example, in a work, dated 1450, Christ, as the banner bearer, grasps, with his right hand, just below the right wrist of Thomas’ right arm to assist him, as he feels the wound in Christ’s right side. In the same work, Christ is before his Father’s throne, displaying to his Father, the wounds of his passion. His right hand is raised up, while his left hand is down, pointing over to the wound in his right side. These types of greetings may have been passed down to them from earlier generations of Christians which may have learned such things from the Apostle Thomas. William of St. Thierry, during the 12th century A.D., wrote how the mysteries of redemption flow from Christ’s wounds like a door to understanding the secrets of the sacraments. “Open to us your body’s side, that those who long to see the secrets of your Son may enter in, and may receive the sacraments that flow therefrom, even the price of their redemption.” In another place, he seems to hint to the how Christ assists them in feeling his wounds, by grasping their hands. “Lord, whither do you draw those whom you thus embrace and enfold, save to your heart?” And it is to these wounds that Christ draws the soul in order that one might thrust their fingers, or hands into his side like Thomas did. These false charges, rumors, & stories had caused the outsider in early Christian times to look on this new movement (the Christians) with horror & concern. When there really was nothing sinister about the Christians' rituals. Except for those done by apostate heretics who practiced all kinds of perverted rites, blending themes of Christianity with cultic & pagan rites, distorting them in order to make a perverted barbaric counterfeit in mockery of the true rites.3* The Gnostic-Christian sect the "Phibionites" for example blended all kinds of barbaric, cultic & satanic practices of sexual rites with Christian themes, scriptures, rites, etc. to make a perversion of the divine things of God. (ibid. p.54-78). Like some modern day [AM] Christians of today, the [EAC] Celsus, also made different things sound literal in a negative way. He did this with the Christians' doctrine of the resurrection.4* As did also another [EAC] Caecilius who not only attacked the doctrine of the resurrection in negative literal terms & comments, like Celsus, but also the prediction of the coming destruction of the end time, when fire will burn up "the whole universe, including the sky and the stars,... [which] will go up in flames".5* Both [EAC] took the doctrines, predictions, etc., passed the traditional interpretation, or the wording that was given in the scriptures, or what they also may have heard or learned, into a vivid literal terrible picture of roasting flesh in the great fire, & the hauntings of the risen dead with the same bodies, or some kind of body as they had before. Thus they gave to their listeners a gross misinterpretation of literal horror, past the description given in scripture & with a biased, twist to it.6* In later centuries, however, the later Christians were to even take it further, than these [EAC]s had, with frightful descriptions of the horrors of hell, & the coming fire that would burn the wicked. Hell fire & damnation! & the end of the road for those who took the "left hand path" down to hell, limbo or hades. Art works also played a part, in depicting this frightful picture, at the same time depicting the rewards of the blessed who follow the right hand path towards paradise & the heavenly realms of light.7* An [EAC] named Fronto failed to distinguish between Gnostic heretics Christians & the orthodox Christian sects.8* Thus, the charges that were brought up against heretic Christian sects by the other Christians sects themselves. Such charges & claims were also heaped up on the Christians in general, when outsiders or [EAC]s passed on the rumors & gossip that they had heard about "the Christians." The early Christian may have misunderstood the different concepts, then again, their may have been some who understood them, but who distorted them in a way to make some things sound literal in a negative way. You might remember that Christ's sayings were distorted or misinterpreted & made to sound if they were literal. For as far as some of the earliest anti-Christians were concerned, (had they distorted the prediction, or misunderstood it), Christ had said that he would destroy the temple & build it in three days.9* * STAR NOTES * FOR #70: 1* [AM] (MSOR?) Tanners, op. cit., p.474-5. 2* A Library of Fathers, Vol.2, p.264-5. 3* (PR&TEC), Benko, op. cit., p.10-14, 36-7, 43, 54-78. 4* (TCATRST), Wilken, op. cit., p.104, (TANF) Vol.4 p.549-551, op. cit., (COTTD) op. cit., p.86-87, 106-7. 5* (PR&TEC), Benko, op. cit., p.57. 6* (COTTD), op. cit., p.40-1. 7* The Art of the Illuminated Manuscript, by David M. Robb 1973, op. cit., p.168-9 fig.107. Art of the Early Renaissance by Michael Batterberry, 1968 p.78, 80-1, 184, fig.79. Hieronymus Bosch by Charles De Tolnay 1965 p.109-115. The Golden Age of English Manuscript Painting (1200-1500) by Richard Marks & Nigel Morgan 1981, p.9. Early Medieval Book Illumination by Carl Nordenfalk 1957 etc., p.88. Heaven: A History, by Colleen McDannell & Bernhard Lang 1988. 8* (PR&TEC), op. cit., p.67. 9* Matt.26:60-61; Mark 15:29. #71. CRITICS CLAIMED THAT THE TEMPLE ORDINANCES WERE BORROWED. [See: APPENDIX B. [AM]1* I have also heard different critics on the radio, over the years, claiming that the Mormon Temple Endowment "was borrowed from the Masonry." Although there are some parallels to Masonry, & Joseph Smith was a Mason at one time. The Critics fail to acknowledge that some of the elements of the Temple endowment was revealed to Joseph Smith by Angels of God, & from the Lord, before Joseph Smith became a mason. There are many differences between the two systems that could be noted as well. For the sake of parallels, the Mormon Temple endowment is a lot closer to, & there are many more closer parallels to early Christian writings, art works, scriptures, monuments, symbolism & purpose behind the mysteries, or endowments, than any other religious mysteries in the world.2* Some [EAC]s, such as Celsus, also claimed that the parallels between the early Christian mysteries, & those of other pagan nations of the area in which Christianity spread to, is "evidences" that the early Christian "borrowed" from these different pagans in order to make up their Temple Mysteries. Also the critics charged that the Jewish rites were blended in with the Christian mysteries. There may be some basis to this contention in the later centuries of Christianity during the dark ages of the great apostasy in the different scatter branches of later Christianity, in which we see more & more evidences of the blending of Christian themes, with pagan & occultic counterfeits. But the earliest Christians of the first 4 centuries, & even some a little later, argued that the Lord had revealed anew, the "new covenants" & mysteries. Which mysteries or ordinances had been given in types & hints in former dispensations to the earlier Prophets of God. That the different nations fell into apostasy, thus the basic parts of the gospel was scattered & fell into retrogression with the passage of time, to be blended in with satan's counterfeits. This was why there was elements of similar parallels that the critics could point to, because satan & his demons had prepared counterfeit before & during times of restorations, in order to discredit the true one when it was time for the new dispensation to come forth, during which time the old gospel would be restored anew again. (See: #53 etc.) Many Mormons would agree with this early Christian perspective. And also the early Christian answers to this polemical challenge, & to the early anti-Christians' charges, is similar to how we (Mormons) might answer today's critics. As I have already mentioned in earlier notes, the [EAC] Celsus made the same sorts of charges & claims against the early Christian mysteries or temple endowments, (claiming that they "borrowed" from others), as the modern [AM] Christians, etc., have with the Mormon Temple endowment. Celsus charges that the "...Christians imitate the polytheists in establishing chambers of mysteries in their churches with pass words & degrees, & rites of initiation." Origen & other Christians claimed that this was no so, that their mysteries were of a divine source from God.3* * STAR NOTES * FOR #71: 1* (MSOR?), Tanners, op. cit., p.484-492. And: [AM] (NMKMH), Brodie, op. cit., p.114-129, 275-283. & (TGM) op. cit. 2* See: 3 of my books, (by DaRell D. Thorpe) 1: Jesus Christ's "Everlasting Gospel" & Ancient "Patternism" an unpublished manuscript at this time. 2: Early Christianity In The Ancient Americas, & Old & New World Parallels, 1990, unpublished. And 3: The Pilgrimages & Struggles Of The Human Family In & Through The Different Realms of Existences! 1991 unpublished. Also: The Relationship of "Mormonism" & Freemasonry, by Anthony W. Ivins, 1934. Mormonism & Masonry by E. Cecil McGavin 1947, op. cit. The Temple in Antiquity, Ed. by Truman G. Madsen, etc. 1984. Mormonism & Early Christianity, Nibley, op. cit. Also: By Study & Also by Faith 1990, Vol.1, chap.11, p.202-221, chap.24 p.611-642, op. cit. The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, an Egyptian Endowment, Nibley, op. cit. Baptism For the Dead, by Roger Adam 1977 an unpublished research paper, or Doctrinal Thesis, found in the LDS Church Archives in Ut. call slip # Res; m234. 62, R216. See also: Ancient Texts & Mormonism by Eugene Seaich 1983, p.50-100. The Temple & The Lodge by Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh, 1989, Arcade Pub. N.Y. p. 8, 10-11, 49, 115, 127-131, 149-262. Plus the other references that I have mentioned in earlier notes. 3* Notes mentioned above, & (PC&EC) Garretson, op. cit., p.72-3, 87-88, etc. (TANF) Vol.4 p.399, bk.1 Chap.vii, p.487-8 bk.3 chap.lix-lx, p.583-4 bk.4 chap. 22-4, (OAC). Art in the Early Church, Lowrie, op. cit., pl.100. See also: Library of Fathers Vol.2 p.267-9 etc., op. cit. And: (TN&PNF) Vol.X, p.321-3, Vol.V p.518-24, Vol.12 p.163-9, 176, 179, 182-3, 188 & 190. The Salerno Ivories, op. cit., p.103 & 106 fig. 179 & 185. Monuments of Romanesque Art, op. cit., pl.15, fig. 35, pl.66, fig.151, pl.113 fig.258. The Art of the Illuminated Manuscript, op. cit., p.200-1 fig.135. Medieval French Miniatures, op. cit., #38. Art of the Medieval World, op. cit., p.135 fig.132. Early Christian Art, op. cit., pl.93 And: Classical Inspiration in Medieval Art, op. cit., pl.80. #72. THE FOUNDERS OF THESE NEW RELIGIONS WERE GREAT WRESTLERS. Some modern [AM] Christians have made a big stink about the fact that Joseph Smith happened to be a good fighter in his day, that he could wrestle real good. They seem to want to think, that "a prophet" wouldn't do such things. For they place a standard & profile on the Prophet Joseph Smith, that they would not place on Biblical Prophets. It seems to have been just fine for Jacob to have "...wrestled a man..." (Gen.32:24-32), or "embraced."1* But for Joseph Smith to have wrestled, is, in the minds of some [AM]s Christians rather a strange way for a "prophet of God" to act. "Joseph Smith was a man of great physical strength. He enjoyed wrestling & other sports where he could display his strength...."2* In the case with the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Some early Christians spoke of his great strength. Origen in response to Celsus's attack (in writing) against Christ, boasted that Christ was a "great wrestler." Celsus had mocked the body or the human side of Christ. "...I think, Jesus, that the High God would not have chosen a body such as yours; nor would the body of a god have been born as you were born. We even hear of your eating habits. What! Does the body of a god need such nourishment? ..."3* There is also evidences, from the words of Origen, that Celsus may have blended heretical concepts of heretical Christian sects, in with orthodox Christian doctrine to make his charges against the Christians in general, on this point. "After this, Celsus, confusing together the Christian doctrine & the opinions of some heretical sect, & bringing them forward as charges that were applicable to all who believe in the divine word says: "Such a body as yours could not have belonged to God." Now, in answer to this, we have to say that Jesus, on entering into the world, assumed, as one born of a woman, a human body, & one which was capable of suffering a natural death. For which reason, in addition to others, we say that He was also a great wrestler;... having, on account of His human body, been tempted in all respects like other men, but no longer as men, with sin as a consequence, but being altogether without sin...." Origen wrote "...Then Celsus says: "The body of god would not have been so generated as you, O Jesus, were."..."4* Justin Martyr perhaps, having heard, or read, some the early anti-Christian comments of the Jews, wrote in his (DWT). "For He" (Jesus) "appeared distasteful to you" (the Jews) "when He cried among you, `It is written, My house is the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves!' (Matt.21:13). He overthrew also the tables of the money-changers in the temple,..."5* Perhaps the Jews may have also claimed that such actions, by Jesus, was a show of force, & abuse of strength, something that a "god" (or someone claiming to be a "god"), would not be "guilty" of, if in fact he were a "god" as the early Christians claimed. If Jesus had been a "great wrestler" to whom did he wrestle? And for what purpose? Did he wrestle with some of the people in the temple, in order to drive them out? Did he lose his temper? Or was he have a just cause & reason to do what he did? * STAR NOTES * FOR #72: 1* From an unpublished research paper by Eugene Seaich: Notes On Ancient Temple Worship, p.3-4, LDS Church Lib. SLC., Ut. not dated. 2* [AM] (MSOR?), Tanners, op. cit., p.252-3, "A Fighting Prophet." op. cit., p.252 2nd col. The Tanners go on to quote portions of History of the Church Vol.5, p.302, 466. Mormon Portraits p.24, Journal of Discourses Vol.3 p.66-7, & other sources. 3* (COTTD), op. cit., p.60. 4* (TANF) Vol.4 p.427-8, bk.1 chap.lxix, also chap.lxx. (OAC). 5* Matt.23 & Luke 11, (TANF) Vol.1 p.203, chap. xvii, (DWT). #73. THE CRITICS CLAIMED THAT THEIR RIVALS WERE SO IMPERFECT, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, THEIR RIVALS WERE PREACHING TO THEIR FOLLOWERS TO BE PERFECT. [See note #3]. Some of the standards that some religionists, or non-religionists put on each other are not very fair, & are unrealistic, & are in fact doubled standards, or "no win situations." Some of the standards that I have noticed that anti-Mormon "Christians" present as if it were "what the Mormons really believe" (which is really not, especially in the ways that they have twisted & distorted it, in order to make it to sound), is the way in which they seem to want to lead people into thinking that it is part of Mormon beliefs that they have to be perfect in this life. What I have learned through many years of research & study, to be the teachings of the Church. Is that it will be not only just in this life, but in the realms ahead after this life & in the eternal hereafter, in which the perfecting processes through following Christ's gospel, will finally bring us towards perfection. Certainly what we do now or don't do, will determine the conditions in which we will find our self in the realms ahead. This is not a believe of Mormons alone, for other Christian sects also believe this in similar ways. Even the critics will say that if you don't accept Christ now in this life, & if you die without having accepted him as "your personal Savior," you will go to the fire & burn forever. So in some ways we would have to say that they also seem to think that what we do or don't do in this life will determine the conditions in which we will be in when we die. A number of tracts, speeches & radio shows by different Christians show that this is a common belief amongst the different "born-again" Christian sects. The process of being able to obtain perfection over a period of time, through following Christ's plan of salvation & exaltation, (the gospel) is what we have called "eternal progression." And it is something that takes place over a very long process of time & not over night. Certainly we can not be perfect in all things, in all ways, while in this life. For we all have made mistakes, thus we could or would not be able to claim total perfection in this life. Nor, to be fair here, do I think that our critics are saying this. But what I do think that they are attempting to do is make it sound like that Mormons are such "perfectionist" that they get "suicidal" if they should happen to make mistakes or sin, because the "pressure" is on from the Church for them to "be perfect." Certainly people, outsiders, & others might be lead to thinking that this is the case in Mormonism (when it is not, in most cases), if they were to see the [AM] Movie (TGM). I'm sure that there may be more stories than what I have heard, of the "pressure" that is in some [AM] "born-again" Christian church for the "unsaved" to get "saved". But I don't think any one is claiming that such pressures has caused people to be suicidal, at least I am not aware of any such case. Another important part of this process is repentance, changing our sinful actions, habits, & ungodly way toward godly ways of righteousness. The atonement of Christ plays a very important part in this process. And so Mormons in a certain sense do accept Christ as their personal savior. Maybe not in the traditional "born-again" Christian way. But despite this, Mormons do accept the atonement of Christ & look towards Christ for a remission of their sins, myself included. So I don't see what's the big fuss is all about, amongst our critics, who are working so hard to get us be saved by grace & not by works! Certainly Christ would rather have us all become more like him, than the for us to become like the devil. This is what he expressed in his prayers, sermons, & teachings.1* Don't the critics also hope to become more like Christ, more kind, just, loving, etc., etc.? I don't think that they want to become like the devil. Even though some of them, like some of us Mormons, might be headed that way down the left hand path. But why is it that the critics can't seem to make up their mind what they want us to do. If there are many amongst us who have problems, then it is sometimes generalized that we are all "evil" & "satanic." But if we should happen to try a do something about the problems, or should try to live better lives, & teach & practices higher standards & expect our people to live more Christ like. Then it seems that the critics like to put us in the no win situation and charges that we are "working our way to heaven." Does this mean that the critics are so perfect that they have no need to work on improving themselves? Eugene Seaich in commenting on the Tanners' massive book wrote that many "preachers" of today amongst the "Christian" sects are waging a war against the Mormons. "...The "bible" of this anti-Mormon movement is Jerald & Tanner's Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?, of which nearly 40,000 copies" (1983) "are presently circulating throughout the world. Jerald Tanner (whose hatred of Mormonism began as a solitary bout with guilt while he was an adolescent member of the Church)2* First version of Jerald's magnum opus.) has devoted an entire life to destroying his former conscience by exposing every foolish deed, wart & cast of bad breath he can find amongst the Saints. But even with his wife's added help. he has been able to do no more than prove the obvious fact that Mormons are human beings, with human foibles & human weaknesses...."3* The [EAC] Celsus in a similar way had also attacked from both ends the early Christians' doctrine of striving towards perfection, while at the same time pointing out their imperfections, "crimes", weak points, & faults.4* He claims that the Christians try to break up the family by tempting the children to leave their fathers & teachers to follow after different Christian teachers in order that they"...might learn how to be perfect...." 5* Celsus charged that the Christian invited the sinner, & other types of criminals to their mysteries or ordinances, but Origen countered by writing that that was not the case. They would not accept people who were found out to be sinners, who refused to repent, & changes their ways. Thus if it could be helped, sinners were not worthy yet to enter into their mysteries. People had to have had a change of heart, & shown that they had changed there ways, & were willing to live a life after the teachings of Christ. In other words, like the modern saints, these early saints or Christians had to be more worthy, through repentance & change for the better, before they could be able to go through the temple ordinances, "the mysteries." Origen quotes 1 Cor.2:6 as proof texts that they speak wisdom among them that are perfect. Origen all throughout his writing preached the doctrine of perfection through following Christ's example. He makes it also part of his defense against Celsus, that Christians did believe in deification & that the ultimate extreme for good which mankind could reach through Christ's gospel, was perfection.6* Other writers from Old & New Testament times, & on into the earliest to even later centuries of Christianity also believed and taught the doctrines that mankind would be deified & perfected through the Gospel, through following Christ's teachings, & through the processes of time in the eternities to come. (See Note #3). * STAR NOTES * FOR #73: 1* Matt.5:48, John 17:20-23; Matt.13:43. 2* Seaich, op. cit., n.1 Mormonism (SLC, n.d.) 236-9. 3* Ancient Text & Mormonism, Eugene Seaich 1983 p.1 see also n. 1, p.117. See also: [AM] (TGM), op. cit., [PMD] The Ensign May 1979 p.79-81, op. cit., Also basic elements of this observation here comes from personal observations with different things that I have heard from critics. Also from a discussion that took place on the radio KTKK, "K-Talk" 630 AM Radio, around 1986, Jim Kirkwood & Van Hale with callers. See also: Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.18, #2, Sum. 1985, p.33, "The Godmakers Examined," p.14-39, also The Godmakers: Shadow or Reality? by Allen D. Roberts p.33. "...The Godmakers causes us to take a closer look at Mormon perfectionism. The film criticizes the dangers of Mormon striving for perfection while it simultaneously condemns the imperfect actions of Mormons. It's a classic example of damned if you do & damned if you don't....". 4* (COTTD), op. cit., p.18, 58-9. 5* Ibid., p.73-4, & (TANF) Vol.4 p.423-8, 439, 475, 486. 6* (TANF) 4: p.487-8, 509, 547, 550-1, 563, 593-4, 646-7, 658. #74. SOME ANTI-MORMON "CHRISTIANS" HAVE USED FAKE PH.D. DEGREES. Robert & Rosemary Brown of Mesa Arizona, published their first volume of: They Lie In Wait To Deceive (Eph.4:14). Published in 1985. The book exposes a number of anti-Mormons, such as Dee Jay Nelson. On Sat. Feb. 16, 1980 the Browns learned about a anti-Mormon Lecture that was to be held, On Feb. 19, 1980 at the Church of the Redeemer, they went to the lst lecture, & another on Feb. 22, 1980. Their book show that many of the charges & claims that Nelson had made were false. They give documented evidences to show that: 1. Nelson had no valid educational degrees, as he was claiming he had. 2. That the degrees that he was claiming to have were from a "diploma mill." 3. They show other claims & charges that Nelson made were false. 4. That his claims to writing 8 books on Egyptology are false. 5. They show that he gave 95 false & misleading statements during his Feb. 22, 1980 Lecture in Mesa Arizona. 6. They show that other anti-Mormon "Christians" were involved in presenting Nelson's false claims & charges in a number of publication. However, to be fair here, it should be pointed out that the Tanners were the first to question D.J. Nelson's claims concerning his educational degrees, & thus exposed Nelson in their news letters & other publications, & up-dated materials.1* There are a number of other things that the Browns show in their 1st book, as well as a 2nd & 3rd volume that exposed some of the tactics & deceptions that were made by Walter R. Martin, (Maze of Mormonism), Wayne D. Cowdrey, Howard A. Davis, & Donald R. Scales, (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon). As well as other anti-Mormons who became rivals against each other in some areas of this polemical situation. They are presently working on a 4th volume on different anti-Mormons. In talking with the Browns on the phone a number of times, they told me that the anti-Mormons had been attempting to all kinds of strange things, in order to try and make them look bad. I have heard reports & stories about how that some of the anti-Mormons had even rummaged or snooped through their (the Browns) garbage, attempting to find things that they could "get them on." But despite religious persecution, false rumors that critics spread about them, & other challenges, they have presented another side of the story to the different polemical situations between Mormons & anti-Mormons. Although their books present many things, tactics, logic, methods of attack by some modern [AM] Christians, that have their parallels in [EAC] tactics, etc. At this time I am not aware of any parallel situation, in which [EAC] writers claimed to have educational degrees, but were later exposed as not having any. But sometimes, one never knows what one might find with further research & study. Note: 1* [AM] The SLC Messenger April 1980 p.7, heading: Dr. Nelson?, also: (MSOR?) 1987, 5th edition, op. cit., p.369-C. And: Can The Browns Save Joseph Smith? by the Tanners. #75. CRITICS CHARGED THAT THEIR RIVALS WERE VISITED BY GHOSTS OR THAT THE DEAD RETURNED. Over the years, at different times & places, I have often heard, different anti-Mormons misinterpret, distort, & mock the different visions that the Prophet Joseph Smith had during his life. Critics reject such claims by calling them "evil spirits" or that such "myths" are just plain old "ghost stories" of the dead coming back to trick, haunt, & mislead the prophet Joseph Smith. 1* The Tanners seem to want to lead their readers into thinking that all of the manifestations of spirits, that have been claimed in Mormonism, must be from the devil. As part of their "evidence" they make sure that their reader can see their point by the usual methods that they use throughout their massive book, & by saying that even the Mormon Church "admitted" that they have their "...STRANGE VISIONS..." & "...FALSE SPIRITS..." for their "own books" say so.2* What would the Tanners have us do with this information that we already know about? For which our leaders have warned the members of the Church again & again concerning this situation.3* Are we to reject all visions & revelations from God, because of the other counterfeit visions & revelations that Satan brings forth? Surely they must know about situations in New Testament Church that would show that the early Church was also faced with the same kinds of challenges. So what judgment that the Tanners hope will be passed on the restored Church, would also have to be considered as a possible judgment for their roots & beliefs in the New Testament. We as Mormons should really not be to shocked at the logic that the Tanners attempt to use here, either, or at the fact that their are cases in Church history in which different ones have been led astray by false spirit or evil spirits. Why? Because if such things also happened in some cases, in the early Church, during the time of the New Testament & the following earliest to later centuries after. We should not think that the restored Church would not be faced with the same challenges, & problems, as if it was some how immune from this age old problem, because it is not.4* It seems that because the many modern Christians have rejected the idea that God can speak through living Prophets today, through visions, angels, as in time of old. They perhaps may be tempted to set aside any claims to such things, in the name of "the heavens are closed," "we don't need prophets in these days, for the Bible is enough," & "no visions, angels, or angels from heaven are needed in these day." They abuse Gal.1:6-8 in order that they can make the claim that no more angels are needed & if any should come, "even from heaven," then such angels are not to be accepted, so they seem to think. Does that mean that the predictions in the Book of Revelations are not to be believed? John predicted that angels of God would be busy in the last days before the 2nd coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. He even predicted that an angel would come with the "everlasting gospel" (Rev. 14:6-7), which would be preached unto them that dwell on the earth in the different nations. Christ is promised to return or would be sent at a time of "refreshing" & restoration of the words of the holy Prophets (Act 3:19-21). So the bible itself has it's own stories of "dead heroes returning from the grave." The different Jewish sects also have traditions amongst them in which they reserve a place at their table, during the traditional meal that has kept alive the prediction made by the Prophet Malachi that the prophet Elijah would be sent. (Mal.4:5-6). * STAR NOTES * FOR #75: 1* (MSOR?), op. cit., p.48-9, & The Myth Makers, Nibley, op. cit., [PMD]. 2* (MSOR?) Tanners, op. cit., p.61-2. 3* The Ensign Jan 1973 p.104-8, The Era June 1970 p.63-5, The Ensign May 1982 p.25-27. 4* Matt.11:18, 12:24-6, 27:46-49, Luke 1:17; 7:33-4, 11:14-22, 2 Cor.11:10-15, 1 Tim.4:1, 1 John 2:18-27. #76. CRITICS ONLY SEEMED TO WANT TO PRESENT ONLY THE NEGATIVE THING THAT THEY COULD FIND ABOUT THEIR RIVALS. The [PMD] writer, Eugene Seaich, seems to suggest that this is one of the things that the [AM] Christians, the Tanners seem be concerned with, in their fight against Mormonism.1* In an unknown LDS historian's response to the Tanners (MSOR?),2* the comment has been made that "...A non-Mormon historian who has spent many years recently commented that the Tanners choose only the most negative evidence to portray the "reality" of Mormonism, while ignoring or denying the existence of contrary evidence. If Mormon defenders have on occasion been guilty of some of the polemical techniques used by the Tanners, that still does not justify or sanctify distortion...." Though it is clear that the Tanners are one of the worlds biggest rivals against the Mormon Church, & their writings & other publications are filled with what seems to be nothing but nit-picking, negative things. I have heard some people on both sides of the polemical situations, say that the Tanners also try to be fair in their writings. What is meant by this is that they have even acknowledge at times that other critics have gone to extremes in their attacks against the church, & so even the Tanners have gone against their own fellow critics in pointing out the errors or extreme biased interpretations, distortions, or misrepresentations of some of their own fellow critics. Their news letters are full of this sort of thing. And because of this, some of their own fellow critics have openly complained about this. Jerald Tanner put out a tape that pointed out how some critics had gone off into extreme & biased interpretations in their attacks against the Mormons, & suggested that more "love" should be used in "witnessing to Mormons." I have had a number of discussions with the Tanners, & this is one of the things that came up. Some of their own fellow critics have suggested that they were "secret agents" who were "working for the Church," (which the Tanners have denied), because they had come to the defense of their own position, while attacking the extreme & "unfair" claims that their fellow critics have made over the years. Even some of us defenders of the faith (the LDS Faith) or [PMD] writers have taken advantage of these disagreements amongst the critics, in attempting to say in a sense that the critics don't agree, & even fight amongst themselves, over different issues.3* So while I am tempted to agree in part with the observations of different ones who have said that the Tanners seem to only select just the negative things that they can find. The Tanners have also, in fact, even provided us with information that we have been able to use in response to their fellow critics, such as Ed Decker, Walter Martin & James R. Spencer, etc. It would be only fair to say that the Tanners also seem to appear to want to be more "fair" & "honest" in their presentations. And yet at the same time I know that they have been very unfair in some of their selections, & even have distorted some of the sources, by selecting only the negative things, & have taken some sources out of context, as I have already shown earlier in this book. So while I agree that the Tanners are also guilty of the said tactic, I would have to say that it has been my observation that their other fellow critics are even more guilty. John L. Smith's news letters, seems to only dwell on the negative things, & their hatred towards Mormonism seems to have become an extreme obsession, to expose every negative thing that they can find.4* Yet at the same time also, I have talked with other critics who say that they want to be "fair," & want to present "fairly" the Mormon position, but at the same time they say they want to "expose" the "errors" in Mormonism, or what they say is Mormonism. So I have issued the challenge to them & test. I have told different ones, that if we can show the different distortions, misrepresentations, things taken out of context, & other things in the different [AM] publications. `Would you no longer pass out, show (movies (TGM), or sale, or give out these different publications, etc., that contains the distortions, etc.?' I know that other [PMD]s have issued this same sort of challenge. We have then sat down with a number of the different critics & have shown the different examples of some publications (that some of them were passing out at fairs, etc.) that contained unfair representations of Mormonism, etc. At the same time the critics have issued back to us a similar challenge. Some have felt that we Mormons have not been very fair in our own presentations of "other christians' positions," & perhaps this is a justifiable observation. It is always difficult for an "out sider" to understand, & then attempt to present other peoples' faiths, for some times the "out siders'" own biased position gets in the way. So it may be that some of us Mormons have this same challenge to work on ourselves. The response to this challenge has been interesting. Some [AM] critics still have been seen passing out the very same books, etc. that contain the distortions, etc. While other have claimed that they "no longer show" certain movies (TGM), & pass out different tracts, because different ones have pointed out to them the distortions, etc. & so they wanting to be "honest," have decided to longer pass the questionable publications out. It is also interesting to note that, upon entering the Tanners home book store, not one of Ed Decker's, John L. Smith's, & other [AM] publications can be seen for sale. At least this has been my observation when I have made visits to the Tanners book store. There are some critics that I have heard call in on different radio stations, & "bash" the Church. Their tract record (judging by their calls over the years), seems to suggest that they can only see the negative, things, but hardly ever the good. What about in the primitive Church? We through the writings of Origen that Celsus also seems to select only the negative things that he can find. But yet at the same time, it would be fair to say that we do not have all of Celsus's book, "The True Doctrine." Only portions of it have been cited in Origen's response, & it could be that Origen only cites those things that He felt were worth responding to. At this time it would not be fair to say that Origen suppressed other more difficult charges, because we don't know what the rest of the charges might have been, for Celsus full writings have been destroyed or copies have been lost, or not yet discovered. Although towards the last part of the 19th century AD, the anti-Christian & occult writer H. P. Blavatsky claimed that a copy does exist in "...a certain Oriental church on Mount Athos,..." according to a un-named "scholar" said to be a "trustworthy witness" according to Blavatsky. The monks there are said to not let any one see the copy.5* Until we see Celsus's entire book in full, it would not be fair to say he only could see just the negative things in his rivals, though judging from what we do have of his writings, we might get that impression. So also is the case with the other early anti-Christian writers. They seem to have only dwelt on the negative things that they could find in their rivals, & yet we only have bits & small portions of their writings, as given to us by different early Christian responding to them. One reason is that many of the critics' books, were burned or destroyed by the Christians. But what we do have, again may tempt us to wonder if their were some critics, not all, but some who for one reason or another, were so full of hatred for their rivals that they could only see the negative, & thus only presented the negative things in their writings. * STAR NOTES * FOR #76: 1* Ancient Texts & Mormonism, Seaich 1983, op. cit., p.1. 2* JERALD AND SANDRA TANNER'S DISTORTED VIEW OF MORMONISM: A RESPONSE TO "MORMONISM SHADOW OR REALITY? By a Latter-Day Saint Historian, ASCII typescript by W. R. Jensen Salt Lake City, Utah, 1977. 3* For example: During the year 1987-8, I finished a manuscript (Feb.9 1988), entitled: When Our Faith Is Challenged Vol.2, p.49-50, & 147-9, DaRell D. Thorpe, (unpublished at this time). In it I quote from the Tanners different News Letters, & books, where they (the Tanners) argue against Ed Decker, & others, of their fellow critics' charges concerning different issues & claims. See: The SLC Messenger Sept.1977, Issue #64 p.24, op. cit., And: Mormonism, Magic & Masonry, 1983 Tanners op. cit., p.62-4. 4* Tim Slover noticed this same sort of thing about Ed Deckers group, "Saints Alive," & other critics, & thus wrote an article in the 7th East Press (Aug. 24, 1982, p.A-7), entitled: Anti-Mormons: Cult of Negativism. 5* (Anti-Christian, & Occult) Isis Unveiled Vol.2: Theology, 1877, p.51-2, Pub. The Theosophical Pub. House 1972, the original was published in 1877 New York: J. W. Bouton. #77. CRITICS CLAIMED THAT FOUR COVERED DIFFERENT PERSONS DURING THEIR MYSTERIES. What I mean by the word "Mysteries" is ordinances, in this case. The early Christian writer, & Lawyer, Minucius Felix, around the year 200 AD, wrote a dialogue between his friend, a Christian named Octavius Januarius & the [EAC], & pagan, Q. Caecilius Natalis. In Caecilius negative comments about the Christians, he charged the Christians sneak around, & meet at night in secret. Caecilius claimed that he had heard strange stories about the Christian mysteries. "...Now the story about the initiation of young novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites; this infant is slain by thy young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark & secret wounds. Thirstily--O horror! they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with their consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence...."1* The Christians denied such things ever took place, & if they did, they were amongst heretic sects. In the early days of Mormonism, the early 19th century AD [AM]s, & "out siders" had spread all kinds of false rumors, & stories about what the Mormons, (or as the critics called them, the "Mormonites") were doing in their meetings, etc.2* A man by the name of "Davidson" was said to be the cause of the death of a man named John Stewart, of Bakersfield, who hanged himself May 19th, according this article. "...This Davidson has got about 30 disciples in the east part of Fairfield & in the west part of Bakersfield. They meet together every Sabbath & carry on in a manner most shocking to human feelings. They roll naked on the floor, & both men & women, & commit other sins too revolting to be mentioned. But this is but a faint picture of their shameful conduct. Modesty forbids that I should utter the whole. A few days since they pretended to crucify a woman & put her in a box & began to pray over her in order to raise her from the dead; but being wearied with lying shut up in a close box, she finally come forth with own accord before they intended." "They have a woman among them by the name of Thompson, who pretends now, that she is Jesus Christ, & sprinkles them in the first place, with flour. The rest of the ceremony I will omit for modesty's sake. She performs her baptism, however, in the name of the holy trinity. A man, who once represented the town of Fairfax in our general assembly, I understand, was baptized by this woman at the house of a man by the name of Gardner, in Fairfield....The man who hanged himself was threatened by Mrs. Thompson that unless he immediately obeyed her commands he should be sent forthwith to hell fire!--She had made him swear by the living God, on his knees, that he would be true to the prophet Davidson & his people, & do whatever he was required to do by him or herself. She then required of him things too horrid & indecent to be named. The poor, simple man, went to his home & put a period to his life." [killed himself].3* Was this some sort of wild story or rumor that had been passed around against these people? Was it reported in a biased & sensational way, in which the truth elements of the basic story were distorted? Did the reporters of this situation confuse the Mormons with another religious sect? Thinking that this story was about the Mormons? Or was this how some "out siders" or early [AM] critics had perceived from an "out siders'" perspective, which was not totally the whole truth of the matter? Mormonism had not yet developed the Temple ordinances yet, at this time, (1831). So what was these charges all about? Did some of the out siders, or non-members, go to some meetings held by different newly formed branches of Mormonism? We learn from both early Christian history, but also from our own early Mormon Church history, that there are cases in which new converts & newly formed branches, practiced some rather strange things, blending different things, from their former faiths in with the teachings of the newly restored & young Church. In the year 1830-1, new converts came from the different religious movements, that were known to roll around on the ground, & shake in the meetings, do other things. Like the primitive Church, the out siders, non-members & the critics, may have heard of, or witnessed the things that took place during some meetings. Thus they generalized that such things were typical of all Mormons, when they were not. So it could be that this news paper article, could perhaps maybe reflect the observations of some out siders, who perhaps mixed in & added a twist of exaggerations, & sensational claims of their own, to make the story even stranger, than it already was. But also, as in the early Church, we see different leaders attempting to meet the challenges as best as they could. But then again, as in the primitive Church, the critics also added to the challenge by spreading false rumors, or exaggerated & sensational tales about their rivals, or the new sect that they hardly really knew very little about.4* In the primitive or early Christian Churches, & amongst the different branches of early Christianity. We see how that there is some cases in which the new members (some who had been converted from different religious backgrounds), still maintained some of the basic elements of their former faith & religious practices, & thus, in some cases, these people caused contentions, & blended pagan, or Jewish, or Greek thought, etc. in with what they had learned from the Christian missionaries, or different leaders. Other problems & challenges added to the situations. Because they were in scatter branches, that were away from main groups of the Christians, & because communication was slow, (through letters, or an occasional visit from different leaders), or because in some cases "false teachers," "false spirits" entered into the scatter branches. Or because of persecutions, etc. Some branches of Christianity or small groups of believers may have forgotten, in time the process of time, some of the basic elements of the gospel, & different ones perverted it. The different letters from Paul & others point this out,5* Some of these new members seem to have also taught their own strange interpretations & strange practices, blending their own teachings & practices in with the teachings of Christ, the Apostles, & the Christian missionaries.6* The non-member may have heard of the strange rumors & stories that were going around against this new "apostate" Jewish sect (The Christians),7* or may have come across the different sects, or groups who were practicing "strange things," & thus concluded that all Christians were like this, when that would have not been the case or the situations amongst all of the different branches of Christianity. It was however, these extreme sects, that caused problems. Thus the different reports of what the Christians were doing, contains some rather strange things in them. Justin Martyr & other early Christian apologist of the early centuries, attempted to combat these sects, that were causing confusion, contentions, & making the rest of the Christian movement look bad in the eyes of the non-Christians, or "out siders." The critics didn't help the situation either, & only added fuel to the fire.8* "...A young baby is covered over with flour..." (ibid. p.19). In some ways the restored Church has not escaped this age old problem that the New Testament Church was faced with, & which early to later Christianity witnessed within it's own scatter branches. Different ones have been converted from different nations, religious backgrounds, & strong traditional backgrounds, thus some new converts have blended in some elements of their former faith, in with the things that the Mormon Missionaries taught them. Also add to that the same sorts communication problems. Though in the early to later 19th through the 20th centuries, this challenge was solved in part, with the coming forth of the different modern inventions of communication that we began to see coming forth during this time frame. Such as telephones, the mailing systems, mass printing of literature, T.V., Radio, Transportation systems, etc., etc. And yet this challenge is still just as real as it was in the primitive Church. Which is enough evidence for the need for the same helps that were given in the earliest Church & for the same reasons.9* Mormonism has never used flour, as it was claimed in the above described way, mentioned in the 1831 New Paper. And even if these rumors are true, such people would have been acting in a heretical way, same as the early Fathers noticed that some heretics, etc., did in the primitive situations. For such actions have never been part of the "official doctrines" & practices of the restored Church or the ancient Church. * STAR NOTES * FOR #77: 1* Note.3. Octavius 1-13, E.T., ANF 4.177.), (PR&TEC) Benko, op. cit., p.56, see also p.54-5, & n.3 on p.74). Also: Early Christian Civilization, Pellistrandi, op. cit., p.180-199. 2* In an early New Paper, The Painesville Telegraph, Edited by E.D. Howe, etc. Vol.III under the date, Tues., July 12, 1831, is an article is entitled: "Mormonism- In Vermont," from the Burlington Sentinel, the following date & letter "L", Fairfield, June 3, 1831, can be seen at the end of the article. 3* [New Paper] The Painesville Telegraph, (Geauga, Ohio), Vol.3, Tues. July 12, 1831, under the heading: Mormonism -In Vermont, From the Burlington Sentinel. 4* History of the Church, Vol.1 p. 154, 170. Parley P. Pratt, Autobiography (Chicago, 1888), p.65. D&C section 50. [AM] (KMKMH) Brodie, op. cit., p.98-99. Religious Seekers & The Advent of Mormonism, by Dan Vogel, 1988 (Signature Bks. SLC. Ut.) p.107-110, & (MSOR?) op. cit., p.61-3. 5* See for example: Gal.1:6-7; Eph. 4:10-27; 1 Cor.1:10-27, 2:11-16; chap.14; 2 Cor.11:11-15, etc. 6* Col.2:18-23; 2 Thess.2:1-15; 1 Tim.1:3-10. 4:1-14; 2 Tim.4:3-4, etc. See also: Apostasy From the Divine Church, Barker, op. cit., Chap.9-21, p.115-237, & Apostasy to Restoration, Lyon, op. cit., p.15-26, 54-62, 95-109, & Which Church Is Right? by Mark E. Petersen 1982. And: The Ensign May 1979, p.21-23, "Signs of the True Church," M.E. Petersen, And: The Ensign July 1973, Petersen's talk entitled: "Salvation Comes Through the Church." 7* (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.112-117. 8* Ibid., p.15-47. 9* Eph. 4:10-14). The Ensign, Jan. 1973 p.104-8, May 1985, p.33-5, May 1982, p.25-7 & 62-4, Answers to Young Latter-day Saints, 1977, Rodney Turner, p.25-6. #78. CRITICS TOOK THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT. (All throughout this book I have shown different sources that have been taken out of context by different critics. I thought that I would repeat some of these different examples under this heading). Some critics have used the following: "God is a spirit..." (John 4:24), "...a spirit hath not flesh & bones,..." (Luke 24:39). The [AM] Christian, the late, Walter R. Martin used these scriptures to claim that "...God is a spirit, well what is a spirit? I can tell you what it is not. A spirit hath not flesh & bones." (Tape: The Maze of Mormonism, by Martin, op. cit.) Some critics leave out an important part of these scriptures: John 4:24 goes on to say that we should worship God in spirit & in truth. We have bodies, & yet we are to worship in spirit & truth? Luke 24:39 goes on to show that Christ has a body. "...a spirit has not flesh & bones as ye see me have..." Christ said. Some [AM] have taken just portions of these 2 scriptures in order to make the claim that God is a spirit only: "God does not have a body, because `God is a spirit...a spirit hath not flesh & bones,..."1* Some anti-Mormon tracts have passed by a portion, leaving out the part that mentions Christ as being "the firstborn of every creature".2* "For by him (that is, Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones,... or principalities, or powers:..." (Colossians 1:16...") Notice that Tope has left out an important part in Colossians. It is the portion in the verse just ahead of the one that Tope has here. In Col.1:15 we read of Christ being the firstborn of every creature. Many early Christians taught that Christ was "first born" in a pre-existence. But why has Did Tope refuse to include this portion from Colossians? Some [AM]s have taken a portion of 1 Pet. chap. 3 & have taken it out of context,3* On the title page or p.1 of this Newsletter 1 Pet.3:15 is used by the critics as "evidence" against the Mormons in that the critics say: "1 Peter 3:15 gives us our stamina, "be ready always to give an answer unto every man who asks you of the hope that is in you."" 1 Pet.3:15 was part of a polemical situation in ancient times. The answer that the Christians were to be ready with in Peter's time, & later, was simple at first, but it was later legendized. Christ went & preached the gospel to those in the realms of the spirits, or to the "spirits in prison." (1 Pet.3:15-22, 4:5-6). A concept now rejected by many Christian anti-Mormons! I have heard on the radio program "The Bible Answer Man" the said portion (1 Pet.3:15) being used there also. This radio program has also presented attacks on Mormons & others4* Another example is in the Tanners (MSOR?), the Tanners attempt to claim that there is a contradiction, between the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C 139, 1 & 39, and The Book of Mormon, p.111, verses 23-4. They attempt to lead their readers into thinking that the B.O.M. does not give any time frame for the doctrine of polygamy to be practiced as the Lord commands. They mention a portion (that Mormons have pointed out to the critics when they make these charges) & which the Tanners attempt to discredit: "Some Mormons have claimed that the words "raise up seed unto me (found in Jacob 2:30) refer to the practice of polygamy, but this is proven false in 1 Nephi 7:1..." (Op Cit., (MSOR?), Tanners p.206). When we take a closer look at the scripture, we see that the Tanners have misinterpreted, & passed by an important part. While other critics have left this part out altogether. Jacob 2:30 shows that if the time frame of the Lord is that the people should practice polygamy, He will "command" his people to do so. But until then, they are to not practice it. "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Unto what "things"? having just one wife, (verse 27). In this case then, when we consider the two passage in context, the supposed "contradiction" is not there. Both the D&C & B.O.M. then allows the practice. On p.175 of (MSOR?) 1987 Ed. 1st col. is a portion that is presented in a way to make it appear that Brigham Young "defends" his "Adam-God Doctrine." Another is when you go to the photo copy of the source that they quote from, (MSOR? 1987 ed. p.176.) & read the text in full. We can see how they are attempting to lead the reader according to their biased interpretations in order to make it look like Brigham Young "defends" his Adam-God "Doctrine." For they underline up to a certain point, & the part that is left out would give the reader (who notices it), other possible ways in which a person could or might interpret what B.Y. was saying.5* Both the sources that the Tanners quote from have the same visible portions that would give the reader another possible way of interpreting what B.Y. had said.6* June 8 1873, is the date given for when B.Y. is said to have given the talk, it later being reported on the 2 dates mentioned above. The following is the portion of the so called "defense." The parts that do not appear on p.175 1st. col. (but of which can be seen in the photo copy on p.176 of (MSOR?) is thus put back in it's proper place here & is in CAPITAL LETTERS. The Tanners use capital letters to make their points all throughout their book. I'm going present the points I want to make with capital letters here also. But so you don't get the two points confused, I have chosen not to put their capital letters in CAPS., just regular letters instead. "In spite of the opposition, Brigham Young continued to teach the Adam-God doctrine. In 1873, just a few years before his death, Brigham Young declared: ""How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me-namely that Adam is our Father and God-I DO NOT KNOW, I DO NOT INQUIRE, I CARE NOTHING ABOUT IT. