It sounds to me like you have pulled up an anti-Mormon web site which is distorting the beliefs and you are asking questions, not out of a genuine curiosity, but out of some attempt to catch me making a mistake.  I suggest you don't read anything "anti" about any religion, as they are always distorted byproducts of bias and prejudice.  This is one reason I have included a link to the official sites, which also invite you to submit any questions.

You might be right about the Mary issue, but I did a quick word check and only found it before the angel appeared.  Again, I can't really respond without being given references.

Regardless, the LDS belief is that Jesus is a literal descendant of God.  How that process took place is not, to my knowlege, revealed, any more than how the Red Sea was parted is revealed.  Many anti-Mormon people say that it must mean there was sexual intercourse, but there is nothing in my knowledge saying that.  I also don't know how the original text or people of those times defined