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, AND AFTER IT WAS MADE HE AND HIS COMPANIONS CAME HERE. He brought one of his wifes with him..."" (The Tanners leave a big portion out here on p.175 & start up with their quote again): ""...We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, A GREAT PRINCE, AND IT WAS SAID TO HIM BY ELOHEIM, "GO YE AND MAKE AN EARTH." (The Tanners go on with the quote to another portion that is underlined. That they feel helps make their point.) We can see from the parts here in Capital letters (which was the parts that were left out on p.175, but which can be noticed if the reader takes a close look at p.176), that the reader is being brought to the interpretation that the Tanners want the reader to see. Such an interpretation seems biased, according to view points of the Tanners. Brigham Young did not put Adam above all gods, but calls him a great Prince under higher Gods such as the one he mentions, "Eloheim," who said to Adam-Michael to go and make an earth. Other examples could be presented here as well. I have found that the Tanners have been very selective & very biased in their presentations, but most of the sources seem to be fairly accurate. While other have been taken out of context.7* So Our critics shouldn't be to upset if we quote a lot from unofficial books & sources that are not in the Bible, but are from the early to later Christian writings etc. Any more than we shouldn't get upset if they quote fairly & honestly from our own books & Church history, or the unofficial books like "The Journal of Discourses" etc. In another examples, the Tanners, however in some cases, have led those who read their books to the biased conclusions that they themselves hold & want the reader to reach. In (MSOR?) 1987 p.254 bottom of 2nd col. Is the heading "The Greatest Egotist". In attempting to make this charge & point, the Tanners have resorted to selective biased portion taken out of context from our "History of the Church". On p.255 of (MSOR?) near the bottom of col.1, the Tanners quote from History of the Church Vol.6 p.78 in which Joseph Smith is said to have wrote the "...God is my `right hand man.'" This portion has been distorted by many different anti-Mormons to make it sound like Joseph Smith thought that he was greater, & of a higher rank than God. The Tanners have left out an important part from the "History of the Church" Vol.6 p.78. For Joseph Smith, like the ancients, was not speaking of himself in an egotistic way as the Tanners have attempted to lead their readers into thinking & as (TGM) & other Christian anti-Mormons have suggested. For Joseph (as David & like other early to later Christian traditions of "The Last Judgment" & the "right hand path" to the "right hand of God"), was saying in a sense that he was on the right hand path towards God. Thus in the judgment, as in times of old, Joseph could (in a symbolical way) say that "...God is my "right hand man." The part that the Tanners & others anti-Mormons have left out shows us more of the symbolical setting in which Joseph's wrote. For Joseph closes his letter: "And to close, let me say in the name of Jesus Christ to you, & to presidents, emperors, kings, queens, governors, rulers, nobles, & men in authority everywhere, Do the works of righteousness, execute justice & judgment in the earth, that God may bless you & her inhabitants..." etc. With a few more remarks he closes by saying "With due consideration & respect, I have the honor to be your most obedient servant, Joseph Smith...." ending with a P.S. after this. In the 1978 Paper Back Ed. of Vol.6 of History of the Church p.78 is a footnote that further explains the situation. For when Joseph Smith wrote that God was his "right hand man" He wrote to those "...in authority everywhere..." who might have known of the traditions behind the symbolical term he had just used. Some of which sit in judgment. The footnote "*" appears after "right hand man." At the bottom of the page it reads: "* Not in the blasphemous sense attributed to him by some anti-Mormon writers; namely, that God was subordinate to him--his right hand man (See Riley's "Founder of Mormonism" ch. x); but in the sense of the passage near the close of his address to "The Green Mountain Boys" (this chapter)-- "And Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is my Great Counselor"--reverently said."8* The Tanners make no mention of these things in their book (MSOR?) 1987 Ed. p.255 lower portion of the 1st col. Joseph Smith's letter was taken out of context! Another Christian anti-Mormon abused the source in a similar way. Wally Tope [AM] gives only the "*" after "Israel" but he ignores the contents of the footnote, because the contents does not appear in his [AM] tract. It seems that his only interest was not in being fair in presenting different sources, but to only look for things in Mormon publications that he could make a big deal out of.9* The next quote that follows after this is also taken out of context. The Tanners again lead their readers towards their own biased conclusions by making it sound like Joseph Smith ("The Greatest Egotist" as the Tanners heading goes) made himself a literal "God" for the people to bow down to. This seems to be the conclusion was intended, or so it seem that the Tanners hoped that their readers will interpret from the following taken from "History of the Church" Vol.6 p.319-20. The Tanners quote only the following portion. "God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the Children of Israel, and He will make ME BE GOD TO YOU in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it, YOU MUST LUMP IT."10* The key words that gives the Tanners' distortion away is again found in "their own book." It is "God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the Children of Israel..." This shows that Joseph Smith was presenting himself to the people as a type or similitude of an Old Testament type of situation. That as the Lord made Moses to be "a god to Pharaoh" so also in the case did Joseph Smith use this similitude to say that God would make him to be "a god" to the people. But if the critics want to keep insisting that Joseph Smith made himself to be our literal God, then Moses would have to be guilty of the same charge. (Ex.7:1-2). The 1978 Ed., of History of the Church Vol.6 p.319-20, also points Ex.4:14-16 & 7:1. The Tanners have taken this part out of context, & they do not give the year for the Edition that they are quoting from so there is no way for me to tell at this time if they know or knew of the footnote in the 1978 Ed. Perhaps they have quoted from an earlier edition that does not have the footnote that explains the symbolical similitude. But they must have known about the Biblical passage as it is hinted to in the text when Joseph Smith mentions "Aaron", for being "Christians" they should know their Bible shouldn't they? The critics take a very "iffy" prophecy out of context in order to charge that it is "evidence" against Smith. The "prophecy" is concerning the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. In [AM] (MSOR?) P.187-8, & also Decker's To Moroni With Love p.34-5. They abuse a source in the most unfair way. The Tanners quote from History of the Church, Vol.2 p.182. I shall quote here in part a portion that they have put in CAP. LETTERS. & have underlined. "...THE COMING OF THE LORD, which was nigh- EVEN FIFTY-SIX YEARS SHOULD WIND UP THE SCENE." With all the research that the Tanners have done, it is strange that they should fail to acknowledge Doctrine & Covenants Section 130:14-17. Decker also fails to mention the full historical situation from which this so-called prediction came from. The D&C explains the situation, showing us how "iffy" this prediction is. I shall quote a portion here as follows: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, & trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die & thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time." (D&C 130:14-17). As we can see from this, we have a very "iffy" type of prediction here that has a number of different conditions & possible outcomes to it. In talking with different critics, I have noticed that they only quoted parts of this section as follows: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man;..." I then would point out to them that they needed to read the rest of the scripture to get the proper interpretation. Carver also noticed this with Decker's abuse of the source, he wrote: "...Once again it is the same tune, only the lyrics are a verse or two short. It is true that Joseph Smith did lean toward 1890..." But Decker "...did not consider this to be infallible. As a matter of fact he (Joseph) "was quite confused about the date, as he relates, but Decker forgets...." Carver tells us that Joseph commented on this revelation as follows: "I was left to draw my own conclusions concerning this; & I took the liberty to conclude that if I did live to that time, He would make His appearance. But I do not say whether He will make His appearance or I shall go where He is. D.H.C. 5:336". "Decker calls this an "exact prophecy." Who is he trying to fool? Joseph Smith never considered it to be such; why should Mr. Decker?11* This brings another example of how some critics select their sources in a biased way, & give us only one-sided negative depiction of history. For on p.49B of the Tanners' (MSOR?) they quote as follows from "History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 91-3," "Next day I was brought before the magistrate's court at Colseville, Broome county, and put upon trial...." (This is where they stop with their quote, using the ellipsis or (...). What follows is interesting to consider, for it seem to give the other side of the story of which we sometimes do not ever hear or read of in anti-Mormon publications or meetings, except in a biased way, if they ever do present it. The following is the part that the Tanners have decided not to include for some reason: (p.91) "...Several other attempts were made to prove something against me, and even circumstances which were alleged to have taken place in Broome county, were brought forward, but these my lawyers would not admit of as testimony against me; in consequence of which my persecutors managed to detain the court until they had succeeded in obtaining a warrent from Broome county, which warrent they served upon me at the very moment that I was acquitted by this court...."12* Another historical part that the Tanners have chosen to not present is what Joseph Smith is reported to have said concerning these hearings & trials: "My former faithful friends & lawyers were again at my side; my former persecutors were arrayed against me. Many witnesses were again called forward & examined, some of whom swore to the most palpable falsehoods, & like the false witnesses which had appeared against me the day previous, they contradicted themselves so plainly that the court would not admit their testimony. Others were called, who showed by their zeal that they were willing enough to prove something against me, but all they could do was to tell something which somebody else had told them. In this frivolous & vexatious manner did they proceed for a considerable time,..." Newel Knight tells of the time "the devil" was cast out of him in the name of Jesus, etc. Another part that is left out by the Tanners is the out come of these events. The Tanners quote as follows from History of the Church Vol.1 p.93, in their (MSOR?) p.49-B, 2nd Col.,: "Mr. Seymour...brought up the story of my having been a money-digger; & in this manner proceeded, hoping evidently to influence the court & the people against me." The Tanners also ignore & don't give us what appears on p.94 of the History of the Church. Is says that the lawyers were able to "silence their opponents, & convince the court that I was innocent." In the footnote on p.94-5, we read of an interesting speech made by Joseph's non-member Lawyer, Mr. Reid, in Nauvoo, on May 17th 1844 he mentioned the trial (on p.95): "...I was called to defend the prisoner. The prosecutors employed the best counsel they could get, & ransacked the town of Bainbridge & county of Chenge for witnesses that would swear hard enough to convict the prisoner; but they entirely failed. Yes, sir, let me say to you that not one blemish nor spot was found against his character, he came from that trial, not withstanding the mighty efforts that were made to convict him of crime by his vigilant persecutors, with his character unstained by even the appearance of guilt. The trial closed about 12 0'clock at night. After a few moments' deliberations, the court pronounced the words "not guilty," & the prisoner was discharged...." Mr. Ried goes on to tell of a man who went to "Colesville" & obtained another warrent or "writ" & took him (Joseph Smith) to Broome county for another trial. He says "...in half and hour after he was discharged by the court, he was arrested again, & on the way to Colesville for another trial. I was again called upon by his friends to defend him." He explained how that he was tired, having done much legal work for the last 2 days & nearly the whole of the nights. "But I saw the persecution was great against him..." (Joseph Smith). Ried also said that "...while Mr. Knight was pleading with me to go, a peculiar impression or thought struck my mind, that I must go & defend him, for he was the Lord's anointed. I did not know what it meant, but thought I must go & clear the Lord's anointed. I said I would go,..." (p.96). "...They employed the ablest lawyer in that county, & introduced 20 or 30 witnesses before dark, but proved nothing....Nothing was proven against him whatsoever....The court arraigned the prisoner & said: "Mr. Smith, we have had your case under consideration, examined & find nothing to condemn you, & therefore you are discharged." He goes on to mention how Joseph's situation & the different people reminded him of a similar situation that happened to the Paul in the New Testament. Paul was brought before the "venerable judge for some alleged crime, & nothing was found in him worthy of death or bonds...." He later says that "some higher power" or the Lord had helped them in that situation, & they were able to escape without harm, & showed that Joseph Smith was innocent.13* On p.95-6 of History of the Church: "The majority of the assembled multitude had now begun to find that nothing could be sustained against me. Even the constable who arrested me, & treated me so badly, now came & apologized to me, & asked my forgiveness for his behavior towards me; & so far was he changed, that he informed me that the mob were determined, if the court acquitted me, that they would have me, & railride me, & tar & feather me; & further, that he was willing to favor me & lead me out in safety by a private way. The court found the charges against me not sustained; I was accordingly acquitted, to the great satisfaction of my friends & vexation of my enemies, who were still determined upon molesting me. But through the instrumentality of my new friend the constable, I was enabled to escape them..." We turn again to (MSOR?) 1987 ed (their 5th ed.) p.49B 2nd col. & we do not see these historical facts! Where is the other side of the story? Why have the Tanners, as with other anti-Mormon Christians left these facts out? Why don't they go on to tell people, or admit that Joseph Smith was found "not guilty", was "acquitted" both times, from both trials, or was "discharged"? Why do we not hear or hardly ever read about this in anti-Mormon tracts, books, meetings, etc.? Bill Forrest & Van Hale presented evidences during one of their radio shows14* that Ed Decker had (among other tactics) "taken sources out of context." They also talked about other cases in some [AM] publications where this tactic has been used by some critics. In early Christianity, Origen [ECD] also claimed that Celsus [EAC], "...slanders the Gospel, not giving the words as they actually occur in the writings of Paul..."15* Origen also claimed the Celsus ignored evidences, "...either from ignorance or from an unwillingness (if he had read it & voluntarily passed it by in silence)..." (TANF) 4: p.411). * STAR NOTES * FOR #78: 1* [AM] tracts, Brigham Takes Another Look at Jesus, Tope, op. cit., p.5. Is Mormonism Christian?, op. cit., p.1. Also from discussions with [AM] Christians. 2* [AM] Honest Questions for Honest L.D.S. by Wally Tope (1991? No Date given in this anti-Mormon tract), p.2 Question #9. 3* [AM]: Utah Gospel Mission, Jude 3 Missions, Newsletter Vol.12, #9, Sept. 1991, p.1-7. 4* [AM] (MSOR?) 1987 ED. op. cit., p.206 1st col. 1st par. 5* (MSOR?) 1987, op. cit., p.175 1st col. quote from: "Deseret News June 14 1873" & p.176. 6* Deseret Weekly News, June 18 1873. And the Deseret Evening News, June 14 1873. 7* Some examples of this have been given in #35, & I also can quote from the Tanners own books also! 8* History of the Church 1978 Ed. Vol.6 p.78. Letter of Joseph Smith to James Arlington Bennett, Nauvoo, Illinois, Nov. 13, 1843. Pub. DBC. SLC UT. 9* See: [AM] The "Prophets" Have Spoken by Wally Tope (No date given) p. 1 or title page, #1. 10* (MSOR?) p.255 bottom of lst col. to top of 2nd col.) 11* (Decker's T.M.W.L. op. cit., p.34-5; & Answering An Ex-Mormon Critic, by Carver, op. cit., p.12-13. 12* History of the Church Vol.1 p.91-3. 13* History of the Church Vol.1, p.95-6, also Times & Seasons, Vol.5 p.549-522. 14* [PMD] "Mormon Miscellaneous" on KBBX, some time in Feb. 1988 (Feb. 7-9?). 15* (TANF) 4: p.401 bk.1 chap. 13. #79. SOME CRITICS GENERALIZE THAT IT IS TYPICAL OF MOST THEIR RIVALS, WHEN SOME OF THEIR RIVALS HAVE PROBLEMS, OR DID SOMETHING WRONG, & WERE CAUGHT MAKING MISTAKES, CRIMES, OR SOMETHING FOOLISH. I have lost count of how many times I have heard, different critics, [AM] callers, on radio programs, speakers, or read in [AM] publications, these general sweeping comments, that "the Mormons" do this, or "all Mormons" accept that as doctrine, etc. But at the same time I must admit that I have also heard [PMD] or other callers making the same mistake, by generalizing that "the critics" or "the anti-Mormons" do this or that. When all critics are not guilty of the same things. I have even had to correct myself, from time to time, while live on the air, during radio shows that I have done, or during calls that I have made over the years to different talk shows on religion, that concerned polemical topics. So in some cases both sides of this polemical situation have had different ones who have been guilty of this sort of thing. The very fact that our critics have worked so hard on us to be "saved" also suggest that they have seen in us weaknesses & imperfections. If some how being "saved" has "perfected" them from all sins, past, present & future, (if that is how we are to interpret this "once saved, always saved"--doctrine). Does that mean that they are also "saved" from the responsibilities & consequences of their own actions, good or bad, & their own sins? Is this what "being saved" is all about? If it is not, then it seems to me that they would have their own sets of problems, sins, & imperfections that they also need to work on, as we all do. If being "saved" means that a person has some how had voided out, (through "the blood of Jesus!", any need for future repentance, change, & accepting any responsibilities & consequences for any action good or bad. Then is this why some critics are working so hard for us to "enjoy" these same benefits? But if it does not mean that the person who has been "saved" has from then on "a free license to sin." And if being "saved" has not saved them into a free life of free sins (just because Jesus's blood paid for all future sins as they say). If that is the case, then they would also have to accept the fact, that they would also be responsible for their own actions good or bad, & thus suffer or enjoy the consequences, good or bad. It should be pointed out here that there is conflicting opinions on these very things. Some Christians have suggested a "once saved, always saved" doctrine. While others have suggested that a person can "fall from grace" & lose "salvation" through continual un-repented sins, & total rebellion against God, even though they had "been saved" at one time in their life. Other have suggested that one could "fall from grace," but could also be "saved" again by recommitting their themselves to Jesus through the "born again" process of being "saved." While others seem to suggest that did doesn't matter what a person does, good or bad, once they have accepted Jesus "as their personal savior" they are saved no matter what. They could go out and do the most barbaric acts, but still would be saved, but in "being saved," they would not want to do such acts any how! Other "saved" Christians would not agree with this, while some would. So it has been my observation, as an "out sider," that there is conflicting opinions concerning this polemical situation amongst different sects of modern "born again" Christians.1* The fact that they even would think that they have a need to be "saved" also suggest that they have had at some time in their existence, have made mistakes, or were sinners, of variant degrees of wickedness. So why do some on both sides of the polemical situations, think that they need to attack each other, with generalizations, that if someone in the rival faith does, or had done something stupid, that it is typical of how the general membership of the church is or was like? Are we not all sinners? Do we not all make mistakes from time to time? Who amongst the human family does not need to repent & change their ways towards the "right hand path" of God? Who amongst has not done some foolish things from time to time. I have! have not you? I make it no boast to repeat here again that I am in as much need of the atonement that Christ made, & perhaps so more than anyone else, this is not to say that I have been guilty any major sins, but is to say that I have had my share of mistakes, & minor sins in my life, & therefore I am thankful for Christ's atonement. Justin Martyr also seems to have noticed that the critics of his time (during about the middle part of the 2nd century AD), had generalized that "the Christians" were guilty of all kinds of evil crimes. He wrote in his 1st Apology for fairness, & justice. Do not charge all Christians for the crimes of a few extreme sects, he writes. Do not generalize that all Christians act this way. For we should be judged for our own crimes, not for the name's sake. "...And those among yourself who are accused you do not punish before they are convicted; but in our case you receive the name as proof against us, & this although, so far as the name goes, you ought rather to punish our accusers. For we are accused of being Christians, & to have what is excellent (Chrestain) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, & say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment. Justice requires that you inquire into the life both of him who confesses & of him who denies, that by his deeds it may be apparent what kind of man each is...."2* Under anti-Mormon “Christian” logic and tactics, if historic Christianity was placed under the same type of examination, I suppose, especially in light of modern child abuse laws and views, Christ’s Mother Mary, when, she whipped Christ with a rod, could be charged with “child abuse.” For at the west end of the Cathedral of Lucca in Italy, there’s an exterior fresco that depicts “the Virgin whipping Christ with a rod.” What would be left out, under anti-Mormon “Christian” types of presentations, if historic Christianity was placed under the same fault finding light, as they have with Mormonism, is the fact that this shocking generalization about Mary beating Christ is actually based on legends, and not historical facts. In modern times, the challenge for fairness & justice is still needed on both sides of any polemical situation. While there have been some [AM] critics who have failed to be totally fair, & have generalized from time to time. We have to admit that there are cases of unfair representation through generalizations in our own publications, in speeches, etc., as made on this side of the polemical situation from some [PMD]s. While at the same time I have also noticed that on both side, some [AM]s & some [PMD]s have made an effort to not make sweeping generalizations. There are a number of examples that I have from my own recordings of the times that I have of the many different radio shows that I did, & with the different guest that I had on. I was aware of this "generalization method" that some [AM] callers would make, & so I would point this out to them. Yet there was times when some callers would notice the same thing in my approach, & therefore I had to correct my presentation in selective terms rather than in generalizations. I made the effort to not generalize, more & more, so that I would not be guilty of the same things that I said that some critics were guilty of. To be fair here, again, I should also point out that I think that even some [AM] Christians have attempted to not make sweeping generalizations. At least I can think of one occasion where the Tanners have pointed out that not all bishops are to be considered as having been guilty of different crimes that some or a few may be guilty of.3* * STAR NOTES * FOR #79: 1* From a number of discussions & radio programs that I have done on KZZI 1510 AM Radio, In West Jordan Utah, "Out of the Best Books" 1987-8. Also Bill Forrest & Van Hale had also discussed these issues, on their radio program "Mormon Miscellaneous" during the early part of the 1980s to about 1986 or so, on KBBX, & Van Hale on KTKK 630 AM Radio in Ut., With Talk show host, Jim Kirkwood. Van Hale also did a radio show on KZZI, he, having started before I became a host there. Also on KTKK, "K-Talk" radio, Martin Tanner, the talk show host for "Religion on the line" most recently in the later part of the 1980s through 1991. During which this subject has been discussed a number of times with different [AM] callers, who claimed to have been "born again" Christians. 2* (TANF) Vol.1 p.164. 1st Apol. chap.4, Justin Martyr, op. cit., And: (PR&TEC) Benko, op. cit., p.1-29 notice p.1-2, in which Benko had also quoted from Justin Martyr. 3* SLC Messenger Issue #80 Nov. 1991, p.2 the top of the lst col., Tanners, op. cit. #80. SOME CRITICS MOCKED CREATION DRAMA, "MANY MAKERS"? OR ONE? Some [AM] Christians have rejected the idea that a number of divine beings were involved in the creation of the universe, & the world, & the things living upon the world. Because the "one God" Jesus created all things. Some critics have said, "...The Bible teaches Jesus created everything, including Satan,..."1* Other critics have said that "...Satan was a created angel- not a son of God (Isa. 14:12). Jesus created all things..."2* Though most Mormons would agree with our critics, in part, that Jesus was the creator, it would not be to the extent that the critics have interpreted this. For they have attempted to exclude the other divine beings that took part in this creation drama as well, in order to fit it into their traditional monotheistic views of modern times. The Book of Enoch brings out the fact the there was other divine being that took part in the creation. Plus the wording in most Bibles of modern times suggest that the "they" & "us" & "our" mentioned in (Gen.1:26-27, 2:4-5), includes other beings there during the creation, as well as perhaps even a spiritual creation & a physical creation.3* The [EAC] Celsus also questioned the doctrines that he perceived amongst the Jewish faiths concerning those who follow Moses "...as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits, & so supposed that there was one God." Celsus seems to have been henotheism in his thinking, (the belief in one god without excluding belief in lesser gods,4* Celsus may have been aware of the earlier beliefs in Israel history which hinted to a polytheistic period before the Deuteronomic Reform (ca. 620-400 B.C.).5* Celsus had perhaps known of the earlier believes in ancient Israel, in which other angelic beings took part in the creation, for He wrote that "...they worship angels..."6* One of the arguments that Origen responded to, was the charge made by Celsus, that some of the beliefs, practices & rites of the Jewish sects had been derived from the Egyptians, because Israel had come out of Egypt through Moses's "magical" tricks.7* Origen's response was during the 3rd cent. A.D. Celsus had written some time towards the latter part of the 2nd cent. A.D. Origen at that time was a lot closer to henotheism, than the later developed doctrine of the trinity, (the monotheism, during the Nicene Creed era, of the 4th century & later). According to Origen then, (3rd Cent. AD), there was one Most High God, or "...the Supreme God..." but there was also with this God other "...divine & heavenly beings..." created in the image & likeness of His "reason" as rational thinking beings. (TANF) op. cit., 4: p.534-5). So other divine beings, such as the Son of God, (who Origen believed had been with the Father in the pre-existence), as "the First Born."8* Thus, many early Christians seemed to have believed that others were there with the Most High God--the Father, during the creation of the earth, etc. Celsus charged that the Jews had departed from the belief in "many gods" to a belief in only one God. To this charge, Origen wrote: "...Let him" (Celsus) "show, then, how, after this irrational departure, as he regards it,..." (of the Jewish sects) "from the worship of many gods, he himself is able to establish the multiplicity of deities that are found amongst the Greeks, or among those other nations that are called Barbarian." Origen then goes on to name some of these different "gods" from the different barbarian nations. Then he claimed that Celsus would have not been able to show from these idols & forms that had the appearances of having bodies, that they could do anything. Origen then wrote concerning the Most High God. "...How much more manifest (and how much better than all these inventions!) is it that, convinced by what we see, in the admirable order of the world, we should worship the Maker of it as the one Author of one Author of one effect, & which, as being wholly in harmony with itself, cannot on that account have been the work of many makers; & that we should believe that the whole heaven is not held together by the movements of many souls, for one is enough,..."9* The "many makers" that Origen mentioned were the "makers" or false "creators" of the pagan & barbarian nations. Of whose legends & traditions spoke of many different false idol "gods." Such as a god that created the water, another that created fire, & so on. Origen also defended his co-religionist against the accusations that the Jews & Christians had both borrowed from Plato.10* So it seems that the parallel here is seen in the way in which this early anti-Christian attacked the former polytheism of the Jewish faith, (of which Celsus knew the Christians were a part of, through their beliefs in the Old Testament, etc.) But also, Celsus seemed to have looked upon this development from polytheism into the later monotheism as a departure, perhaps even an apostasy from the original faith, which was "borrowed" from different nations. So it seems that Celsus may have been mocking them by saying that they went from many "makers" to only "one maker." While in modern times the critics have a different twist to this similar charge. By claiming that Mormonism has developed from it's earlier "beliefs" (a straw man approach comes into play here), of having just "one maker" to the latter "beliefs" that there are "many makers" or many "Godmakers."11* * STAR NOTES * FOR #80: 1* From a number of discussions & radio programs that I have done on KZZI 1510 AM Radio, In West Jordan Utah, "Out of the Best Books" 1987-8. Also Bill Forrest & Van Hale had also discussed these issues, on their radio program "Mormon Miscellaneous" during the early part of the 1980s to about 1986 or so, on KBBX, & Van Hale on KTKK 630 AM Radio in Ut., With Talk show host, Jim Kirkwood. Van Hale also did a radio show on KZZI, he, having started before I became a host there. Also on KTKK, "K-Talk" radio, Martin Tanner, the talk show host for "Religion on the line" most recently in the later part of the 1980s through 1991. During which this subject has been discussed a number of times with different [AM] callers, who claimed to have been "born again" Christians. 2* [AM] An Honest Message to Mormons, by Jerry & Dianna Benson, Challenge Min., El Cajon, Calif. p.6, & Mormonism: Christian or Cult? by Saints Alive, p.1. (Some of that critics use are as follows: 1 Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:1-3; John 1:3; Eph. 3:9, etc.) 3* The Book of Enoch. And: Ancient Israel Myths & Legends, Angelo S. Rapport, op. cit. The Horizon Book of Great Cathedrals, op. cit., p.284-5. The Book of Enoch the Prophet, Laurence, op. cit., Ancient Texts & Mormonism, Seaich, op. cit., p.21-42, Num.16:22; Job 38:4-8; Proverbs 30:4; The Lost Books of the Bible, The Similitudes, The 3rd Bk. of Shepherd of Hermas, p.247 & 255, Sim.IX:109-111. (TN&PNF) Vol.I p.82-4, Eusebius, op. cit., etc. 4* (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.108. 5* Ancient Texts & Mormonism, Seaich, op. cit., Preface, iii-iv. And: The Gods of The Egyptians or Studies In Egyptian Mythology, Budge, op. cit., Vol.2, p.140-2. 6* (TANF) 4, p.407 bk.1 chap.25-6, See also Rapport, op. cit. 7* (TANF) op. cit., Vol.4 p.402-7, 412-5, 452-4, 467, 471. etc. 8* Ibid., 4: p.538-9, 544-5, 560-1, 566-7, 591-3, 637-8, etc. 9* Ibid., 4: p.405-6, bk.1, chap.22-3, (OAC). 10* Seaich, op. cit., p.13-14, (Against Celsus 6:19). 11* (TGM), op. cit., (MSOR?) op. cit., chap.9, p.163-172B. #81. SOME CRITICS PUT THEIR RIVALS UNDER AN UNFAIR WORD GAME & MISUSE OF NAMES. THE EARLY ANTI-CHRISTIAN WORD AND NAME GAME. Some of the early Christian were put to death for the name sake. Just for being called "Christians", to which Justin Martyr turned this unjust word game around, by asking the powers that be, (the Emperor), that to hate what is "excellent" (Chrestain) is "unjust."1* "...Suetonius briefly recorded Claudius's edict of 49: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."2* "Once again we see the colloquial Latin spelling of Christus as Chrestus, which Christian apologists used to compare with the similar Greek word Chrestos, meaning "good."..."3* In some cases also, it disturbed the [EAC]s that the name of "Jesus" was being used by the early Christians for, what the critics called "magical" practices. The early Christians called them "miracles" done & through the name of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, the rumors spread that the early Christians practiced magic, & used magical names, & other items for incantations and other evil purposes.4* Celsus had also argued that it really didn't matter what name people called "...the Highest being..." Celsus then mentions a few names of the different pagan "God of gods". To which Origen later wrote: "...And now we maintain that the nature of names is not, as Aristotle supposes, an enactment of those who impose them....For the languages which are prevalent among men do not derive their origin from men, as is evident to those who are able to ascertain the nature of the charms which are appropriated by the inventors of the languages differently, according to the various tongues, & to the varying pronunciations of the names,...that when those names which in a certain language were possessed of a natural power were translated into another, they were no longer able to accomplish what they did before when uttered in their native tongues...." Also "...in an invocation or in swearing an oath, were to use the expression, "the God of Abraham," & "the God of Isaac," & "the God of Jacob," he would produce certain effects, either owing to the nature of these names or to their powers, since even demons are vanquished & become submissive to him who pronounces these names;..." Whereas, Origen says, the other different false gods, (he mentions some), have no effect or power. But also he says that the name "Israel" when translated into Greek or other languages, has no effect or results. Origen seems to have wanted to explain the difficulties of translating, how that it is sometime difficult to convey the same meanings with the same effect, when translated from a native language into another. But also Origen seems to have wanted to answer the charge made by the [EAC]s, such as Celsus, etc., that the Christians used "magical names," this was a common charge that the early anti-Christians had brought up against the Christians in general.5* Another element that may have added to the "justification" (at least in the minds of the critics) was the rumors & reports of some of the extreme Christian sects that practiced "magical" rites, spells, & other incantations.6* Celsus had also claimed "...that it was by the names of certain demons, & by the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of miraculous power; hinting, I suppose, at the practice of those who expel evil spirits by incantation ...."7* Celsus had also claimed to have seen magical books that contained magical names, symbols, & spells, & these books, he says, were in the hands of the certain early Christian presbyters.8* So it seems that Origen did not ignore the fact that they, the Christians had brought about different miracles with the names that had certain powers to them. But he wants to make sure that his readers understand that the Christian miracles are of a divine the results are from a divine source, where as if any sort of effect, if it could be brought about through these other pagan names of the different false gods, if such things did happen, it would have been the works of demons.9* Origen also wrote that the charge that Christians use magical books, & names was simply gossip & is not true.10* THE ANTI-MORMON WORD GAME. In similar ways, some [AM] Christians have used different tactics & methods in order to produce this strange name calling game with it's own biased rules & standards. Some critics have used the different definitions of words, & names to suggest some strange origins for things in Mormonism. The Tanners suggested that the name "Mormon" was derived from portions of biblical names, (MORiah) in Gen.22:2, & (soloMON), 2 Sam.5:14. "...Thus we would obtain MORMON."11* As I have already shown, if the same sort of logic, tactics, standards, & methods was used on the critics' own names, etc. The critics would not be able to pass their own tests. Under the above ill-logic, as used by the Tanners, would SAndra TANner really be the name for which SATAN was derived from? Of course not! It seems that some early & later [AM] critics have searched through history, etc., looking for any strange, wild, or negative term, word, or symbol etc., that has a negative & strange meaning, etc. And when they find some, they pull these things out of their historical, symbolical settings & context, & then proceed to compare such things with things in Mormonism. If the same standards, logic, & name game was used on the critics themselves. I suppose someone could make a big deal out of the name "Tanner". And therefore further build a "case" to show the so-called "satanic" connections along with how we obtained the name for Satan (Sandra Tanner), by the same sort of nit picking name game of the critics. I suppose a historical situation from ancient history could be mentioned by pointing out that the "Tanners" have played the part of the "devil." (Hows that for a shocking generalization!?) But I also have documentation to show the connection! (See: Christ Lore, by Fredk. WM. Hackwood, F.R.S.L., Pub. in London Eng., 1902, and republished by Gale Research Co. Book Tower, Detroit, 1969, p.2) Now of course this sort of thing would not show that Sandra Tanner or the Tanners are satanic beings playing the part of the devil. For though I strongly disagree with a lot of what the Tanners are doing, I would not put them on the same level as the satan or the devil. So what have I done here to "obtain" this negative name game shocking generalization? I did the same sort of things that many of the critics have done. I have looked for negative ways to present their own names, looked for things in history that could be made to appear to have negative meanings, & then brought them together with the shocking generalization methods & tactics of the critics. The name "Tanners" is not in reference to Jerald & Sandra Tanner of course. But rather, my historical source is in reference the title of a job. "Tanners" were ones who would tan animal skins to darker colors. My source says that during the 6th century A.D., mystery plays were devised to instruct the people in Old & New Testament history. Among other subjects presented, some plays were about the "Fall of Lucifer" the devil. Different ones would play certain parts, the "Tanners" would play the part of the Devil. From other sources we note that perhaps "Tanners" fit the part because in being a Tanner who's job it was to tan different animal skins, to darker colors. Who better to fit the part? For according to traditions, writings & art works, etc., when the devil, or lucifer & his angels were cast out of heave, & upon having fallen from heaven, they lost their bright colors and were "blackened". In some cases, to depict the devil and his angels as dark skinned monsters was to symbolize their fallen apostate conditions, their rebellion & retrogression from the light of God that they had once known before their fall. In these cases then dark skins were to be considered more symbolic of the fallen angels' evil & negative conditions, than it was of showing their race type. Though there may have been some traditions such as these that influenced later Christians, who may have confused the symbolism, & taken it for a literal meaning. Most early Christians understood such colors as being symbolic. (See: Jeffery Burton Russell's 3 Books: 1. Satan (The Early Christian Tradition), 2. Lucifer, (The Devil in the Middle Ages), & 3. The Prince of Darkness. Also: Medieval Miniatures, by L.M.J. Delaisse, etc., pp.96-8.) However, again, the point here is to show what was done with the source in order to obtain the desired negative results, by using the critics own tactics & methods. And to show that the critics would not be able to pass their own standards & name games. As silly & strange as that may sound, it is about the same sort of ill-logic that the early [AM] writer (1834) E.D. Howe used, when he wrote that the Greek word "Mormoo" means "bug-bear, hob-goblin, raw head, & bloody bones," & then claimed that Joseph Smith gave a "...very appropriate, but classical name...." to his book (The Book of Mormon), which Howe then wrote that "...in addition to its contents, which would carry upon its very face the nature of its true character--a fiction of hob-goblins & bug-bears."12* Mormons, like how the early Christians did with their nick name,13* (given to them by outsiders). The Mormons also have played their own word game, by showing some positive meanings for the name Mormon. That it might also mean "More Good," if we as Mormons live up to the correct & righteous teachings & high standards of the Church. Ed Decker also used a strange word game & play of words when he claimed that "Mormo" was god of the ghouls, he then attempted to connect the name with Mormon. He also claimed that "Mormon" the Chinese language means "gates of hell." Scharffs pointed out the inconsistencies between the film version (TGM) & the book. On p.72 of (TGM) Decker had claimed that Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible listed some infernal names, of which "mormo" was included, and he then claimed that this god of the ghouls ("mormo") followers would be "Mormons." The movie (TGM) shows p.144-5 of LaVey's book, with the name "Mormo" circled in red ink. Other names are seen as well. There is no reference in the Satanic Bible that connects Mormons with this name. But Decker distorts the truth by claiming in the movie (TGM) that "...Here, in Anton LaVey's `Satanic Bible,' under the section called Infernal Names,...Here we have the god `Mormo,' who is king of the ghouls, god of the living dead, & those people that follow him are called `Mormon.'..." The truth in the matter here is that the name Mormon is found no where in LaVey's book. Mormo is from Greek Mythology, notes Scharffs, who also points out that the (TGM) book does not give page numbers or any other information in which a person would be able to check out Decker's claims.14* Arthur Wood, explained that those who know Cantonese, as it would be used in Hong Kong, have said that though there are similar sounds in 2 words, if it were stretched to come out as the critics have charged. In general the word Mormon is known as "a religion," & is understood in that way. In a English-Chinese Dictionary, according to Wood, the name "mormo" was not given. The name "Mormon" was defined as a church. Other languages that use similar word are shown to have double meanings. A word that means something good in one language, the same word can be taken in a negative way in another. After the 2nd world war, some Germans threw away packages that came from the U.S. marked "Gift" because they had mistaken the word for one of their own which means "poison," as Scharff has shown.15* Why is it that some critics insist on looking for any thing that they can use in a negative way, in order to make some of these silly & strange claims & charges? Bob Durocher of Pomona Calif. sent me a copy of a letter, upon my request, Jan. 5th 1988. The is written by Mark B. Pinson, who has dated the letter 28 Nov. 1987. Pinson says that in response to charges made in (TGM). He points out that the name given by the critic, as given by some shop keepers in Hong Kong, are not the same as the characters used to represent "Mormon" on the book of Mormon. He wrote that the critics are only playing a word game, or are "...using a play on words." The words are homonyms, in other words, they sound the same but are written differently, & have different meanings. He points out that many words that have the same sound, can have both good & bad meanings to them. A similar situation took place in Asia in which the Chinese anti-Christians played a word game on the Christian missionaries too. "A CHINESE ANTI-CHRISTIAN POSTER. In nineteenth-century China, opposition to aggressive missionary activity was expressed, and encouraged, by a luridly anti-Christian literature." There is a poster that "exploits the fact that the Chinese character for `Lord' is homophonous with that for `pig'. Christ is depicted as a pig, and missionaries are accused of preaching sexual promiscuity." If some one were to have used the same ill-logic, tactics, & nit-picking negative meaning hunting word game on the critics own name. What would happen to Wally TOPE's name? Would he be a god-fish habitually drinking in excess!?16* The name or word "Amen" is another one that I have already mentioned has some positive, but also perhaps negative meanings.17* Other words that might have been misrepresented in a negative way, if the [AM]s were their own critics, as Richardson points out is, "EL Shaddai" which in Hebrew has been used for God Almighty. Yet the phonetic pronunciation is the same rendering for "God of Devil's" or "God of demons."18* Richardson also has pointed out to [AM] critics who bring up the "mormo" charge, etc., that "Hallelujah" in Hebrew is a form of praise to JAH (Jehovah. But strange enough as it may be, the phonetic word "Hayelel" is identical to the Hebrew word Lucifer. Would that mean that Lucifer is Jehovah? Of course not!19* Another thing to remember is that the meanings of words have changed over the years. Richardson gave me one time some examples, consider this one. How would we think of the following, if only considered in modern terms & ways of thinking? "The silly tyrant smirked at the crafty counterfeit." Do you think that this means that some goofy mean leader of some nation greedily looked over some counterfeit item, that was not real? What this would mean, if it was understood through modern meanings is: "The happy king smiled at the skillful portrait." Richardson also wrote that "wonderful" at one time meant "awful." The word "silly" meant "holy" or "blessed," or happy.20* Strike hands meant at one time, to shake hands.21* * STAR NOTES * FOR #81: 1* (TANF) Vol.1 p.164, 1st Apol. chap.4, Justin. And: (PR&TEC), Benko, op. cit., p.1-2. 2* Benko, ibid., p.18 & p.28, n.41. J. C. Rolfe, Suetonius, Loeb (New York: Macmillan, 1914), p.53. Compare with Dio History 60.6.6 & Orosius Historia adversus paganos 7.6.15-16. 3* (PR&TEC) Benko, op. cit., p.18 & n.41 on p.28. 4* Ibid., (PR&TEC) Benko, pp.118-9, 121-2; (TANF) 4, p.406-7. 5* Ibid., 4: p.406-7; (PR&TEC), Benko, p.20-1. 6* Benko, ibid., p.103-139. 7* (TANF) 4, p.398, op. cit. 8* (PR&TEC), op. cit., p.114, notes on p.133, & (TANF) 4 p.588-590 & 591 bk.6 chap.xl. (OAC). And: (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.99-100. 9* (TANF) Vol.4 p.563-4. 10* Ibid., p.591. 11* (MSOR?) op. cit., p.95, & Mormonism, Magic & Masonry, op. cit., p.50. 12* Mormonism Unvailed, 1834, p.21, also cited in Mormonism, Magic, & Masonry, Tanners, 1983 p.57. 13* (TCATRST), op. cit., p.33. 14* The Truth About the Godmakers, Scharffs, op. cit., p.110-111, & [AM] (TGM), op. cit., p.72, line 28, p.73, lines 4, 12-13, p.76, lines 23-7, p.263, lines 19-25. 15* The Truth About "The God Makers" ibid., p.110-111. 16* New Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1946 Vol.2, p.1375, #1 & 2, & The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Dell Pub. Co. NY NY, Peter Davies, Ed. 1969, p.728. 17* Richardson, op. cit., p.6. Tutankhamen, op. cit., p.24. Abingdom's Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1890 James Strong, Madison N.J., Greek Dict. of the N.T. p.10, see 281: amen. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Paper back ed.) Peter Davis, Ed. Dell Pub. 1969, p.23 see: Amen. 18* An Index of Biblical Polemics, Richardson, op. cit., p.32. 19* Richardson, ibid., p.40. 20* Changes in Word Meanings, by Allen Richardson, not dated, a research paper, unpublished. 21* See note 20*. #82. SOME CRITICS HAVE CLAIMED LEADERS, ETC., WOULD FLEE FROM DANGER, AND FROM "JUSTICE." [AM]. The Tanners reminded their readers that Oliver Cowdery & David Whitmer were witnesses to the Book of Mormon. They claim that they were involved in counterfeiting money. They then claim that Joseph Smith helped them "escape from the law" making reference to the "Far West Record." Thus the Tanners claim among other reasons, that they therefore question the story behind the "gold plates."1* There ill-logic if followed would have us reject the Bible, like most Atheist have, for similar reasons. The [EAC] Celsus also had used similar logic, when he wrote: "...After he" (Christ) "had been tried & condemned & it had been decided that he should be punished, where did we find him? Hiding--trying to escape....And was he not even betrayed by those whom he was silly enough to call disciples?2* Celsus also mentioned Jesus as a leader of a "robber band..."3* [* STAR NOTE * FOR #82: 1* (MSOR?), op. cit., p.536, 2nd Col. 2* (COTTD), op. cit., p.61. 3* Ibid., p.66, (TANF) 4, p.433 bk.2 chap.9, p.425-6, p.448-9.] #83. CRITICS POINTED OUT THAT SOME OF THEIR RIVALS'S LEADERS AT TIMES, HAD JOINED IN WITH OTHER SECTS. In later centuries of Christianity, Augustine, quotes from an [EAC] Porphyry, who had claimed that the Apostles of Jesus had "apostatized" from the traditional ways of worship in "abandoning the teachings of Jesus." He also claimed that they taught some things differently as compared to the things that Jesus taught.1* Another observation that the critics & the early Christians had was how different Church members would come a go. A list of Christians & apostate Christians was written in an anonymous pamphlet, some Christian who were said to have been Christians denied it, claiming that they had once belonged to the sect but had left it. Wilken points out that in the early Christian history, we see that not every one who had became a Christian, remained a Christian for the rest of their life. Some joined Christianity for a number of reasons, some were impressed with the teachings, or the way of life that their Christian friends lived, others married Christians & thus became Christians themselves. But during this time people changed their allegiances from time to time, a number of times. Sometimes they would even belong to other religions at throughout their life time, often changing their religious views. Some people even lost interest in early Christianity when it did not meet their expectations. A thus the different religions exchanged different members from time to time.2* Different scholars & critics have charged that Jesus may have been with the "Essenses" at one time, before he founded Christianity.3* Christians in general were looked upon, by the outsider, & most of their critics, as being "apostates" from the Jewish faiths.4* Celsus also charged the Christians of having forsaken the old ways, having become "deserters" leaving the faith of their fathers, going after that sorcerer they called the Christ.5* Paul had even become a Jew, had even brought offerings to the altar that he might show the shows that he was not an apostate from the law, then he introduced them to the teachings of Christianity.6* It is clear from the reaction of some of the Jews that Paul was looked upon as one who was attempting to pass himself off as if he were a Jew, but who really was one of those "Christian" spies, or followers of that "apostate sect" of Jesus. In fact they were so enraged at him for also having brought in Greeks into the Temple that they wanted to kill him.7* In modern times the [AM] Christians have brought up similar complaints. The wonder why Joseph Smith had become a mason? Why different ones left the Church, & joined other sects, or Churches, & then who later came back into the Church. They also seem to want to use these different situations, in similar ways in which the [EAC] did with the early Christians who had joined in with other religions. Which was to then charge that because the testimony of the different leaders' former witness to their former faith, can't be trusted because the same person had given witnesses to the faith in question, had become a deserter, an "apostate."8* This seems to be the general point that some of both the [EAC]s & [AM]s were claiming. We as Mormons, have got to admit, that some of us have used a similar tactic, have we not? Amongst the religionists of today, we hear of the ex-Mormon Bishop who got "saved," or was "born-again." Or we hear of the so-called "anti-Mormon" who came back into the Church, but who also seems have bounce back & forth across the line. We here of different Preachers who become Mormon. Or the Mormon who becomes a [AM] preacher. Or the Nun who becomes a Mormon, or the Mormon who becomes a nun. The Baptist who became a Catholic, or the Catholic who became a baptist. The Mormon who became an atheist. Or the Jew who became a Mormon, and so on. Or the Mormon who went back into being of some Jewish faith. These stories are used by us religionist or non-religionist, in attempting to prove the success & "truthfulness" of what ever sect or non-religious practice that we belong to. But what really does it all prove, except the age old fact, as it was in the early Church, and that was & still is, that people change their thinking from time to time, they change their religious faith. Some go from one faith to another, others not so often. While some of us will perhaps remain with in the faith or religion that we were born into, until we pass on into the next realm & life. * STAR NOTES * FOR #83: 1* (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.153. 2* Wilken ibid., p.24-5. 3* The Secret Doctrine of Jesus, Lewis, op. cit., p.23-31, 84, 91, & 146. 4* Wilken, op. cit., p.112-117. 5* Op. cit., (TANF) 4, p.428-9, bk.1 chap.lxxi, bk.2 chap.1, (OAC). 6* Ibid., 4:429-31, bk.2 ch.1 & 4. 7* Acts chap.22-3, 22:28-31. 8* (MSOR?) op. cit., pp.52-63, 484-5. #84. THE CRITICS CHARGED THAT THEIR RIVALS WOULD CAST OUT DEVILS BY THE POWERS OF DEVILS. Matt.12:24-30. (PC&EC), Garretson, op. cit., p.47, 49, 73-4), (TANF) 4, p.434, 446, op. cit. [AM] (TGM), op. cit. #87. SOME CRITICS IMPLIED THAT THERE WAS IMMORALITIES AMONGST THEIR RIVALS BECAUSE THEY CALL EACH OTHER "BROTHERS" OR "SISTERS." The early Christian writer & Apologist, Tertullian wrote of the critics of his time that "...They rage at us, too, for calling one another brethren,..."1* Their critics also charged them of being guilty of a number of crimes, of which included "incest."2* The great concern that the earliest to later Apologist had was that the outsiders would mistake the normal Christian sects, with those of heretic, & extreme Christian sects that were said to have practice barbaric, licentious acts & drunken orgies at their meetings.3* Tertullian points out how that the love, kindness, voluntary offerings to help the poor, and that money donated, which is not spent on drunken feasts, all these acts of charity are distorted by their critics to be acts of sexual misconduct. “But it is principally the practice and application of such affection as this that puts a brand of disgrace upon us with certain people. ‘See’, they say, ‘how they love one another’; for they themselves hate one another. ‘See how ready they are to die for each other’; for they will more readily kill each other. They find fault with us too because we call each other ‘brother’. And the reason for their calumny is just this, I feel sure; that among them every name relationship is assumed in mere affection.” Note 1: “Perhaps ‘as a cloak for wickedness’. Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis, ii, 9) and Minucius Felix, (ix) tell us that Christian brotherly love and the appellations ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ gave rise to gross slanders about Christian conduct.” In the restored Church we also have a tradition, like the early Christians. We sometime call each other "brother" (to the male members), or "sister (to the female members). This may have also gave cause for the non-member, or outsider to wonder about if this is in a literal way. Our believes in the brotherhood & sisterhood of mankind being of one big family, the whole human family, (Eph.3:14-15), is in part one reason for this. But also the believe that we are all literal children of God in the spirit. That we pre-existed as spirit brothers & sisters in the grand family in heaven, is another reason for this. Thus we feel that because we all are spirit children of God, we therefore look upon each member of the human race as being a brother or sister. The outsiders or non-members who may not be aware of these ideas, may perhaps mistaken this to mean it to be as if we all think that we came from the same parents. In a sense this is true, in that we all have a common relationship through the genealogical lines back to Adam & Eve, the first parents of the human race in the flesh. That would be the only exception here. Some early [AM], & succession of early apostates may have gave even more cause for outsiders to misinterpret the intentions & symbolical rites of the Temple endowment. "...The secession of apostates who exposed the temple mysteries usually hinted of a great sexual orgy. Actually there was nothing gross or disgusting in the ceremony...."4* Perhaps some outsiders, & non-members who heard about these rumors, & false charges, may have wondered if one of the reason why they (the "Mormonites") called each others brothers & sister was because, as the critics or some of "apostates" had said, they practiced a "sexual orgy." The Mormons responded by saying that the apostates had lied. * STAR NOTES * FOR #87: 1* Fathers of the Church, Wright, op. cit., p.41. 2* 1 Pet.2:12, (COTTD), op. cit., p.18. 3* (COTTD) ibid. p.17-24. 4* (NMKMH) Brodie, op. cit., p.279. #88. THE CRITICS CHARGED THAT THEIR RIVALS HAD DIFFERENT VERSIONS TO THEIR [RIVALS'] STORIES AND VISIONS. The [EAC] looked for anything in the scriptures that they could make a big deal about. Rather than looking in the scriptures for reason why to believe, they would look for reason why not to believe. Celsus had boasted of having known the Christians own books, their scriptures, etc, & had claimed that he could use their own books against the Christians. Just as some modern [AM] critics have, (a tactic that they themselves would not be able to pass, because, as I have already shown, we could use their own writings also to refute their own writings). "...Celsus had studied the Gospels, & devoted a significant part of his book to an analysis of the accounts of Jesus' life retold there."1* Celsus questioned which version of the gospel were they expect to believe. He claimed that Moses & Christ gave contradictory laws. Who are we to believe? Was Moses wrong or was Christ? Had God forgotten what he had said through Moses, when Christ came along with a opposite purpose?2* Celsus also reflected here some of the very comments & polemical questions that the Jews were had brought up against the Christians. Celsus had also made a big deal out of different Christian writings, & the scriptures differences, variations, things not include (which he thought should have been), things included (which he thought should not have been).3* Celsus also noticed the variants in the number of angels that were said to have been at the tomb, during the event of the resurrection of Christ. Was there 1 or 2?, then he mocked the event by questioning why Christ, the Son of God, would need the help of angels in order to roll away the stone.4* Origen goes on to present a defense of these differences.5* He wrote a response to Celsus charges & question as to who was right Moses or Christ?,6* He responded in his own ways to other differences in the different accounts, & the contradictions that Celsus pointed out in the scriptures,7* Celsus' tactics were to again arise in later anti-Christian works as time went by. By the time of the [EAC] Porphyry, (during the 2nd half of the 3rd Century AD), a book that the Christian used, was questioned by the critics, & that was the Book of Daniel. But also other scriptures that the Christians used were being challenged by critics. Porphyry had heard Origen lecture at one time, but was not impressed. Some have thought that because Porphyry had known of Origen, that he must have once been a Christian but later he must have apostatized to Hellenism. He (Porphyry) was incensed, wrote Eusebius, some years later, about how Origen had used allegory to "explain away" the difficulties in the Jewish Scriptures8* Porphyry also wrote concerning what he thought were disagreements, contradictions, saying that the Evangelists were "not in harmony with each other." St. Augustine was to later respond to these objections in his "On the Harmony of the Gospels (De consensu Evangelistarum), in which he says that some have called into question the accounts of the Gospels for "...the veracity of their account" which they were charged to have contained. (De consensu Evangelistarum 1.10). Augustine hoped to show that the Gospels were based on the most reliable information & the most trustworthy testimonies (De Cons. 1.1).9* Porphyry had looked for any discrepancies, & must have pointed them out, for this is some of the things that Augustine attempted to deal with, in his defense of the scriptures, as Wilken points out. "...Augustine discusses the apparent contradictions between the genealogical list given in Matthew & the one given in Luke, the discrepancy in the account of Christ's infancy in there same two Gospels, the variants in the account of the baptism of Jesus (only Matthew records a conversation between Jesus & John the Baptizer), the differences in the various accounts of the Last Supper, the fact that Matthew (27:3-10) cites a passage from Jeremiah which actually comes from the Book of Zechariah, the discrepancy in the accounts of Jesus' death (whether he died at the 3rd or the 6th hour), the various statements made by Jesus on the cross, & many others."10* Augustine may have also had other critics in mind also, when he wrote, but it seems that he had Porphyry in mind also. Jerome also wrote in response to Porphyry, who charged that the disciples were inexperienced in dealing with historical matters, & ignorant of the Jewish scriptures because they had cited verses from Malachi & assigned them to Isaiah (Mark 1:2; Frag. 9). But also (Matt. 13:35), Matthew attributes to Isaiah a passage which in truth had come from Psalm 77 (Frag. 10). Porphyry criticized the genealogy in Matthew & the discrepancies between the infancy narratives of Matthew & Luke (Frag. 11). Porphyry must have also noticed other contradictions & inconsistencies, how the apostles looked like fools because they argued amongst themselves, over circumcision, (Frag.21b). Paul's "impudence" in claiming that he had received a special revelation from the Lord (Gal. 1:16). Paul had "boasted", had contradicted himself in his writings, & there was no unity amongst the disciples in their teachings, & from the very beginning there was strife & division within the church. These charges must have been thorns in the path way of the early Christians' pilgrimage towards gaining a strong testimony of the gospel, & Porphyry took advantage of these things that he knew must have troubled some of the early Christians considerably. Jerome discussed the conflict between Peter & Paul, because of this, he was also aware that some Christians were troubled over this. Origen sought to defend the Christian position the best that he could. And his 8 books Against Celsus, are full of well thought out counter arguments against those that Celsus had made earlier. But even Origen must have realized that there were many things that were justifiable criticisms. For he wrote concerning the difficulties that were contained in the scriptures. Then along came Porphyry who took Origen's work, & abused them by turning Origen's observations on scriptures, & the different biblical difficulties, & he used the basic elements there for his own anti-Christian attack.11* Origen had attempted to explain some things with allegory, etc. Some things were not literal, but symbolic, & the scriptures were said to contain many such examples things. Critics may have thought of Christ's actions in the Temple, when he over turned tables & cleansed the temple of the "money changers" etc., as being some sort of a temper tantrum fit, certainly not unfit, & something that the God of the universe would not be "guilty" of. Origen looked upon this story as being "...`improbable...if only because it was uncharacteristic of the Son to use a scourge of cords...." Other stories were treated by Origen in the same sort of way. The entry into Jerusalem. Other versions of different stories were treated the same way, such as what kind of an animal did Christ ride on when he entered Jerusalem? How could the contradictions in the Synoptic accounts be explained? "...Origen, however had tried to reconcile the difficulties through his own idealistic interpretation of Christianity..." When this sort of thing fell into the hands of anti-Christians it was abused & was damaging & disturbing to those weak in the faith, because the early anti-Christians found that a good part of their anti-Christian task had already been done for them, & by one who was an apologist, who was respected by other Christians as being one of the great apologist of his time, even Origen.12* The same sort of thing was to happen in Modern times, after [AM] critics got a hold of an unpublished manuscript reported to have been written by the B. H. Roberts, one of the great early Mormon Apologists, (sometime between about 1920?--towards the end of 1921), entitled: Book of Mormon Difficulties. Critics abused & misrepresented it. They used some of the "difficulties," which Roberts had suggested might be brought up by critics, etc., & sure enough the critics used such things against the Mormons. Some misrepresented Robert's intentions, by claiming that he had "lost his testimony in the Book of Mormon," which was not the case at all. But like Porphyry had centuries earlier with Origen's "difficulties" with the bible, modern [AM]s, have used this manuscript for their own biased reasons against the Mormons.13* Origen seems to have been concerned & also seemed to have known that it was a common tactic of the critics, for them to quote from Christian books etc. For he hints, that even his defense might be abused by critics. "...I venture, then, to say that this "apology" which you" (Ambrosius) "require me to compose will somewhat weaken that defence (of Christianity) which rests on facts, & that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not altogether devoid of perception...." Despite this, Origen wrote (Against Celsus) anyway, in hopes of preserving the faith of those who may have been disturbed by Celsus' attack: "On The True Doctrine."14* Porphyry's intense study of the scriptures & of Christian apologists perhaps had given him a deeper knowledge of secular history & the art of textual criticism than what Celsus seemed to have obtained. Porphyry, however used similar attacks as Celsus had earlier. For "...He would compare in detail two accounts of the same incident, such as the death of Judas, & point out how Mt." (27:5) "could not be reconciled with Acts" (1:18). "One of the two was false. Or, why did Jesus send freshly exorcised demons into a herd of defenseless swine, & were His miracles any more impressive than those of Apuleius or Apollonius? Elsewhere, he would appeal to known facts of geography, for instance, that Lake Tiberias was no sea...but a stretch of water easily traversable by a man in a small boat in two hours & therefore not subject to a storm such as" (Mark 4:37) "described."15* In his: Against the Christians Porphyry wrote, about the inconsistencies between the New Testament books. He argued that their stories were mainly fantasy. How else could one explain such conflicting accounts as those of the death of Judas Iscariot given in Matthew and in Acts? (In Matthew, Judas was a "barbarian adventure." He admitted, though, that trying to reconvert a Christian to paganism was more difficult than writing letters upon the water, where the liquid closed over each stroke.... His theological questions were straightforward and effective: What will the resurrected body actually be like? What about the souls of people who lived before Jesus and had no opportunity to believe? In the end, Porphyry and his philosophy receded from center stage, but his work had to be answered and refuted by educated Christians. It sparked responses in a number of Christian apologists. His treatise, Against the Christians, was still considered so powerful 150 years later that a Christian emperor had his writings burned." (After Jesus, (The Triumph of Christianity), by Reader's Digest, Editor, Gayla Visalli, etc., 1992, pp.199-200.) Julian, "the apostate" & the Roman emperor (361-63 C.E.), also had made an intense study of Christianity & Paganism. He wrote a book entitled: "Against the Galilaeans" (or the Christians). This book revived the basic traditional contentions that the early pagan had brought up against the early Christians reaching back to the 2nd century AD. Like other early anti-Christian books that were later destroyed when Christianity came to political power in the 4th century. The basic arguments of Julian, (like Celsus, Porphyry, & others), had been preserved in part, in the writings of the later Christians him, who wrote in response to his charges & claims. A 5th century Christian, Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, (412-44 C.E.), who wrote: Contra Julianum (=Against Julian), preserved portions of Julian's contentions. Other sources, such as letters, essays, etc., provide the basic elements of the charges, tactics, logic, & intent of Julian's attack on early Christianity.16* Julian used the polemical situations that had taken place at the Nicene Creed council, in his attack against the Christians. A tactic that had been used earlier by Celsus & Porphyry, & others. Thus in pointing out that his works, were also about the Christians against Christians, he seems to have therefore attempted to show the differences, variants & conflict within Christianity in general. Thus he points out some of the basic elements of the conflict, adding his own questions & charges in with is attack. Was there only one God, as some of them said? Or was there 3? Was Christ another God besides this Most High God the Father? Or was this an invention of latter Christianity, which had exalted Christ to Godhood? He claimed that different traditional Old Testament scriptures (that the earlier, as well as Christians of his time had been using in support of prophetic evidences for the promised Messiah (Jesus Christ), were not pointing to Christ. Moses wasn't thinking of Christ at all, when he wrote what he did, Julian had claimed. He was from a different area, & the genealogies prove very little, & besides there are variants which disagree with each other when we compare Matthew's & Luke account concerning the genealogies of Christ, Julian had claimed.17* Was Jesus first born? Born of the Holy Ghost? or an only begotten Son? (262d). Julian must have expounded on other things that he thought were variants in Christian scriptures & doctrines. Plus with a biased twist of interpretation, & with the help of other tactic, logic, & other methods of attack, he may have countered the Christians responses, because he already knew many of their basic answers to the questions that he asked. Still the later Christians attempted as best as they could to find counter arguments, while others put such writings to the flames.18* The Apocriticus of Marcarius Magnes tells of other criticisms, against Paul, his choleric outbursts & paradoxical language, inconsistency, & irrationality. Which all must have been to Porphyry, very offensive.19* Other Greek Philosophers, & students must have also nit picked at the words & ways in which some of the Apostles & early Christians had presented the gospel for they contended that Plato & the great Greek thinkers & other great Philosophers were more eloquent in speech, & wisdom. Celsus had made this claim earlier.20* And yet, the later Christian Father & writer, S. John Chrysostom, put a different twist on this polemical situation, & turned it into some points in favor for the Christians' side. He wrote that he had once heard a Christian contending with a Greek, concerning who was more eloquent, Plato or Peter & Paul? He wrote that the Christians should not be so concerned about attempting to show to the Greeks that Paul & Peter were more eloquent than the great thinkers amongst the Greeks. For you can't do this, for they were unlearned & ignorant men! So when the Greeks charge that the disciples were uneducated, let us agree & even take it further than they, by saying also that their Greek thinkers were great in their wisdom & excellent in their speech. And admit that those on our side were uneducated, for if Paul was a more wise & eloquent in his speaking that Plato, many would say that he prevailed by his excellency of speech rather than by grace. Therefore if Paul overcame Plato, & yet was unlearned, it is plain that the Gospel was a result of divine grace through Paul, & not of human wisdom. Chrysostom continued to write that they should avoid the same error, least they should be laughed to scorn, thus arguing with the Greeks in this way, by taking the argument even further past what the Greeks might charge, by saying that they Apostles were unlearned, as to the wisdom of the world, for in this charge we bring praise. And when the Greeks charge that the Apostles were rude, let us say they were untaught, unlettered, poor, vile, wanting in acuteness, & insignificant persons. It is not a slander on the Apostles to say so, Chrysostom says, but it is even a glory that, being such, they should have outshone the whole world. For is was that these untrained, rude, & illiterate men, had completely vanquished the wise, powerful, tyrants, those who flourished in wealth & glory, etc., from whence it is manifest that great is the power of the cross; & that these things were accomplished by no human strength, but by divine power & cooperation. "...And observe; the fisherman, the tentmaker, the publican, the ignorant, the unlettered, coming from the far distant country of Palestine, & having beaten off their own ground the philosophers, the master of oratory, the skilful debaters, alone prevailed against them in a short space of time; in the midst of many perils; the opposition of people & kings, the striving of nature herself, length of time, the vehement resistance of inveterate custom, demons in arms, the devil in battle array & stirring up all, kings, rulers, people, nations, cities, barbarian, Greeks, philosophers, orators, sophists, historians, laws, tribunals, divers kinds of punishments, deaths, innumerable & of all sorts. But nevertheless all these were confuted, & gave way when the fishermen spake..."21* The Latter day Saint reader, perhaps might think that the above polemical situation sounds very similar to today's polemical situation that centers around a certain unlearned farm boy of the early 19th century AD. And in fact, perhaps Chrysostom method of turning the different anti-Christian charges into a defense, may also remind us of the polemical works of today's latter day Saint Apologists. Who have used similar logic & have said the same sorts of things in response to modern [AM] critics. Who say things like: `How could an unlearned Farm boy have known of all these evidences?' `He was unlearned, we can see this in his early writings, his spelling was not very good, & his grammar was not very good either.22* The Latter day Saint reader, perhaps might think that the above polemical situation sounds very similar to today's polemical situation that centers around a certain unlearned farm boy of the early 19th century A.D. And in fact, perhaps Chrysostom method of turning the different anti-Christian charges into a defense, may also remind us of the polemical works of today's latter day Saint Apologists. Who have used similar logic & have said the same sorts of things in response to modern [AM] critics. Who say things like: `How could an unlearned Farm boy have known of all these evidences?' `He was unlearned, we can see this in his early writings, his spelling was not very good, & his grammar was not very good either.23* And yet He got so many things right, as it is evident by & through historical documentation, etc. Therefore his revelations must have been from a divine source in God. He must have really translated an ancient record, he must have restored the primitive doctrines of early Christianity. Because there are so many parallels.'24* Nibley also points out the parallel: "The first edition of the Book of Mormon, though the most readable, is not the standard version today. That is because it is hare to use, with its long chapters & lack of numbered verses, & the grammar is sometimes disturbing to us. Disturbing, but never misleading, that is the point. Much of the New Testament is in barbaric Greek, & the ancient pagans often jeered at the illiteracy & bad grammar of the Disciples; yet in our English Bible their grammar is meticulously correct. Is that an indication of skulduggery? No more than the poor grammar of the ancient Apostles was proof that they were not inspired. If anything, Joseph Smith's poor grammar serves the purpose of proving, as did theirs, that the inspired words of the prophets were no product of the schools or the invention of cunning & clever men."25* While the some critic look for differences, they also look for parallels, as I have pointed out already. Some critics say that Joseph Smith borrowed here & there in order to come up with this "restoration". They say he borrowed from the bible, from the Masons, etc. Why have the critics bothered to deal with the area where there is even more parallels? We are now beginning to see that there are even more parallels in early Christianity, so why don't they charge that he (Joseph) must have borrowed from early Christianity instead of these latter apostate fragments. For do the masons teach that they can become gods?, do they believe in a pre-existence?, war in heaven?, the gospel being preached to the dead?, do they practice baptism for & in behave of the dead?, by a living proxy? etc., etc.? While it is true that they have retain bits & hints of the "mysteries" are they for the same purpose as the early Christian mysteries or ordinances. Why are Mormons more similar to the early Christians, than any other Church on the earth? So why do our critics ignore the greater parallel? And why couldn't we also argue, for the sake of parallels, that they (many of the [AM] critics), must have borrowed or "plagiarized" from the early anti-Christian charges, against the early Christians, because there are so many parallels between them & the [EAC]s? As I have already shown, the [EAC] Celsus, also knew of the different versions of "the gospel" amongst the different scatter sects, but he also "...was able to point to detailed parallels & contrasts between Mithraism & Gnostic Christianity....."26* As well as other Christian sects, (TANF) 4, (OAC) op. cit. Parallels hunting was also done, by those who noticed that some writers had borrowed from the Christians also. Frend tells us that "...De Labriolle has drawn attention to the parallelism between Apollonius'" (of Tyana), healing the young woman,"27* "and St. Luke's account of the raising of Jarius' daughter" (Luke 8:40). There is also a version of the Parable of the Sower, & Apollonius' missionary journeys bear a resemblance to those of Paul....These similarities suggest that Philostratus may have known the Christian Scriptures & used them."28* In: JERALD AND SANDRA TANNER'S DISTORTED VIEW OF MORMONISM: A RESPONSE TO "MORMONISM SHADOW OR REALITY? By a Latter-Day Saint Historian, ASCII typescript by W. R. Jensen Salt Lake City, Utah, 1977, op. cit., p.6-7. (Unknown Historian). We read concerning a common [AM] tactic, that has it's parallels with the [EAC] tactics. For "...the Tanners use a common polemical device to repudiate the historical validity of crucial events in Mormon history, without applying the same standard to biblical sacred history. Concerning the differing manuscript accounts of Joseph Smith's "First Vision," the Tanners dramatically observe (on page 148): "yet EVERY ONE OF THEM IS DIFFERENT;" (on page 150) that the differing accounts prove "that Joseph Smith made up the vision many years after it was supposed to have occurred;" and (on page 152): "How can we reconcile such discrepancies?" Are they as willing to dismiss the story of Christ's resurrection as fabrication because His apostles disagreed as to whether there were one or two angels at the tomb (Matthew 28:5; John 20:12)? Or do the likewise claim that Luke's report of Saul's vision on the road to Damascus was "made up years after it was supposed to have occurred" merely because Luke could not retell the experience twice in the same letter without contradicting himself (Acts 9:7, 22:9)? The selective requirement for inflexible standards of consistency is a stock weapon in debate and the practice of law to invalidate the testimony of your opponent's witnesses. Yet perfect consistency is as often a trait of deception as of truth, and truth is often relayed by inconsistent witnesses. The record of human experience has rarely been free of ambiguity." (Underlined by me here). The Tanners attempted to answer this anonymous Mormon Historian, who they named: "Dr. Clandestine" In their (Answering Dr. Clandestine: A Response to the Anonymous LDS Historian. Though they have on occasion, mentioned that Mormons sometimes use Paul's vision, in their (the Mormons') defense of Joseph Smith's vision.29* The Tanners have chosen not to deal with the same issue (in their (MSOR?) p.162B-C, "Clandestine's Errors"), when it comes to the Bible being able to pass their own logic, standards, & test for revelation & visions. It is clear that they are aware of the points that this historian brings up, because they have cited portions from pages 20, 29-32, 34-6, 39, of Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Distorted View of Mormonism.30* But for some reason, the Tanners have chosen to ignore the point that this historian brings up in the very same publication, (if they had read it all), on p.6-7. For how would the Tanners & other critics have us judge the Bible if it should be judged, by the same standards that the critics place on Mormonism? Other Mormon Apologists, (like myself) have, at times, pointed out to different [AM] critics, & to our fellow Mormons, that the critics own logic, tactics, approach & methods, if it were used on the Bible, (that these same critics claim to believe in), or if they were to have been their own critics, they would have had us rejecting the Bible for the very same reason they would have us reject the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's 1st vision, etc.31* This logic also has it's parallel to modern day anti-religion material, by Atheists, who bring up the same sorts of charges against the Bible, etc.32* When some [AM] Christians have claimed that they can't believe in "Mormon revelations & visions" etc. because "they contain contradictions, & there are different versions on the same vision." I have pointed out to them, as have others, that the same tactics, logic & reasons why you have rejected modern revelations, is the same reasons why some Atheists say that there is no God. We have also asked the critics to answer their own charges against us, by dealing with the same problems that can be found in the Bible that we both believe in, (though there are different versions of the Bible). So when some critics have pointed to Joseph Smith's 1st vision accounts, we have pointed to the different versions in Paul's vision. This is not to be considered as an attack on the bible, (as some critics have misrepresented it as being), but it is an attempt to show to the critics what would happen if their own logic and practices, etc. were used on themselves. It is to ask them, "What about the Bible that you claim to believe in, as we do, can the Bible pass the very same test that you give on us & our revelations?" In discussing these issues with other Christians, I have had on occasion, during one of the State Fairs, in Utah. (Which one I can't recall, perhaps sometime between 1984-7?) Where I met one of the most bitter, [AM] Mormon Christians, (John L. Smith). I remember the negative vibes, or feelings that I got, & discerned a negative spirit about the man. He was very difficult to talk with, because we would use typical tactics, what we call "the shot gun approach." Where the critics throw out a number of charges, & then interrupt you with a dozen more while you are attempt to deal with some that they had brought up. It wasn't like I didn't have an answer to the different charges, it was that he was not interested in the answers. His only interest seemed to be to in destructive criticism. I notice a number of other tactic that he used as well. He would interrupt me, to tell me that he was not interrupting me, after I asked him not to, & told him that I would like to deal with one issue at a time. When I saw how fruitless, & pointless it was, & when I think we both saw that we were not getting anywhere with our discussion. He went on to other people, & so did I. I found a few Christians there, (that I could talk to in more peaceful manner). There was one man there that I was impressed with, he had a good spirit about him, & I believe that the Holy Spirit was there with us as we discussed the differences & difficulties between Joseph Smith's accounts of his 1st vision, & those of Paul's. I did not feel a spirit of bitterness & hate from this man, as I had with John L. Smith. We talked about the different sources for the different accounts of the 1st vision & observed that the sources that he (this man), had, were 2nd hand, & in some cases 3rd hand accounts. Someone said that Joseph Smith Said, Or someone said, someone said that Joseph Smith said. For this we reasoned that the different accounts could be different, because the different people telling about the same event, would use different ways to express things, describe things, & would include, or not include different things than what another might. This seemed to us to be acceptable, & even justified. In the case with first hand accounts we reasoned that a person, can at times, give different accounts of the same event, in which in one telling, they would include other elements of the same event, while in another telling, might not include other things. But, we reasoned, it does not mean that the event did not happen, just because it may have been told in general terms one time, & then at another time, told in more detailed terms. Or that different people who may have been witnesses to an event would say the same exact word, use the same word descriptions, the would include the same exact basic elements of the event. For some would include other details that they seen, heard, or felt, etc., while others may not have noticed those details, while observing other things that the other persons who had witnessed the same event, did not seem to have noticed. Thus we concluded that these different accounts could be justified, & in fact that differences should be expected when an event is told & retold, over a period of time, & when told by 1st, 2nd, 3rd hand, & so on witnesses. We also reasoned that it really wouldn't be just to condemn Joseph Smith's vision, while ignoring Paul's. For we reasoned that what ever judgment the critics (his fellow Christian [AM]s), wanted or expected should be passed on Joseph Smith's vision, the same judgment would have to also be placed on Paul's vision. Both of us felt that we could therefore not condemn one, without, in a round about way, condemning the other. So we decided that both situations could be justified. Though he may not have believed in Joseph Smith's vision. The fact that he believed in Paul's vision, therefore made it justifiable for me to believe in Joseph Smith's & Paul's also. We were able to discuss our differences without contention, bitter feelings, & with respect for each others' point of view, even though we didn't agree on everything. We also gave the each other the chance to express out own points of views, without interrupting each other. Though I don't remember the man's name, I do remember the discussion, & the Christ like love that I discerned that he had for people, including myself. And of which I hoped that he could discern the same from me towards him & others. John L. Smith could learn more about how to witness to Mormons with more love. And he should let go of his hate, which still is reflected in the bitter negative hate-news-letters, he claims "exposes Mormonism". But on the other hand, I have to admit that some of us Mormons could also work on having more love, & less contention, when we talk with others amongst ourselves, & others who are not of our faith who disagree with us on different points of doctrine etc. We at least were able to depart as if friends.33* Ryan Stewart also shows how the [AM] Christians would not be able to pass their own test for truth. In his notes he wrote the following: "The First Vision Controversy" He mentions 8 different accounts, 1. 1831-2, 2. 1835, 3. 1838-9, 4. Orson Pratt account, 5. Hyde, 6. Wentworth, 7. NY Spectator, 8. Neibour journal. He then points out a source that sounds like it may have come from the [AM] (TGM) movie, (though there is no reference given here in his notes), quoting Sandra Tanner. But first he wrote: "Such anti-Mormon writers as Fawn Brodie, Jerald & Sandra Tanner have sought to destroy & debase the First Vision story because of its different accounts." "Sandra Tanner said "He [Joseph Smith] changes the date, he changes how old he is, he changes the motivation, why he went into the woods to pray, he changes who was there & he changes what the messages was that they gave him." He continues: "The Tanners feel that because of the varying accounts of the first Vision, they absolutely disprove the first Vision Story to be true. If we looked at everything with this type of method, them there would not be much that we could hold in history to hold any value of truth. I will use the Bible in which the Tanners believe in strongly & put it to the test using the method the Tanners used upon the first Vision & see if it holds any value of truth historically." Ryan Stewart then presented some examples, he would have us compare the following: John 4:2 & 3:2, who was baptized, who was not? Acts 9:7, 22:9, who heard the voice, who did not? Mark 10:37 & Matt. 20:20-9, and Luke 18:35-43 & Matt. 20:29-32, Luke mentions one man, Matthew mentions 2. Then concluded that "...The Tanners feel that Joseph changed his mind about the godhead from one God to 3 Gods because of the differences in the visions concerning who appeared to J.S. The authenticity of the Savior & his work is not diminished because of omissions, contradictions & imperfections in the records. To accuse J.S. of contradiction in his account about dates is straining to find fault."34* Jeremiah the Old Testament prophet's words, which had been written by Baruch on a roll, were burned by Jehoiakim King of Judah. The Lord commanded Jeremiah to make another roll, thus, Jeremiah had Baruch write down the words of the Lord again, on another roll of writing material. But this time additional words were added to this 2nd roll, which were not on the 1st roll. If the first roll had not been burned, & a 2nd roll made, with other words added, & thus if they were to have been later found, in later centuries, & if the Tanners & other [AM] critics had been critics of the Bible. Then how would they have reacted to the differences that would have been found between the 2 rolls or versions? (See: Jer.36:27-32, note verse 32). WHY MIGHT DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF A VISION OR REVELATION COME FORTH AT DIFFERENT TIMES? THE LORD THROUGH HIS PROPHETS GIVE US TRUTHS A LITTLE AT A TIME TO TEST US. Another point to consider is that Joseph Smith may have been commanded by God, or also by both Jesus & God the Father, not to reveal every detail of the vision, at the time he seen it. But may have been given permission to give other details latter on. If this assumption be correct, it would not be out of line with similar situations that happened in the Bible, the New & Old Testaments, see: Matt.16:15-20, note verse 20. 17:1-9, note verse 9: "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead." See also: Luke 9:21, 29-36. From this, & other examples, we learn that the Lord reserved the right, timing, & even willed to control the amount of knowledge & details of a divine event, vision, etc., that goes out from a select few, to the public. Not every detail of some of the different visions were to be given at first for publications for many people to see. For the human family was to be tested. How would they react to the vision, & or the divine message? Would they reject it, mock it, disbelieve it, distort it for wicked purposes? Or would they use the information in a positive & thankful way? And attempt to learn & grow in becoming stronger in the faith? And also use it to help uplift others to higher levels of knowledge & truths? Therefore, those who have been given the greater insights & higher knowledges, etc., through the visions or revelations, etc., that they had seen, or became witnesses to, were in some cases, perhaps commanded by the Lord not to tell everything that they had seen, heard, felt, & also that happened in the vision, or that they witnessed. Until the time that the Lord had given them permission to, present more information about the same event. Such as in the case mentioned above in Matt. 17:1-9. There is also the biblical concept of being given divine truths a little at a time, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little, & so on. (See: Isa. 28:9-11). Other examples of this, were understood to have been the case in George G. Ritchie's Near Death Experience & vision of the future. Towards the end of his experience, he said that he was not given permission to tell everything that happened, for Christ had told him that he could not reveal every detail of his vision, but just general elements.35* Elder Boyd K. Packer, of the 12 Apostles of the LDS Church also said;36* "...Who would dare to say that the day of miracles has ceased? Those things have not changed in 150 years, not changed at all. For the power & inspiration of the Almighty rests upon this people today as surely as it did in those days of beginning: "It is by faith that miracles are wrought; & it is by faith that angels appear & minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief" (Moro. 7:37). The prophet Moroni taught that angelic messengers would accomplish their work "by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord, that they may bear testimony of him...." (See also: Moro. 7:31-2). Packer continued: "There has come, these last several years, a succession of announcements that show our day to be a day of intense revelation, equaled, perhaps, only in those days of beginning, 150 years ago. But then, as now, the world did not believe. They say that ordinary men are not inspired; that there are no prophets, no apostles; that angels do not minister unto men--not to ordinary men. That doubt & disbelief have not changed. But now, as then, their disbelief cannot change the truth. We lay no claim to being Apostles of the world--but of the Lord Jesus Christ. The test is not whether men will believe, but whether the Lord has called us--and of that there is no doubt! We do not talk of those sacred interviews that qualify the servants of the Lord to bear a special witness of Him, for we have been commanded not to do so. But we are free, indeed, we are obliged, to bear that special witness...."37* The Prophet Nephi was inspired by the Lord to command the future Joseph "the restorer,"38* (Joseph Smith) that he should, "Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work." The Lord goes no to instruct Joseph not to give everything in the book, part of which was sealed. For they were not to come forth until the Lord saw fit for them to come forth. For they were to "...preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men." Part of this record contained perhaps a very detail vision (the vision of the Brother of Jared) in which the Lord had shown unto the Brother of Jared "all things" because of his great faith, (See: B.O.M., Ether 3:6-28), This vision was recorded in the sealed portion of the original book of Mormon which Joseph Smith had obtain through the angel Moroni. Thus the Lord had commanded that this sealed portion was not to go forth unto the world, at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon, 1830. The Lord had reserved the right to choose the time in which the greater knowledge & visions should go forth. Perhaps some reasons being that He knew many would mock, reject, ignore, fight against it, & some would not live up to the words he had given. But also He knew that there would be some who would refuse to receive more of the word of the Lord in addition to what he had already given, because some would say that they had enough already, & didn't need any more. (2 Ne.28:27-31, Chap.29). Therefore, it seems that these sorts of reasons may have been some of the reasons why the Lord had chosen not to cause his prophets, & His messengers to give every detail of every vision. Or, also, everything that the Lord caused the different peoples in the different parts of the world to write, to go forth to all the world through His publications, through the prophets. For He has reserved the right to choose the time, in which such things should come forth. Thus the sealed portion was to come forth as the Lord had commanded "...until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men."39* We have therefore seen here this divine practice, principle & concept, which is, that not every detail of an divine event is or was to go forth, because as Christ had said, there were those who were unworthy, or who would mock the holy things of God. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, & turn again & rend you." (Matt. 7:6). Jesus also had resisted giving information to some of the chief priests, scribes, & elders, in one case,40* He spoke in parables, in some cases at times, & Christ disciples came to him & asked him why he taught in parables, he answered: "...Because is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." (See: Matt. 13:1-11, note verse 11). Thus Jesus has with held the higher knowledges in plain term, but had hinted to them in parables, hoping that those who were in tune with the spirit of his message would be able to perceive the message, while those who might have want to have abused, distort, or mock the divine truths hinted to, would not have been able to perceive. He must have also known that there was some in the "great multitudes" who would have mocked, distorted, fought against, etc., the divine truths, had he spoken plainly. But also the higher knowledges had been reserved to those whom he had chosen, thus he had spoken at times in parables.41* Paul wrote to the Corinthians that the gospel had been kept back from those who would pervert it. "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Cor.4:3-4; & Isa.59:1-2). Satan had blinded them spiritually so much that they would refuse to perceive, or could not discern the simple truths, & thus would have also have considered the divine mysteries, the higher knowledges of God, as being foolishness also. (1 Cor. 1:24-27, & chap.2). Paul had also told them not to expect perfection in the revelations that they did give them, for they were in part. For while in this life we see in part, we don't have a perfect understanding of all things. But in the realms to come, then that which is in part shall be done away, to make room for when that which is perfect should come. 1 Cor.13: chap.13. There are other examples of divine truths which were not to go forth, except as the Lord wanted them to. For in the New Testament, 2 Cor. 12:1-4, note verse 4, there was some things that had been seen in this vision which "...it is not lawful for a man to utter." The same sort of thing happened in the Book of Mormon, see: 3 Ne.26:6-16, note verse 16: "...the multitude gathered themselves together & they both saw & heard these children; yea, even babes did open their mouths & utter marvelous things; & the things which they did utter were forbidden that there should not any man write them." See also: Ps.8:2; Matt.21:16; "At that time Jesus answered & said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven & earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise & prudent, & hast revealed them unto babes." And: Luke 10:21. In Ps.25:14 we read: "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; & he will shew them his covenant." In Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." And in, Eph.3:3-11, note verse 3-5 & 9: "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles & prophets by the Spirit;...And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." In early Christianity there was many reason why the early Christians had also suppressed their books, letters, the higher divine mysteries, & knowledges. Some of the reason were the same as those already mentioned above. But also there were those who would have perverted the information, early anti-Christians, false teachers, & apostate, were already at work. And there was a concern amongst the early Christians that if such thing got out. The information & divine things of God would be distorted, misrepresented, perverted, changed, taken out of context, misinterpreted, destroyed, or lost. Thus the early Christians placed their sacred writings in boxes, & other things, to hid them during days of intense persecution, & thus there were cases in which the higher knowledges were kept back from different ones who had not shown themselves to be worthy.42* It therefore seems to me that if the above situations be true, & if the above already mention assumption concerning Joseph Smith's 1st vision be true also, (as well as perhaps other visions & revelation). If such things were to fit into some of the above mentioned cases. Then it would seem to me that we might be justified in having different versions. But also we might even expect that such would be the case! That we should expect different version to be given, as the Lord thus gives permission for additional aspects, & elements of the same event to come forth, in order to teach the worthy the higher & more detailed truths as they could receive, perceive & would be able to understand. And who would be ones who would not pervert, distort, or reject such additional truths. We are being tested with what we do have. What will we do with our own "talents"? (or the gifts of God, & the truths that we do have?), What ever we do or don't do, may determine whether or not we will be given further light & knowledges, & truths, or whether or not what we do have will be taken away, as with the lesson taught us concerning the "talents" (see: Matt. 25:21-30.) Seaich wrote that it really "...matters little, for example, that Joseph Smith waited several years to reveal all the details of his First Vision. (In Fact, the whole story has probably not been told even now)!..."43* What matters is the basic truths that we can learn from divine communications from heaven. Ian Barber (about 1981) wrote that from 2 of Joseph Smith's 1st hand accounts (1832 & 1838), "...he" [Joseph Smith] "tells us that after the vision he did in fact tell others of his experience "for I can not deny it" (1838). However he "could find none that would believe the Heavenly Vision"..." (1832). He says that he "...was persecuted, ridiculed & disbelieved by "the great ones of the most popular sects of the day" (1838). Such persecutions "continued to increase" eventually bringing his immediate family "many persecutions & afflictions" (1832). Although public records appear not to have noticed such during the period 1820- 1830...." [At least at this time, some of us may not be aware of public records that may have a comment or 2 about the Joseph's vision. Comment mine]. While during different translation periods of time, Joseph Smith came across passages such as Alma 12:9-11; 3 Nephi 26:6-11 & Ether 4:4-8, which might have suggested to him that he ought to be "...more discreet in terms of explicitly broadcasting his spiritual experiences. There was certainly biblical precedent in this regard (Matt. 7:6, 9:30-31, 13:10-13, Mark 2:44-45, 7:36) & it seems that his well documented desire to avoid bringing unnecessary opprobrium upon his immediate family combined with the "strict command" only to "impart....the portion of His word" that people were prepared to assimilate (Alma 12:9-10) led Joseph to discontinue relating the full details of his more sacred experiences by 1829 (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:74,...D&C 19:21-22)." "Also relevant to this concept are Joseph's remarks at a Church Conference on October 25, 1831 where he noted that "it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon," neither was it "expedient for him to relate these things." (Far West Record, p.17 Church Archives). Evidence of a growing consciousness in this regard is found in several revelations given during the 1830's such as an 1834 text counselling the Saints to "reveal not the things which I have revealed...until it is wisdom in Me that they should be revealed." Further, they were not to boast of "faith or mighty works" but to gather together "consistently with the feelings of the local inhabitants." (D&C 105:24-25...41:6, 50:40, 78:17, 18)...."44* With these things in mind, we can see perhaps some reasons why Joseph Smith may have told different accounts, for it also may have depended on how he may have discerned the attitudes of some, or many who were part of the listening audience at different times.45* "And the Spirit shall be given unto you by the prayer of faith; & if ye receive not the Spirit ye shall not teach." Here is some additional reason that might help us understand further the reasons why some accounts could be different from other accounts of visions, or revelations. For was they (the multitude) in tune with the spirit of the message? Or were they mockers, disbelievers, & a multitude that had some who were waiting to try a find fault with everything was said, looking for things to distort, misinterpret, or report in a negative way, if they could? Was the giver of the gospel message also moved upon by the Holy Spirit? Could the person giving the message tell if the message was being received by the same Holy Spirit? Or did they reject the message & harden their hearts against the Holy Ghost, that it had no place in them, therefore rejecting the divine truths? (See: 2 Ne. chap.33, note verse 1-2 & 5). Could the person relating the divine message detect this, & therefore, because they did not receive the Spirit, they did not teach all the parts of the divine events, or vision, or revelation? (D&C 42:14). These & perhaps many other examples, & reasons should be considered as being possible reasons why different accounts could arise, & in fact should be expected would come forth. If the multitude were in tune, or if they were worthy, then they might be given additional insights into the same event. Or if the message was going forth to a crowd of people that had those pro & con, & those who were being exposed to these new divine truths for the first time, then just the basic elements might be given.46* Ian Barber also wrote that some of the reasons why Joseph Smith withheld sacred details of divine events from the general public was "...to avoid further enmity & so as not to `cast pearls before swine' Joseph deliberately with-held the Vision's sacred details from the general public, & even most of the Saints. I believe it is significant that he waited until 1840 to allow discussion of the vision, this being the Nauvoo era of the Church, when collectively the Saints finally felt secure with such precedents as the granting of the Nauvoo Charter by the State of Illinois...providing a context wherein details of higher gospel doctrines (the endowment, eternal progression, the nature of Godhood) could be revealed in their fulness & more openly discussed...."47* "...Joseph's account of a personal theophany involving the corporeally separate Father & Son well fitted such a context."48* Besides, & despite all this, & what ever might have been the case. I have discerned, (& I still do), the spiritual witnesses, many times, that the basic elements of the story is true. No matter what words are used to describe the same event, or how the person chooses to tell the story, using their own language, or their own words, & special ways in which they present it. The Holy Spirit still causes within me that peace & comfort, that is promised would be given, to those who are on a quest & pilgrimage in search of divine truths, & truth in general.49* * STAR NOTES * FOR #88: 1* Note 7, see: The Earliest Lives of Jesus, by Robert M,. Grant (NY 1961), (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.109. 2* Wilken, ibid., p.115. 3* (TANF) 4: p.436 bk.2, ch.13, p.437-8, ch.15 p.443 chap.27. 4* Ibid. p.556, bk.5, chap.LII, (OAC). 5* Ibid. p.567-9. 6* Ibid. p.618-9. 7* Ibid. p.619-632, & 637, etc. 8* Hist. Eccl. 6.19.2. 9* (TCATRST), Wilken, op. cit., p.126-144. 10* Ibid., p.145. 11* Ibid. p. 146. 12* (M&PITEC) Frend, op. cit., p.357-8, & (TCATRST), Wilken, op. cit., p.130, & n.4, "The Stromateis of Origen," by Robert M. Grant, (Paris, 1972), 292. 13* The Ensign Dec. 1983, p.13, 15, & 19, B.H. Roberts After 50 Years (Still Witnessing for the Book of Mormon) by Truman G. Madsen. On p.19, Roberts to President Heber J. Grant & the Quorum of the 12, March 15, 1923. 14* (TANF) 4, p.395 bk.1 preface, verse 3. 15* Contra Celsum i.42, Frags. 17, 49, 4 & 55. In the last assumption Porphyry was wrong.), see: (M&PITEC) Frend, op. cit., p.358 & n.31, on p.511. 16* (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.165-6. 17* Ibid., Against the Galilaeans, 253e; 261e. 18* Wilken, op. cit., p.xxi, of intro. & p.176-9, 190-2. 19* Ibid. p.147. 20* Ibid. p.102, (c. Cels. 6.1). 21* The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, Part I Hom. I.--XXIV., p.30-2, Pub. Oxford, John Henry Parker; J.G.F. & J. Rivington, Lon. MDCCCXXXIX). 22* Some [AM] Christians, & other critics have made a big deal over this obvious fact, [AM] Why Should I Pray About The Book of Mormon When...? Tope, op. cit., tract, p.4, (last p.) not dated. God's Word, Final, Infallible & Forever, McElveen, op. cit., p.44-48. 2,000 Changes in The Book of Mormon, by Lamoni Call, 1898. Later 3,913 Changes In The Book of Mormon, Tanners. op. cit., (MSOR?), op. cit., p.14-31D, 89-96J. 23* [PMD] from different Mormon Apologist who have called in on different radio shows, in Utah. See also: Shakespeare & The Book of Mormon, R. F. Smith, op. cit., p.1-3 (FARMS) 1983), Since Cumorah, Nibley, op. cit., p.3-21. In the April 1974 Gen. Conf. of the Church, Boyd K. Packer. Also earlier Orson Pratt, The Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Pamphlet 1st pub. in Liverpool, Eng. Oct. 1850), reprinted in Orson Pratt's Works (SLC) Deseret News Press, 1945). The Ensign Nov. 1981, p.67-9, Talk given by Carlos E. Asay, Oct. 1981 Gen. Conf. SLC. Ut. on T.S. in the Tab. entitled: Opposition to the Work of God. See also: The Ensign, Feb. 1985, Preparing Early Revelations for Publication, by Melvin J. Petersen, p.14-20.) See also: The Myth Makers, Nibley, op. cit. 24* (See also 23*). This is also based on a number of radio shows during 1987--1988. Allen Richardson, for example, brought some of these points, while as a guest on a radio show on "Out of the Best Books," KZZI 1510 AM Radio in West Jordan Ut. 25* Since Cumorah, Huge Nibley, 1967, op. cit., p.7-8. 26* (M&PITEC) Frend, op. cit., p.205. 27* Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana, iv.45. 28* P. de Labriolle, p.185, also: O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs, iii. 182-83), (M&PITEC) Frend, op. cit., p.246, & 484. 29* I can't remember the source, but it seems that I remember hearing them, (or Sandra) discussing typical "Mormon responses" to their charges. (One issue having been on differences in the accounts of Joseph Smith's vision, as compared to the Biblical visions, events, etc., such as that of Paul's vision Acts 9:7, 22:9). If I remember correctly this may have been on some of their tapes, teaching people how to "witness to Mormons." I have, on occasions, discussed with Sandra & less frequently Jerald Tanner, these issues, in which this subject came up. But I can't remember the exact responses that they gave at this point in time. But I know that they are aware of the same difficulties that can be found in the Bible. 30* (MSOR?) 1987, op. cit., p.143-162B-C, p.162B-C. 31* [PMD] The Ensign Nov. 1981, p.67-9, Asay, op. cit. 32* American Atheists, April, Aug., & Sept. of 1977. 33* For more information see: [PMD] The Ensign, Jan. 1985, Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision, by Milton V. Backman, Jr. p.8-17. And: "The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision" by Dean C. Jessee, BYU Studies 9, Spring 1969. Reprinted by Mormon Miscellaneous, #3, Dec. 1984, pub. by Bill Forrest & Van Hale. Ryan Stewart has brought some of the following references to my attention, & thus I would have you consider these as well. Dean Jesse in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.6, #1, Sept. 1971. See 1831-2, account, undated manuscript in LDS Archives, call slip # Pq M270.2 E12K 197-. See also: An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, & of The Late Discovery of Ancient American Records, by Orson Pratt, 3rd American Ed., Pub. Joseph W. Harrison, NY., 1842, p.3-8. Also: The Times & Seasons, Vol.3, #9, City of Nauvoo, Ill. March 1, 1842, (Whole # 45), p.706-7, Church History, the latter by Joseph Smith to John Wentworth Ed. & Proprietor of the "Chicago Democrat." This was also published in The History of the Church, p.535-6, etc. under the date March 1, 1842. Another account was written in The Journal of Alexander Neibaur (LDS Archives), under the date May 24, 1844. Ryan Stewart notes in his research booklet, some of the dates for different accounts. 1831-2 "earliest known account." 1835 Nov.9. Joseph's Personal diary. 1839, dictated to James Mulholland [July 10, 1839]. 1840 Orson Pratt's publication mentioned. 1842 March 1, Wentworth Letter. 1842 Aug. Orson Hyde, (in German) A Cry From the Wilderness- A Voice From the Dust of the Earth, chapt.1. Ruf aus der Wuste, (etc), p.13-27. Another in the New York Spectator, Sept. 23, 1843. Etc. 34* Again from an unpublished research paper, & notebook, given to me for references, by Ryan Stewart, 1991. Additional sources to consider: History of the Church p.473-9, etc. under the date June 1844. In the Temple June 16, 1844, Joseph Smith gave a sermon in which he says that he has always declared the plurality & distinction between the Gods, that the Father is separate from the Son, etc. (see p.474). See also: The Era, April 1970, p.4-13, Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision- What Do We Learn From Them? by Dr. James B. Allen. Also: The Truth About "The Godmakers" op. cit., p.287-309. The First Vision Controversy: a Critique & Reconciliation, by Marvin S. Hill, pub. in Dialogue, p.31-46. & also reprinted by Bill Forrest & Van Hale, reprint #7 Mormon Misc. (Also discussed on one of their radio shows on KBBK Utah, Mormon Misc.). 35* Return from Tomorrow, op. cit., p.35-74. Also: Radio interview, Martin Tanner (host) & Ritchie (guest by phone), KTKK 630 AM Radio, Utah, "K-Talk," Religion on the Line, Nov. 12th 1989. 36* In his (Backer's) April 1980 General Conference talk, entitled: A Tribute to the Rank & File of the Church, see: The Ensign, May 1980, p.62-5. The early Christian Father, Clement of Alex. [153-193-217 A.D.], wrote that there were certain doctrines & rituals, that were reserved for those who had been tested & showed themselves to be worthy. He wrote that some mysteries or higher doctrines were concealed & taught in secret, in that there were some things that were not for the general public, but were for the initiated members only. It would seem therefore, that the truths plainly taught to those who had advanced in knowledge & understanding, & who had been initiated. Such truths, & presentation thereof would be worded differently as compared to public talks, or in the case of speaking with those who needed basics & or the "milk" first. Or who may have not been ready to receive the higher knowledges, or who may also have been unworthy, etc. Christ often used parables to conceal divine truths while speaking in public, in some cases. (TANF) 2: p.205, 217-21, 302-3, 312-13, 348, 409, 449-50, 456-63, 510-11, etc. 37* The Ensign May 1980 p.64-5. 38* See: Isa.29, Acts 3:19-21. Rev.14:6-7, Eph.1:10, Ezk.37:15-28, 2 Ne.3:4-24, (TANF) Vol.8, p.37 verse 11. History of America Before Columbus, Roo, op. cit., p.205, 208-9, 219, 222, 424-6, 433-4, 400, 575-6. The Lost Tribes A Myth, op. cit., Godbey, p.430-1. His Name shall Be Joseph, J.F. McConkie, op. cit., p.94-5. Since Cumorah, Nibley, op. cit., p.518-530. The Messianic Idea in Israel, Klausner, op. cit., part 3, chap.9. The Legends of the Jews, Vol.2, Louis Ginzberg, op. cit., p.138, etc. 39* B.O.M. 2 Nephi 27:8-35. note verses 21-22. 40* Mark 11:27-33, note verse 33. 41* 2 Pet.1:19-21, 2:1-2. 42* Since Cumorah, Nibley, op. cit., chap.4, p.96-126. 43* Ancient Texts & Mormonism, Seaich op. cit., p.101. 44* What Mormonism Isn't, by Ian Barber, Pub. Pioneer Bk.s 1981, Birkenhead Auckland, New Zealand, p.c--c./2). (A [PMD] written in response to the Tanners' [AM] publications. 45* 2 Pet.1:21, 2:1-3, (April 7, 1829- D&C 6:14-16, 22-23; April 1829, sections 8:2-3, & 9:8-9. At Kirtland, Ohio Feb. 9, 1831, section 42:11-17, note verse 14. 46* 1 Cor.2:10-14, 3:1-8, Heb.5:11-14. 47* Barber: D&C 121:26-32, 124:28-41, & Sec. 128-132. See 48* 48* What Mormonism Isn't, Barber, op. cit., p.c./2. 49* Luke 24:32; John 14:15-28, 15:26-7, Acts 2:37-38, 5:29-39. #89. CRITICS CLAIMED THAT THEIR RIVALS' GOD CHANGES HIS MIND, & IS A CHANGING GOD. There was a number of things that troubled the [EAC] writer, Celsus, (as I have already pointed out here), 1. The fact that "the Christians" believed in the "man" Jesus Christ, who had chosen to come down from heaven in the body such as the one that Christ had. In Celsus mind, this would have to mean that God changed. The fact that also Christ was resurrected into another body, again another change. Celsus then claimed that God was not a changeable being, there is no alterations, or he does not under go any sort of mutation of any kind. He cannot change from a God of perfection & purity to that of a human body & all it's blemishes, & defects. God is a God of goodness, he is happy, beautiful, living in the most beautiful state. Why would he bother coming down to earth? Is it to see what is happening amongst men? But wouldn't He already know such things, being all-knowing? "...If then he comes down to men, he must undergo a change, a change from good to bad, from beautiful to shameful, from happiness to misfortune, & from what is best to what is most wicked.... It is the nature only of a mortal being to under-go change & remoulding, whereas it is the nature of an immortal being to remain the same without alteration. Accordingly, God could not be capable of undergoing this change" (c. Cels. 4.14)...."1* Already at this time, (sometime between 170-8 AD), there was differences of interpretation, etc., amongst the different Christian sects, as to what the Godhead was like, as I have already shown in Note #1. Later Julian "the apostate" & [EAC], brought up similar charges, & complaints. This was some time after the Nicene Creed era of 325 AD, but the issue over the Godhead was still causing rival Christian sects much trouble. Between Julian's short reign as Emperor of Rome, (19 months between, 361-63 C.E.),2* Julian had set out to attack Christianity, & at the same time he wanted to help build up their rival the Jewish religions, restore their temple, & also pagan religions also. (ibid. p.164-96). He must have known of some of the debates that had been going on between the different Christian sects, for several decades, concerning whether or not son (Christ) was "ungenerated" or "generated." For at Julian had been writing his: Contra Galilaeos, the Christian were still debating whether or not the Holy Spirit & or Christ the Son, had come into existence, or (was "generated") or whether they were "ungenerated" (have always existed eternally). Julian then used this situation for his own purposes in his writings. And so like Celsus had done earlier, points out to the Christians that if a God came into existence at any time, (or was generated) he must therefore not be divine, for this would mean that a change came about. Julian then claimed that God was had existed eternally without change. Julian also poked fun at the lack of prophetic explanation on the part of the prophets, who didn't say anything on the subject.3* Celsus & Julian also had charged that the Christians' God must have forgotten or changed his mind. Because first he gave one set of laws to Moses, then later he changed His mind when He later sent Christ with opposite laws.4* Julian claimed that the scriptures (the Old Testament), does not announce that there would ever be a 2nd set of laws, but that the law would endure forever & that nothing should be added to or taken away from the law. He quotes Duet. 4:2, & 27:26, & Ex.12:14-15, then wrote that the Christians had ignored these laws, & went ahead a did the opposite, despite how the law had warned no one should add to or take from, or discontinue the laws. Why was the Christian system wrong & not needed? According to Julian & perhaps many of the Jews, it was because "...the Law of Moses was to last for all time" (Contra Galilaeos, 320a-b). Julian brings up the law of circumcision as being one example where the Christians had apostatized away from the Jewish law, because they had changed the law by no longer practicing circumcision. Animal sacrifices was another law that the Christians had done away with, according to Julian, but also some of the Jews of Celsus', & later Julian's time.5* Origen had responded earlier to Celsus charges that God had changed his mind, (when Celsus had compared the laws of Moses & Christ). Celsus had mentioned the "eye for an eye" (Ex.21:24, etc), concept & law, as compared to the passivist doctrines taught by Christ, (which Celsus also charged had been borrowed from Plato, see: (TANF) 4, p.634-6, op. cit.), the "turn your other cheek" doctrine, (Matt. 5:38-41). He then claimed that God must have changed his mind, condemned his own laws, that he had given to former messengers, then sent Christ with counter opposite instructions. Origen of course said that this was not the case, but that Christ was sent to give a higher more peaceful, & more passive law of love that would help the Christians advance towards moral perfection, if they were to only live the teaching of Christ, & so there really was no discrepancy between the two laws.6* As I have already shown earlier in Note #1, some [AM] Christians have claimed that "the God of Mormonism is a changing God."7* In a similar manner some of the [EAC]s such as Celsus, (in his "True Doctrine") & later, Julian "the apostate," also brought up the same sorts of charges.8* In later centuries of historic Christendom, such as during the 5th—6th centuries, controversy after controversy rose. One of which about the nature of Christ. Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia, formerly a priest at Antioch, was the head of a Syrian theological school that opposed Apollinarianism. “The ecclesiastical term “Incarnation of God” appeared to him dangerous, as though it taught a change of God the Word into a man; and for this reason he wished to recognise only an indwelling or #SYMBOL \f "Symbol"95voίκησις of the Word in a man, and thereby divided the one Christ into two, into the man and the dwelling in Him, or, into the temple and the God who dwelt in it. Thus Theodore of Mopsuestia was the real father of that heresy which received its name from one of his disciples, Nestorius. Theodore had died before the Nestorian controversy broke out (A.D. 428), and this is undoubtedly the reason why the third Œcumenical Synod at Ephesus condemned Nestorius, and made no reference to Theodore of Mopsuestia. . . . In the same way his writings were spared, when the Emperor Theodosius II. had those of Nestorius burnt.” * STAR NOTES * FOR #89: 1* (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.102-3, (TANF) Vol.4 p.404-5, 408-10, 423, 427-8, 456-7, 502-4, 549-551, 615-6, & 620-1. 2* (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.164 & 183. 3* Ibid. p.183. 4* Ibid. p.115, 187-8, 191-6. 5* Ibid. p.188 & 192-4. 6* (TANF) 4, p.617-21, bk. 7, chap.18-26, & chap.lviii-lix on p.634-5), see also: (COTTD), op. cit., p.60, 77-8, 86, 103, etc.) & (PR&TEC) Benko, op. cit., p.160, n.23. 7* Can You Become a...God?, Tope, op. cit., p.2, etc. (MSOR?), op. cit., p.170. 8* [EAC] (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.102-8, 148-9, 164-184, 190-2). Mark 15:37, [AM] tract, Mormonism: Christian or Cult? by Ed Decker's Saints Alive, Iss. Was. p.1 & A Test For Your Testimony, Decker point #9-10). Heb.13:8, Rom.1:21-3, Decker, op. cit., & discussions. Phil.2:5-8 & Rom. 1:17-18, 21-3, Mark 1:10, Matt.3:16. (MSOR?) op. cit., p.170, 1st col., citing John 4:24 & Jer. 23:24. (Salt Lake Tribune, Friday, Oct. 17, 1980, section A. Also: Holy Terror by Flo Conway & Jim Siegelman, (Delta Bk. pub. by Dell Pub. Co. 1982 NY NY, p.53. Prov.15:3, Rom.8:38-9 & Eph.3:17-19. [AM] tract: Brigham Takes Another Look At Jesus, Tope, 1979, op. cit., p.5. See also: [AM] tract: A Test For Your Testimony, by Decker, op. cit., point 9-10, & Mormonism: Christian or Cult, op. cit., p.1, Psalm 41:13, 90:2, 102:25-7, Romans 1:22-23. #90. CRITICS SAID THAT THEIR RIVALS CLAIMED THAT SOME RELICS ARE STILL PRESERVED EVEN TO THIS DAY. [AM] critics, (the Tanners) quote from selected portions of Mormon publications, from some unofficial claims, & beliefs, then put it under the heading: "A Marvelous Work?" (Chap.1), & "Miraculous Claims." What was the purpose & intent in their minds for bringing forth these selective sources? Is it to mock & make fun of such things? Would the publications that are seen in early to later Christianity, the Bible, & other things published & believed by the "body of Christ"1* be able to pass the same standards, & tests? The Tanners quote a portion from Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" p.20-21. & Oliver B. Huntington from: The Juvenile Instructor, Nov. 15, 1895, p.700-1. The claim was made that on May 19, 1838, Joseph Smith is reported to have claimed that in Daviess County, Missouri, at a place called Spring Hill, a pile of stones was suppose to have been the remains of a very, very ancient altar that was suppose to have been used by Adam.2* Now whether or not Joseph Smith did or didn't make such a claim is really not important. There have been many things that the modern Christian have rejected, even some of their own "miraculous claims" as made in earlier Christian writings. For there are some things that many Christians of today have rejected. Claiming that such tales & publications were really not what Christ had done, claimed, said, or taught. So if the modern Christian can question some of their own "miraculous claims" in their own publications. (Some amongst them having been [AM] Christians, & critics of Mormonism).3* Why can't we Mormons also question such unofficial sources as they are found in our own earlier publications also? So what ever the intentions, & judgments that the Tanners, & other critics would have us place on such claims. Wouldn't that same conclusion have to be placed on the critics themselves also? In `The Other Bible & the Forgotten Books of Eden,' is an account of the "Infancy of Jesus Christ". There are a lot of strange & "miraculous claims" that perhaps we, & today's critics & other Christians would not be so willing to accept as being the truth about what Christ had done as a child. For example, Christ as a child is reported to have spoken in anger, & thus killed a child, & they who later had complained about the child's death, were immediately cursed to everlasting punishment, & became blind.4* What would happen if the Tanners had been the critics of their own Bible? Or the Bible in general? Perhaps they may have made Gen.35:19-20 to sound as if the pillar grave marker for Jacob's wife (Rachel), has lasted "...unto this day..." But perhaps that is really not what would be meant by this scripture, but for our case in point here, perhaps under the Tanners selective methods, & other tactics that they use, perhaps it could be presented in that way as one in many "miraculous claims." "And Rachel died, & was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. And Jacob set a pillar upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel's grave unto this day." Perhaps some of the anti-Christians of the early to later times may have also made fun of the customs, traditions, of the Christian relic folk magic beliefs, held by some of the early to later Christians. St. Augustine accepted some of the superstitions of his time. As did some of the other well known Christians. He mentioned a list of materials that were said to have been charged with divine powers, such as a bag of dirt from the holy land, Jerusalem, where Jesus died & rose again. This bag of dirt was said to have protective powers. Oil mixed with the tears of a presbyter, flowers used in a procession that bore the relics of a saint--restored the sight of a blind person. A dress, after it had been taken to a shrine, when is was put on a dead woman, caused the dead woman to be restored to life.5* We have seen already how that the early anti-Christians, & the outsiders considered the Christians as a strange movement, as early as 70 AD, Suetonius, & friend of the younger Pliny, & who was secretary to Emperor Hadrian. He regarded the Christians a "...sect of the Jews, & speaks of them as "a class of men with a strange & pestilent superstition."6* “Relics of saints and martyrs came to possess power both in this earthly life and in the world to come, and churches and monasteries collected large relic inventories in order to achieve betterment for the souls in their care. Relics could be called on to bridge the natural chasm between the temporal world and the eternity of heaven. Some relics, such as those of St. James at Compostela and St. Thomas Becket at Canterbury, were especially believed to effect miraculous cures—cures that in the case of Becket were advertised in the painted glass at the cathedral.” Eventually, many desired to “possess, or at least to see, objects which had belonged to them— [the saints, such as a] comb, a pair of shoes, a girdle, or better still, a tooth or a bone from their bodies.” And even “the breath of Christ in a bottle, or the tears of the Virgin, or a feather of the Holy Ghost. . . . These holy bodies and even fragments and mere ashes of the dead saints’ bones were believed to be as effective as the saints had been while they were on earth. In many cases, too, the miracle-working powers of the saints were thought to be greater after their death than before. . . . Finally, when the cult of relics became very popular, they were exhibited in chests of precious wood often covered with plates of gold and silver and placed on or behind the altar on the saint’s feast day. Sometimes, as in the case of the famous head of Saint Foi of Conques, the relic was made into an enthroned replica of the saint. If the relic was merely part of the body, it was made into a semblance, as in the famous gilded and begemmed foot of Saint Andrew in the treasury of the cathedral of Trier. Holy places and holy relics stirred the imagination of the pilgrim and made sacrifices for the faith more credible and worthwhile.” * STAR NOTES * FOR #90: 1* "The body of Christ" as I have understood it to mean in certain cases, from different modern "Born-again Christians," is said to mean the `unknown scatter groups of "saved" Christians, here and there some where, in unorganized scattered group of "true believers" amongst the different Churches, or sects.' 2* (MSOR?) Tanners, op. cit., p.1, 2nd col. 3* The [AM] Christian, Radio Talk Show Host, & writer, preacher, Walter Martin, (June 29, 1987, in Salt Lake City, during the question to answer period, at an [AM] meeting), said in response to my (DaRell D. Thorpe's) questions, that they (speaking generally for the Christian body), rejected such publications as: "The Other Bible & the Forgotten Books of Eden," & other questionable writings by, or about different early Christians, or New Testament persons. 4* The Lost Books of the Bible, p.61, II Infancy, (Thomas's Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ), 2:1-17), The original was in greek, printed by Cotelerius, in his notes of the constitutions of the Apostles, from a MS. in the French King's Library, #2279, It is attributed to Thomas, & conjectured to have been originally connected with the Gospel of Mary). For other examples of this sort, see: Christ Lore, Hackwood, ibid. See also: Acts 5:1-5. 5* (PR&TEC) Benko, op. cit., p.122-123. 6* (PC&EC) Garretson, op. cit., p.65. #91. CRITICS CLAIMED REVELATIONS, PROPHETS, ARE NO LONGER NEEDED. I have heard many modern [AM] Christians claim that modern revelations, prophets, additional scriptures are not needed. Mark E. Petersen, as well as others, have pointed out that one of the basic elements of the earliest Church set up by Christ, was that after he had ascended into heaven, revelation was intended to continue through his messengers, the prophets & apostles. (Eph.4:7-14). "...Another important sign is that the Church would be guided by constant revelation through living prophets. Amos had said that the Lord will do nothing except through his authorized prophets (see: Amos 3:7). The divine Church as restored, then will be led by living seers & revelators receiving current direction from heaven." Petersen cites Eph. 2:19-20 & 4:11-14, etc, to show the ancient pattern, now restored anew. He also cites other examples, Heb.5:4; Ex.28:1, Acts 13:1-3. How could God direct his people unless he spoke to them?1* In an earlier Con. talk, Petersen had said that "...Always when the Lord has had a people on the earth whom he has recognized as his own, he has led them by living prophets to whom he has given guidance from heaven. While the people remained faithful anciently, one prophet after another was raised up by the Almighty in a long series of divine appointments. Thus we had many men of God mentioned in both Old New Testaments. A similar line of inspired men now has been established in modern times...." "...Contrary to the general belief, the Lord is a God of communication, a God of revelation. He is a God of light & intelligence, of knowledge & information. He does not deal in darkness, neither does he save anyone in ignorance. His entire plan of salvation rests upon communication with an enlightened people. Who can worship intelligently if kept in ignorance? Who can have a meaningful faith without a knowledge of God?..." Petersen went on to speak of the divine pattern that the scriptures show. And later said, "...Lack of communication between human beings is responsible for much of the distress in the world. But when communication breaks down between God & man, even worse situations arise...." He went on to present a number of examples from the scriptures that shows the divine patter, he cited, Eph.2:20, Acts 11, 13, 21, Eph.4:12, 14, Matt.5:48, presenting some of the biblical reasons why these prophets & apostles, etc., were given. And later said, "...Since communication between God & his prophets was an integral part of the early Christian church, what is the situation with present-day Christianity? Where are the Christian prophets of today? Unfortunately they were lost over the centuries. There is no record of any Christian prophet having lived after A.D. 110 when it is believed by the world that John the Revelator was last heard of. Then has Christianity drifted all these years without communication from heaven? The denominations agree that there are no prophets among them, & they teach that neither prophets nor revelation are any longer needed. Rather, they say that the Bible--written in ages past--contains all that is necessary. Then does this constitute a departure from the age-old pattern of the Lord--that of presently guiding his people through living prophets? In Isaiah's day it was the people who turned away from God. The Lord did not turn from the people. It was the same in the Savior's day...." Petersen went on to show that the people of Christ time rejected them, even though he would have gathered them in. (Matt.23:37). Then he boldly declared in a stronge voice that "...God does not abandon his people. It is the people who abandon God...."! Petersen went on to explain different reasons, predictions, that shows that there would be a restoration & that prophets would return once again as fore runners to prepare the world for the 2nd coming of Christ, just as in the case with Christ first advent into the world. And he also gave a invitation to the world to come & listen to the modern prophets & to accept the restored gospel brought back again through the line of prophets chosen for our modern times, in this dispensation of time.2* Marion G. Romney said in another Gen. Conf. in SLC Ut. Tem. Sq, Saturday morning session Oct. 7, 1972, that one of the "...indispensable element of the gospel, continuing revelation, came with the restoration of the priesthood...." He goes on to talk about some of the gift of inspiration, & revelation from God. And said that without "...this gift, the Church would be as dead & impotent as an electric powerhouse without electricity...." The Prophet Spencer W. Kimball mentions & compared some of the ancient & modern excuses that different ones have given as to the reasons why some ancient & modern peoples have rejected the different Prophets of their time.3* From the earliest days of the restoration in the 1820-30s etc, & with the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, the cry has gone forth amongst different early [AM]s that no more revelations, scriptures & prophets are needed in modern times, the bible is all we need & is enough!, they have said. Many objections to the restoration was printed up in a number of early 19th century news papers.4* These early [AM] critics, brought up the same sorts of charges, logic, reasons for rejecting, methods of attack, & tactics, as the [EAC] had centuries earlier. "Jo Smith" was called a "false prophet," "imposter," etc., the Book of Mormon was attacked, as "...one of the strangest superstitions..." etc., & Mormonism was called a "delusion," etc. Some responses from the Mormons, was countered by another writer. Or reprints from the Mormon publication "The Evening & the Morning Star, by W. W. Phelps, was mocked & the rejected. Some of these early [AM] writers were, A. Campbell, Thomas Campbell, Ezra Booth, E.D. Howe, etc. Howe republished the latest gossip of his time, from a number of different news paper from different parts of the eastern northern & southern states. Such as the Ohio Star, the Missouri Republican, the Burlington Sentinel, the Ravenna Courier, the Rock Spring (Ill.) Pioneer, the New York Whig, the Palmyra, N.Y. Reflector, etc. And this same sort of charges & gossip was to be resurrected time & time again, in later [AM] publications, on up to our day, here in the 1990s. Orson Pratt & others, exposed the ill-logic, misinterpretations of different early [AM] Christians who attempted to use a number of biblical scriptures to suggest that the bible declared the ultimate end to any more scriptures, revelations & prophets besides that which was already given in the bible of that time. During the middle half of the 19th century, to the present day, the same chain of scriptures are used over & over again by modern [AM] critics, thus they claim to have had a revelation declaring the end of revelation. Pratt's refutation of these very scriptures passages, now still being abused by modern critics, still would refute the modern claims. Hence he shows that there is no revelation declaring the end of revelation for this world, & for this life. His defense of the need for continued revelation is a classic example of the polemical situation that still rages today between those who accept the Modern Prophets, & those who claim that there is no need of them.5* McElveen who mentions some of the early Christian Fathers, (ibid. p.18-19), might want to consider the similar doctrines that such fathers believed in, as compared to Mormonism which he despised. Origen is mention, (ibid.p.19), & it is interesting that in Origen's day, to defended the need for the additional revelations through Christ & as given to the early prophets & apostles of the earliest Church. Origen had written in response to the Jews which Celsus had cited, in his attack against the Christians. While some of the Jews had accepted the additional revelations that had come from the Son, & the leaders that Christ had set up, others rejected bitterly any such claims to divine revelations in addition to the ones that had already been given in the books of the law, (The Old Testament).6* The ancient reason for rejection were basically the same. Yet there were many who were inspired to accept the prophets of their times as being form God. * STAR NOTES * FOR #91: 1* The Ensign, May 1979 p.21-23, April Gen. Conf. talk by Petersen, entitled: Signs of the True Church. See also 2*. 2* The Ensign Jan. 1973, p.30-2, talk entitled: Why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, see p.31. Other Conference talks have been given to show the reason & need for continued communication from heaven as in the past. See: The Ensign Jan. 1973, p.26-9, N. Eldon Tanner, in the Oct. 8, 1972 Sunday Morning Session, entitled: Warnings From Outer Space. Mark E. Petersen again, in another Con. talk entitled: Follow the Prophets, given in the Sunday Afternoon session, Oct. 4, 1981. It was later published in the Nov. 1981 Ensign, on p.64-66. The Ensign, Jan. 1973, p. 116-118, Petersen's talk was entitled: Another Prophet Now Has Come!. 3* The Ensign May 1978 p.76-8, he gave this talk entitled: Listen to the Prophets, in the April 1978 Gen. Conference of the LDS Church. See also: Which Church is Right? a tract by Mark E. Petersen, 1982. 4* E.D. Howe, who later was to write one of the first [AM] books, was the publisher of the Painesville Telegraph, some of these discussions of Mormonism, were published, or were reprints from other new papers, by different writers, under the following dates: Nov. 16, 1830. Feb. 4, 15, 22, March 1, 8, 12, 15, April 12, 26, June 14, 21, July 12, Sept. 13, Oct. 2, 25, 31, Nov. 7, 14, 21, & Dec. 3 in 1831. Jan. 17, 1832, Jan. 11, 1833, Aug. 9, 1833. etc, etc. 5* [PMD] Orson Pratt's Works, op. cit., & the "Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon" op. cit., Since Cumorah, Nibley , op. cit., [AM] God's Word, Final, Infallible & Forever, McElveen, op. cit. 6* (TANF) 4: p.414-5 bk.1 ch.xlv. Eph. 4:7-14, 1 Cor. ch.12. #92. THE ADAM-GOD "DOCTRINE" AN UNOFFICIAL THEORY. AND AN EARLY CHRISTIAN TYPE OF CHRIST? Much had been said & written about this issue, in Mormonism. The very bottom line is how ever, the so-called theory is really not, & never has been considered an official doctrine. Some of the splinter break-off groups from the LDS Church have defended & believed in some of the things that Brigham Young (He was the 2nd prophet restored Church, after Joseph Smith), is reported to have taught & believed in.1* Some [AM] "Christians" have clearly distorted some of the quotes from Brigham Young, in order to make it appear that Brigham Young, "defends his Adam-God doctrine."2* I have already shown in other notes some of these cases, see for example: #76. Many Mormons of today would not be so willing to take the [AM] interpretations of some of the things that Brigham Young (here after, BY), said, or is reported to have said, as being literal, doctrine, or a practice. Any more than I think that the same critics would be so will to take Ez.4:12-15 literal, or a for all Christians to practice as an official doctrine. In which all bible believing peoples & [AM] Christians would have to practice, just because it's in the Bible.3* Another part that the Tanner point to as "evidence" is a portion taken from the hand written Journal of L. John Nuttall, Feb. 7, 1877, were they seem to want to lead their reader into thinking that the portion that they are pointing to should be taken literal. On page 178-D of their 1987 edition of (MSOR?) the Tanners have a black arrow pointing to a portion of a copy of Nuttall's journal, which they have interpreted as meaning that "...Young taught Jesus was the Son of Adam." If we were to consider just this portion only, we might be tempted to conclude that the Tanners have a source that helps "prove" their point, but the ignore, or for got to mention the other portions that same source that give us another clue to what BY might have meant. For we also read in the Journal, on the left hand page,4* that "...this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah & Michael who's Adam our common Father...." Why have they not also pointed to this portion like they have the other? Alma Allred wrote [PMD], in his: "THE ADAM-GOD THEORY", he cites a number of problems with the traditional non-Mormon, splinter sects, interpretations of the theory.5* And wrote that "...Joseph Smith taught of a priesthood hierarchy with Adam in a subservient position to the Savior: The priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation before the world was formed, as in Gen. 1:20,26,28. ...He is Michael the Archangel; spoken of in the Scriptures. Then, to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day,..."6* Allred then claimed that "Brigham Young made some statements which absolutely contradict the Adam-God theory: "Who are we? But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, ``We are the children of Adam and Eve.'' So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of."7* In another place BY said, "I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our Heavenly Father, or the great Elohim.8* "...The solution to the Adam-God controversy is summed up in the fact that one of God's names is Adam. The name Adam is a Hebrew term meaning Man or Mankind - hence the designation in the writings of Moses, ``Man of Holiness is his name.'' The terms Man and Adam are interchangeable. The first man born on the earth was named ``Adam'' after his own Father, also called Adam." Allred observations in this area are correct, at least in the sense that there are some sources that would seem to suggest this.9* In Hebrew, "Adam" is in some cases a common noun meaning man or mankind. As Allred has already said. Christ could in a certain sense, have called himself the title "Son of Man" (or "Adam"), not that he is literally the son of Adam, (except through the genealogical lines going back from Mary, (Christ's mother), back to Adam). For this is a symbolic title. Perhaps if BY had known a little about this in the Hebrew language, he may have used this term, which should not have been taken literal, but which may have by those who heard him. Allred also wrote that "...Practically every Adam-God discourse by Brigham Young can be read to understand that the Father was the progenitor of the first people of the earth - except for his famous speech found in Journal of Discourses, volume I page 50...." The portion on this page that has brought on such a big fuss, amongst [AM] critics, & which has troubled many Mormons for years now is where BY is reported to have said that our father Adam came into the garden with a celestial body, that he brought one of his wives with him, & he helped to make the earth. "...He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written & spoken--He is our FATHER and our God, and the only God with whom WE have to do...." There is other parts to this sermon that seem to suggest that BY knew that there was still a higher "God" above this Michael the Archangel who he knew was also Adam. Some people have suggested that BY young used the title of FATHER & God in the same sense as how the Lord had made Moses "a god to Pharaoh" (Gen.7:1). And sense Adam is the first founding Father of the human race, he could also be given the title of FATHER in that sense, as George Washington is considered the founding Father of the nation, having been the 1st President. The very fact that BY calls Adam as the Archangel-Michael, who helped to make & organize this world. Has suggested to some that Adam-Michael could not have been in charge, as The Most High God. In other words if he was "our FATHER and our GOD, & the only God with whom we have to do." Then why would he be also called an Archangel, & Michael? Why would he just be a helper, instead of the one in charge over the creation? This would seem to suggest that BY knew that there was still a higher God above this being. Sure enough, on checking out some of the original documents we see that the critics sometimes pass over some things that bring out this very thing, while other critics include these things, but offer no, or very little interpretation concerning the other things that BY said. They have certain portions that they point to, & sometimes ignore in their own writings, & photo copies of the sources, the very things that would help explain the situation. Another portion that the critics point to is on the same page as the source mentioned above,10* I have highlighted, & underlined some of the portions that they have used to make their point.11* Then I will follow here with some comments of my own, suggesting another possible interpretation than that which the critics would have us accept. "...When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; & when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, & the rest of the sons & daughters of Adam & Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, & so on in succession...." BY went on to say that he could tell us more about this, but if he was to have told the whole truth, there would be some who would think he spoke blasphemy. After the word "succession", tope underlined the statement were BY made that comment, which I have commented on here.12* Comments: The critics point to the portion "...He" (Christ) "was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family;..." The critics suggest that the first of the human family would have been Adam. But BY may have had Luke 3:38 in mind when he said that the Father of Christ was the "first of the human" family. The portion right after this part, (that some critics seem to ignore), is the part that continues on after "family;" (as seen above), for if the first of the human family was Adam, then it seems that there was, as yet another higher Father above the first of the human family. For BY seemed to have suggested that the first of the human family, also had a Father. For when he (Adam?) took a tabernacle, "...it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the sons & daughters of Adam & Eve;...the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, & so on in succession...." Suggesting here that the genealogical lines did not end with Adam, but went back further to another first founding Father of the human race, or that the human race originated in the Father of father Adam. Just as Luke had suggested: "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38). Noticed that Tope, (as well as some of the other critics), seemed to have ignored this part, he didn't underline this part, for reason known to himself. Perhaps because, (as I have suggested), he may have seen how someone could have arrived at another possible interpretation than the one that some of the critics have suggested. (Tope, op. cit., p,1-3). Another portion that Tope seemed to have ignored, & which is not underlined in his tract, is the portion which says that "...the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son and Holy Ghost." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1:50-51)." The Tanners have included this portion, as does also Tope by way of having it in the photo copy in his tract, of both pages 50-1, but Tope does not underline or acknowledge this portion, while the Tanners have. The Tanners at the same time have ignored the portion also that Tope had, as mentioned above, in which show that BY took the genealogical line back passed Adam to the Father, God the Father-Eloheim. Showing also that Adam-Michael could not have been our Father & God, above Eloheim & Yahovah.13* But then was BY saying that Adam-Michael was the Holy Ghost?, because he put him in that line of ranking after Yahovah? Some have suggested that this could be the case, while others have wondered if those who have reported this sermon misunderstood, or wrote it down wrong. What ever might have been the case, by this we would have to conclude that Adam-Michael could not have been the literal God the Father, (in the place of Eloheim as God the Father, as some of the critics have suggested would be the case). For BY also said that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. (Journal of Discourses Vol.1 p.51, 1st col., last par.) The question however remains however whether or not BY believed that Adam-Michael was the Holy Ghost, or whether as BY had also said, Adam-Michael was & is the Archangel-Michael. Or if he thought that they were consider by Brigham Young to be the same being, as Holy Ghost-Michael-Archangel-Adam?, in this case. For this would appear to have been as contradictory as John 1:18 & 14:9, at first glance. To understand more about what BY had in mind, let consider other sources. Alma Allred, also wrote that BY said: "...Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather."..."14* Allred make the comments that: "Here, we have a clue to understanding what Brigham Young was teaching. He states that Eve was procreated from the body of her father whom he has designated as Adam. Who then was her mother? The mother of all living, Eve. Our heavenly parents came to this world as resurrected beings and gave birth to two children, named Adam and Eve. These children were the product of the dust of this earth because their parents consumed food until the elements of this earth were present in their own bodies. They then engaged in sexual relations and begat children (immortal children) whose bodies were made of the dust of this earth. The scriptures indicate that Adam was born and that his father was God. The genealogy of the Savior as given by Luke culminates with these words: ``Which was the son of Seth which was the son of Adam which was the son of God.'' From the Book of Moses we read the same doctrine: ``And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed.'' (Moses 6:22.) Bruce R. McConkie commented on Luke's statement in his Doctrinal Commentary of the New Testament by saying that the words mean exactly what they say. In an effort to clarify Elder McConkie's position, Reed Durham telephoned Elder McConkie and wrote this note about the conversation: `I phoned B.R. McConkie on Friday afternoon, April 29th 1966 at his home in regard to his commentary of Luke 3:38 in his new text on the New Testament. He answered that he had purposely left the door opened on that point. He said it was a true doctrine that God the Father, Eloheim, a divine resurrected being came down to this earth after its creation, with a wife and produced in the natural way of sexual intercourse, a child who grew up and became known as ADAM. They did the same and brought forth a girl who grew up and became Eve. They had bodies of flesh and bone etc., but were not mortal (not till they fell). They (Adam and Eve) were not resurrected and not translated beings. God really did create their bodies on this earth. They were not transported here (only their spirits). "He then said that his father-in-law told him that was a true doctrine; that it had been taught a great deal by President J.F. Smith (6th President). He also added that President Joseph Fielding Smith said it was too deep now for most saints --that's the reason for saying about the creation of Adam and Eve in the temple, ``It's only figurative..." Allred goes on to explain the titles, & names that have been used, & perhaps this may have been why some seemed to have been confused about who or what the title, or the name, or, & also the person "Adam" is, means, or is a title of. "...Taking into account the various accounts where Brigham Young referred to the Father of Adam as Adam and the son of the Father as Adam, it is apparent that both our Father in Heaven and the first mortal on this earth were named Adam. For convenience it is easier to refer to these individuals as Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. Scripturally we learn that the name Adam is applicable to both Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. In Abraham 1:3, Adam is referred to as having the right of the ``firstborn,'' indicating that he was born. The next sentence was revised in the 1981 edition of the scriptures to coincide with the dictated manuscript which became available in this century. Bruce R. McConkie explained this correction to the text: "One minor textual change in Abraham is significant. A single letter is changed and a whole new doctrinal meaning is revealed. Heretofore the text read, ``the first man, who is Adam, our first father,'' which is a simple recitation of the fact, also set forth in other scriptures, that Adam, the first man, is also our first father. If he is the first man he is obviously the first father of other men. The new rendition, according with the ancient manuscript, reads, ``Adam, or first father,'' making the word Adam a synonym for ``first father.'' That is, the name Adam means first father."15* "Clearly, if our Father in Heaven were the father of the physical bodies of Adam and Eve, he would legitimately lay claim to the name ``Adam'' since He too is a First Father. His wife is called Eve because she" (ft nt. deleted) "is the mother of all living. The lectures on faith refer to God the Father as ``the father of all living.'' (Lecture 3:6) Paul too notes that the Father of Jesus Christ is named the same as the family of heaven and earth. Genesis 5:2 states that God named the male and female Adam in the day that he created them. Harking back to the Hebrew meaning of Adam as Man or Mankind it is logical to assume that when God created man he gave them (both male and female) the name Adam or Man. Hence Paul's comments take on added significance: "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. (Eph. 3:14-15)..." The most difficult discourse to apply to the dual Adam concept is the one which appears in J.D. vol.1. The difficult passage is as follows: "When our Father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken." There is a transition in the discourse from Father Adam to Michael. It occurs after ``one of his wives with him'' and before ``He helped to make and organize this world.'' Unfortunately, the original account of this discourse is not extant; however, two other accounts of the same discourse indicate that pivotal words are missing from the account. Both reports, one by Wilford Woodruff and one by Samuel Hollister Rogers include these words before mention of Michael: ``and eat of the fruit of the garden until He could beget a Tabernacle.'' (ft. nt. deleted) "If we insert these missing words into the account, a different meaning is apparent: "When our Father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives with him. [They ate of the fruit of the garden until they could beget a Tabernacle]. He [the child] helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken." There is a correlation between this concept and the teachings of the scriptures, apostles and prophets and Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith did comment on parallels between the Father and Adam and made a distinction between the two: "The Son had a tabernacle and so had the Father; but the Great God has a name by which He will be called which is Ahman - also in asking have reference to a personage like Adam for God made Adam just in His own image. Now this is a key for you to know how to ask and obtain.16* "Undoubtedly, it would be nice if we could point to a revelation where Adam is mentioned twice as two separate individuals. This appears in the original version of Joseph Smith's vision of the celestial kingdom, now section 137 in the Doctrine and Covenants: "I saw father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin that has long since slept,..."17* Here is a clear and apparently deliberate distinction between ``Father Adam'' and ``Michael.'' It may be the source of Brigham's comments. This revelation was edited for publication in the Deseret Weekly in September of 1852 and the reference to Michael was deleted. Although we cannot determine who did the deed, Orson Pratt, opponent to the Adam-God doctrine, is a likely candidate. He was the editor of the first edition of the D&C published in the Salt Lake Valley, and arranged the sections in their present order and versification. He may have been responsible for this correction which has remained in its edited form through all publications. Franklin D. Richards commented on the Adam-God controversy and gave this inspired advice: "Tell the Saints that if this stone does not seem to fit into the great building of their faith just now, to roll it aside. You can help them to roll it aside out of their way, so that they will not stumble against it while at their daily duties, and it will be but a very short time till they will find a place in their building where no other stone will fit, then it will be on hand all right, and will come into its place in the building without the sound of hammer or chisel.18* There are six quotations of President Young where the Adam Sr./ Adam Jr. explanation does not fit well. There are many more where it does. In the instances where the quotation is opposed to scriptural doctrine, we may conclude that the recorders wrote what they heard Brigham Young say rather than what he actually said. The controversy engendered by President Young's comments could have been quickly and succinctly handled by him while he was alive. It appears though that he was not interested in clearing up the problem, rather, it appears that he preferred to let the Lord reveal the answer to those who would inquire."19* Brigham Young seemed to have also to have thought of the title of "Father" with great respect,20* BY is reported to have said: "...I have a request to make of my family & that is that they, especially old people, omit calling me their Father. Call me Brother Brigham--I shall feel better when you do, for I do not consider that I am worthy of that application--Father in the Priesthood implies the great head. The term would be proper to Father Adam. Jesus had reference to the same thing when he told his disciples not to call any man Father on earth for their Father was in heaven." Perhaps this may have been how BY thought Adam was, he (Adam) was Father in the sense that he was "the great head" the founding first human man & father of the human race, but who also had a Father, the Most High God-Eloheim. Allen Richardson gives us the following in an unpublished research paper entitled: "What is the Adam-God Theory?" He present a number of sources from the Journal of Discourses. He mentions the one that has caused a lot of difficulty, Vol.1 p.50-1, & then wrote that in Vol.2, p.7 BY speaks of Adam as learning the things of God. In Vol.4 p.217, BY said that if there were no veil, we could trace our history back to Adam & from Adam to the Father of our spirits. In Vol.9 p.148, Richardson tells us that BY said that Adam was conversant with his Father, that Adam's children were acquainted with their Grandfather, that his grandchildren were acquainted with their Great Grandfather, etc. In Vol. 10 p.312 BY asked whether or not Adam opposed God, and that we can help to remove the curse brought on by Adam by the help of God our Father & our Lord Jesus Christ. (See: Journal of Discourses, 3:94, 4:271, 280). In Vol.10 p.355, Richardson wrote that BY said that the Lord had appeared unto Adam. (See: Vol.s 7:290, 10:230, 232). In Vol.16 p.167 BY is reported to have said that Adam assisted in organizing this earth. If Adam had been God, in the same way that the critics seem to have interpreted BY as saying in a literal way. Then why would he have been assisting instead of directing the work of creation? Also God permitted man (Adam) to fall. (Vol.s 13:144-5, 14:71, 11:41-2, 9:291, 6:31, 10:264, 11:41-2. BY also taught that Adam had a Father in a literal way, that his father was God the Father, just as Luke had said in Luke 3:38. See: Vol.s 2:6, 11:122, 7:285-6, 6:275. In Vol.4:217 BY seemed to have been aware that some of the things that he had said about Adam had troubled a good many people, who seem to have not been able to understand what he meant. In Vol.8:174 BY taught deification, that Adam hoped that his children (the human race), who are faithful co-workers with God, our Father in heaven, could be saved. Vol.10:5 BY said that God is Supreme, Almighty, King of Kings. A King is higher in rank than a prince, Adam has also been called a great prince, so he could not have been the Highest God, for that rank belongs to Father-Eloheim.21* In Vol.4:216, BY tells us of our Father in Heaven the great Eloheim, that we should pray to in the name of Jesus. Deification of the human race was also taught by Brigham Young, Vol.11:123, 7:238. Richardson also mentions that in Vol.s 10:312; 13:309, mentions that Adam was created in God's image, & that Adam fell through transgression. Vol.3:94 Adam if called a son of God as in Luke 3:38. In Vol.8:179, says that God has provided for his children the sons & daughters of Adam & Eve. Vol.8:283, "...the Lord comes & dwells with his people, & walks & talks with them as he did with Father Adam." In Vol.9:149, "...Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, & talked & walked with him; & the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather..." In Vol.10:235, Our Father and God appointed his servants to go and organize an earth, he also said to Adam to go and assist in the creation also. Father Adam was also told to have children through Eve, Adam's wife. God the Father made Adam. Vol.10:355 the Lord appeared unto Adam & Eve. The Lord blessed Adam & called him Michael, the Prince, the Arch-angel. The Lord comforts Adam, & sets Adam at the "head" of a multitude of nations, & calls him a "prince" over them forever. So in like manner, every faithful son of God, becomes, as it were, Adam to the race that springs from their loins. Again the title of "Adam" is suggested here as "the great head," such as an Adam over ones off-spring. But notice here, that also there is still a higher God above Adam, the prince. For additional examples of where BY shows that there is Higher beings, above Adam, & that Adam.22* Through the years others have made responses to the critics, attempted to sort out this whole polemical situation as best as they could. Stephen E. Robinson, like many others, has pointed out that the so-called "doctrine" really had never became official. And that BY is not around to be able to explain what he meant by some of his comments on Adam. He wrote that [AM] have not only interpreted BY's remarks for us, telling what we are suppose to believe, but they have elevated this theory to the status of official doctrine, thus have they dictated to us what are doctrine is suppose to be. When we have not accepted it as official doctrine in the first place.23* Earlier in this book I had shown how that the Tanners had taken BY's out of context in the case of their quote from the Deseret News June 14, 1873, & it's reprint June 18, 1873 report by David W. Evans, of BY's June 8th 1873, address in SLC Ut, Tab. on Sunday afternoon, as portions of it appear on p.175, 1st col. of (MSOR?) 1982 Ed. & 1987 Ed. And how that the photo copy of this address on p.176 of the Tanners (MSOR?), helps us see how they have selected only portions of this talk, in order to lead their reader, so it would seem, towards the biased interpretations that they seem to hope that their readers will reach. I remember one or 2 times, when I was up at Temple Square during some of the Conferences, which ones I can't remember, (1984-7?). I had the chance to talk to Wally Tope, & I showed him these sources right out of the Tanners book, & the questionable use of the sources. I showed him how that the Tanners (or if it was not the Tanners, how someone) had underlined up to a certain point, but had not underlined, or included some things in the far right hand col., (or the 5th col. over), some things that showed that BY knew who Adam was, that he was Michael, a great prince, and that there was a Higher ranking Being far above Adam, & that higher ranking Being is called by Brigham Young to be Eloheim. For Eloheim had commanded Adam-Michael the great prince to go and make an earth. It is interesting to note that later tracts by Tope, (that are note dated), & of which I obtained from him at later discussions, (when he was in Utah, to "witness to the Mormons" such as at the 1991 Utah State Fair, mentioned earlier). In his tract: What Did Brigham Really Teach About the....Adam-God Doctrine?, on p.4, he has a portion of The Deseret News June 18th, 1873. Tope has underline a portion, like the Tanners, did in their (MSOR?), op. cit., p.176, to a certain point, for their own biased reasons & interpretations of that portion. (Tope may have even used a portion taken from the Tanners' book, or from the same photo copy that the Tanners got their source, (or from for The Deseret News June 18th, 1873). For up to a certain point the way in which the underlined portion begins, looks the same in the Tanner's book, at it is also underlined up to a certain point in Tope's tract. But Tope like the Tanners, stop short of the portion that says after the part "our father & God--" that part that says: "I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it." The Tanners do not underline, any more in col.4, but start underlining again in a portion in col.5. While Tope starts to underline again right after the part "I care nothing about it." So in other words, Tope seems to have ignored that part. It was also interesting to hear him mumble quickly passed that part when confronted with it, & when asked to read passed the portion that he selects to read, to that portion where he seems to really want to, or would rather ignore. It was also interesting to note that he also had underlined, & had included the portion that I had shown him earlier, & even underlined it for us. But while he includes portions of this in his tract, he failed to also see the other ways in which this sermon could be interpreted. 1. That BY was either saying that he did not know, did not inquire, or did not care about the "doctrine". Or 2. That he did not care, etc. about the unbelief that exited in the minds of the Latter-day saints concerning this "doctrine."24* But also Tope, like the Tanners, had failed to acknowledge the part that shows that Adam could not have been our Most High Father & Most High God, because he was only a prince, but a "great prince" & was Michael. And that Eloheim was in far greater, & higher rank that Adam-Michael, the great prince. For Eloheim had commanded Adam-Michael-the-great-prince to go & make an earth.25* Tope however does not acknowledge how that a person could arrive at a totally different interpretation that would go against the traditional [AM] interpretation. And that this sermon is really evidences against the [AM]s' interpretation. Tope still went ahead & misused this portion, (despite & even after he had been shown how that it has been misused by some of his fellow critics), he went ahead & used it for his own [AM] biased reasons. He attempts to use it as a "proof texts source" in order to claim that BY called the subject a "doctrine" as compared to how Spencer W. Kimball called it a "theory."26* But have some of the critics not see how someone could arrive at another possible interpretation, if they were to consider this & other things that BY said, or is reported to have said about Adam, & his place of rank with regards to this polemical situation? The [AM] Christian writer, Floyd McElveen also seems to have been very selective in his sources also.27* He passed over the same part as the Tanners, Tope & others have, by leaving it out. He give us a clue that something was missing, with the use of the (...), ellipse. He also ignored the part that shows that Brigham Young mentions Eloheim in higher rank than, Adam-Michael, a great prince. His standards & interpretations are very biased & if they were placed on the Bible prophets, as he has with LDS ones, the Bible prophets would not be able to pass the McElveen test. Now while I have questioned, & rather boldly pointed out what I have thought might be some errors, misrepresentations, things taken out of context in Tope's & the Tanners & others [AM] critics writings. I have tried to be fair here. And yet I also want to be honest, and therefore, while I have pointed these things out in the critics own books & writings. I must admit that I have also noticed that some of my own fellow [PMD] have failed to acknowledge certain portions of this same talk by Brigham Young that would have helped them, (It is my opinion), in their own defenses of this issue, had they perhaps taken a closer look at the source. Which in fact they may & may not have, some say that they have, (such as Van Hale who I recently discussed this situation with). Perhaps some of them had read the source as it was presented in anti-Mormon publications, but failed to take a closer look at the source, or to check it out in an original copy. (Which is something that some of us ([AM]s & [PMD]s, etc., including myself as a [PMD]), do or have done, at times. When it comes to reading & checking out source materials & the hundreds of references, footnotes etc.) But what ever might have been the situation in their (some of these [PMD]) cases. I feel that I should be honest & fair in pointing out what I have noticed. (Thinking perhaps if I don't the critics will sooner or later any how.) Eugene Seaich makes reference to the same talk in his [PMD], Ancient Tests & Mormonism,28* In which he said that 4 years before BY's death, he (Brigham) made "...the wistful recollection four years before his death that "Adam-God" was a "particular doctrine which I revealed unto (the Latter Day Saints)," [Mistake in original book, should have been Saints, comments here mine, DT). "and which God revealed to me."29* Seaich then wrote: "Indeed, Brigham Young never attempted at any time to present his theory to the Church's councils & membership for official acceptance; nor did he attempt have it referred to in the lecture given at the conclusion of the Temple Endowment...." Seaich mentions Christensen's writings mention earlier here.30* For what ever reasons known perhaps to Mr. Seaich, he makes no reference to the contents of BY's talk, than as seen here, which could have also helped him in his defense. On Dec. 18th 1991, some time about, & between 4:00-6:00 p.m., I talked with Steve Mayfield at Mormon Miscellaneous, Head Quarter, Sandy Ut., by phone. We discussed some of the past, & present situations amongst both sides, (Mormons & [PMD] & [AM] Christians). He told me some interesting things that have been going on both side of the situation. Van was said to have been busy at that moment. During a 2nd phone, a few moments not very long after the 1st. I was able to talk with Van Hale in person over the phone. The reason for the call was to double check a source that Van had used in one of his tracts entitled: "What About the Adam-God Theory?" (by Van Hale, & Mormon Miscellaneous, series No.3, July 1982). I explained my reason for the call, & thinking that Van may have still been busy with his printing company there. I got to the point. I told him that I had been fussing over a few words that I felt could lead the reader to other possible interpretation, as found in the June 18, 1873 Deseret News, etc. I told him that I could not locate his tract a the moment, & asked if he would take a few moments to explain why he had presented The Deseret News, June 18, 1873 statement of Brigham Young, in a similar way in which I had noticed that the critics had. (In his tract he had left out the portion that, I have mentioned earlier: "I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it.") I asked him if he was aware of the other portion, that I have already mention here, as well. And I read it from the a copy of an original, that I had there with me during our conversation. His response was interesting, & it helped me see a little more of his point of view, in the situation & issue. He (Van Hale) has taken the position that this was a real doctrine that Brigham Young did in fact believe. And Brigham Young believed that God did reveal it to him. He says that he did not include that portion. (And he gave me the time to write down this response), "Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the point that I am making in that paragraph." (point #3). He said that some critics point to this source as if it was an official doctrine being thus announced. Van said that there was a number of points that he want to bring up, to show how that the doctrine was never considered to be an official doctrine. That though Brigham Young in some cases clearly taught it as a doctrine, it was never voted upon, or canonized or officially made an official doctrine, despite even though Brigham Young had some personal beliefs that he held that God had revealed it to him. I asked him what he thought Brigham Young meant then when he said: "...I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it." His response was close to the interpretation that mentioned above as #2. But also as he pointed out from his tract, he was also making the point that there was other sources that would suggest another interpretation. That BY could have thought of Adam as our Father & God, in the same way that God made Moses to be God to Pharaoh. (Ex.7:1-2). He also told me that the Tanners, Tope, Decker, & other critics are aware that Brigham Young taught a line of succession of ranking God that goes back from Adam who had a father, who had a father, who had a father, & so on. He said that some members & critics attempt to interpret the title of Eloheim, & Yahovah in the same ways as we think of them today. He pointed out that the position of Eloheim & Yahovah, etc. was still in the stages of being developed, in earlier Mormonism, and he mentioned, upon my request a study done by Boyd Kirkland published in Sunstone & Dialogue. He also told me that some of the critics include this idea of a succession of Gods. And said the purpose of his tract was not to try of convince people that BY didn't teach what he did, but of one who was convince that he did teach it, but as a personal belief, & not as an official doctrine. But also to point out a number of points, & disagreements that he has with the anti-Mormon interpretations of these situations. And those of the splinter sect from Mormonism. He brought up other evidences that he felt helped prove his points. I asked him for permission to use portions of his findings, & he gave it. He was very polite, calm, & we had a good conversation, & I think that I learned a little bit more concerning his position on this subject than I had at first thought that his position was. I thanked him and then we ended our conversation together. For a brief overview of Van's understanding of this polemical situation, see the said tract, What about the Adam-God Doctrine.31* Others on both sides of this situation have conflicting views between each other on this polemical situation. Brigham Young is not around to be able to settle the matter once & for all, so we are left with these differences of opinions as to what he meant by different things that he said. Just as in the case with other things in history. The bottom line however still stands. Whether Brigham Young believed it, or not, or whether many of the people of his time believed it or not, is really besides the point, because it was never elevated to any official position of being an official doctrine. The critics would have us think that it was, & they would have us believe their own selective brand & interpretations. Just as we all may have our own biased ways of looking at this situation on the Mormon side of the situation.32* THE TITLE OF "ADAM" AN EARLY CHRISTIAN TYPE OF CHRIST? There seems to have been some indications that some out-siders, & some of the earliest critics claimed that there were contradictions amongst the early Christians as to who Christ was, who Son was He?, etc.33* As I have already shown from the writings of Wilken. The critics also seemed to have took advantage of the different things concerning Christ, was he "the first born"? only begotten? or was he the "son of Man"? or the Son of God? Or was he the son of a roman soldier? These questions, & different titles, etc., must have been the gossip different critics who sought to only add to the confusion that may have already existed concerning Christ & his divine origins, name, titles, & who son he really was.34* The Bible also used the same sort of titles for different Biblical persons. Christ is called the title of the "Everlasting Father," certainly this would not mean that he is how own Father, or that he is literally God the Father, for that would make him not the son of God, but the son of himself, wouldn't it? Isaiah also gave other title in this passage, (see: Isa.9:6). What would happen if Isaiah scriptures was to have been treated in the same way as some of the statements of Brigham Young have been. Would Isaiah have mistaken Christ for the Father? Or the Father for Christ? Of course not. What about in the case with 1 Cor.14:44-5, did Paul mistaken Christ for Adam, or was Christ & Adam the same person? Of course not, for Paul was drawing a similitude, & typology between the two. Adam was not literally Christ, nor was Christ literally Adam, but a type, even "...the last Adam..." not literally speaking of course, but symbolically. The same sort of typology is used in Rom. 5:14, in which Adam is a type of Christ, or was like unto the "...figure of him that was to come." This was not to say that Adam became Christ or that Christ was Adam. For Paul seems to have use a figurative similitude between the two. But while the Christology of the New Testament "...speaks of a heavenly saviour, the "Son of Man", the Second Adam,..." these terms are claimed to have been "...absent in the Qumran doctrine."35* Jeffery Burton Russell mentions Christ as "the 2nd Adam," & also "the new Adam" (a symbolic titles perhaps), & that Adam & Christ were a type of each other in some cases in early to later Christian thinking.36* But who is to say that this sort of typology might show up in other places with the discoveries of primitive books, etc.? Christ is also given the titled of "the second Adam" by Bernard who is reported to have used this title by calling Christ "the second Adam." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.1, p.102, The Ep. of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chap. 19, note 5.) The 4th cent. AD Christian Father, & writer, S. Cyril of Jerusalem also used a typology to illustrate his points. This sort of thing was a common practice amongst some of the earliest to later Christians, according to Roger Adam.37* S. Cyril of Jerusalem compared the saving wood of the ark, with that of the saving wood of the cross, & he called Christ in a figurative sense, "...the true Noah..." (See 37*). "...Medieval Christian belief held Adam to be a prefiguration of Christ, Jesus being the first spiritual man as Adam had been the first physical man...." Also "...Eve, the first mother, foreshadowed the Virgin Mary or the Church...." In some art works and manuscripts of early to later Christianity, trees, plants, branches, etc., were used as symbolical types of Christ. "...The vigorous shoots of the Tree of Virtue show it is a tree of life; it is the Tree by which the Second Adam, Christ, gives life to those who feed on its fruit : `For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive' (I Corinthians XV, 22). Thus man is urged to root out the Old Adam in himself and plant and nourish the Tree of the New Adam, but he is also offered sustenance by that Tree...." The Alton Towers triptych, is an enamel work said to date back to about 1150 A.D. This work has some typology to considered. For as it was from a Tree from which Adam took the evil, death-dealing fruit, so also from a Tree, did "Christ the Second Adam" give the life-giving fruits to the sons of Adam. Another work has the same type of typology. For "...the Second Adam greets the Second Eve who tramples the serpent underfoot..." 1170—85, in the codex from the Benedictine Regensberg house of St. Emmeram, in a portion presenting the creation scenes with explanations, “the Second Adam greets the Second Eve who tramples the serpent underfoot. . . . Adam now turns towards the Second Eve. . . .” Hence, historic Christianity used types between Christ as the second Adam, and even, in some cases Mary as the Second Eve, especially in the descent into hell and the resurrection dramas, art works and types. Perhaps, if these types were misinterpreted under anti-Mormon “Christian” logic, one could charge that in historic Christianity, Adam died on the cross and thus was their god, especially if someone was to point out that Adam, in historic Christianity, is deified a god. What would be left out too, is the fact that the Second Adam or Christ, is symbolic for being a type of Adam. In the explanation of The Holy Family on the Steps, by French painter Nicholas Poussin, 1594--1665, as “if re-enacting the Fall, when Eve gave the apple to Adam, the young St. John is handing the apple to Christ, the new Adam. Other scriptures that may have troubled some of the critics & early Christians may have been ones like, Matt.1:1 & 16:16. Was Jesus the son of David?38* Or was he the Son of the Living God? Through the genealogical lines on back through Christ's Mother, Mary, in a certain sense he could be.39* Celsus had claimed that Christ genealogical line was nothing more than a fabrication, he questioned the men who wrote of Christ genealogical lines going back to the first man, Adam.40* Origen had his own response to this of course. But as we can see, it seems that there was some conflict & perhaps some misunderstanding on the part of some of the critics, outsiders, & perhaps even some of the new Christian believers, who may have had to get over some of the terms, titles, typology, & teaching methods of the early Christians. In order to understand the messages that some symbolical types of Christ contained. I have some times wonder if the same sort of thing may have also been the case with some of the things that Brigham Young said about Adam. Christ is also mentioned by title of "the second Adam," in a footnote concerning early Christian writings.41* Consequently, if one was to use the same types of tactics as the critics, one might make it sound like anti-Mormon “Christians” worship Adam as their only God. THE DEIFICATION OF ADAM IN EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS: AN ADAM-GOD DOCTRINE IN EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT?! In Mormonism, as also in some early Christian writings, there is the concept that human family can be deified, glorified, & perfected, in which they advance towards godhood, until they reach godhood & are called a god, (in the case of the males) or a goddess, (in the case of the females). This is through Christ's atonement, the gospel, & is obtained in the highest degree of the resurrection. (1 Cor. 15). Adam was the first earthly father, he is one of the very first ones to have been resurrected, after Christ's resurrection. In being raised up out of the underworld by Christ, who clasps Adam's hand. Adam is glorified, resurrected, perfected, & deified, according to some sources in early Christian writings, & the symbolism behind many early to later Christian art works. In Mormonism, Adam was Michael the Arch-Angel in the pre-existence, before he was born. But he is also well on his way towards deification, in the eternities to come. Thus this "great prince," the arch-Angel, the first man- the first Adam, will become a god, or may have already become a god. Adam is not the Most High God, nor is he God the Father, as some critics have wrongly suggested. In some cases in early Christian writings, Adam some times has represented "man" or the human family. But also Christ is entitled "man," such as "the Son of Man." etc. Irenaeus [120-202 A.D.], for example, wrote a few things about the creation, & Christ's descent into the spirit prison, in which Christ, or "...by means of the second man" [Christ is here given the title by Irenaeus as "the second man"], "did He" [Christ] "bind the strong man," [satan] "& spoiled his goods," (Matt.12:29), "& abolished death, vivifying that man who had been in a state of death. For at the first Adam became a vessel in his (Satan's) possession, whom he did also hold under his power, that is by bringing sin on him iniquitously, & under colour of immortality entailing death upon him. For, while promising that they should be as gods, which was in no way possible for him to be, he wrought death in them: wherefore he who had led man captive, was justly captured in his turn by God; but man, who had been had been led captive, was loosed from the bonds of condemnation. But this is Adam, if the truth should be told, the first formed man, of whom the Scripture says that the Lord spake, "Let Us make man after Our own image & likeness;" (Gen.1:26), "& we are all from him: & as we are from him therefore have we all inherited his title..." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p.455-6.) Irenaeus says here that satan had promised something that he could not give, for it was impossible for Adam (also representing mankind in general, in some cases), to "be as gods" through satan, for it could only be through Christ, & Christ's gospel, the atonement, & the resurrection that this could happen. Irenaeus was not, in this case, writing against the doctrine of deification. For Irenaeus expounds on the doctrine of deification over & over again in his writings. For he accepted the doctrine, taught it, & even defended it. Therefore the reader should keep in mind the other things that Ireanaeus wrote about, when they consider the above said portion here. (See: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.1, p.326, 386-7, 403, 405, 430-1, 433, 435, 448, 450, 473-4, 478-9, 488-90, 497, 521-6, 531-3, 535, 540, 544, 548, 560-1, 567, & 569-70.) Irenaeus wrote that Christ had defeated the devil, & had liberated "man," & had destroyed death, having gained victory over death & "...For his salvation is death's destruction. When therefore the Lord vivifies man, that is, Adam, death is at the same time destroyed." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.1, p.457.) Irenaeus also had used the same sorts of titles, & types, as others may have, in that Adam is mentioned as "the first Adam" while Christ is given the symbolical title as a type of the first Adam, while being entitled "the second Adam." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.1, p.544). The early Christian writer, Theophilus of Antioch [155-168-181 A.D.], in response to the early anti-Christian Autolycus, wrote that Adam had become a god. "...And God having placed man in Paradise, as has been said, to till & keep it, commanded him to eat of all the trees,-- manifestly of the tree of life also; but only the tree of knowledge He commanded him not to taste. And God transferred him from the earth, out of which he had been produced, into Paradise, giving him means of advancement, in order that, maturing & becoming perfect, & being even declared a god, he might thus ascend into heaven in possession of immortality...." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, p.104, see also p.105.) In some cases in early Christianity, Adam's grave was said to have been below the cross. "To bring out the idea of the redemptive work of Christ, the Judaeo-Christians felt it needful to create the legend around Calvary that Adam had been buried in the grotto below. The parallel, Adam-Christ, which is quite basic in St. Paul's theology of the redemption also, lies behind these narratives concerning Adam which evolved fully around Calvary. The second Adam was to make good all the damage brought about by the first..." [Adam]. "...The first to be rescued was, naturally, Adam. By his liberation, that of all humanity could well be expressed.... According to their" [Judaeo-Christians] "special ideas, the redemption by Christ was to have particular meaning for Adam: a kind of anticipated glorification of his body also. In this connection, we read in The Conflict of Adam & Eve that Melchisedech saw on the body of the first man a great light, while in the grotto under Calvary he could see angels going up & coming down to help the just souls scale the "cosmic ladder" between the grotto & paradise." In a manuscript said to date back to "...a pious compilation of the first half (possibly the second quarter), of the fifteenth century, and `there can be little doubt that it was made for, and probably in a Carthusian monastery... The language is Northern English; so the book may well have been produced in such a house as Mount Grace in the North of Yorkshire.'" Some of themes depicted on a couple of pages show the creation drama, etc. Plus, "...the Risen Christ, the New Adam, summons and welcomes the Redeemed to eternal bliss." One of the types & symbolical meaning depicted is how that the way for the escape from the jaws of hell was done through Christ the "new Adam". The blood of Christ streams down from the wounded Christ to scenes which depict the 7 sacraments "...which span the distance between the citadels, providing man, from his Baptism to his Last Anointing, with a sure pathway to the Heavenly Paradise." Thus, "...the blood streaming from the Wound enables its beneficiaries, through the medium of the Sacraments, to enter the Heavenly Paradise." Jennifer O’Reilly also notes, in her study of Iconography, that in the 13th century work of the Church of Synagogue flanking the Crucifixion, at the foot of the cross is “Adam, from whose side the Logos-Creator draws Eve. From the wounded side of the crucified Second Adam above, the New Eve, the Church, emerges bearing the Eucharistic chalice to administer to the faithful, while a priest of the contemporary Church baptises a latter-day child of Adam at a round font.” Here, different elements of numerous ritualistic types are blended together, for the creation hand and wrist grasping is blended in with fragments of lore on the descent into hell and baptism for the dead. The creation wrist grasp is in the same place, under the crucifixion scene, as other art works that show the hand and wrist grasping that takes place during the harrowing of hell, the descent into hell, hades, limbo, the grave, purgatory. But also, in as much as baptism was considered the ritualistic type of Christ’s descent into hell and resurrection. Consequently, this aspect of the baptism, taking place by the cross, is a fragment of baptism for the dead. In the act of Christ reaching down towards Adam's hand to clasp it, in order to raise him up from the grave, the pit, hades, limbo, etc., as that realm has been called in early to later Christianity. And as Adam reaches up towards Christ's hand. (Again we see the hand clasping "rites of passage" or ritualistic symbols in such hand clasps, see: Isa. 42:6-7; Eph.4:7-10; 1 Pet. 3:15-22, 4:5-6; etc.) "...His" (Adam's) "reentry to paradise has already begun & his deification (along with the deification of mankind) is already under way in this miracle of re-creation, as the Anastasis came to be known." (Anastasis (The Making of An Image), by Anna D. Kartsonis, Pub. by Princeton Un. Press, 1986, p.72, etc.) There also references, in typology, to the Old Adam and the New Adam, and the ascension towards paradise in which the radiant New Adam is deified, perfected and glorified. I sometimes wonder how such sources as these might have been misused, distorted or misinterpreted, had these sources been from ancient Christian books? And if some of the modern [AM] "Christians" were to have lived in ancient times? If they had been part of that early anti-Christian movement, would they have also charged that the early Christians had some kind of "Adam-God Doctrine," as they have in modern times, in the case with the Latter Day Saints? * STAR NOTES * FOR #92: 1* Fundamentalist groups. see: What About the Adam-God Theory?, by Van Hale, Mormon Miscellaneous, series #3, July 1982, p.9. 2* (MSOR), Tanners, op. cit., 1982, & 1987 Ed. p.175-6. 3* Gal.5:12, 1 Cor.5:5, Matt. 5:29-30, etc., etc. are other examples. 4* See photo copy on p.178-D of (MSOR?). 5* He make reference to Genesis 3:23, Moses 4:29, Alma 11:45, 12:23, D&C 107:53, Jude 9, & H.C. 4:575-576, Joseph Smith H.C. 2:320. 6* Joseph Smith in H.C. vol. III pp. 386-387. Also in J.D. 6:237. Allred would have us consider & compare "The Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith," p.158: Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next. This shows a hierarchy in the priesthood with only one possible order: 1. Christ 2. Adam 3. Noah." 7* BY Journal of Discourses 13:311. 8* BY JD 4:213. 9* The Illustrated Bible Dictionary p.1498, Pub. in 1980, in Aust. by Hodder & Stoughton. Gen.5:1-2, Matt. 16:27, & the ft. n. to the 1979 Ed., of the LDS Scriptures. 10* The Journal of Discourses, Vol.1 p.50, 2nd col. 11* Tope underlines other portions, but what follows is a portion, from p.50-1, of Journal of Discourses Vol.1, which he has a copy of (both pages) in one of his [AM] tracts. I have underlined here those portions in the same way that he underlined the same portion that I will quote here. So the underline is the same as his, but I have added the high-lite. [AM] tract: What Did Brigham Really Teach About the...Adam-God Doctrine? by Wally Tope, title page. 12* Journal of Discourses Vol.1 p.50-1, 2nd col. bottom portion to the top of the 1st col. on p.51. 13* (MSOR?) 1987 Ed., p.173, 2nd col. citing portions from the Journal of Discourses Vol.1:50-51). 14* Note mentions: Lecture at the Veil, St. George Temple. Comment added by me. See: Ancient Texts & Mormonism, by Eugene Seaich, op. cit., p.101, & n.374 on p.143, Cully Christensen's The Adam-God Maze, Scottsdale, 1981, 205-38. Much of Christensen's argument is faulty, Seaich says, but the historical matter in this section is generally reliable. 15* Bruce R. McConkie, Ensign December, 1985 p.59. 16* Joseph Smith, 9 March 1841. McIntire Minute Book published in Words of Joseph Smith, p. 64. 17* Joseph Smith Diary cited in The Revelations of Joseph Smith by Lyndon W. Cook p. 303. 18* Millennial Star vol. 16, pp. 534-535. 19* Alma Allred, The Adam-God Theory. 20* Wilford Woodruff's Journal p.39, by Ogden Kraut, Pioneer Press, SLC. Ut. Typography by Anne Wilde. 21* The Deseret Evening News, June 14, 1873, & The Deseret New June 18, 1873, a report of Brigham Young's discourse: Sunday Afternoon June 8th 1873, given in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Ut, The Deseret News (308), June 18, 1873 account was reported by David W. Evans. (see 5th col on the right hand side of the page). Evans also reported the same talk in the June 14, 1873, of The Evening News, see also Journal of Discourses Vol.10:355. 22* Vol.11:41, 122-3, 13:311, 10:230-1, 2:302. The basic information here was derived from Allen Richardson's "What is the Adam-God Theory?", an unpublished tract given to me by Richardson, not dated. 23* Are Mormons Christians? Robinson, op. cit., p.19-21. Eugene Seaich also makes a few comments about this polemical situation in his: Ancient Text & Mormonism, op. cit., p.101-104. And: "The Adam-God Doctrine" by David Buerger, Dialogue, Spring, 1982, p.14-58. 24* Kurt Van Gordan, [AM] Christian, has suggested other possible interpretations, as well as others critics that I have talked with. I have included here this other possible interpretation, which I have agreed could be a valid possible interpretation, for the purpose of being fair here, as I hope that some of our critics would also be fair with us. And even though I would rather be inclined to go along with the first possible interpretation here. Because of the other things that BY has said concerning Adam being Michael, the Arch-angel, & a great prince, who is lower in rank than the other divine beings above him in rank, such as Christ & Eloheim. Despite this, I have decided to included it any how for the purpose, as already stated. 25* So while Tope has included this portion & has underlined it, (while the Tanners still have not, in their 1987 Ed. of (MSOR?), op. cit., p.176). Tope, (perhaps having underlined it, & included it, because different ones like myself have pointed it out to him, but what ever is the case). 26* Tope, op. cit., p.1. 27* On p.83 of his book: The Mormon Illusion, (Which is inside the book: God's Word, Final, Infallible & Forever), McElveen mentions selected portions of comments made by different ones on the Adam-God theory. He cites portions of the Deseret News, June 18, 1873. 28* Seaich, op. cit., p.101, & note 373, & p.143 of his notes, n.373. 29* Ibid., Note: 373 mentioned on p.101, p.143 mentions: Deseret News, June 18, 1873, 308. 30* Ibid., p.101 & n.374 on p.143. 31* Scrapbook of Mormon Polemic, Vol.1 #1, p.9, Could a Prophet? by Van Hale, etc. point 16-17. 32* For more information see: The Position of Adam in Latter-Day Saint Scripture & Theology, by Rodney Turner, BYU 1953, Thesis. Also: The Deseret News, Sat. July 23, 1921, B.H. Roberts, Answer Given to "Ten Reasons Why `Christians' Can Not Fellowship With Latter-day Saints" Discourse Delivered in SLC Tab. July 10, 1921, by Brigham H. Roberts, reported by F.W. Otterstrom. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, by David John Buerger. And: Mark E. Petersen's talk in the Oct. 1980 Gen Conference, pub. in the Nov. 1980 Ensign. Spencer W. Kimball in 1976. Elwood G. Norris in 1978, "A Scriptural Refutation of the Adam-God Theory" in his Book: Be Not Deceived. [AM] see: McElveen, op. cit., p.79-90. (MSOR?) Tanners, op. cit., p.173-178-D. 33* Mark 12:28-37, note verse 35-37. 34* (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.105-7, 144, 191-2. & Monumental Christianity, Lundy, op. cit., p.68-70. And: Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages, by Daniel J. Lasker (NY: KTAV, in 1977). p.5, etc. also mentioned in The Gainsayers, op. cit., p.43, & p.232, notes 7, 11 & 14. Also: Christianity in Talmud & Midrash, by R. Travers Herford, (Lon.: Williams & Norgate, 1903), p.44, etc. And: (TANF) 4, p.403, 408, & 410-423. And: (COTTD), op. cit., p.57. 35* Daniel To Paul, p.214, Ed. by Gaalyahu Cornfeld, Hamikra Baolam Pub. House 1962. 36* The Prince of Darkness, Russell, op. cit., p.67, 152, & 204. 37* Cyril of Jer. P.G., XXXIII, 982A. also cited in Roger J. Adam's 1977 thesis, Baptism for the Dead, p.40), Roger J. Adam, op. cit., p.38. 38* Mark 12:35-37. 39* Luke 3:23-38 & Matt. 1:1-16. 40* (COTTD), op. cit., p.64. 41* (TANF) Vol.1 p.102, see note under 5, to The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, chap.xix. #93. WHEN & TO WHOM HAS THE "PRIESTHOOD" BEEN GIVEN TO. In both the ancient church & the restored latter-day Church. The Priesthood has been a wondrous power that has help mankind. But it is another situation that has been a challenge & a test of faith for the saints. The bottom line on the modern situation is that no knows the revealed "official" position on why the priesthood has been given to males members, instead of also female members also. And there is at this time no revealed "official" answer to why the Black race was not given the priesthood until 1978 when it was opened up to all male members including those of the black race. Such silence from the heavens has cause many to only give unofficial speculative answers as to the reasons why. For example: Some have speculated, (speculations are not official doctrines) that the Black race were less valiant, or not valiant in the pre-existence, & thus were denied the blessings of the priesthood in earth life in the flesh.1* The thinking on this may have been very similar to the earliest Christians, & even some of the close followers of Christ. For they seem to have thought that, just as the conditions (good or bad), that one will, or may find themselves in the next life is based in part on what the person(s) have done or not done, or how they have lived, (good or bad?). So also, it may be that the conditions (good or bad) that many, if not all of the human family who are born into the flesh, or this life, may find themselves in. May have been determined on the kind of life that they lived in the pre-existence, (good or bad). Such as with the case with the blind man, mentioned in John 9:1-2. The disciples thought that the reason why this man had been born blind was because of sin. And so they asked Christ, "...who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"2* But the question concerning the priesthood is even more so in ancient times. Why did only one tribe "the Levites" get to hold the priesthood and the others didn't? So while our critics may be tempted to point at us for the situations concerning the black race. They should perhaps know by now that their own Biblical history even has a greater challenge of faith. So it would seem that what ever charged is placed on the Mormons, even a greater charge would have to be placed on the Biblical situation. There is really no real easy answer to this ancient & modern situation. And I suppose that this will be a test of faith, or something that will challenge many people. We know that early Christians speak of the priesthood. And in some cases it was believed that a person (male member) could not perform a baptism without it. The New Testament also shows us that the priesthood was an important part of the earliest church also. The early critic, like the modern, have made issues of this very thing.3* From the earliest days of the Church, Christ's powers were considered by some of the earliest critics to be from the powers of the devil or "...by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." (Matt.12:22-28). Many of the early to later Christians also believed that the priesthood played an important part in the Church. The laying on of hands, or the "imposition of hands" (In which a hand or the hands of the male members who held the priesthood would place their hands, or a hand on the head of the person being blessed, (if they were sick), or who were being confirmed a member. The male members who had advanced in rank, would also be given the "imposition of hands" by higher ranking leaders in the church, & thus they would be given the priesthood. There are many art works, writings & examples of this in the different scattered branches of Christianity which shows this.4* S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, wrote "...For the Gospel is a work perhaps for one or two; but baptizing, for every one endowed with the priesthood...."5* Roger Adam wrote that "...From liturgical sources we find that the bishop or priest placed the right hand upon the candidates's head as the catechumen dipped himself under the water; the hand on the head therefore signifying the immersion which is about to take place. It is also possible that the hand upon the head of Christ represents a conflated image signifying both baptism and confirmation; confirmation in the early church being considered part of baptism & not separated by a lengthy time interval as in the Catholic Church today."6* Had we had lived in the time of Moses, some of us who were not born into the tribe of Levi may have wondered why it was that certain ones would be able to enter the priesthood, & the holy places of worship, while others could not. (Joshua 18:7). Some, if not many of us in modern times may have had to also admit that if we were to take a look at the situation from the point of view of many in the Black race, we would have to admit that they may have a justifiable question. But was not this racist? We know that many of them have felt this way, as well as many outsiders, but also there are many members, (though they would not want to admit it in public, while some may), admit that the earlier position of the Church both ancient & modern perhaps did seem unfair, & racist.7* When I was a missionary in 1980-2, in the Oakland California Mission, & while in Oakland City, amongst "the Black peoples" there. I know that this was a challenge for them, as well as for me. I could not explain or justify why it was that certain races were not given the priesthood. I know that many Blacks there, were turned off, or had rejected our message because of this issue. So it was certainly a test of faith for me, as it is, I'm sure, for many of us in the Church, as well as those without. Perhaps the same sort of case may have been in the ancient Church & situations amongst the Jews. And even in some early to later branches of Christianity.8* So the test of faith, & challenges of this situation are not only for the Mormons alone, but for our critics, & their own early to later Christian history. How they would answer their own charge, while attempting to explain their own history, is perhaps what we might be tempted to say. I know that amongst many of the Christian churches in the southern states, there is still feelings of racism, some of the blacks against the whites, & some of the whites against the blacks. But this does not excuse us from having the same sorts of feelings. It's time to set aside all hate, racism, and misunderstandings and get on with the teaching of Christ by having love for all members of the human family. Color Symbolism in History In Jewish and Christian color symbolism, and histories, white garments were used to symbolize purification. Though in later centuries, different colors were also used, in some cases, white robes were also worn after Christian baptism to symbolize purity. White Sunday, in later centuries, became a traditional feast that preserved this symbolism. The reversal of this is the black robes that Satanist put on during their Black Sabbaths. In early to later Christianity Christ, Adam and the resurrected saints are glorified in the resurrection. If this was reversed, as it is in Occult lore, instead of being glorious, they would be darkened. A.D. 160, The Shepherd of Hermas, symbolically presents garments, and color symbolism to suggest the degree of sins, or the degree of righteousness of those clothed in different colors of garments. Isaiah, John & Hermas present the colors of garments as a symbolical type of the degrees of the righteousness or wickedness of a person. Garments are symbolic in the mysteries of the deification in the after life realms. Demonification is the reversal of deification. Hence, instead of becoming more like Christ, God and the holy angels, as in deification. In demonification you become more like the devil and his fallen angels, you are demonified. . . Thus, Whit Sunday is really a corruption of White Sunday. And Black Sabbath is the reversal of this historic Christian symbolism. If this is reversed in Satanism, and other earlier secret societies, then, instead of becoming more like Christ, they believe that they will become more like the Satan. In some later Christian writings concerning the creation of Adam & Eve, & their children on into later generations. We read that the righteous were to "...Make no fellowship with the children of Cain the murderer and the sinner, who killed his brother..."9* In other cases of later Christian history & symbolism, the darker colors were symbolic of evil, & demons were depicted as having dark skins.10* For example, “the people of Jesus’ day were pictured in dark colors as full of sin and all manner of wickedness, as if he suddenly arrived from heaven like a bright comet against the black background of Judaism.” The color white was also a symbol, (in some cases, & in some areas of Christendom), of things that were pure, & good.11* Perhaps some extreme sects of Christians may have taken this symbolism in a literal way with regards to races, went to an extreme. In the "Epistle of Barnabas" said to have been written about 118 AD in the Jewish-Christian community of Egypt, author unknown. Satan is called "the Black One," & who ever gives into the temptations of "the Black One" were cut off from Christ, & thus would also find themselves on the side of darkness. Jeffery Burton Russell notes that "...Barnabas made the explicit symbolic connection between evil, darkness, & blackness, symbolism that was to have a long and sinister history in Christian civilization." Russell also wrote that many later Christians thought of the Devil as being usually "...black, symbolizing the absence of light and goodness. His skin is black, or he is a black animal, or his clothing is black. Sometimes he is a black rider on a black horse...." Red is also another color that is symbolic of the fire of hell, & blood. Redheaded men & women were believed to be more subject to satan's influence than others. Other colors were symbolic as well. During the 6th century A.D., in the 2nd of fifteen Anathematisms on Origen, we read about a version of the war in heaven, and the fall of the angels, which was rejected, how that certain heavenly being “became satiated with the vision of God, and had turned to that which was worse, everyone according to the nature of his inclination, and had assumed bodies, finer or grosser, and received names, whilst, among these powers there was a difference both of names and bodies; so that some would be and be named cherubim, some seraphim, principalities, powers, dominions, and thrones, and angels, and however many heavenly orders there may be,—let him be anathema.” Also, another aspect of certain versions of the pre-existence, though it was rejected during this century, still shows up in later art works in later centuries, in which demons are depicted with dark skinned bodies, and in which Satan and his fallen angels’ bodies are changed and darkened during and after their fall from heaven. Hence in number four we read that: “If any one says that spiritual beings, in whom divine love grows cold, are covered in grosser bodies like ours and called men, whilst others who reached the summit of evil had received cold and dark bodies, and are called now demons and evil spirits, let him be anathema.” Despite such council that rejected this version of the pre-existence, Christendom, for centuries afterwards, continued to depict the devil and his demons in many art works, with dark colored skins, and even black skins. The color black “is the one most closely associated with evil and death. . . . The DEVIL himself was formerly said to materialise out of choice as a black-skinned man, and up until relatively modern times in some remote areas people turned themselves right round on meeting a black man, just in case he was the Devil in disguise”. Hence, these later superstitions may be one of the reasons why blacks were dehumanized during days of slavery. Dante's (1265-1321) "Divine Comedy" reflects the symbolic depictions, & use of these symbols in depicting the fall of the devil & his angels. They are depicted as "black fiends", one of them says that they had "...become as black as coal,..." They having lost their fair & bright nature.12* Some art works also depict the fallen angels as dark winged beings as they fall, or are being thrust out of heaven.13* Later, in the Titus Andronicus, "...Aaron will have his souls black like his face...." The "Black Mass" was called in this same type of symbolic terms for it was done in mockery of the Catholic mass, & was a perverted reversal of Christian rites, as it was said to have been performed against Christ, by satanist.14* Mystery plays in the Middle Ages also depicted this also. Satan & his followers in heaven are depicted in art works, plays, etc. as dark skin monsters in some cases. So it seems that in many cases in the scattered branches of Christianity that there was this type of symbolism. Perhaps there may have been some Christians, such as in Germany, who may have taken this symbolism to an extreme, by looking upon those who were of darker skin races, as if they were like unto the demons, or were not of the pure race, & were evil.15* In later centuries, colored symbolism was still used to mean negative things, for example, in 1895, Right Rev. Charles Joseph Hefele, D.D., in his A History of the Councils of the Church, mentions how The Emperor Theodosius II had issued an edict that the peace of the church should be maintained, and that it “should not be allowed that men who had died in the communion of the Catholic Church should be blackened”. The [EAC] Julian "the apostate," may have also made the priesthood & divine powers of God, (as given to the Christians), an issue as well. He asked why God would only send prophets, & anointed ones to the Jews, (which the Christians, he said were apostates from), but neglected us. Origen had said that anointed ones had been send before & after Christ, as representatives of Christ to all the world, in different times & places, and he said this earlier in response to Celsus, who brought up the same sorts of charges & questions as Porphyry & Julian did later.16* The [EAC] may have also looked upon the priesthood as a sort of magical power, as critics would & have in modern times. While many of the ancient & modern saints have respected the priesthood as being given by God unto men, to help the human family on the earth. And to act in behave of, & as representatives of God, as they were inspired to do so. Many modern Christians have questioned & challenged the need of having any sort of priesthood at all. I have heard different [AM] Christians claim that the priesthood was done away in Christ, who became our last "High-Priest". The problem with this, is that the New Testament has shown us that he passed on power & priesthood authority to his chosen followers, (see: John 15:16, etc.), who also passed on authority to others. Thus there has been polemical situations from the early times, as to who has the correct "line of authority" back to Christ. The polemical situation is still an issue, even today. Another issue that has been a challenge for some is the tradition in the Church in which some have believed that the Indians would become white.17* Also this was brought up by critics during some radio programs, on KZZI, & other stations over the years now. This was never an "official doctrine" but a personal believe held by some early & even later Mormons.) This is really not to far from the earliest to later Christian believe concerning what kind of bodies a person would be resurrected to. For there will be different kinds, of bodies, some more brighter in glory than others. The righteous, (as compared to the less faithful) would have brighter, more glorious bodies as compared to the unrighteous, or less faithful. Some early Christians even taught that the wicked, who refuse to repent, would retrogress into the dark & wicked beings like unto the devil & his demons. Thus they would also take on their (the demons) nature & form. While on the other hand, (or even on the "right hand path") the righteous would be fashioned like unto Christ glorious body. Later Christians therefore may have thought of their resurrected skins as glowing brighter, while those who go down "the left hand" path would become like unto the dark skin devils, as art works, & writings depict. So it seems that there are many cases in early to later Christianity in which some believed perhaps that darker skin peoples would be resurrected to lighter skins, & glorious bodies. So while are critics may be justified in questioning the beliefs held by some early to later Mormons, they should realize, that in their attack upon the Mormons, they may also be attacking themselves & their own earlier Christian beliefs. And the Biblical beliefs held by Paul, & others. In the doctrine of deification of the human family, is the strongest evidence for this. For as the souls of mankind are deified, according to New Testament & many Early Christians, the resurrected saints' spirits are clothed (in some cases) as if (symbolically) in a white garment, (as in the holy mysteries), just as the spirit has been clothed in a resurrected body like unto Christ's glorious body. This change that has come about in their bodies, seems to suggest that their outer skin color may have also been changed to a brighter color, perhaps even whiter, & more glorious in order to "shine" like unto the brightness of the sun. As compare to those who have followed the devil & his angels & who thus become darkened in their nature, thoughts, & form. While some Christians may have literally thought this would happen in the process of the "two ways," the 2 paths. There may have been some Christians who didn't look upon it in such a literal way, but only as symbolic. It seems however, that there were many early to later Christians who did seem to believe that they & their fellow righteous Christians, would be changed into brighter colored bodies in the resurrection. Thus I think we could say that they had a similar believe, though there are some differences, as compared to some of the early to later Mormon beliefs.18* Not to long ago, some book of Mormon passages that were considered to be literal by many earlier readers, were changed for clarification purposes. "White" is also symbolic in some cases for "pure."19* Edna Barth notes how that in the Easter traditions of historic Christendom, “White stands for light, purity, and joy.” Thus to avoid further misunderstanding, (such as had already arisen in earlier Mormon history), some words were changed from "white" to "pure" for clarification reasons. This is not to different from what some Christians are doing or have done with different versions of the bible. Words are changed, from earlier & older languages, in order to clarify the meaning of the texts. Take a look at a 1611 King James Version, as compared to a modern King James Version, & you will notice many differences in spelling, etc. as compared to today's standard spelling practices. But many [AM] critics seem to ignore, accept, or acknowledge such changes, when it come to the bible, while they place a double standard on the Mormons, and say you can't do that or you will be guilty of "altering the words you claim are from God," attempting to "falsify," & "deceive" the public with such changes. To these issues, some [PMD] have shown that the critics would not be able to pass their own tests & standards. But despite this, the critics still stick to their double standards & bring up the same old charges all over again.20* "Blackness and darkness are almost always associated with evil, in opposition to the whiteness and light associated with good...." wrote Russell.21* These terms may have been confused & interpreted in a literal way by many early to later Christians, just as in the case with the Book of Mormon, & earlier Mormon history, (with regards to some passages in the Book of Mormon, & the way some people have interpreted the scriptures). While many modern “Christians” have charged Mormonism of being “racists” because of its earlier policies on who could hold the priesthood, the blacks being excluded, at one time. While this is a challenging chapter in Mormon history, still Christendom has its “dark” chapters too, especially during the slave era during the 1600's through the 1900's. In the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, An American Slave, (Boston, New York: Beford Books, 1993). A black slave, Frederick Douglas describes the conditions in apostate Christendom. He noted was the worst thing about slavery What I mean by “dehumanization” is illustrated in the following explanation of this tactic. It is important that this word is defined, from the very start, as a tactic and method of thinking and describing things. Hence, this tactics’ dehumanizing effects works in the ways in which it creates a negative picture of something good. For example, you can make a fresh pound of hamburger in a freezer sound totally gross and terrible by describing it in a negative way, and by leaving out the fact that it has been preserved in a freezer. Hence, how many hamburgers would McDonald’s fast food stops sale if they put ads over the radio about their smashed up, mutilated, extra bloody dead cows for sale? Not very many, right? Now, think about it, hamburger is, in reality, smashed up dead cow! However, most of us meat lovers don’t like to think of it in that way while were chomping our teeth into a meat lovers’ pizza. If we know the truth of what was left out of the story, we also know that the meat is, we hope, preserved in a freezer, and that it is cooked before we eat it. However, I think that this rather gross illustration demonstrates my point about this age old tactic that is used to “justify” the enslavement and slaughter of different members of the human family throughout history. Consequently, the dehumanization of the black race is, with out a doubt, what Frederick Douglas experienced and saw as the worst thing about slavery. Dehumanization had stripped him, and the enslaved black race of their rights, in a land hypocritically proclaiming to up-hold and defend freedom and human rights. Dehumanization had set in force the ideology that justified, in the minds of the “Christian” white Masters the beatings, whippings, murders, man-stealings, cradle-plunderings, family breakings, and the adulterous breedings of the black race they had enslaved. They felt justified in doing these terrible deeds because, after all, the blacks, according to this dehumanizing thinking they adopted, weren’t real human beings, but rather, they were sub-human brutes to be treated like any other cattle or personal property. The sad part about this whole mess is that the dehumanization tactic is an age old one that has slaughtered and enslaved millions of members of the human family. The most shocking jolt that Douglas gave to his readers & listeners was to jolt them back to the reality and the hypocritical state that slave holding “Christianity” was in during his time. After learning to read and write, he did exactly what the Masters feared members of the black race would do. Hence, they feared that if their slaves, or the black race should expand their mental horizons through learning to read and write, they would soon endanger the whole hypocritical system of slavery. And this is exactly what happened, Douglas awakened with in himself new horizons of knowledge that had been forcibly suppressed by his Masters who sought to keep him, and his fellow slaves in the darkness of ignorance, for “literacy was power.” It was a ray of hope in the darkness, showing the way to freedom! It was a candle in the window of a friend of a friend. Consequently, as Douglas increased his skills in reading, writing, and speaking, his words were added to the fuel that fired the light that exposed the truth about the horrors and dehumanization effects of slavery. Moreover, especially as it was being practiced & justified by so-called “Christian” whites of the American land. Furthermore, Douglas wrote: “What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference--so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of “stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.” I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week meets me as a class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation. He who sells my sister, for purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity. He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right to learning to read the name of the God who made me. He who is the religious advocate of marriage robs whole millions of its sacred influence, and leaves them to the ravages of wholesale pollution. The warm defender of the sacredness of the family relation is the same that scatters whole families--sundering husbands and wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers,--leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth desolate. We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against adultery. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchases of Bibles for the poor heathen! all for the glory of God and the good of souls! The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other--devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.” [After citing from Matthew 23; Luke 11:39-52, about Christ’s bold comments to and about the hypocritical practices of the ancient scribes and Pharisees, Douglas continues:] “Dark and terrible as is this picture, I hold it to be strictly true of the overwhelming mass of professed Christians in America. . . . They would be shocked at the proposition of fellowshipping a sheep-stealer; and at the same time they hug to their communion a man-stealer, and brand me with being an infidel, if I find fault with them for it. . . . They love the heathen on the other side of the globe. They can pray for him, pay money to have the Bible put into his hand, and missionaries to instruct him; while they despise and totally neglect the heathen at their own doors.” (Frederick Douglas, Lynn, Mass., April 28, 1845). Slavery, notes Douglass, is hostile to family life. This was one of the dehumanizing effects that slavery had upon people, the splitting up of families, many of which were products of different Masters who had sex with their own female slaves. The “product” of such unions were children still considered “sub-human” slaves, even though their lineage was part of the so-called “superior” white race. Hence, it was shocking for me to learn that the Masters were abusing, beating, thrashing, and working to death, their own children! Furthermore, that they sold their own children like “cattle.” This was the type of world that Douglas was born into. Watching, helplessly, as different families were split up, sold, or moved from place to place, according to the desires of the Masters. Where was human law and equal rights under God, as promised by the Constitution? The “sub-humans” didn’t have human rights, according to the thinking of many of the colonists, for in as much as the Blacks, the Indians, and the poor were considered “sub-humans” or not even “human” at all, there was no equal rights for them. Hence, this is what Douglas and others began to fight for, once they realized through the written word, that which was being suppressed from their minds they began to fight against this dehumanization ideology with the ideology that blacks, Indians, and others were humans too. And if humans, entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity. After he learned to read, a whole new world opened up for him. And as noted in the book, some of the anti-slave writings began to shape is thinking. Literacy was the power that helped shape his skills to relate, in talks, what he and other slaves had experienced. Hence, the more well read he became, the more he was able to articulate the horrors of slavery. I have often asked myself: How did many of the early white Colonists justify rebelling & fighting for their rights against the British, could turn around and reasonably justify slavery? It was saddening to learn that the same thing that had happened in early American history was the same type of thing that later happened in Nazi Germany, that of the dehumanization of those races which another race wanted to control and enslave. Slavery was the dehumanization of humans, and Douglas knew this, that’s why he wanted to humanize blacks so that the rest of humanity would see that they were humans with histories too! The dehumanization of different races has been the justification behind those who sought to enslave, slaughter, and take away the rights of the “sub-humans.” We see this all throughout history on up even to our own day in time with the ethnic cleansing programs of some of the wicked leaders in Asia Minor. A good case in point, which parallels the slavery issue, was the dehumanization of different races under Adolf Hitler’s New Order. Hitler and many of his early followers derived a lot of their ideology from the earlier militant Knighthood Orders, and from other occult Orders. The “New Order” in Germany also derived its concepts of the “Aryan” super-human white race from the occult teachings and works of Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891). In Germany, they blended in her concepts with many others found in secret German Orders. Her works: Isis Unveiled, and The Secret Doctrine were accepted by many German mystics and occultists before, and during World Wars 1 & 2. Blavatsky’s writings influenced the occult militant writings of the Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels. His racialist, and occult Ariosophical movement, the esoteric Order of New Templars, in turn, influenced Hitler’s world views. Hence, his Ostara impressed and influenced Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Rudolf Hess, and many other early Nazi leaders. In Ostara, Lanz presents world history as being a struggle between the white races and the darker skin races. The Jews, he wrote, were considered to be sub-human, hence, they were, he demanded, to be exterminated. The darker skin races were also dehumanized too, thus, the Nazi felt justified in mass murdering and enslaving these “sub-human” races. Hitler’s murderous New Order, however, didn’t slaughter and enslave nearly as many members of the human family as Communism did. Derived from another secret society, The Order of the Illuminati, this atheistic Order’s conspiratorial plans, inspired by Adam Weishaupt, gained power in Ingolstadt, Bavaria (German) in 1776. Karl Marx’ revolutionary ideas grew out of this Order’s earlier revolutionary principles, out of which came his Communist Manifesto. The revolutionary plans to establish a World Order and government have lived on in later generations. Thus, the followers of these plans derive their secret plots from the earlier secret Orders. They hope to continue this earlier quest for global government until they accomplish the establishment of a militant New World Order. Under this Order, according to governmental conspiracy Theorists, the powers that be would seek to bring about “Global 2000." Though Slavery, Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and communist Red China have slaughtered over 112 million humans, and communism had enslaved over 1/3 of humanity during it era. These numbers are insignificant as compared to what some have suggested would be murdered and enslaved under a One World Government, New World Order. Especially if their Global 2000 ethnic cleansing & mass murdering satanic doctrines are put into practice with modern weaponry in their hands. Consequently, accordingly they would seek to reduce half of the human family by the year 2000, and would enslave the “sub-humans” that remained. Hence, while we are shocked at the dehumanization that “Christian” masters of the 1600's through the 1800's used to justify cradle-plundering, women-whipping, slaveholding, adulterous breeding, and in some cases even murder. We are even more shocked to find that the same dehumanization ideology is still in practice today to justify slaughtering millions of un-born children. And this, I suppose is the on going lesson of history which the human family hasn’t learned yet, and that is that the dehumanization justification tactics are again at work. Except, instead of dehumanizing the blacks and Indians, it has dehumanized the unborn. We see this in the same way dehumanizing descriptions given to unborn baby in pro-abortion talks, and literature. Their thinking is, just like the early white slave holders of early American Civilization. For they say “it” in reference to the baby, “isn’t human yet, so were justified in killing “it.” Note for yourself, how, as it has been exposed by Pro-lifers, who pro-abortionists will use every dehumanizing description they can find to make dehumanize the human baby in order to justify turning the womb into a tomb! This was the same tactic that the colonists used to justify the evils of slavery. Furthermore, what Hitler’s propagandist did during his New Order, is what the One World Governmentalists or New World Orderists are doing in their propaganda to keep the population reduced through abortions. Furthermore, it is the same tactic that the Romans used to slaughter and enslave the early Christians. Just as it was the same type of tactic that later Christian Knights and Crusaders used to justify going to war against the “infidels” among the Moors, and other Islamic invaders. Which in turn, was the same type of dehumanization which fanatical extremist among the Islamic race have used to justify terrorism! It may have been the same type of justification that Romans used to expose their children to the elements until they died too! Moreover, how had, as Douglass had noted, “Christianity” in America let this dehumanization tactic into their churches during his time? Had they inherited it from earlier generations of apostate “Christianity”? After all, didn’t the white Masters find scriptural justification for beating their slaves in Luke 12:47? However, why hadn’t the “Christian” whites among the colonists remembered what had happened in historic Christendom? How that the early Christians were hunted, enslaved, slaughtered, thrashed, burned, and eaten by lions, as thousands of Romans watched? What ever might be the answers to these questions, it shall forever remain part of the history of American Civilization that the worst part of slavery was the resurrection of this age old dehumanization tactic in order to justify evil in the name of good. Furthermore, it forever remains as part of the history of this land that dehumanization was used in the minds of hypocritical white “Christians’” to justify the practice slavery. However, it took different ones like Frederick Douglass to awaken the masses to the consequences of dehumanizing others for the sake of gain. Douglas noted and exposed the truth with so much emotional force behind his words as to awaken our consciences to recognizing the same types of dehumanization tactics being practice in our day. But can we learn from history what history has been telling us? Finally, what Douglas realized was the consequences that this dehumanizing justification tactic was having on not only the slaves, but the slave holders themselves. For while the slave holders were attempting to climb their way up the social ladder toward higher wealth and high society, by climbing over the bodies and backs of so-called “sub-humans.” They had, in fact, actually fallen back down even deeper, especially when they reached the top. Hence, their climb upward was actually their fall, for they had retrogressed into becoming what they hated, and were even more terrible than the so-called “savages” they had enslaved, or despised. Their climb upward on the bloody backs of their slaves had also set the stages for one of the most bloodiest wars in the history of American Civilization, the Civil War. If there is any lesson to be learned from history, it is that we should have learned a long time ago to love one another with unconditional love. For now the dehumanizing justification tactic is today being enforced with even greater and more terrible weapons of war than in the past. Hence, we must recognize the lesson that Douglas and other slaves were attempted to give us. For at the heart of dehumanization is conditional love. This type of love is not the Christ like love that Douglas notes, nor is it what Christ had taught, but rather, it is a type that can be defined and manipulated. That’s what Douglas was warning us against, for conditional love can be molded according to the thinking and dehumanizing language that one might, and can come up with, in order to justify taking away others’ rights to being a member of the human family too. While unconditional love is colored blind, and can solve a lot of our world’s problems before they get started. Hence, while the human family is always seeking bigger and better jails, and laws of address the problems of evil actions & their consequences after they have arisen. Unconditional love gets at the heart of many problems before they get started because if we all had love for one another regardless of what race, religion, or social static we held in this life, there would be no need for stricter laws on gun control, because we will have learned more self control. Hence, will we ever learn the lessons of history? Must we always be doomed to repeating them? I hope not, I for one, hope I will always remember what Douglas has taught me. And I hope that others will too. Bibliography: Painted Black, Carl A. Raschke, 1990. Red Fog Over America, William Guy Carr. None Dare Call It Conspiracy, by Gary Allen. John Robison, A. M., Proofs of a Conspiracy, 1798, reprinted by The Americanist Classics 1967. Unholy Alliance, Peter Levenda. “En Route to Global Occupation, by Gary H. Kah. “Proofs of a Conspiracy” by John Robinson, A. M., 1798, which talks about the Illuminati, Germanic Orders, and the French Revolution. “The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow” by Constance Combie. Video documentaries considered: The World At War (Series). The Rise And Fall of the Third Reich. The Occult History of the Third Reich (Series). Battle Line (Series). Decades (Series). Biography (Series). Hitler, The Whole Story (Series). How Hitler Lost the War. Mein Kampf. * STAR NOTES * FOR #93: 1* (MSOR?), op. cit., p.262-293-F, on p.263, 2nd col., the Tanners cite from a letter dated April 10, 1963, Joseph Fielding Smith. And: Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine p.476-7. 2* Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible III:869, cited in Mormonism the Dead Sea Scrolls, & the Nag Hammadi Texts, Seaich, op. cit., p.5-8, 2 Pet.2:4, Jude 6, Rev. 12, & the Book of Enoch, op. cit. 3* John 15:14-16, Acts 1:21-26, Luke 6:12-16, 10:1, 16-17, Eph.4:11-14, 2:19-21; 1 Cor. chap.12; Acts 6:2-8, 8:15-24, 13:2-4, 9:12, 17, 19:5-17, 28:8-9; Heb.5:4-10, 7:10-28, James 5:14-15; 1 Pet.2:5 & 9, etc. 4* (TN&PNF) Vol.13, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, Epistle LXVII, to Quiricus, p.82-3. Caesar and Christ, by Will Durant, 1944, p.600, & n. 28-9, "...By the year 200 the laying on of hands took the added form of "holy orders," by which the bishops assumed the exclusive right to ordain priests capable of administering the sacraments validly." Ibid., p.600. See also: Cath. Encyc. IV, 217-8. And: Apostasy from the Divine Church, Barker, op. cit., p.104-6. Art of the Medieval World, by George Zarnecki, Pub. H.N. Abrams, fig. 154. 6th cent. AD depiction. See also: The Art of the Byzantine Empire, by Andre Grabar, op. cit., p.125, pl.27. The Salerno Ivories, by Robert P. Bergman, Harvard Un. Press, Lon. Eng. 1980, fig. 169. Classical Inspiration In Medieval Art, by Walter Oakshott, 1959, op. cit., pl.III:A-C, 12th -13th cent. etc. 5* The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Part 1, Hom. I.--XXIV., p.28, see also p.30-2, pub. Oxford, John Henry Parker; J.G.F. & J. Rivington, London, MDCCCXXXIX. 6* Baptism for the Dead, Roger Adam's thesis, op. cit., p.16. 7* Neither White nor Black (Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church), by Lester E. Bush, Jr. & Armand L. Mauss, Editors, Pub. by Signature Books, Midvale, Ut., 1984. The Sunstone Magazines: Vol.3, #5, July-Aug. 1978, article entitled: "to every worthy member" by Janet Brigham, p.11-15. Also: Vol.4, #3, May-June 1979, Mixed Messages on the Negro Doctrine: An Interview with Lester Bush, by Thane Young, p.8-15. And: Vol.5, #6, Nov.-Dec. 1980, The Curse of Cain & other Stories: Blacks in Mormon Folklore, by William A. Wilson & Richard C. Poulsen, p.9-13. And: Vol.6, #3, May-June 1981, Mormonism In Black Africa (Changing Attitudes & Practices 1830-1981), by Newell G. Bringhurst, p.15-21. 8* Acts ch.10 & 11:1-21, 21:17-40. Some translators of the early Christian writings of Clement of Rome [A.D. 30-100], have also pass on this same sort of symbolic terms, as they may have been traditionally been used by later Christians, or perhaps even the earliest Christians, such as the Apostles & the Apostolic Fathers. Some translators have chosen to present some of the writings of early Christian times in "King James Bible" English that has gone through some changes, as compared to the 1611 versions on up to our day in time, (the 1990s). What ever may be the case, it is interesting to note that in the 1st Epistle of Clement, Chap. VIII, the symbolic terms "blacker," "white," & "whiten," are used by Clement, as he used the words of Isa.1:8 in his own way. (TANF) Vol.1 p.7, chap.VIII of Ep.1, Clement.) 9* The Forgotten Books of Eden, The 2nd Book of Adam & Eve, p.69-71, & 79; chap. 12:10-11, 16; 14:2; 15:2; 16:5; 20:33-38. 10* The Prince of Darkness, Russell, op. cit., p.34, The Armenian gospels, A.D. 1202, depicts a demon as having black skin. See also p.50, 9th cent., & p.59, from an Illumination, Book of Kells, c. A.D. 790, & p.105, 114-5, & on p.134, a page depicting black colored demons coming to take the soul of the "rich man" in the Lazarus story, is depicted in this 11th century Manuscript from the Pericope Book of Henry II, Germany; & p.182, 214, 237 & 244. See also Rom.1:21. See also: Italy (History Art- Landscape) by Mercury Art Books Florence, 1954-7, p.200-1, 14th century depiction. Art of the Early Renaissance by Michael Batterberry, 1961-4, 1968, p.120-1. Also: Art of the Middle Ages, by Michael Batterberry, op. cit., p.76, fig. vii-14. The Place of Book Illumination in Byzantine Art, by Kurt Weitzmann, p.40-1, fig.34. The Illustration of the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus, by Rupert, op. cit., see LIX, fig.179, Fol.15v., etc. The Ancient Civilizations of Byzantium by Antione Bon 1972, p.114. The Christian World, Barraclough, op. cit., 100-1. 11* A Short History of Tapestry, by Eugene Muntz, p.83. And: The Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, Clarendon Press, p.70, see white, & pure, p.1614. 12* The Prince of Darkness, Russell, op. cit. 13* Medieval Miniatures, L. M. J. Delaisse, p.96-7, & Monuments of Romanesque Art, op. cit., pl.207, fig.480. 14* The Prince of Darkness, Russell, op. cit., p.236-7, Man Myth & Magic, Vol.9, p.2479, op. cit., Beyond Science, op. cit., p.120-1, Witchcraft, by Eric Maple, p.101. The Ultimate Evil, Terry, op. cit., etc. 15* Of Pure Blood, by Clarissa Henry & Marc Hillel, (Translated from the French by Eric Mossbacher), 1976, Pub. McGraw-Hill Bk. Co. NY, etc. Also: Movie documentary presented on: "Our Century," entitled: Mein Kampf (German for "My Struggle"), 1961, Columbia Pictures, (A Blueprint for the Age of Chaos, written by Erwin Leiser), Narrated by Claude Stephenson, Produced by Tore Sjoberg, A Kit Parker Film. In this documentary, Hilter is said to have been influenced by earlier anti-Jewish & racists tracts & books. Darker skin races were considered evil, & the Jews were "the devils" themselves. Some of the publications & the racist publisher is mentioned in this documentary. 16* Op. cit., (TANF) 4: p.407, 422-4, 447, 464, 468, 557, 609, 641, etc., & (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.103, 123-4, 162-3, 180-2, 199, 201). 17* [AM] (MSOR?), op. cit., p.230-A-D. 18* 1 Cor.15:35-42, 2 Cor. 3:17-18, Matt. 13:43, Dan.12:3, Phil.3:20-21. And: Since Cumorah, Nibley, op. cit., p.172-77. Rev.6:10-11, 3:5. (TANF) Vol.4, p.475, 509, 550-1, 592-5, etc., (OAC), op. cit. (TN&PNF) Vol. 8, p.15-16, Basil, Vol.X, p.321-3, Ambrose, etc. Iconography of Christian Art by Gertrud Schiller, Vol. I, fig. 376. & Vol. 13, p.3, op. cit., Gregory the Great. Classical Inspiration In Medieval Art by Walter Oakshott, 1959, pl.III:A. The Salerno Ivories, Bergman, op. cit., fig.169. Swarzenski, op. cit., pl.113, fig.258. Baptism for the Dead, Adam, op. cit., p.57-61. Medieval French Miniatures, Porcher, op. cit., 27. The Encyc. of Visual Art, Vol.3, p.235, op. cit., Byzantine Wall Painting In Asia Minor (Plates II), by Marcell Restle, 1967, pl.28. 19* The Prince of Darkness, Russell op. cit., p.10, etc. The Forgotten Books of Eden, op. cit., p.8-9, 12, 24, 30, 34, 36-7, 89, 91, 92, etc. The Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, Clarendon Press, see: White, p.70, & pure p.1614. etc. 20* Comparing The Writing of the History of the Church with The Writing of the New Testament, (tract) by Van Hale, [PMD], Mormon Miscellaneous, response series #8, April 1989. See also: Rom.1:21, "...heart was darkened..."? (see also: Eph.4:18-27, 5:1-15. 1 John 2:8-13, etc.) Is this literal or symbolic? In early to later Jewish, but also in some cases in Christianity, such things (the symbolic terms: "White" or "black"), were symbolic of a condition of the person's or persons' way of thinking, or the way that they lived, (good or bad). Did they follow the dark path, or the path of light. etc. 21* The Prince of Darkness, op. cit., p.10, 13, 86, 114, 140, 148, 164, & 237. #94. THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS CHRIST. In both ancient & modern times, the early & latter-day saints have been wonder & speculated about the time & day when they thought Christ would return. Modern critics have distorted sources & taken them out of context, as I have shown already. The critics take a very "iffy" prophecy out of context in order to charge that it is "evidence" against Smith. The "prophecy" is concerning the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. In [AM] (MSOR?) P.187-8, & also Decker's To Moroni With Love, p.34-5. They abuse a source in the most unfair way. The Tanners quote from History of the Church, Vol.2 p.182. I shall quote here in part a portion that they have put in CAP. LETTERS. & have underlined. "...THE COMING OF THE LORD, which was nigh- EVEN FIFTY-SIX YEARS SHOULD WIND UP THE SCENE." With all the research that the Tanners have done, it is strange that they should fail to acknowledge Doctrine & Covenants Section 130:14-17. Decker also fails to mention the full historical situation from which this so-called prediction came from. The D&C explains the situation, showing us how "iffy" this prediction is. I shall quote a portion here as follows: "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, & trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die & thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time." (D&C 130:14-17).1* A similar situation arose in early Christian history, that also has some parallel, (in some ways), to earlier Mormon history. Their were some early Christians, & their were some earlier Mormons who took some of the speculative comments, as made by some of their fellow members & leaders, as being literal. They expected the Lord, Jesus Christ would return within their life time. And when it didn't happen, as some thought that it would, some members were disappointed.2* W.H.C. Frend tells us that by the year 200 AD some Christians were expecting the 2nd coming of Jesus, the New Jerusalem. Rumors were being spread amongst the soldiers in Severus' army that the New Jerusalem had been descending every morning in the deserts. The army was on their way to besiege Hatra, but were unsuccessful. A leader of the Church, 500 miles away in Pontus, was predicting the immediate end of the world. In the Eastern Church some Christians were beginning to doubt the Millennial expectations, for they had thought that it would be during that year, 200 AD, but such hope was beginning to fade, & those who had held such expectations, were troubled because the 2nd coming wasn't happening.3* "...Thus circa 200 a bishop of Pontus is said to have told his flock `If this (the Parousia) does not happen, as I have said, believe the Scriptures no more but let each one of you do as he will.'" Not to many Christians, however, accepted this advice. And so the year 200 AD passed with out the return of the Lord, at the disappointment of some of the early Christians, who had pre-maturely believed in the rumors, or predictions of some of their leaders. Or who had accepted some of the views of the time, which was that the end times were then, & the 2nd coming would perhaps be with in their life time. Martin Werner wrote that the whole 1st generation of faithful early Christians passed on into the next realm without having seen the fulfillment of the Pauline promise of the eschaton, thus proving that it was not they were not the generation of the saints of the last days before Christ's second coming. The expectations of many of the early Christian was pre-mature, the end was not yet.4* A.S. Garretson wrote that in the 2nd century, it was generally believed by many early Christians that St. John had predicted of the approaching end of the world, & the 2nd coming of Christ. The return of Christ, it was claimed, would be at the end of the century, the year 200 AD. But this prophecy was not fulfilled, according to their interpretations & expectations, & therefore some Greek bishops in the Eastern Churches of Asia, rejected the Book of Revelation, said to be from St. John. These bishops were said to have represented the "7 churches" of Asia, which John was suppost to have written to. (Rev.1:4-7, etc.) So it was that in the year 360 AD, these Greek Bishops met in council at Laodicea & discredited this gospel & voted it out of the canon. The Latin, or Roman Church, in the west, continued to keep the book with in the canon.5* Perhaps, as in the case with the modern situation, the early anti-Christian may also took advantage of this polemical situation, perhaps even declaring the downfall of John's "Book of Revelation." At this time I am not aware of any early anti-Christian charges, & therefore can only assume that this may have been the case. The subject of the 2nd coming, amongst the Latter-day Saints, is one of great interest. There has been many speculative books that have come into print in our time. As we approach the year 2000 AD, we may be tempted to speculate about that year, in a similar manner as the earlier saints seemed to have done about the year 200 AD. But what ever the future holds, & when it really comes down to it, we really don't know the exact hour or day when Christ will return for the 2nd time. The ancient & modern Prophet have never been given the exact time. But they have open up to our view a peek at the future. We in 1990s now look back at many things that we suspect may have been events in history that seem to have been pre-warned, pre-seen, & predicted would come about. But at the same time we also look for other things that we suspect have not come to pass, yet. The pages of our future have yet to be turned, & our future history is only seen in part, or given to us "in part." But what little "sneak pre-views" of the future we have been given by the Prophets of ancient & modern times. Such things causes us to rejoice & wonder at the blessings & great challenges that are over the next horizons of time, in the years ahead.6* The writers of The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 12, p.137-8, wrote the following, after a few comments upon a passage in 1 Peter 4:7-11: "...But is the end near? Was Peter wrong in holding that he lived in the "last days," seeing that the centuries since have disproved such an immediate hope? Like his first-century Christians friends, he may well have misunderstood the exact calendar time of the final end, but he did not misinterpret the imminence of the real & inevitable end. The immediate presence of that end is integral to the entire N.T. Paul writes to the Romans, "The night is far spend, the day is at hand" (Rom.22:20.) 1 John 2:18 says: "Children, it is the last hour." And the last book of the Bible concludes with the overture & response: "Surely I am coming soon. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" (Rev. 22:20.) All of them are talking about something which is considerably more than a future date...." (Ibid., The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 12, p.138, Pub. Abingdon Press, 1957, N.Y. Nashville.) WOULD THEY BE ATTACKING THEIR OWN EARLY CHRISTIAN ROOTS & THE NEW TESTAMENT? If the [AM] "Christians" were to allow for Peter, John, Paul, & many of the earliest Christians to have a wrong view or opinion in this matter concerning the time frame for Christ's return. If they were to tolerate such a thing, then they should also be fair in the case with Latter-Day Saint leaders, & members in general. Or they might be guilty of a doubled standard. If however they want to damn the Mormons in the case, then it seems to me that they would be therefore also attacking their own early Christian roots. * STAR NOTES * FOR #94: 1* Decker's T.M.W.L., op. cit., p.34-5; & Answering An Ex-Mormon Critic, by Carver, op. cit., p.12-13. 2* (MSOR?), op. cit., p.187, 1st col. citing from: Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.76, Klaus J. Hansen, mentions a situation that took place in 1890, in which many members expected the Joseph Smith's "iffy" so-called prediction of 1835, (mentioned already), would come to pass, that Christ would return. In 1903, Patriarch Benjamin F. Johnson is said to have been disappointed that it did not come to pass, just as some earlier saints in early Christian history were disappointed when Christ's 2nd return didn't happen in the year 200 AD as they thought it should. Their earlier leaders, & even some of the apostles seemed to have thought that Christ's 2nd return would be very soon. Thus many of the early Christians were also disappointed that Christ didn't come in their life time. Perhaps some [EAC]s may have used this situation against the Christians, as some modern [AM] have with the modern. 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2 Thess. 2:1-3; 1 John 2:18, 28; Heb.1:1-2; Acts 2:14-21. 3* (COTTD), op. cit., p.12-13. 4* (M&PITEC) Frend, op. cit., p.239 & 254, see also n.2 for chapter 12, on p.486, citing from: Hippolytus, Comment. in Dan, iv.18 & 19. See also: (COTTD), op. cit., p.12-13, & n.6, on p.46, Hoffmann cites from: Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, (London, 1957), p.25. 5* (PC&EC) Garretson, op. cit., p.104. 6* The Coming of the Lord, Gerald N. Lund, 1971, Bookcraft, SLC, Ut. The Ensign, Jan 1973, p.104-8, Harold B. Lee, op. cit., Also: The Era, June 1970, p.63-66. The Prophecies of Joseph Smith & their Fulfillment, by Nephi Lowell Morris, op. cit. The Ensign, May, 1982, p.62-4, op. cit. & Jan. 1973, p.26-9, op. cit. & Nov. 1981, p.64-6, op. cit. & May 1978, p.76-8, Nov. 1974, p.12-13, D&C 1:1-2,15-18, 34-6; 45:26, 33; see also Jan. 1973 Ensign, address delivered by Marion G. Romney, Sat. morning, Oct. 7, 1972, op. cit., The Ensign May 1980, p.32-4, Ezra Taft Benson's talk entitled: A Marvelous Work & Wonder. The April & November Conferences of 1980, op. cit. Crowther's books op. cit. etc. #95. CRITICS CHARGED THAT THEIR RIVALS' FOUNDERS OF THE NEW RELIGIONS WERE LIVING IN POLYGAMY. Some of the earliest anti-Christians are said to have rejected Jesus Christ, because he had so many wives. Similar reasons were used against the latter day prophets.1* Note: 1* See: Ogden Kraut, Jesus Was Married, 1969, p.21, 24, 90-2, 136-7). [AM] (MSOR?), op. cit., (NMKMH) op. cit. etc. During a radio shows on "Religion on the Line," (KTKK "K-Talk" Radio 630 AM, in Utah. Feb. 11, 1992). This subject was brought up by an [AM] caller named "Pete." I called in a responded to Pete's call. Van Hale was also there as a co-host, & we discussed this subject, and responded to some of the other charges that Pete had mentioned. Van mentioned a book entitled: Was Jesus Married? by Fibs. In which Mr. Fibs (A Christian), presents evidences that Jesus may have been married. #96. CRITICS MOCKED THEIR RIVALS BECAUSE SOME OF THEIR RIVAL'S LEADERS ATTEMPTED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES & EACH OTHER WHILE SOME OF THEM WERE BEING MURDERED BY THEIR ENEMIES. [See Note #48]. #97. CRITICS DISTORTED HISTORICAL FACTS, & CLAIMED THAT "BLOOD ATONEMENT" WAS PRACTICED. Blood Atonement, in short, is said to be a so-called "doctrine" in which the sinner is suppose to give his or her own life over, or was sought after by certain elders, in order so that they could be killed, so that his or her own blood could atone for his' or hers' sins. A number of critics have made the charge that this was a "doctrine" during later part of the 19th century A.D. in Mormonism. ([AM] (MSOR?), op. cit., p.398-404.) I have shown earlier in this book how some of the writings in the Old & New Testament could be made to sound, if certain scriptures were taken out of their historical settings, & interpreted in a literal way, under the [AM]s' own standards, logic, & tactics. Mormons, like the early & modern Christians do believe that the blood of Christ atones for our sins. So in that case, Mormons & early & modern Christians do believe in a form of blood atonement.1* Many early Christians also seemed to have believed that martyrdom assured salvation, & in fact some of the earliest saints even invited it, & wanted to become martyrs. Some seemed to believed that they could not be "perfected" without it, according to W.H.C. Frend. This was another thing that the early anti-Christians made good use of in their attacks. They charged that the Christian themselves wanted & even sought to be killed so that they could be saved.2* Clement of Alexandria, [153-193-217 A.D.], acknowledged the doctrine of deification, in that he wrote that martyrs would be perfected because they had remained true to the end. However, he warned that there were some heretics who rush forward to become martyrs. He cautioned the Christians to do everything in their power to preserve their own safety. But if the time did come that they could not escape death & martyrdom, they were not to fear, but were to try to remain faithful to Christ, even unto the end. For in so doing this, they would be saved & would be worthy of the martyrs' reward, which was perfection or deification. (TANF) 2: p. 409-12, 416, 423, 426-441.) What would happen if early Christian sources & historical situations were placed under the modern [AM] "Christians'" logic & biased selective methods of presenting historical situations? Would the heretics that Clement wrote about be made to appear as if they were typical Christians in general? Would even some of Clement's statements be made to sound like some kind of "blood atonement?" By claiming that the "Christian" believed that they had to remain faithful under persecution, for if they didn't they wouldn't become gods, or be perfected when they died? But if they did, they would be rewarded with perfection & godhood? Would Clement of Alexandria's, words have been distorted by critics to mean "blood atonement?" Had they been the critics of the early Christians? For Clement wrote: "...But it is the highest & most perfect good, when one is able to lead back any one from the practice of evil to virtue and well-doing, which is the very function of the law. So that, when one falls into any incurable evil,-- when taken possession of, for example, by wrong or covetousness,-- IT WILL BE FOR HIS GOOD IF HE IS PUT TO DEATH...." (TANF) Vol. 2, p.339, Clement of Alex., Bk. I, chap.27, The Stromata.) Earlier in this book I have mentioned how [PMD]s Van Hale & Bill Forrest have explained some of the situation that the critics have blown out of proportion. Many [AM]s have been distorting the historical facts, & taking different situations out of their historical setting. Van Hale, while on different radio shows over the years now, has presented evidences that many [AM] critics have not been very fair in their presentations of many of the historical situations that they say "Blood Atonement" came out of, & was "practiced." Many of the statement that the critics quote from should not be taken literal, just as some of the passages in the New Testament. Bill Forrest & Van Hale presented some of these scriptures, & other historical evidences & sources to make their points. I have tapes of some of these radio programs, as I have mentioned in earlier notes & comments in this book. The [EAC] Celsus, as I have already shown, charged the Christian of teaching doctrines that were "destructive" to human life. Origen responded that this was not the case. Celsus may have also known of the "martyrdom doctrine" thinking that this zeal for martyrdom that some Christians had was part of those "doctrines" which were destructive to human life.3* Origen had even wrote of the martyrdom of some of the earliest saints & he seemed to have known of the views held by the earlier saints who "died for the cause of Christ."4* Thus answering Celsus by saying that some of the Christians had surpassed the Greeks, by showing more fortitude & courage even in when faced with death. * STAR NOTES * FOR #97: 1* For example: Did Ezekiel eat human & cows dung, in cakes? Or did he use the dried dung for fuel for the fire to bake the "defiled bread." (As Wally Tope claimed that it should mean). What defiled the bread then? Ezk.4:11-15. Is this scripture literal, or symbolic? What if it had been interpreted under the same standards & logic that the [AM] critics have used with references from LDS History, etc.? Did the Lord seek to kill someone? (Ex. 4:23-6. Did Moses preach that witches should be killed? (Ex.22:18). Have bloody rituals? (Ex.29:4-22). Teach Blood Atonement? (Num.25:4-8). Would God tell his people to go & kill infants, men & women? (1 Sam.15:2-28). Burn people with fire? (Ezk.24:9-10). Would God command his prophet to perform a human sacrifice? And would this prophet conceal this command from his wife so that he could kill their son as God had commanded? (Explanation: Of course in the case with Abraham & his son, their was no human sacrifice, but a goat was sacrificed in the place of Abraham's son. It turned out to be a test of faith for Abraham. For the Lord wanted to test & teach Abraham about what would happen in the future, as to Abraham's time. For God would give his own Son, Jesus Christ, as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. For the Messiah would come into the world to make the atonement. If, however the above situation had been presented under the critics own logic, standards, tactics, & methods, etc. No explanation would have followed, but it would have been left out). Gen. chapt. 22, see also Josephus Complete Works, p.36, chap. 13:2). Would Christ teach self mutilation? (Matt.5:28-30), or was it symbolic & not to be taken as being literal? Did Christ teach people how to rob a strong man's house? (Matt.12:29). Would Christ's followers want fire to come down & kill people who rejected them? (Luke 9:52-6). Did Paul teach self mutilation of the private parts? (Gal.5:11-13). Can the "angels that sinned" repent by also saying the name of Jesus, calling upon him to be their "personal saviour," & thus could they also be saved? (2 Pet.2:4, 19-22, Jude 4-6, Rev.12, James 2:14-26, Rom. 10:9-10, Mark 5:1-14). Did Paul teach "blood Atonement" when he wrote that a fornicator should be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of his body that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ? (1 Cor. 5:1-11, note verse 5). There are many other scriptures of this kind that would not be able to pass the [AM] critics' own test, challenges, standards, logic & tactics, if they had been they themselves had been the critics of the their own bible. The early Christian & "Gnostic" Marcion, (whom Tertullian & other Christians had written against & in response to), during the 2nd century AD, was troubled over some of the things that the Old Testament presented as compared to the New Testament. The Old Testament God seemed harsh, as compared to the loving God of the New Testament. So his views caused conflict amongst the Christian movements & sects, (perhaps in some cases for those who have also noticed this also & struggled with this observation themselves). The early anti-Christians were certainly observant of this very thing also, & thus compared the acts of God in the Old Testament, with those in the New. (The Prince of Darkness, Russell, op. cit., p.56-60, & (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., p.188 & 191, etc.), see also (TANF) 4, p.620-1, (OAC), op. cit. 2* (M&PITEC) Frend, op. cit., p.1-253, etc. notice p.13-14. 3* (TANF) Vol.4 p.407, op. cit. 4* Ibid. 4: p.448-9. #98. CRITICS WOULD GATHER TOGETHER "STRANGE QUOTES" OF THEIR RIVALS & BLOW THEM OUT OF PROPORTION. [See: #64]. I remember reading in some [AM] news letter, (which exact source I do not remember at this time), by James Spencer, who was gathering together a list of sayings, statements, & quotes, that were from earlier leaders, & other "Mormons." These "strange quotes" would then be used as bullets while engaged in the war with words against the Mormons. He mentioned some examples, & asked his readers that if they knew of any others, to write him & let him know. While many critics are also, playing this sort of game, & are searching for any thing that they can make a big deal out of. At the same time they use a double standard & reject many of the so-called "secret sayings" of Jesus, or any other questionable writings said to have been letters, books, or writings about the Apostles, & Christ, or other Biblical persons. Such as in the case with "The Lost Books of the Bible" & "The Forgotten Books of Eden." There are some rather strange things in & about the supposed so-called stories of Christ's early childhood, in these early books! Of which I don't think that the [AM] Christians of today would accept as official history, (for some of them have said so), just because it can be found in some ancient Christian books.1* But at the same time they seem to feel that they are justified in bring forth these biased lists of strange quotes from different ones in earlier Mormon history? Why this double standard on their (the [AM] critics') part? In the New Testament we read how some of the earliest anti-Christians also must have been keeping a list of "strange quotes" also. There were people following Christ around in order to keep tabs on what he was doing & saying. Christ knew this was happening, & he knew that his enemies would do the same thing with his disciples, so he warned: "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." (John 15:20). For what reasons did these enemies keep Christ's sayings? Was it to learn & grow in spiritual morals, & wisdom? No, it was so that they could find ways to abuse, misrepresent, take things out of context, distort, misinterpret, & present them to others in a negative way in order to make Christ look bad. And that is exactly what some of them did. They may have, for example taken some of Christ sayings and misrepresented the intended meaning, by claiming that Christ taught people how to kill themselves by taking a millstone, hanging it around the neck & jumping into the sea. (Luke 17:1-2). Which was of course not the thing that Christ was teaching at all. Jesus had said that if his enemies were to "destroy this temple" or his body, (John 2:18-22), he would be able to raise it back up in 3 days. This saying when presented by Christ's critics was misunderstood, or distorted, & misrepresented as meaning that he (Christ) would be able to destroy the temple of God, & would be able to build it in 3 days. This was one of the sayings that false witnesses had brought up against Christ before a council of chief priests & elders. (Matt.26:57-68). The prediction of the coming of "fire" to burn the wicked was another saying that was used & abused by early anti-Christians. This may have been some of the sayings that the early anti-Christians may have brought up against the Christians, when they wanted to blame the Christians for the fire that broke out at Rome in 64 AD.2* There must have been other sayings that were distorted, misrepresented & misinterpreted, or misunderstood by different ones. For perhaps Christ could have, or may have also been accused of teaching things that caused divisions in the family. (Luke 12:52-3, The Story of Civilization: Part III, Durant, op. cit., p.647 & n.8, p.701). As it was anciently, so also in modern times. There are many examples & parallel situations, & the list continues. * STAR NOTES * FOR #98: 1* The Lost Books of the Bible, op. cit., p.38-2, see: II Infancy chap.2:2-16, on p.61. In this infancy story, Christ as a young boy, is said to have killed some young boy with a curse out of his mouth?! See also: Mormonism & Early Christianity, Nibley, op. cit., p.1-9. The Instructor, 100 (Jan. 1965) 35-7, Early Accounts of Jesus' Childhood, by Huge W. Nibley, reprinted in Huge Nibley Archive EAA-YA, by F.A.R.M.S.). 2* Luke 9:52-6, 2 Kings 1:10-12, John 15:6, 2 Pet. 3:7-10, Luke 21:7-38, note verse 32. The Birth of the Christian Religion, Loisy, op. cit., p.185-7. (M&PITEC) Frend, op. cit., p.123. See also: (TANF) 4, p.502 & 549; (COTTD), op. cit., p.41. (PR&TEC) Benko, op. cit., p.152. #99. CRITICS CLAIMED THEIR RIVALS "MASSACRED" & MURDERED THEIR ENEMIES. The Following is from: MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE by, William Jensen: "...In the mid-1850's, reports began circulating in the eastern U. S. that there was a rebellion afoot in Utah Territory. These reports arose from animosity between Mormons and non-mormon federal officials. But to say they were exaggerated is like saying the U.S.S. Nimitz is a boat. President Buchanan believed the reports without bothering to check to see if there was another side to the story. In 1857, he dispatched a body of troops under General Albert Sydney Johnston to put down the supposed insurrection. The soldiers numbered around 1500 - nearly a quarter of the entire U. S. Army, and this at a time when the Civil War was brewing. The expedition has since been known as "Buchanan's Blunder." Mormon guerrillas fought a delaying action against the approaching troops, running off stock and burning supplies and feed grass, and forcing them to winter in Wyoming. No one was killed. The following spring an agreement was negotiated under which the Mormons quit resisting and the troops entered Utah, where they remained until the outbreak of the Civil War. Having no rebellion to put down, the soldiers ended up spending most of their time prospecting. But as the army approached, its intentions unknown, there was predictable war hysteria among the Utahns, particularly in areas far removed from the center of the action in Salt Lake City. (War hysteria is nothing new - recall the lunacy in the U. S. following Pearl Harbor, for instance. Or My Lai.) Into this setting blundered a wagon train of big-mouthed emigrants from Missouri and Arkansas. These folks travelled the length of Utah, boasting all the way about having participated in the bloody persecution of Mormons in Missouri in the 1830's and the murder of Joseph Smith, and threatening to raise an armed force in California and return to fight alongside Johnston. In this antagonistic setting, it wasn't hard for rumors to get out of hand. One rumor was that the party was poisoning wells as they went along. Because of the fear of war, the Mormons also refused to sell provisions to the travellers. Some of them retaliated by stealing, then resisted arrest when the local marshals intervened. Now add to this volatile mix a bunch of hotheaded, local militia commanders in the Cedar City/Parowan area. These guys believed that the wagon train posed a threat to them and all of Utah, and so determined to wipe them out. The heads of the militia were Isaac Haight and William Dane. A plan was concocted, John Doyle Lee, the local Indian agent, was put in charge of it, and the local Indians were enlisted to help. The train was pinned down by the Piutes at Mountain Meadows, west of Cedar City. White men arrived, pretending to "rescue" the travellers. They were persuaded to lay down their arms and leave their trenches, with each man escorted by a militiaman. The command "do your duty" was spoken, whereupon each militiaman shot the emigrant beside him. The Indians killed the women and older children. The youngest children were spared, and eventually returned to their kin back east. John D. Lee was eventually tried and convicted for the murders. He was taken to the massacre site and shot by a firing squad. He was buried in Panguitch, Utah, so stories of him digging his own grave are obviously fallacious. No one else was ever brought to justice for the crimes. A "code of silence" among the killers stymied every investigation. There is absolutely NO credible evidence that Brigham Young ordered the Massacre. Indeed, there IS documented proof that when he learned what was afoot he tried to prevent it, but his message reached Cedar City after the deed had been done. Some believe that he encouraged or participated in the cover-up, although Lee reportedly told him the killing was all done by Indians.1* Many [AM]s have attempted to blame "the mormons" in general, for the acts of a few. It's like how some might be tempted to blame the millions of death caused during World War II, on the Catholics, just because Hilter was said to have been a catholic at one time.2* The narrow-minded & one-sided biased presentations of the different [AM]s has really not been always fair. Their logic & tactics if followed would make it sound like Christ followers abused their divine powers by causing fire to come down out of heaven to kill those who opposed them, when in fact Christ had restrain them from doing so.3* They would have pointed to the massacres in the Bible (1 Sam. chap.15, etc.), as Celsus & other [EAC] perhaps did, had these modern critics perhaps lived in his (Celsus') day.4* In 1906 a tract was published responding to the [AM] charges of that time. The tract was published by The Deseret News Press, in SLC, Ut. & was 97 pages of information that gave the otherside of the story, & also answered different charges raised by critics which charged that Brigham Young had "ordered the massacre" when in fact this was not the case. The tract also contains an address by Elder Charles W. Penrose, Oct. 26, 1884. And also contained a supplement containing important additional testimony. The tract was entitled: The Mountain Meadows Massacre. Some critics in their presentations, have ignored, or passed over the many cases in Church History that record how many early Mormons were "murdered" by mobs. So it seems that some of these critics are very one-sided in their presentations, while other are not so one-sided, & do admit that some earlier [AM] mobs & apostates help cause, or were responsible for the murders & deaths of many earlier Mormons. A number of early to later 19th century reports "of dubious accuracy" were published in a number of news papers not to friendly to the early Mormon people. One report was circulating in 1834 that Joseph Smith had been killed in a battle with the people of Jackson County, Missouri. This was of course not true. Another new paper reported that Sidney Rigdon had been translated into heaven, again not true. Another said that Joseph Smith was suppose to have been kicked out of the Church (1841), but this was also false. In another: Martin Harris had been "murdered" for lecturing against the Mormons, as an apostate. The same news paper about a week later had to admit, that they had been mistaken, that Harris was still alive. Another news paper also had to admit that they had been circulating information that was not accurate, concerning the "death" of Joseph Smith, they found out that he was still alive at that time in 1842. Other wild stories & false rumors were passed around, that had no truth in them. Or were later shown to be not true.5* The same sorts of reports were been circulated by "outsiders" & [EAC]s in early centuries of Christianity. Reports of "murder" & all kinds of strange barbaric crimes were being circulated against the early Christians in the 1st-4th century. Atheists, & early to later anti-Christians made good use of these reports in order to discredit the Christian communities as a whole. The crimes, & murders of a few Christians who may have been guilty, & even in some cases not guilty. Such reports were blown out of proportion by [EAC]s who pointed to these cases for their evidences & list of charges that many if not all the Christians in general were taking part in some massacre of one kind or another. As mentioned earlier in this book, the charges went against the early Christians, that (according to the [EAC]s & "outsiders"), the Christians were killing young babies, & performing human sacrifices, eating their flesh & drinking their blood in some twisted barbaric rites of black magic. The [ECD]s, Justin Martyr, Origen, & many other early to later Christian writers attempted to answer these charges as best as they could. But the fact in the matter was that it was not the Christians in general who were doing the killings, (except for in the cases with extreme sects, who had blended in occult rites with Christian rites), but it was many of these anti-Christians, pagans, & non-Christians, & some apostates, who had helped caused the death & martyrdom of many of the early Christians.6* In a similar manner as anti-Mormon “Christians,” atheists like to point out how historic Christendom is filled with all types of murders in the name of God. For example, during the 6th century A.D., the “Patriarch Paul of Alexandria had fallen under suspicion, as though, at his request, the imperial commander at Alexandria, Augustalis Rhodo, had privately murdered Psoius the deacon and steward of the Alexandrian Church. On receiving intelligence of this the Emperor Justinian sent Liberius as his representative to Egypt, to examine the matter; and Rhodo declared at the examination that the Emperor had ordered him to do everything that the bishop required, and that he had murdered that deacon at the command of the bishop.” [This would perhaps been the place were critics would have end their citation with, because of how it paints a negative picture of Christendom, however, the next part shows that there is more to the story.] For “Bishop Paul denied that he had given such a command to Rhodo, and it was proved that it was not the bishop, but a certain Arsenius, a distinguished resident of Alexandria, who, in connection with Rhodo, had brought about that murder.” The answer that modern anti-Mormon “Christians” might give to Atheists diggings through historic Christendom to find every evil deed done in the name of Jesus, is perhaps the same answer that Mormons might give to critics who do the same types of things to the history of Mormonism. * STAR NOTES * FOR #99: 1* Source for most of the above is "The Mountain Meadows Massacre," by Juanita Brooks, which is available from most public libraries in Utah. PCRelay:BTLR -> #990 Relay Net (tm) 4.10 Beyond the Last Resort (801)583-7248 SLC, UT." 2* The Rise & Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, 1950, & 1960, Pub. Ballantine Bks. p.34, & n. 34 on p.1488, for chapt.1, mentions Konrad Heiden's book: Der Fuehrer, p.52. 3* Luke 9:52-6, 2 Kings 1:10-12. 4* (TANF) 4, p.585, 620-1. 5* See: Mormon Issues #2, May 1991, p.4, pub. by Mormon Miscellaneous, Bill Forrest & Van Hale, with the help of Don Bradley, & Steve Mayfield. On p.4, entitled: From the Press, Of Dubious Accuracy. A number of news papers are cited, such as "The New York Times, 18 July 1834", from the collection of Steve Mayfield. Also: North Western Gazette & Galena Advertiser, Vol.7, #21, p.2- Galena, Il, 23 April 1841. And: The Truth, Vol.1, #1- New York, 8 May 1841. Also: New York Spectator, 30 June 1841 & 7 July 1841. And: Lee County Democrat, Vol.1, #46, p.2- Fort Madison, Iowa Territory, 4 June 1842. See also: Harper's Weekly, Vol.1, p.694, Oct. 31, 1857. & others. 6* (M&PITEC) Frend, op. cit., (PR&TEC) Benko op. cit., (TCATRST) Wilken, op. cit., (COTTD) op. cit., p.14-24, etc. Pagans & Christians, by Robin Lane Fox, 1986, pub. by Alfred A. Knopf, NY, 1987, see p.419-92, chapt.9. #100. SOME CRITICS REJECTED THE IDEA OF RESTORATIONS. In ancient times, the concept of a "restoration" of ancient truths, seemed acceptable & even welcomed by many. While others rejected the idea. The Old & New Testament, Jewish writings, & legends, & early Christian writings, & even some ancient Americas' traditions speak of times of apostasy followed by restorations & refreshings the old brought back into the new dispensations. Records, lost books would be brought back. Rites & ordinances, doctrines, concepts, religious events, visions, spiritual gifts, priesthood powers, the words spoken by ancient prophets, & other things that had passed through the retrogression processes of apostasy, & of which had retrogressed into barbaric rites, legends, myths, customs, & had become fragmented & blended in with satanic counterfeits through the passage of time. Would remain in it's scattered fragmented form, but would have to make room for God's healing & refreshing restorations when those times would come. We learn from early Christian sources that this sort of thing has been happening from the days of Adam, & will continue to happen in the future (as to their time). For their would be a new dispensation & a restoration in the latter days, in the "dispensation of the fulness of times."1* Critics in both ancient & modern times have rejected such claims for a number of reasons. The basic reason that they have given is another parallel to consider here. In short, they say that no new revelations are needed. When Jesus came along with a new revelation, & a new & higher law & way of life, as compared to the older laws. Many of the Jews rejected His new revelations because they believed that the heavens were closed, that their could not be any more revelations. And, according to these early critics, they felt there was no need for a restoration of the old, plus additional information. They felt that the old prophets writings & revelations were enough, & thus they felt that they didn't need any more. In their apostate conditions, they couldn't see the need for anything that Christ attempted to give them. The same basic reasons are given today by modern critics.2* With the restoration of the divine Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Along with a divine restoration, has also come another restoration that we perhaps have not realized before. There just may have been 2 types of restorations. One of a divine nature, the other of a satanic sort. For with all the divine truths & basic elements of the primitive Christian Church of Christ having been restored in the early part of the 19th century. So also have we seen a satanic restoration attempting to counter & counterfeit the divine restoration. With this satanic restoration has come again a new, yet old long list of tactics, counterfeits, & attacks, dogmatic contentions, & reasons for rejecting, ignoring, or fighting against the new restoration, as in former times of old. Satan may have had his own devilish restoration of satanic attacks & counterfeits, just as in the former days! The ancient anti-Christs have arisen anew in the devilish attacks against the new & divine restoration from God & Christ. Except this time modern technology is being abused for that purpose. While at the same time the latter-day saints are attempting to also make good use of the higher knowledges & inspired inventions to further the work of the Lord here on the earth & in the realms to come. Despite their obvious imperfections, weaknesses, & need to repent from time to time like everybody else. But in the case with the modern story, the conclusion is not yet in sight. But so also in the case with the ancient. Any day now a new manuscript, or some other bit & fragment of ancient history can be rediscovered which could give us new knowledge & insights into the ancient past. We have also, as yet, to read the other records that have not been restored, but of which have been predicted would come forth. Perhaps the Gods of heaven are testing us to see what we will do or not do with what little bits of truths we do have.3* Will we join in with the forces of darkness, & evil to also abuse the higher knowledges (that we obtain or are given), for evil reasons, purposes & goals, to the point were we will retrogress into another barbaric age? (Perhaps as it as been predicted, even greater & darker age, than any before. Because this time modern inventions & even greater destructive forces & powers will be involved). Or will we use what light & knowledges we do obtain or are given for good reasons, by uplifting & helping each other of the whole human family, so that we may show ourselves to be more worthy of even greater & higher gifts & knowledges. Such as the writings of the prophets that have been promised would come forth in further restorations?4* What ever we do choose, what ever path we seek (the "right hand path" or the "left hand path"), one thing is for sure certain we all will have to live with that choice. For what we do & don't do, does have an effect on what the future will be for us in this realm & in the realms to come. May we all choose the "right hand path" to God & Christ.5* * STAR NOTES * FOR #100: 1* Eph. 1:9-10; Act 3:19-21; [See section in his book on the restoration.] 2* See: Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Pratt, op. cit., And: Since Cumorah, Nibley, op. cit., p.3-21. (TANF) 4, p.415, (OAC). 3* 2 Nephi chapt.28-9; 1 Ne.13:20-42, 2 Ne.3:4-25; chapt.27. & Since Cumorah, Nibley op. cit., p.24-126, etc. 4* See Star Notes: #99, 1* & 3, above. 5* Return From Tomorrow, Ritchie, op. cit., See also #3. CHRIST AS A "RESTORER" The writings said to be by the prophet Enoch, and which were read, cited, and consider inspired scriptures by Jesus, Jude, Paul, and early Christians, such as Tertullian and others, includes this prophecy, as if Enoch knew that his writings would be “lost” and then later found again. “After Enoch records what he has seen in the seven heavens and what the Lord has told him, he is sent back to earth to deliver the books to his children, “and they to their children, parents to parents, generation by generation” [The Secrets of Enoch] (33:9). “Then, in the later history of that race, will come to light the books written by your hand and by your father’s when the angel-guardians of the earth will show them to men of faith, . . . and the books will be praised thereafter more than at first.” (35:2.3).” This seems somewhat prophetic—or a bit weird, anyway—for the book was written between A.D. 1 and 50, and nineteen centuries later parts of at least ten Enochan books have “come to light” in caves beside the Salty Sea!” Some early Christian writings tell us that Christ would appear in the fullness of times to bring back the temple rituals that had been lost during the times of apostasy. The Shepherd of Hermas, [written by the brother to Pius, bishop of Rome], & an early Christian writing believed & used by some of the early Christians. Christ is called "the gate" which wasn’t new because, "The Son of God is indeed more ancient than any creature; insomuch that he was in council with his Father at the creation of all things. But the gate [Christ] is therefore new, because he appeared in the last days in the fullness of time; that they who shall attain unto salvation, may by it enter into the kingdom of God." While on the earth, an apostasy would cause the church to come to an end, the spiritual gifts would fade out of the church, but there would come a time when it would be "renewed." The church would grow old & worn out because of contentions & apostasy, but "she" -(the church), would be restored to "her" former beauty, at a latter time. For, "...just as when some good news comes suddenly to one who is sad, immediately he forgets his former sorrows, and looks for nothing else than the good news which he has heard, and for the future is made strong for good, & his spirit is renewed on account of the joy which he has received; so ye also have received the renewal of your spirits by seeing the good things." The New Testament predicted that Christ would be sent during times of refreshing & restitution of all things, in the dispensation of the fullness of times. Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165], used the predictions of Sibyl, while some of the later Christian no longer would, because some of Sibyl's predictions didn't come true. However, Justin used some of Sibyl's writings in his address to the Greeks. And wrote that Jesus Christ, "...being the Word of God, inseparable from Him" [God] "in power, having assumed man, who had been made in the image and likeness of God, restored to us the knowledge of the religion of our ancient forefathers, which the men who lived after them abandoned through the bewitching council of the envious devil, and turned to the worship of those who were no gods." Jacobus de Voragine: "But although the time of erring preceded the time of renewal, the Church prefers to begin its year with Advent, and not the Septuagesima, and this for two reasons: because, due to the fact that this is the time of the renewal, the Church then turns back to the beginning of her offices; and because, by beginning with the time of the transgression, she would seem to begin with error. Therefore she does not hold strictly to the order of time, just as the Evangelists frequently do not follow it in their accounts of the life of the Lord. Then too, with the advent of the Lord everything is renewed, and that is why this period is called the time of renewal." Jacobus goes on to present the idea of Christ being a restorer, & renewer of truth to the world. Thus, Christ "came at a time when the whole world was ailing, as Saint Augustine says: `The great physician came at a moment when the entire world lay like a great invalid.' That is why the Church, in the seven antiphons which are sung before the Feast of the Nativity, recalls the variety of our ills and the timeliness of the divine remedy." CHRIST VISITS THE PROPHESIED “JOSEPH THE RESTORER” Jewish writings & legends tell us of predictions concerning the "latter times." Jacob, as did later Joseph, who was sold into Egypt, (Genesis 37) gathered their families and descendants together not too many days before they died. This sort of gathering seems to have been a traditional family council in which last wills and testaments are given, & were blessings & predictions are given too (Genesis 49). In the Testament of Benjamin we read: "And there shall arise in the latter days one beloved of the Lord, of the tribe of Judah and Levi, a doer of His good pleasure in his mouth, with new knowledge enlightening the Gentiles. Until the consummation of the age shall he be in the synagogues of the Gentiles, and among their rulers, as a strain of music in the mouth of all. And he shall be inscribed in the holy books, both his work and his word, and he shall be a chosen one of God for ever. And through them he shall go to and fro as Jacob my father, saying: He shall fill up that which lacketh of thy tribe...." In another version of this Testament, we read: "And one shall rise up from my seed in the latter times, beloved of the Lord, hearing upon the earth His voice, enlightening with new knowledge all the Gentiles, bursting in upon Israel for salvation with light of knowledge, and tearing it away from it like a wolf, and giving it to the synagogue of the Gentiles. And until the consummation of the ages shall be in the synagogues of the Gentiles, and among their rulers, as a strain of music in the mouth of all;...and he shall be inscribed in the holy books, both his work and his word, & he shall be a chosen one of God for ever; and because of him my father Jacob instructed me, saying, He shall fill up that which lacketh of thy tribe." Other sources & ancient documents speak of these traditions that were passed down among the different Jewish sects & "branches" or families, concerning this "restorer" who would come in the "latter-times". Isaiah 11:11, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea." Paul wrote: "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him..." (Ephesians 1:10). Peter prophesied to a group of people at the Temple in Jerusalem to: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." (Acts 3:19-21). Other supposedly recent discoveries, such as the so-called Book of Levi, tells how Christ said that many of his time didn’t comprehend a lot of what he said. However, not a word of his would be lost because his words were recorded in The Book of God’s Remembrance. Thus, in time, Christ’s words would be restored at a time “when the world is ready to receive” his words. Furthermore, this restoration would be brought about, for “...God will send a messenger to open up the (lost) books and men will read from its sacred pages all the messages of Purity and Love, and will again be with God.” Some of these words which were to be restored, says the resurrected Christ to his disciples, were “secret things.” These things, says Christ, were to be made known only to the faithful, who in turn were to pass this secret knowledge unto only the faithful. A different reading of Psalms 85:9—12 is said to have been discovered in Spanish Archive Manuscripts which prophesied of a period of darkness that would cover the earth, and that the heavens will shake. This might remind us of the early Christian writings, and legends around the world which speak of a time of destruction and darkness that came prior to Christ’s world wide trek. These Spanish Archive Manuscripts also say how that after this period of time: “Righteousness will I send down from out of heaven, and mercy and truth shall meet each other. AND TRUTH SHALL I SEND FORTH OUT OF THE EARTH IN THE LATTER DAYS, to bear testimony of Mine only Begotten, and righteousness and truth shall I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood to gather out mine elect from the four corners of the earth. Yea, the Lord shall give that which is lost and the land shall yield up her increase.” Though we have evidences to show that the latter day restoration was predicted in ancient times. Still, different researchers have used caution when it has come to questionable sources. For example, there is a number of sources considered to be questionable modern apocryphal materials that have sometimes been passed around in some areas of the LDS Church, by different members, just as in ancient times. For example, the so called 1739 "prophecy" that predicted of a restoration, prophets, temples, etc., to be brought back to earth with in a 100 years from 1739. This "great" prediction was said to have been by a Catholic monk named "Lutius Gratus." Some researchers have questioned the authenticity of this so-called prediction & thus it has been classified as "LDS Apocryphal" materials & sources. Origen, A.D. 185-230-254, seems to suggest that after times of wickedness & apostasy, the Lord would refresh & restore the world back to it's former state. The early anti-Christian Celsus, writing some time between A.D., 170-180; he must have been aware that some early Christians believed in a restoration, or times of "refreshing." But he rejects the idea, for he wrote: "..."God does not need to amend His work afresh." Origen responded in these word: "But it is not as a man who has imperfectly designed some piece of workmanship, & executed it unskillfully, that God administers correction to the world, in purifying it by a flood or by a conflagration, but in order to prevent the tide of evil from rising to a greater height;... It is, then, always in order to repair what has become faulty that God desires to amend His work afresh, For although, in the creation of the world, all things had been arranged by Him in the most beautiful manner, He nevertheless needed to exercise some healing power upon those who were laboring under the disease of wickedness, and upon a whole world, which was polluted as it were thereby. But nothing has been neglected by God, or will be neglected by Him; for He does at each particular juncture what it becomes Him to do in a perverted and changed world. And as a husbandman performs different acts of husbandry upon the soil and its productions, according to the varying seasons of the year, so God administers entire ages of time, as if they were, so to speak, so many individual years, performing during each one of them what is requisite with a reasonable regard to the care of the world; and this, as it is truly understood by God alone, so also is it accomplished by Him." In the Apocalypse of Abraham, Abraham talked with God, "Oh thou who abolishest the confusion [or mix-up] of the universe" --the confusion that follows the disintegration of the world of both evil and righteous alike; "for thou renewest the world of the righteous." After this disintegration, after the falling away, God is the one who abolishes the confusion and reorganizes it. When the worlds reach a certain point, they disintegrate. Then they are organized again: God "reneweth the world of the righteous.” Emanuel Swedenborg was born at Stockholm in A.D. 1688, & died in London in A.D. 1772. He claimed to have had a number of spiritual experiences in which he, for a quarter of a century, was in constant contact with the spiritual world, observing what took place there, & then recording what he claimed was taking place there. Had he had an after life experience or a series of "Near Death Experiences"? Or just claimed to have been able to observe that realm while in the body? Had he also been influenced by lingering traditions, or scriptural predictions concerning "times of restoration" too? "...The reason given by him for this unique experience being granted was that the Church established by the Lord at His first advent had perished through falsities of doctrine and evils of life, and that a further revelation was about to be made, not to supersede the old, but to restore and amplify its lost truths, to add to them more interior truths unknown before, and to place them all, new as well as old, in such clear light and coherent connection that man would be able, if he were willing, to grasp them rationally. Concurrently with this new revelation, and as the indispensable condition of the commencement of a new spiritual age, a great judgment was accomplished in the world of spirits, or state intermediate between heaven and hell, where the great majority of mankind who had passed into the eternal world since the commencement of the Christian era were still dwelling." "If Swedenborg's representations of the state in his day of the so-called Christian nations, whether on earth or in the spiritual world, are true, they supply a sufficient reason to any devout believer in divine revelation for the unique experience to which he was subjected. No one who is acquainted with the facts of the case can doubt that the Church, regarded not as a political or social institution, but as the depository and interpreter of divine truth, and means of leading men to a life in accordance with it, was at that time in a state of deplorable decadence; and that unless a great change had taken place Christianity as a spiritual power in the world must have perished. No one, however, could venture to assert, upon merely historical data, that the Church, in the sense indicated above, had come to its end. But neither can any one, on any similar grounds, deny it. All human things have their youth, maturity and decline; and divine institutions, so far as they depend for their maintenance and integrity on human free-will, may have a like fate. The visible organization of a Church may survive, to all appearance in full vigour, while all that made it an effective connecting link between God and man has perished. It may have a "name that it lives" and yet be spiritually "dead." It was so with the Jewish Church and with others which preceded it. While the possibility of such a fact cannot be denied by any one who believes in spiritual life as something distinct from merely natural life, its ascertainment is a totally different thing. Only a teacher enlightened and accredited from heaven can certify us of that...." One of the things that troubled both the early Christians & Jews in the early centuries, was that they knew that the temple was to be restored. During the early centuries of historic Christendom, the Emperor Julian the Apostate attempted to do just this, but failed. Still the Christian envy of the temple would remain with the later Christians, while the Jews would retain the traditions of that predicted time when the temple would be restored. While among the different branches of early to later Christendom, the temple mysteries would also be preserved in part here & there, but had become apostate with the passing of time. Later Christians & Jews thought of different plans for getting the temple back. Columbus had wished to discover the Indies so he could get enough money to rebuild the temple. Nibley wrote that in Oct. 1983, he had gone to a conference of Jews & Christians for the Holy Land studies in Washington, D.C. The subject was the restoration of the temple. He noticed 3 words which were constantly being used, which were taboo just 10 years ago. They were restoration, dispensation & revelation. Some of the clergy are beginning to want the temple back. The earlier Christian documents of the 40 day teaching of Christ, after His resurrection, are full of temple ordinances, or the mysteries. The apostles were to keep them secret. The knowledge of the endowment was to last only 2 generations, & then, because of apostasy, it would be taken away, except those parts which would be preserved among the scatter branches of early to later Christianity. Retained, in some cases in apostate fragments, here & there in early to later Christendom. But the predictions say that the temple endowment would be restored in a later dispensation. These ancient documents are so full of the temple ordinances that you could almost go through the temple using just these documents. In time, 88 different sects claimed to have the secret teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. The earliest Christians knew that the apostasy was under way even in their own day. Christians of the later centuries, many of them, didn't like what had been presented earlier. For, it was bad news for the later church, for even the Lord had predicted the falling away. Yet there was hope, in that there was also the promise & predictions of times restoration. Many of the earliest Christians who understood these prediction, had hidden their manuscripts, books, etc., away so that they would be preserved through the times of the coming apostasy, & could therefore be restored in that latter-day dispensation. Much of the temple rituals were therefore preserved, & with recent discoveries of lost libraries, manuscripts, art works, & other important documents, sometimes written on metallic plates. From these important discoveries comes more evidences for the ancient temple, & it's restoration in the dispensation of the fullness of times. "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Revelation 14:6-7, KJV). In last wills & testaments of different dying Patriarchs we read of these types of meetings, & family gatherings, or family councils. In The Testament of Benjamin Concerning A Pure Mind, Jacob also blessed Joseph, his son, saying that through him shall be fulfilled the prophecy of heaven concerning the Lamb of God, even the Savior. Jacob later said that the temple of God would be built & would be glorious among his descendants. He also tells them to “Keep the commandments of God until the Lord shall reveal His salvation to all nations.” There would come a time when they would be gathered to their own land. But also, their writings and their Temple would be restored too (Ezekiel 37:15-28). Those who had been spared from the sword, famine, & other challenges, who had been scattered into far distant lands. They would be able to declare what had happened to them, through their writings that they had kept, & which would be restored. (Ezekiel 12:14-16; 28:25; 37:15-22; Micah 2:12). For though their bodies had turned to dust, it was through their writings that they would be able to speak as if from the dead, because some of their messages, & thoughts would be preserved through the ages unto later times, when their writings would be restored (Isaiah.29). A remnant had escaped, & this remnant had been scattered, & they would also write what had happened to them. Some Jewish sects, may have rejected the basic concepts of a "Josephite restorer." The legends & customs that were passed down to later generation seemed to have caused some conflicts among those who claimed to have claims to divine authority & leadership. For legend had it that this Josephite would also be a law giver. Some of the descendants from Joseph, had rejected the Levites' claim to leadership & authority. "So through the ages the Josephites assert the permanence of their ancient primacy.” Genesis 49:22-26 also hints of an anointing of a leader, king or law-giver-prophet, "the blessings" that would be upon the "crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren." (verse 26). An English translation of The Torah tells about this anointed one which "rest on the head of Joseph, on the brow of the elect of his brothers”. Later legends may have caused the different concepts of the Messianic Restorers to be confused & blended as if they were about one person. There were many differences in the interpretations as to what it all meant. As time went by, different groups of people may have added to the legends their own bits of traditions about this "Joseph the restorer." We have traditions that come from the Muslims, Samaritans, Jews & Christians. Klausner discussed these traditions, concerning the latter day Joseph the restorer too. In The Book of Mormon, the ancient prophet Lehi says to his son Joseph: "...thou art the fruit of my loins; and I am a descendant of Joseph who was carried captive into Egypt. And great were the covenants of the Lord which he made unto Joseph. Wherefore, Joseph truly saw our day. And he obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of his loins the Lord God would rise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel; not the Messiah, but a branch which was to be broken off, nevertheless, to be remembered in the covenants of the Lord that the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the spirit of power, unto the bringing of them out of darkness unto light-- yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom. For Joseph truly testified, saying: A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins. Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins. And unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers. And I will give unto him a commandment that he shall do none other work, save the work which I shall command him. And I will make him great in mine eyes; for he shall do my work. And he shall be great like unto Moses, whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel.... But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins-- and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them. Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord. And out of weakness he shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord. And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise, which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of my loins, shall be fulfilled. Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise; And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation. Yea, thus prophesied Joseph: I am sure of this thing, even as I am sure of the promise of Moses; for the Lord hath said unto me, I will preserve thy seed forever.... And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I... will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it. And the words which he shall write shall be the words which are expedient in my wisdom should go forth unto the fruit of thy loins. And it shall be as if the fruit of thy loins had cried unto them from the dust; for I know their faith. And they shall cry from the dust; yea, even repentance to their brethren, even after many generations have gone by them. And it shall come to pass that their cry shall go, even according to the simpleness of their words. Because of their faith their words shall proceed forth out of my mouth unto their brethren who are the fruit of thy loins; and the weakness of their words will I make strong in their faith, unto the remembering of my covenant which I made unto thy fathers. And now, behold, my son Joseph, after this manner did my father of old prophesy. Wherefore, because of this covenant thou are blessed; for they seed shall not be destroyed, for they shall hearken unto the words of the book. And there shall rise up one mighty among them, who shall do much good, both in word and in deed, being an instrument in the hands of God, with exceeding faith, to work mighty wonders, and do that thing which is great in the sight of God, unto the bringing to pass much restoration unto the house of Israel, and unto the seed of thy brethren." In the later customs & legends of the Americas, the fair God prophesied that messengers would come with a record of their forefathers. They would restore the old religion, & would restore parts of their records that had been lost. A.D. 1609, the Fathers Cataldino & Moceta had penetrated the wilderness of America to convert the Guaranis. There the cacique, Maracana, & some other head-men of the tribe assured them that long ago, according to their ancient ancestral traditions, a learned man named Pay Zuma or Pay Tuma had preached in their country the faith of heaven. Before he left them, he foretold of a time when their descendants would abandon the worship of the true God. However, after many centuries had passed by, other messengers of the same God would come with a cross like unto the one that he was carrying. And they would "...restore among their descendants the religion which he had taught.” Father de Mercado say that further discoveries were made concerning the natives' dogmatic theology, namely those in some of the provinces of the "New Spain" area. Among the Totonacs, the people expected the advent of the Son of the great God into this world. He had to come in order to "renew all things." This was not a spiritual renovation, but an earthly material improvement. “All throughout New Spain they [the Aztecs] expected the reappearance of this “Son of the Great God” into the world, who would renew all things.” Bancroft records a tradition about records which were kept by ancient Americans. During the reign of a Toltec king, Ixtlilcuechalmac, toward the end of the 7th century, a meeting of the wise men was held under the direction of one Hueman. At this congress all Toltec records were brought together, & after careful study a volume was compiled which they called the Teomoxtli, or "The Book of God." This book contained a history of the deluge, the creation, their rites, laws & social customs and ended with prophecies about the future. Other traditions and customs about holy sacred books, which were handed down from one generation to the next. They say that angels once talked with them, and that the “...spirit of prophecy and miraculous interposition once enjoyed by their ancestors will yet be restored to them, and that they will recover the book, all of which have been so long lost." Some tribes have predictions that the restoration would be both a spiritual & temporal one, while others, only a temporal one. The hero-god of the Yucatan, Cukulcan, promised his people that he would return to them & again to set up his kingdom among them. He left heading east. The creator of the Mojave tribe, Matevil, in a similar way departed toward the east, but he promised to return in the latter days to prosper and live with his people forever. Bartholomew de las Casas, bishop of Chiapa, tells us of a tradition of the natives about a white man with a long beard & flowing white robes. He was accompanied by several companions, as they instructed their ancestors in the doctrines & practices which resembled the Christian religion. They commanded them to accept the messengers who would later come with the same cross symbols. When these later messengers come, they should accept their religion. Some of the fanatical Spanish explorers foolishly burned many thousands of manuscripts that the native Americans had preserved. Thus, as many records were hidden, lost and destroyed, the promise of a restoration was more anxiously expected. Thus, “...the return of Cukulcan and the restoration of his peaceful and charitable doctrine were looked for with joy” & great expectations. These traditions about lost, or hidden sacred religious books, which were to be restored, or that they would be “brought again to the descendants of the inhabitants of ancient America.” These traditions were known among native American Indian tribes between Canada and Arizona, and between Mexico and Guatemala. During the 16th century A.D., in the Old World nations of Christendom, and with the Polemical situations which arose between Reformers and Counter-Reformers, writers such as those of the Liber in expositionem in Apocalipsim, recognized the need for a new revelation. While in the New World, the Indians generally believed that: “...Quetzalcoatl would return from exile and restore his kingdom, which they identified with the Golden Age." The Hopi Indians also have a traditions about parts of tablets which will be restored. Like the Jews, and even some Christians, among the native Americans, there are some who believed a Temple would be restored and built. For example, the Chigaraga Indians were a white skinned tribe, in the southern part of old Mexico, in the high mountain regions near Guatamala. During 1938 through 1940, they made plans to gather a great council. In this council at Lake Patzquarp, Eachata Each-na told the different Indian delegates from the different tribes, that the time was soon to come that they should build a magnificent temple to the Great Spirit. The different Indians are said to have went to work on this great project. The building of this temple would fulfill the promise & traditions that had been handed down to them. Their records & writings that had been passed down from generation to generation, recorded the history of their people. And the visit of the Great White God, who had visited their forefathers. Evidence of the temple traditions are seen all over the Americas. However, even though they are not as clear as in the cases with historic Christendom, there still are numerous fragments and elements which can be seen among the native Americans' symbols, dances, customs, art works, gestures, calender symbols, & rites, or mysteries. During this council the great Indian chief of the Chigaraga Indian nation repeated his prediction again. "...What the water has taken from land, and the land has taken from the water; what man has taken from man, each by the command of the spirit shall be restored to its original state as God first designed, in a great restitution of all things." THE END. APPENDIX A. ARE MORMONS CHRISTIAN? by, Bill Forrest: "Not infrequently anti-Mormon writers and speakers refer to Mormons as non-Christian. This they do while knowing that Mormons belong to a church whose official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that Mormons accept as one of their sacred scriptures the Book of Mormon, which proclaims as its purpose the convincing of its readers that Jesus is the Christ, and that the first of Mormonism's articles of faith states very clearly, "We believe in God the Eternal Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." Indeed, when asked to state the fundamental principles of his religion Mormonism's founding prophet, Joseph Smith, answered: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, that he died, was buried, and rose on the third day and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it...." Does this sound like a non-Christian statement? Why would critics of Mormonism, who are of course entitled to disagree with its teachings, seek to deny Mormons the title of Christian? Are they motivated by ignorance or by malice in expelling Mormons from the Christian fold? Is that effort, directed against people who accept the atonement of Christ and pray in His name, motivated by the love of Christ? I have discussed this matter with those who are confident that they themselves are Christians--and also confident that they have the right to judge others and deny them the same privilege. As they have tried to explain this strange, ungenerous attitude to me, there seem to be three reasons for their view. Let me comment briefly on each of them. THE BIBLE Some of those who are anxious to turn their backs on the Mormons, considering them unworthy of the name of Christians, do so because they do not like the Mormon approach to the Bible. What do they mean by this? It must be obvious that Mormons accept the Bible. If they do not read it as much as they should--like most people throughout the world--they do study it in their classes and are encouraged by their leaders to follow a regular program of Bible study. An articulate Mormon who has studied the scriptures is quite able to defend his faith from the pages of the Bible. If the Bible is to be the criterion of what is acceptable as christianity, then others have far more reason for wondering about their own denomination's theology and practice than do Mormons. So why this strong feeling on the part of the anti-Mormons? Why are some of them so convinced that the Mormons have an "un-Christian" way of using the Bible? I have talked to several of these people, and it would appear that what most upsets them is the Mormon declaration "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...." In other words, these critics are still insisting that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God. To believe in this day and age that the Bible is in fact infallible and inerrant is to close one's eyes to a mountain of evidence. The late William Barclay, perhaps the best known of the British Bible expositors, mentioned the following simple facts that are impossible to square with verbal inerrancy: 1. In the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there are variant readings. 2. An American Bible Society examined six different editions of the Authorized version (King James) of the Bible and found nearly 24,000 differences. It would be strange, Barclay notes, "for God to dictate the original work and then not to take equal care for its infallible transmission." Numerous examples in the Bible itself demonstrate that mistakes have crept in. In the story of how the disciples plucked the ears of corn and so broke the Sabbath, Mark refers to what David did in the days of Abiathar the high priest (Mark 2:26). The difficulty is that it was not Abiathar but Ahimelech, his son, who was the priest at the time of the incident mentioned by Mark. A minor point, perhaps, but totally inconsistent with verbal inerrancy. Another example is in Matthew. Matthew speaks of a prophecy by the prophet Jeremy (Jeremiah) regarding thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 27:9). But there is a slight problem: the prophecy was made by the prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 11:12), not Jeremiah. To ignore literally hundreds of copyist mistakes and scores of translation problems and hold tenaciously to a position of Bible inerrancy is to be intellectually dishonest and afraid of the truth. Mormons believe the Bible. They love it and are inspired by its teachings. But they do not consider it to be without flaw. It is one part of their religion, not the whole. They anxiously strive to combine the truths contained in the Bible with God's other revelations. They would agree with Papias, an early Christian, who said, "I did not think that what was to be gotten from books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice." It is interesting to reflect that many within the fold of Christianity understand the Bible in different ways. If what the anti-Mormon critics are in fact saying is "Understand the Bible my way or forfeit your claim to being a Christian," then of course they are in effect expelling not only Mormons but also large numbers of their fellow Christians. Most obviously they can scarcely grant to Roman Catholics and major Protestant denominations whose official theology rejects Biblical inerrancy the title of Christian--if the title is to be denied to Mormons on these grounds. Such a narrow, ungenerous treatment of fellow-Christians makes one wonder whether the critics deserve the title they are so willing to deny others. It is not better to say, "We all accept Christ, even though our separate traditions have led to some differences"? To repeat a simple point: Mormons accept the Bible and most emphatically accept the Biblical Christ, He who was born in Bethlehem, fulfilled his earthly ministry, was crucified, and rose on the third day. THE TRINITY Mormons do not accept the trinitarian doctrine of God. They do not find this doctrine in the Bible and do not think that God expects his followers to subscribe to such late developments in theology. I am referring, of course, to the doctrine that God is but one indivisible substance manifest in three personages. Those who believe that acceptance of this concept of God is a prerequisite to being a Christian are not anxious to extend the hand of Christian fellowship to Mormons. However frequently the Mormons proclaim their acceptance of Jesus Christ, their devotion to him, their faith in his atonement, etc., some of their grim critics insist that only by accepting certain creedal statements devised by theologians several centuries after Christ will Mormons gain entrance into the privileged group of accepted Christians. This seems to be a very unreasonable and narrow definition of a Christian. To find two people in any denomination who agree as to what the triune nature of God is would indeed be an achievement. Scholars have recognized that the triune doctrine was a post New Testament development. The renowned Bible commentator J.R. Dummelow said, "the exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete till the fifth century, or even later...." To insist that a belief in the Trinity is requisite to being Christian, is t acknowledge that for centuries after the New Testament was completed thousands of Jesus' followers were in fact not really `Christian.' SALVATION The anti-Mormons are sometimes coming from a fairly simple position. To be a Christian, they assume, is to be saved--here and now. Do you accept Christ as your personal Savior? If so, you are saved--you are a christian. This is their way of thinking and speaking. Mormons seldom go about proclaiming that they are now saved, in the present tense. Obviously those preaching along these lines and requiring a sense of present salvation as necessary to being Christian are using the term in their own constricted sense. But let us be frank. What is to prevent a Mormon from having faith in Jesus? If I can be personal, my own faith is in Jesus. I regard him as my Savior, as the Savior of mankind. "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only begotten Son..." Am I then saved? Will our critics allow me to call myself a Christian? Believe it or not, a common answer I have heard is, "No!" Apparently our critics are confident that Mormons have faith in a different Jesus. They want us to believe in "the Jesus of the New Testament." Of course in my own view--and I think I am honest about this matter--the Jesus Christ in whom I have faith is precisely the Jesus of the New Testament. Just as it has some variance of opinion as to the nature of god, the Christian community has divergent views regarding the person, role and mission of Jesus. If in fact the nature and mission of Jesus are as unmistakably clear in the New Testament as some Christians would have us believe, why are there so many different opinions? Is it not the height of arrogance and presumption to argue that someone is not a Christian because his concept of the New Testament Jesus does not happen to be identical with that of the anti-Mormon critic? Those who think in this way are in danger of alienating themselves from any religious organization which does not happen to see things in the particular way of the critic. Many of us disagree about such matters as the meaning of Biblical passages of the precise nature of Jesus's mission. But all of us who see Christ as more than just a religious teacher, as God's Only Begotten Son in the flesh, and who worship in his name should be able to consider ourselves as Christian. At least so it seems to me. Mormonism makes no claim to having all the answers. But from its latter-day beginnings in 1830 to the present it has taught a Christ-centered theology. At the beginning of this pamphlet I quoted a statement from the Prophet Joseph Smith that testified to his belief in the Savior. Now let us look at just a few other examples of statements by Mormon leaders. Anthony W. Ivins, a member of the First Presidency, in a conference address in 1926 had this to say: The foundation of the Church is laid in God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, which constitute the Godhead. No person can become a member of the Church until he has taken upon him the name of Christ, and entered into the covenant that he is willing to serve him, and keep the commandments which he has given, to the best of his ability. He must accept the ordinance of baptism, which is administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in other words, he must accept Christ as the Redeemer of the world, without reservation. Later that same year President Heber J. Grant said: Any individual who does to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, has not business to be associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. More recently, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie gave this ringing affirmation: "We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we prophesy in his name, and we know that his is the only name given under heaven whereby man can be saved." Anyone maintaining that Mormonism is not Christian must ignore statements like the following from Brigham Young: The Latter-day Saints believe in the gospel of the Son of God simply because it is true. They believe in baptism for the remission of sins, personal and by proxy; they believe that Jesus is the Savior of the world; they believe that all who attain to any glory whatever, in any kingdom, will do so because Jesus has purchased it by his atonement. Anyone maintaining that Mormons are not Christian must ignore the contents of the Book of Mormon or argue that Mormons don't believe their own book. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (usually called Mormon) teaches its members to have faith in the Jesus of the New Testament, who was not a mere man but was the Only begotten, the first fruits of the resurrection, the founder of the Christian religion, one of the Godhead. At Christmas we celebrate his birth, with other fellow Christians throughout the world; at Easter we commemorate his resurrection from the grave. We are encouraged through our prayers and devotion to develop a personal relationship with our Savior. Many of us try to do so. As a Mormon I applaud those who seek to live a life patterned after the Savior. but those who would tear down the faith of others, who prefer to destroy rather than build, who would distort the truth have somehow missed the message of Christ." (ADDITIONAL SOURCES: Madsen, Truman G. Christ and the Inner Life (Salt Lake City, 1978) Talmage, James E.: Jesus the Christ (Salt Lake City: 1915 edition) Jacob, Carl H. While of These Emblems (Salt Lake City, 1962) Bill Forrest, Are Mormons Christian? (Sandy, Utah: Mormon Miscellaneous, 1982). Reproduced in this format with permission.) Reformatted here by me. APPENDIX B. IF THERE IS NO LIFE AFTER LIFE, HOW CAN IT EVER BE PROVEN? How can they, the atheists & others, say that there is no life after this life? If their claims concerning a non-existence after death is the truth, how can they prove it? We have ever growing testimonies, (some even from former atheists). That have had `near death experiences,' & who have passed on to the other side, & have come back. They have added to the testimonies of those who have claimed that there is life beyond death. How can atheists even hope to prove that there is no life after life? If they are right, who, & how would they be able to testify of nothing, by coming back from nothing? How would they have been able to have even maintain in their memory the nothingness beyond life? If some of them were to come back with "evidences", (as compared to those who have come back with testimonies that there is something beyond this life.) How would they be able to describe this nothingness?, if they were able to come back some how from it? How would they even know that they had even gone into the great nothingness? If they some how were to have been able to retain a memory of this nothingness, or this non-existence. (Though upon death, they would have faded into this nothingness as nothing also). If they could describe what it was like in this nothingness, wouldn't that mean that they had some kind of memory? Then they would have to be in an existence of some kind of life, in order to be able to remember this nothingness by, wouldn't they? Then it would only prove that there was some sort of life beyond, but an existence of which they would have nothing to be able to describe it with. Having become nothing themselves. Thus if any of them were to be able to return from death, they would have nothing to be able to prove their case with, & they never have anything, because they never will! The following appeared in the Deseret News 8-23-91 on page 1, sec. B. STATEMENT: "Recent symposia sponsored and attended by some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have included some presentations relating to the House of the Lord, the holy temples, that are offensive. We deplore the bad taste and insensitivity of these public discussions of things we hold sacred. We are especially saddened at the participation of our own members, especially those who hold Church and other positions that give them stature among Latter-day Saints and who have allowed their stature to be used to promote such presentations. We have a different concern about some of the other topics at these symposia. Some of the presentations by persons whom we believe to be faithful members of the Church have included matters that were seized upon and publicized in such a way as to injure the Church or its members or to jeopardize the effectiveness or safety of our missionaries. We appreciate the search for knowledge and the discussion of gospel subjects. However, we believe that Latter-day Saints who are committed to the mission of their Church and the well-being of their fellow members will strive to be sensitive to those matters that are more appropriate for private conferring and correction than for public debate. Jesus taught that when a person has trespassed against us, we should "go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone," and if he will "neglect to hear" this private communication we should "tell it to the church." (Matthew 18:15, 17.) Modern revelation tells us that this last step "shall be done in a meeting, and not before the world" (D&C 42:89). There are times when public discussion of sacred or personal matters is inappropriate. Some of our faithful members have doubtless participated in these symposia because they were invited to state or to defend the Church's position on a particular topic. There are times when it is better to have the Church without representation than to have implications of Church participation used to promote a program that contains some (though admittedly not all) presentations that result in ridiculing sacred things or injuring The Church of Jesus Christ, detracting from its mission, or jeopardizing the well-being of its members." (The Council of the First Presidency & the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles). See also: Come, All Ye Sons of God, by Elder Boyd K. Packer, The Ensign Aug. 1983, p.68-9. And: The Message of The Joseph Smith Papyri, an Egyptian Endowment, Nibley, OP. CIT., explanation xxi-xiii.) ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Source: Studies In The Arts At Sinai, (Essays by Kurt Weitzmann) 1982, Princeton Un. Press, Princeton New Jersey, p. 400, Fig. 14. Mosaic. Moses receiving the tablets of the Law from the hand of God. See also Fig. 15. Sinai Cod. 1186 Fol. 101v, depicts the hand of God giving Moses the law. See also numbers p.401, fig.s 3 & 6. Formerly Izmir (Smyrna). Evangelical School. folio 106v. On another depiction, numbered 14, the Lord reveals himself to Moses to give him the law. (Solomon & Moses on Sinai, Paris, Bibl. d'Arsenal cod. 5211, Fol.s 307r & 30r (photos: Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale). Writing on metallic crosses is also depicted on page 399, 1. Bronze Cross, & 2. Cross, detail of Top, shows two hands extending down, with finger symbols. The writing appears to be in an ancient Latin. P. 398, & note 53, says that the Sinai cross occur on several metal objects, dated back to the 6th century A.D. Page 399 says that the cross are of "Sinai, St. Catherine's Monastery, Basilica, 40 Martyrs Chapel". More writing on metallic crosses can be found on fig.11-18. Fig.13 shows a silver plate with ancient writing in it, as found in the Paul Mallon Collection, New York. Fig. 15 a metallic cross with writing on it, & is of the Baltimore, The Walters Art Gallery, the silver cross of Cyriacus. Fig. 16 is a bronze cross, of Sinai, St. Catherine's Monastery, former Refectory. Prayer gestures figures with up-lifted hands: 2 depictions numbered 5 & 6, depict persons in prayer gestures with up-lifted hands, before curtains. Number 5 is said to be from Milan, Museo del Castello Sforzesco, Ivory, St. Menas. Number 6 is from Paris, Musee de Cluny. Ivory, Orant Saint. Fig. or plate numbered 318 shows the Virgin Mary in a prayer gesture with up-lifted hands. This is said to be from Cairo, Coptic Museum. Fresco from Bawit: Virgin & apostles. Another fig. numbered 10, depicts the imposition of hands or the laying on of hands, and is from Milan, Museo del Castello Sforzesco. Ivories, St. Mark Consecrating Anianos. Plate or fig. numbered 35, depicts an angel coming out of heaven with a garment. The depiction is of the death of the virgin Mary. The soul of Mary is passed on into the hands of Christ. An angel is also depicted as having clothed the soul of Mary in the garment, as they make their ascension into heaven in the air. This depiction is from Paris, Musee de Cluny. Ivory, the Death of the Virgin. Another depiction is numbered 11, & is of an Icon, Koimesis and Threnos (wings of triptych) Sinai. Hand clasping depiction of Christ descent, is seen on p. 298, see 6. Icon, the Anastasis (Sinai). Christ clasps the left hand of Adam with his right hand. On pages 296-7, we our told that Christ raised up Adam in the "traditional manner." They have dated this art as being of the 3rd quarter of the 13th century. Footnote 33 says that different types of depictions of the Anastasis, are depicted in a book by C. R. Morey, East Christian Paintings in the Freer Collection, New York, 1914. p.45ff. Also K. Weitzmann, "Aristocratic Psalter & Lectionary," Record of the Art Museum, Princeton Un. xix, 1960 p.98ff. The "...Western artist has placed particular emphasis on the idea that the deliverance from Hell was due to the life-saving power of the Cross. Naturally, this idea is also inherent in the Byzantine Anastasis,... the Orthodox Church chose the Anatasis, based on the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus,..." (ibid. p.296-7). Another depiction of the descent is found on p.33 number 11, plus the baptism of Christ with John placing his right hand on Christ's head, & to the right hand of Christ, on the bank of the river stands angels with garments, the traditional pagan water god? is also depicted below under the water. (p.33, #9, both are of Sinai. Iconostasis beam: Baptism & the Anastasis. Page 322 mentions the 2 ways, "...the elect are all on the right side of Christ & the condemned on the left...." "...In Byzantine Last Judgment pictures Christ...raises His right hand in blessing to indicate the salvation of the elect & turns His left down as a sign of condemnation. This type occurs, as an expression of a Western morality, in the tympanum sculpture of French cathedrals..." Such as in the church of St. Foy in Conques. Note 31 mentions P. Deschamps, "La sculpture francaise..." op. cit., pl.57. SOURCE: The Art of the Copts, by Pierre M. Du Bourguet, S. J. (Translated by Caryll Hay-Shaw) 1967 & 1971. Pub. Crown Pub. Inc. New York. Page 57 Fig.I, shows a Dead Egyptian woman in a Roman costume. (After S. Gabra & E. Drioton, Peintures a fresques et scenes peintes a Hermoupolis-Ouest, Cairo, 1954, pl.25.). Two Egyptian gods? stand on both side of her with containers of some kind, pouring over her an anointing of some kind. This is similar to an Aztec anointing depiction, with some differences, of course, as found in the Folios 29-46 of the Codex Boria manuscript, painted on deer skin, (dated between 1350 & 1500 A.D.) a pre-conquest Toltec/Aztec document from Tlaxcalan, near what is now Mexico City. Fig. 31 depicts 2 priests? or people with jars in their hands. They stand on opposite sides of each other, facing each other, & pour water(?) or some sort of fluid over the head of a person, the fluid from both jars cross over the person. This is similar to Egyptian anointing scenes. On pages 176-7. A baptism depiction of Christ is part of an Illumination manuscript, from a Copto-Arabic Book of Gospels, dated 13th century. Paris, Institut Catholique, Photo: A. Held. On p.177, John placed his right hand on Christ head, to Christ's right hand stands 2 angels with white garments in their arms. In the egyptian traditions, there seems to be gestures that is like unto other nations' prayer gestures, & those of many early to later Christians. One gesture is with up-lifted hands out in front of the person, at face level. This is for "praise" or "supplicate", in some cases. (See: Egyptian Grammar (Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs) by Sir Alan Gardiner, 3rd Ed., Pub. on behalf of the Griffith Institute Ashmolean Mus. Oxford, by Oxford Un. Press, Lon. p.32.) SOURCE: Greece In Photographs, (182 Pictures in Photogravure by Roger Viollet) Text by Jean Charbonneaux & Eric Peters, 1954, Pub. Thames & Hudson- London, & New York. pl.125 shows a photo of a greek funerary monument with the traditional hand clasp with the right hand. On p.192 the explanation is given for plate or figure 125. "Eleusis. a funeral lecythus in marble. The dead woman is holding out her hand to a young member of her family..." SOURCE: Le Mahzor Enlumine, (Les voies de formation d'un programme iconographique), par (by) Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, Published by Leiden- E.J. Brill- 1983, (Tuta Sub Aegide Pallas, E.J.B.). Planche XXI (plate 21), fig.40 Dresden, Sachsische Landesbibliothek, ms. A. 46a, fol. 202v. Is of an interesting art work depicting the hand of God giving the law to a person, (Moses?) On both sides of the art work is two persons blowing on horns. The writing on the manuscript is in Hebrew. Down below this scene is a number of people with up-lifted hands in the traditional prayer gesture. SOURCE: Byzantine Book Illumination & Ivories, by Kurt Weitzmann, Pub. Variorum Reprints London 1980, fig. 53. Fol. 1v is from the Leningrad, Pub. Lib., Cod. 21, Lectionary Fragment. Christ tramples under his feet the devil or hell. Christ clasp Adam's right hand with His right hand, thus raising Adam from the grave. On one side of the page is a person with hands raised up as if in a prayer gesture. Fig. 12, also mentioned on p.78, depicts the jaws of hell. Christ also has broken down the doors of hell, while on the doors he reached down and took Adam by his right hand by the wrist, with His own right hand, (another common traditional hand clasp). Under the doors of hell is the dark black lord or a demon of the under world. Who could not keep the King of Glory from freeing the prisoners, who had been held captive. (12. Madrid. Bibl. Nac., Cod. V.23-8, Fol. 195v, Nicodemus Gospel). Page 78 says that this 13th century manuscript may have been from Upper Italy. In footnote 32 on p.78, we read: "A. von Erbach-Furstenau, "L'Evangelo di Nicodemo," Archivio Storico dell' Arte, 2 (1896), 225 ff." On p.162 Fig. 7, we see depictions of different events. One of which is of the Anastasis, from a Gospel book, that has been dated here as being from the 11th century. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS gr. 74, f. 208v. Rays of light shine forth from Christ body as, He takes Adam by his right hand, with His own right hand, to make a hand clasp. SOURCE: Ivory Carvings In Early Medieval England, by John Beckwith, Pub. by New York Graphic Society LTD, Harvey Miller & Medcalf 1972. Page 8, fig.I, shows "The Last Judgement. Anglo-Saxon, late 8th century or early 9th century. London, Victoria & Albert Museum [Cat.4]. Again the "2 ways" are depicted here. The righteous guided by an angel along the right hand side of Christ to the placed of blessedness. (The "right hand path"). While on the side of Christ's left hand, the wicked are thrust down the Jaws of Hell, (the "left hand path"). It is not clear, but is seems that on the right hand side, the angelic guide may be clasping the wrist of the righteous, to lead them along. The "...blessed are received into heavenly Jerusalem by an angel & the damned huddle into Hell with one of their number being devoured by Hades...." Fig.20 shows an interesting baptism depiction that reminds us of the symbolic hand clasping in descent art works. For just as Christ raised up the soul up out of the grave, hades, limbo, the pit, etc. (the different names it's been given in different areas of Christianity), in a similar manner a person is being raised up out of the baptismal bowl, as if also coming up out of the grave. The font was symbolic of the underworld, the grave, etc., in many cases in early to later Christianity, & thus the artist may have wanted to present a type of Christ's descent, & the hand clasp that is depicted there also. For this art work shows Christ clasping the right wrist of the person in the baptismal bowl, but with his left hand. While His right hand has been placed on the head of the person. The depiction above this one show the ascension into heaven. This art work is said to be an Anglo-Saxon work dated back to the 8th century A.D. And can be seen in the London, Victoria & Albert Museum [Cat.5]. Fig. 137 detail of fig.135, depicts Daniel in the Lion Den with up-lifted hands in prayer to God. (English 2nd quarter of the 12th century A.D., St. Albans, Luton Hoo, Wernher Collection [Cat. 67]. Fig.s 138-139 show Christ treading on the Beasts under His feet. (fig.139), while St. Michael as a Knight armed with a shield & rod(?), is depicted here as trampling Satan. (Fig.138). These are work are said to be English, & are dated back to the middle of the 12th century A.D. (Florence, Museo Nazionale [Cat. 85]. On p.84, fig. 152, is a depiction of the descent from the cross. Angel come with garments in their arms. This art work is English (Hereford), & has been given the date here at "about 1150" A.D. (London, Victoria & Albert Mus. [Cat. 88]. SOURCE: The World of Ancient Israel, Text by David Meilsheim (Translated by Grace Jackman), 1973, Pub. Tudor Pub. Co. New York. Page 119 show up-lifted hands to a croissant moon. This monument has been dated here, as being 1200 B.C. "...Is not this the very symbol of prayer?" Page 78 shows a picture of a women bowed down before her father. The Father has taken hold of his daughters right hand with his own right hand, (clasping hands). With his left hand he has placed it on the head of his daughter. On p.79 is the explanation. A very old Jewish tradition was that a father would bless his daughter the day before Yom Kippur "among the qualities a woman must have were above all gentleness, modesty & shame." SOURCE: Medieval Book Illumination In Europe (The Collection of the German Republic), by Edith Rothe, Pub. by W.W. Norton & Co. Inc. New York. Translated from the German Buchmalerei aus zwolf Jahrhunderten, by Mary Whittall, Pub. 1966 by Union Verlag (VOB) Berlin. This edition 1968 by Thames & Hudson, London. Fig. 20 shows a page from an illumination manuscript, which page has a hand symbol in the middle. ("Evangelistar Schmuckseite mit Initiale M(aria). Reichenau, um 970 (Text S. 187), 20 Evangelistary Illuminated page with initial `M(aria)' Reichenau, c. 970 (see p.187)." Fig.60 has a portion that depicts the descent into hell. ("Biblia pauperum Entombment; Descent into Hell Central Germany, c. 1350 (see p.211)". The doors or gaits of hell have come crashing down, & out of the prison house come the captive spirits to be resurrected by Christ. They greet their King (the Christ), who stands before them. Fig. 61 depicts the angel Michael thrusting a spear or rod into the mouth of the dragon. Revelation chapt.12. (Central Germany, dated 1340 A.D. (see p.211). Fig. 84. depict the resurrection of the dead, those who are on the right hand side of Christ come out of their graves. While those on the left hand side are eaten up by the jaws of hell. Christ's right hand is raised in blessing, while His left hand is down. Thus the "2 ways" or the "right hand path" & the "left hand path," are hinted to here. (Breviary - Resurrection of the dead - Low Countries, 15th century A.D. (see p.202). SOURCE: The Miniatures Of The Sacra Parallela (Parisinus Graecus 923) by Kurt Weitzmann, Pub. by Princeton Un. Press Princeton, New Jersey, 1979. The Hand of God is depicted in the following fig.s, 8. Fol. 149r. Calling of Adam. 2 hands extend down upon a scene depicting Adam & Eve, & the devil. 9. Fol. 69r. Curse of serpent, Eve & Adam. 10. Fol. 94r. Curse of Eve. 12. Fol. 69r. Questioning of Cain & burial of Abel. 16. Fol. 356r. Covenant with Noah. 24. Fol. 248r. Abram addressed by the Lord, see also 25. Fol. 252r. 26.Fol.144r The Lord speaking to Abraham. 28. Fol.336r. Abraham arguing with the Lord. 26. Fol. 307r. Lot arguing with the Sodomites. 30. Fol. 307v. Destruction of Sodom. 32. Fol. 302r. The Lord speaking with Abraham. 53. Fol. 336r. Moses speaking with the Lord. 54. Fol. 161v. Moses is depicted here with up-lifted arms in prayer, the hand of God extend down in blessing. 56. Fol. 249v. Israelites praying to the Lord. One has his hands raised up a little. The hand of God extends down in blessing. 59. Fol. 92v show the hand, & so also does 65. Fol. 252r. See also 69, 72, 76, 77, 83, 106, 116, 146, 157, 165b Fol. 14v shows a person named Ahab with up-lifted hands in prayer. The hand of God is also depicted in 166, 160, 165a, 176, 229, 232, 389, 391, & (490. Fol. 40r. depicts 2 persons in the Godhead, in the middle of the symbol (). Down below is Stephen seeing the glory of God, with up-lifted hands in prayer. 175. Fol. 268v. shows the ascension of Elijah. In this greek manuscript, the artist have depicted Elijah on an ascending chariot. Down below is a man who stands with up-lifted arms. Elijah is about to drop a garment down to the man. SOURCE: Illustrations In Roll & Codex (A Study of The Origin & Method of Text Illustration) by Kurt Weitzmann, Princeton Un. Press 1947, Fig. 45a-b. are of the Book of the Dead of Iouiya, & 47a-b, The Greenfield Papyrus: Book of the Dead, (Lon. Brit., Mus.). Here we see some examples of the different kinds of Egyptian writing, one in the symbol form, the other in another form of writing. Fig. 96. depicts a hand symbol in a circle in the Aachen, Cathedral. Gospels of Otto, Pag. 249: Annunciation. Fig.s 164 & 165 depict Moses receiving the law from the hand of God. (164. Mt. Athos, Pantokratoros. Cod. 49. Fol.73r). And: 165. Vatican. Cod. gr. 747 Fol. 114v. SOURCE: Byzantine Painting (Historical & Critical Study) by Andre Grabar, Pub. by Skira Rizzoli, New York, 1979, first pub. in 1953. Page 54-5 show a mosaic that dates back to the 6th century A.D. (526 A.D.). Holy Martys & Virgins hold crowns in their hands. The martyrs have symbols in their garments. Page 58 depicts the hand of God in a mosaic depiction of "the sacrifice of Isaac. It has been dated before 547 A.D. (In the Choir, San Vitale, Ravenna. Page 59 show the hand of God giving Moses the law. Moses has angel symbols in his garments. This one is also found at Ravenna, & is dated before 547 A.D. On page 91 is an interesting mosaic that depicts Christ on his throne. One each side of Him is "Holy" & "Wisdom". ("CHRIST-HOLY-WISDOM.") End of the 9th century A.D. In the Narthex, St Sophia, Constantinople. "Wisdom" is a female figure, & it may be that she is sort of like how the St. Virgin Mary was to become in many of the later Western Latin Churches. Perhaps "Wisdom" may have been a sort of Queen or Mother in heaven. Although in this depiction "Wisdom" is not crowned, as in some cases with regard to Mary in some coronation depictions. (See for example: Studies In the Arts at Sinai, Weitzmann, op. cit., fig.9 Icon, Coronation of Virgin, Sinai. And: Art, by Frederick Hartt, Vol.II, pl.21, Pub. Harry N. Abrams, N.Y. 1976. See also: (TANF) 2: p.514, Clement of Alex.). The Early Christian Father, Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202], wrote that God the Father "...has a vast & unspeakable number of servants. For His offspring & His similitude" (note 12: "Massuet here observes, that the fathers called the Holy Spirit the similitude of the Son.") "do minister to Him in every respect; that is, the Son & the Holy Spirit, the Word & Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, & to whom they are subject...." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.1 p.470, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book IV, Chap.VII.). On pages 126-7, the Virgin Mary is depicted with up-lifted hands, "...the Virgin, Queen of Heaven..." (p.126), as she is called here, is found in this 12th century A.D. mosaic in the Apse, Cathedral of Cefalu. See also: (TANF) 2: p.514, & 534.) Page 116 depicts a mosaic dated 1100 ca., & is of the baptism of Christ. Angels stand on the right hand of Christ, with garments in their arms. The hand of God blesses the scene below, & the dove, is there to represent the Holy Spirit. John's right hand touches the top of Christ's head. Part of the mosaic is missing. (In the Nave, Church of Daphni). Page 166 shows the arm of God extending down to bless the prophet Ezekiel, who has his hands raised up-ward. (Ezekiel's Vision. ca. 880. Sermons of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Ms Grec 510, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.) Page 190-1, Christ is depicted in a baptismal scene. Angels stand to Christ's right hand with garments, on His left, John has placed his right hand on Christ's head. The dove comes down out of heaven. This is part of a 6 part depiction, 2nd down on the right, "SIX OF THE GREAT FEASTS OF THE YEAR." Dated back to the 14th century A.D. Portable mosaic, Opera Del Duomo, Florence. SOURCE: Medieval Pageant, by Bryan Holme, Pub. by Thames & Hudson, 1987. Pages 28-29, is a art work of "The King of France" he "receives three English envoys who kneel to pay respects...." One of the diplomats seems to be about to clasp hands with the King. (Illumination from Froissart's Chronicles, French, 15th century A.D.). The traditional hand clasp of greeting, that may have preserved in part the hand clasping "rites of passage" found in the early to later Christian mysteries, & art works. (See for example: A History of the Middle Ages, 285-1500 by Sidney Painter, 1953. Pub. Alfred A. Knopf, p.430. And: The Middle Ages I, 350-950, Ed. by Robert Fossier, Trans. by Janet Sondheimer, Cambridge Un. Press 1989, p.435.) On page 34 of Medieval Pageant; another painting of the traditional hand clasp of the King with those who come before his throne. This book also show a hand clasping marriage rite dated back to the 15th century A.D. (Illuminations from the Roman de Girart de Roussillon, Mons, South Netherlands, 1448). SOURCE: Gothic Painting, Text by Jacques Dupont & Cesare Gnudi, Pub. by Skira Rizzoli, N.Y., this edition 1979. (1st Pub. by Editions d' Art Albert Skira, Geneva in 1954). Translated by Stuart Gilbert. On page 28 is an art work that show Christ, with His right hand, clasping the wrist of the right hand of St. Thomas. Christ has pulled aside his garment with his left hand, thus revealing the one of the wounds of salvation. The wound in Christ side thus revealed, Thomas is assisted by Christ, who helps Thomas thrust 2 fingers in the wound, so that Thomas can feel for himself, as he had requested in scriptures. Psalter of Blanche of Castile. CA. 1230. Miniature, Ms Francais 1186, Folio 26. Bibliotheque De l' Arsenal, Paris. Page 31 shows a 13th century art work set in a glass window. 1st quarter of the 13th century A.D. Third window in the south aisle of the Nave, Chartres Cathedral. Eve is pulled out by her wrists from the sleeping Adam's side, by the hands of the Lord. Other scene of the garden of Eden are depicted here also. Page 32 show the hand of God in blessing, over the crucifixion scene. Dated ca. 1190, Church of Saint-Remi, Rheims. Page 38. Jean Pucelle. The Belleville Breviary. 1343. Miniature, Ms Latin 10483, Folio 24, Back. Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. In this depiction down below in the lower right hand corner, the arm of God reaches down to clasp the hands of two persons, who reach up to God. (See also: Gothic Art (From the 12th to 15th Century) by Andrew Martindale, 1967 Pub. by Praegar N.Y., p.132-3 Ill. 98, dated in this book between 1323 & 1326 A.D.) Page 39 shows an art work by Pucelle, folio 12, Judas is depicted as hanging on a tree, with his guts hanging out. Perhaps a depiction intended to blend the 2 accounts of Judas's manner of death. Art work dated 1343 A.D. SOURCE: Illuminated Greek Manuscripts from American Collections, (An Exhibition in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann), Edited by Gary Vikan, Pub. by The Art Museum, Princeton Un. Press, 1973, [Dates of exhibition April 14--May 20, 1973]. Page 53 Fig.I, shows the Virgin as an Oran, with up-lifted hands in the traditional prayer gesture. Princeton, Un. Lib. cod. Garrett 6, fol. IIr. Page 81, fig.19, John the Calybite (Jan. 15) Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery cod. W521. fol. 96r. Curtain drawn back, could such curtain be the traditions that preserved in part, the concept of veils in the temples & Churches? Page 101, Fig. 34, shows Moses receiving the Law from the hand of God. Washington, Dumbarton Oaks cod. 3, fol. 73r. On page 108 fig.39, is another depiction. Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery cod. W53ob. Page 118 fig.48, shows the descent into hell. The Anastasis, etc., (New York, Pierpont Morgan Lib. cod. M639. fol. Ir.) Christ tramples over hell or the devil, the doors of hell also have been broken down. Christ clasped Adam with his right hand, & thus is in the act of raising Adam & the others up out of the grave, or prison. Page 162, fig. 78, The hand of God extends to give the law to Moses. (Chicago, Un. Lib. cod. 965, fol. 6v.) Page 164, fig. 79. Peter is depicted here as being released from prison by an angel. The angel clasps Peter's left wrist. This is similar to depictions that show the hand clasp, as part of the descent of Christ into hades, limbo, the under world, the pit, etc., as seen in the different scatter branches of early to later Christianity. The hand clasps are different types, of course, but in many cases the hand clasp is similar to the one depicted in this art work. (Chicago, Un. Lib. cod. 965, fol. 119v.) SOURCE: Studies In Classical & Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, by Kurt Weitzmann, Ed. by Herbert L. Kessler, Pub. by The Un. of Chicago Press, Chic. & Lon., 1971. Page 65, fig.44, depicts the hand of God. (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 923, fol. 259r. Nebuchadnezzar.) Pages 225 & 226 fig, 210 & 212 show portions of art works that depict Christ's face on a veil. (Mount Sinai, St. Catherine's. Icon. Abgarus Stroy & Saints). It has been given a date to be in about the late 9th century in Edessa. Note 2 on p.224 is the basis for this date from: G. & M. Sotirious, Icones du Mont Sinai (Athens, 1956-58), 1: fig.s 34-36, 2:49-51. Page 226, fig.221 is this portion in more detail, while on p.225 & 227, fig.213 we see 2 saints amongst 4, with up-raised hands as if in the prayer gesture. The prayer gesture with up-lifted hands or arms raised up, is a very common prayer gesture that is depicted in almost every branch of Christianity. In the 1st Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, [A.D. 30-100], hints to this prayer gesture are found in the words of this letter. "...Full of holy designs, ye did, with true earnestness of mind & a godly confidence, stretch forth your hands to God Almighty, beseeching Him to be merciful unto, if ye had been guilty of any involuntary transgression....Ye never grudged any act of kindness, being "ready to every gook work." (n. Tit.3:1) "Adorned by a thoroughly virtuous & religious life, ye did all things in the fear of God. The commandments & ordinances of the Lord were written upon the tablets of your hearts." (The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1 p.5, 1st Epist. of Clement to the Cor. Chap.II.) And: "Let us then draw near to Him with holiness of spirit, lifting up pure & undefiled hands unto Him, loving our gracious & merciful Father, who has made us partakers in the blessings of His elect...." (Ibid. p.12 chap. 29). Page 229, Fig. 214, shows the face of Christ on a tapestry, as depicted in a greek manuscript. (Alexandria, Greek Patriarchal Library. Cod. 35, p.286. Mandylion. 11th century A.D.). Paul in writing to the Hebrews, speak of the veil being symbolic of Christ's flesh. (Heb. 10:16-22, notice verse 20). See also p.230 fig.215. And: p.234 fig. 220 Moscow, Historical Museum. Cod. 382, fol. 192v. Abgarus & Mandylion. About 1032 A.D. And: p.235 fig.222 New York, Morgan Library. Cod. 499, pict. XIV. Abgarus & Mandylion. The face of Christ is depicted on cloth, curtains, & in other places. Could it be that this traditional way of depicting Christ, goes back to the early Christian era, hinting to Paul's words to the Hebrews? (See also: Art & Mankind, Ed. by Rene Huyghe, p.49-50, fig.78. And: Signs & Symbols In Christian Art, by George Ferguson, Pub. Oxford Un. Press, N.Y. p.209, XI. And: Frescoes Of The Church Of The Assumption At Volotovo Polye, text by M.V. Alpatov, Pub. Moscow. Iskusstvo, 1977 p.66, or fig,66. And: The Art & Architecture of Russia, by George Heard Hamilton, 1954 & 1975, Pub. by Penguin bks. Eng. & U.S.A, p.105.) Page 258, fig. Leningrad, Public Library. Cod. gr. 21, fol.1v. shows the Anastasis. In the act of raising up Adam out of the grave, Christ tramples over Hades. He has taken hold of Adam's right hand. This book tells us that the "Harrowing of Hell" spread into other media presentations, such as in icons, frescoes, mosaics, etc., thus developing into "...a canonical rendering of the Easter Feast." Page 269, fig.259, Mount Athos, Lavra, Skevophylakion. Lectionary, fol. 134v. Koimesis. Here is another depiction of the death of the Virgin Mary. Christ has come to be by her side, as soon as her spirit leaves her body, the spirit is passed on into the protective hands of Christ, who then in turn will pass the soul on into the hands of the angels who will cloth the soul in a garment. (So the different art works depict). This one shows angels coming with garments in their arms. Page 272, fig. 261, Vatican, Biblioteca. Cod. gr. 1613, p.299 Baptism of Christ. Christ is presented in this art work as standing almost neck high in the baptismal water. The hand of God extends down with the traditional finger language symbols, (in this case the 2 middle fingers are pulled in), The dove is also depicted. Angels stand on the bank of the right hand side of Christ, with garments in their arms. On the other side, John has placed his right hand on Christ's head. Two other men seem to stand as witnesses. Another baptismal depiction is seen on page 273, fig. 262 (Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery. Cod. W 521, fol. 38r.) This is very similar to the other one mentioned. See also page 274, fig. 263, (Mount Athos, Dionysiu. Cod. 587, fol. 141v.). Page 281, fig. 272 Washington, Dumbarton Oaks (olim Pantocrator Cod. 49), fol. 73r. The Hand of God gives Moses the Law. See also p.281, fig. 273 Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Cod. gr. 139, fol. 422v. In this work, on the right & left-top portions of the art work, Hands of God are depicted. Moses is blessed by the hand of God, & the hand of God hands down the law from heaven. On p.282, fig. 274 London, British Mus. Cod. Add. 19352 fol. 193v. is another depiction. Page 282 fig. 275 Paris, Bib. Nat. Cod. gr. 74, fol. 169r. Christ's baptism is seen. The angels with white garments are off to the side. John's right hand has been placed on Christ head. Other people watching this event. On Page 308 fig. 305 Mount Sinai, St. Catherine's Icon. 12 Feast. One portion shows the baptism of Christ. Angels stand with the garments in the arms. John's right hand is on Christ's head, & the dove is there also. Another portion show the descent of Christ into hell. (About the 11 cent, A.D.), Ibid. p.309. Again a hand clasp is seen here. Christ is turned as if he will act as a guide. He holds Adam's right hand wrist, with His right hand. The doors of hell have been broken down. Another portion of the 12 feasts, is the death of the Virgin. Christ has Mary's soul in His hands. Page 312, fig. 308, Mount Sinai, St. Catherine's Icon, 12 feasts. The traditional baptism scene, the harrowing of Hell, the death of the virgin. Again with the garments, hand clasps, soul of Mary having passed on into the hands of Christ, the angels with garments coming out of heaven. All these basic traditional elements are there in this series art works, as in other already described here. Page 323, fig. 313, Mount Athos, Iviron. Cod. 5, fol. 360r. Anastasis. 13th century A.D. Christ stands on the doors of hell, & is in the act of grasping with His right hand, Adam's right wrist, in the act of raising up Adam & the others who follow behind Adam, up out of the grave, & hell. SOURCE: Illuminated Manuscripts (In Oxford College Libraries, The Un. Archives & the Taylor Institution), by J.J. G. Alexander & Elzbieta Temple. Pub. by Clarendon Press Lon. 1985, Plate XV fig.259b a portion of the art work from an illumination manuscript. Christ extends his body out of heaven to clasp the wrists of the souls rising up with up-lifted hands. In Plate 18, fig.282a John had climbed up a latter through some doors in the clouds. And angel is in the act of clasping John's wrists. (See also: The Secret Book of Revelation by Gilles Quispel, Pub. by McGraw-Hill Books. Co. N.Y., 1979, p.48, see also Rev. 4:1). Plate XlVII, fig. 775b. A women holds up a cloth that has the face of Christ on it. (See also Heb. 10:16-22). Plate LXI fig. 872e, depicts the war in heaven. Angels armed with swords, battle in mid air with dark skinned demons, (Rev. 12). Plate LXVII, fig. 962. People ascend up a stair case to clasp the hand of a king or religious figure? Perhaps this hand clasp in one a greeting. SOURCE: Illuminated Books Of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, (The Walters Art Gallery), An Exhibition Held at The Baltimore Mus. of Art, Jan. 27 -- March 13. Pub. by the said Gallery, in Baltimore 1949. Plate VII, fig. 12 show the hand of God in this art work. Pl.30 fig.48, shows Eve being pulled out of the side of Adam. The Lord grasps Eve's wrist with His right hand. (top-half portion of 2 part art work.) Pl.33 fig. 70, top portion show God with a measuring a world with a compass. The Lord is in the act of also clasping Eve's hands which are held together in a prayer gesture. The lower portion of fig. 70 depicts the war in heaven. Michael is armed with a long cross-spear. The heavenly City or Temple is in the process of being cleansed of the apostate angels, they are thrust out of heaven & fall into the Jaws of hell. Plate 36, fig.83, depicts the "2 ways", the right hand path, & the left hand path. Christ in the last Judgment, with His right hand raised up, while His left down. Angels blow on horns, as the dead are resurrected out of the ground. Some souls (the wicked) are cast down or are taken by demons down to the jaws of hell. Angels of God have collected some souls, & they are in the act of riding up on a garment with their angelic guides. At the top, their angelic guide clasp their hands to lead them toward the Divine. The people that are being resurrected out of the ground, have their hands lifted up as if in a prayer, thanking Christ. A struggle between the demons & angels of God seems to be in the process, as the souls of the righteous & the souls of the wicked are taken towards the realm that they have been judged to live in. Plate XL, fig. 99, depicts a marriage scene, just before the traditional hand clasping rite. Plate XLV, fig.106, depicts the hand of God in blessing, extending out of heaven, thus causing the dark skinned & winged demons of the air to scatter. Plate LVIII, fig. 149, the Christ child clasps the hand of His Mother Mary's right hand, with His right hand, while they are in the Temple. SOURCE: Medieval & Renaissance Illuminated Manuscripts (In Australian Collections), by Margaret M. Manion & Vera F. Vines, 1984. Pub. by Thames & Hudson, Melbourne, Lon. & N.Y., Fig. 47 shows Christ appearing to 8 people. (No. 13.). Fig. 53. Dormition of the Virgin. No. 14, f. 96v. Depicting the spirit of Mary in the hands of Lord who has come to be by her side during her last moments in mortality. On p.67, Pl.15 the ascension No.19 f.Ir. Christ is in the act passing out of one realm into the next, (the heavenly), just his legs & the bottom portion of his robe are seen in this art work. Page 154, fig. 131. depicts a vision that a women is having of the suffering Christ. Christ's right hand is raised up, while his left hand is down near his side-wound. Blood flows out of his wounds, his left hand is in cupping shape to catch some of the blood that comes out of his side wound. Is this the preservation of the traditional sacramental gestures? Page 154, fig. 132. St. Veronica with sudarium. No. 58, f. 200v. In this woman's hands is a cloth with the face of Jesus on it. (See also Heb. 10:16-22). Page 157, fig. 143, St. Anne with Virgin & Child. No. 61, f. 64 v. The Virgin Mary & Her child, (Christ), clasp hands before some curtains that have be drawn back. Page 161, fig. 162, shows souls on a blanket-garment, & they represent souls in the realm or "Bosom of Abraham". (Paris, B.N. Ms. lat. 1077. f.183v.) SOURCE: La Peinture Byzantine, by Paul Muratoff, (Pub. Paris A. Weber, MCMXXXV), III, Orante- Art Romano-Hellenistique (Ive S.) Fresque de SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Rome. Person with up-lifted hands in the prayer gesture. Pl.XIII, L' Annunciation -Art Pre-Byzantine (432-440) - Mosaique S. Maria Maggiore, Rome. Angels, & other possible symbol can be seen in the clothing of the people depicted in this book. Pl. 38, Abraham, Les Anges et le Sacrifice d' Isaac - Art Byzantine (530-540) Mosaique S. Vitale, Ravenne. The hand of God extends out of heaven in this depiction of the biblical scene of Abraham & his son. See also pl. CCXII, is another depiction dated 1270 A.D.). And: pl.CCXXIII, dated 1270-1280 A.D. Pl. 39 also show the hand of God. Pl. XLIV, & XLV, prayer gestures are seen with up-lifted hands. In plate XLV, Christ en Gloire - Art Byzantine (550) - Mosaique Oratoire de S. Andrea, Archeveche de Ravenne. This art work shows angels with up-lifted hands, touching a circle. The 4 angels garments or robes have angel marks or symbols in them. This art work may be a reminder of the early to later Christian prayer circle. See also Pl.LXIV. In Pl. LIX, Saint Quiricus - Art Byzantiniste local (VIII e S.) - Fresque S. Maria Antiqua, Rome. A saint in the traditional prayer gesture with up-lifted hands. Pl. LXXIX, La Vierge - Art Byzantine (1056-1086) - Fresque Atrium de S. Angelo in Formis. Another later depiction of a women with up-lifted hands in the traditional prayer gesture. Other prayer gestures are seen here in this book, such as in Pl.LXXXI, (dated 1056-1086 A.D.), & Pl. XCVI, & pl. CXIV. Pl. CXIX, depicts a crowning rite. Pl. CXXIV, shows the baptism of Christ in neck high water. Angels stand to the right hand side of Christ with garments in their arms. John's right hand has been place on Christ's head. Pl. CXXIX, show the hand of God extending out of heaven. Gullaume II Offers the Temple to the Virgin Mary who sits on a throne. Art Byzantine (1174-1182) Mosaique Cathedrale de Monreale. Pl.CXCI, Episodes de L'Historie de S. Jean Baptiste Detail du Tableau d' autel - Art Neo-Hellenistique (1250-1270) Academie, Sienne. In the top portion of this plate, is another baptismal scene with the angel with garments in their arms. Another baptismal depiction is seen in pl. CCXLVII, as part of the 6 feast presentation. Again angels are there with the traditional baptismal robes or garments. Pl. CCXLVIII, is another one to consider. 3 angels stand to the right hand side of Christ. The water comes up to Christ's mid section. John's right hand rest on the Head of his master, while his other is raised up. The dove & a 8-pointed star are also seen here. SOURCE: The Golden Age of Dutch Manuscript Painting, Catalogue by Henri L. M. Defoer & others, (The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York.) March 1, 1990 -- May 6, 1990. The English edition 1989. P. 41, fig.12, Cat. No.9, f. 12r. Master of Dirc van Delf: King David kneeling in prayer. The hand of God also depicted in this art work. Page 107, fig. 48, Cat. No. 32, f. 95 r, Masters of Zweder van Culemborg: Priest celebrating Mass. In this art work we see a veil with the face of Christ on it. Page 139 fig. 68, depicts God in the act of taking Adam & Eve by the right hands, to pull them together to make to perhaps make the traditional hand clasp rites of marriage. Thus the scene here, is just before the hand clasp. Other depictions who the hand clasp. Plate VIII 65, the left page depicts souls being carried by angels. Abraham, or perhaps as in the case with this other depiction, God the Father sits on a throne. He holds in his hands a blanket-garment with 3 souls on it. (See also: Luke 16:19-31). The right page also depicts souls in being carried by angels. Another portion seem to depict souls coming out of the jaws of hell, or limbo. Page 212, Pl.66, fig. 119, Cat. No. 66, f. 176v. Master of Gijsbrecht van Brederode: God the Father holds 3 souls in a sheet-garment. Down below souls are coming out of their graves, who on the left hand side (perhaps symbolic of the left hand path), other souls burn in the fire from the underworld realm. From the Book of Hours, Brederode (ca. 1460-1465). Page 214 pl.67, fig. 121, Cat. No.67, f. 89r. Shows the same sort of thing. God the Father holds 3 souls in a sheet. On page 230, pl.X 85, left page, Christ's descent into hades. With His left hand, Christ grasps Adam's hands & others behind him are set free as they come out of the jaws & prison house of hell. The dark lord of the under world is also crushed under the tongue-door of hades. Page 256, pl. XI 94 shows the temptation of Christ. The devil is depicted as a dark skinned monster like creature, with horns. On page 257 pl.XI 97, the "2 ways" or 2 paths are depicted, in this last judgment scene. Christ sits in judgment with his right hand up, & his left hand down. The glowing light of the mandorla () symbol, is around Christ. A host of souls who have made their pilgrimages on the "right hand path" crowd their way towards the door way to paradise. St. Peter is depicted as being in the act of reaching out his hands, to clasp the hands of the souls of the righteous, & let them pass through the door into paradise. Thus the scene here is just before the traditional hand clasp. There are also angelic guides & helpers on the side of the "right hand path." On the "left hand path", the wicked are taken down towards the realms of hell-fire, & the devil. Page 259, pl. XII 99, presents the war in heaven. Angels battle with dark skinned monster demons who fall to the earth. (See also: Rev. 12, Luke 10:18, 2 Pet.2:4, Jude 6.) SOURCE: Medieval Miniatures, (From the Department of Manuscripts [Formerly the "Library of Burgundy"] The Royal Lib. of Belgium), Commentaries by L.M.J. Delaisse, etc., Pub. by Harry N. Abrams, Inc. N.Y. Page 136-7, "The Punishment of the Rebellious Angels," Jacques Le Grand, Le Livre des bonnes moeurs. Southern Netherlands. About 1455- 1460 A.D. In this art work the Divine Judge has His right hand raised up, while His left hand is held down. Some of the fallen angels fall into the pit & hell fire. Satan's arrogant rebellion cost him his rank in the heavens, He & other angels became devils when they were flung down from heaven. This art work has preserved the basic concepts of this story. SOURCES: The Rothschild Canticles (Art & Mysticism In Flanders & the Rhineland Circa 1300) by Jeffery F. Hamburger, Pub. Betty Grant Program, Yale Un. Press New Haven & Lon. 1990. Pl.47. RC, ff. 74v-75r (below), Two persons ride on a garment, similar to other depictions of the pilgrimage of the soul to the heavenly realms. Some art works show the soul or spirit riding on a sheet-garment through the air. See also 48, RC, ff. 76v-77r (above). And: 51, RC, ff. 8ov-81r (above). And: 52. RC, ff. 83v-84r (above). & 55. RC, ff. 87v-88r (below). And: 57. RC, ff. 91v-92r (below). In 67. RC, ff. 118v-119r (below), we see a demon attempting to steal the soul of a person who has just died. Another person is there to resist & fight with the demon over the spirit of the dead person. (See also Jude 9). This might remind us of the constant battle between good & evil in this realm & in the realms of the spirits. Pl. 88. RC, ff. 185v-186r (above). Here is another depiction of the soul riding up on a garment with the help of angelic guides. The Lord grasps the hands of the soul, who perhaps may have also just been resurrected from the tomb, (down below we see the open coffin). Plate 106. Hortus deliciarum, Ladder of Virtues, f. 215v. This art work is similar to many other "ladder to heaven" depictions. Many symbolic moral lessons are presented here. Different ones on the ladder have "fallen" to the different temptations of life. Demons with bows attempt to stop the progress of those on their journey towards the reward, & towards moral perfection. The crown of glory awaits in "the hand of God" (At the top of the ladder is seen the hand of God extending down with a crown in His hand, see: 2 Tim.4:7-8). Angels armed with swords & shields fight attempt to protect those on their journey towards heaven. But because some of the person who have journey towards the crown, lose sight of the eternal reward & have set their hearts & the focus of their attention on worldly things, they fall. Thus perhaps the origins of the symbolic saying: "The person has `fallen' away from the truth". Or he `fell' for it. Or they have `fallen' into the ways of sin. Plate 107. (left) Speculum virginum (Lon. Brit. Lib. MS Arundel 44), f. 83v. & Pl.108. f. 93v. Both show people ascending up ladders. One (pl.107), is in the shape of a cross. At the top of the ladder is Christ. Different people depicted here clasp each others' arms & wrists, (pl.107). At the top Christ grasps a hold of the wrist & hands of a person who has clasped on to Christ wrists & hands. Christ is thus depicted as being in the act of raising the person up to his level, or perhaps the heavenly realm where He is at. In pl.108, there are 2 people at the top of the ladder who have clasped a hold of Christ wrists. At the bottom of the ladder is a dragon like creature. Plate 116. Lambert of St. Omer, Liber floridus (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS lat. 8865), f. 42v. The heavenly Jerusalem, or holy city of Light is depicted here. An angel extends out of to greet a person (who is perhaps John), by grasping the person by the wrist.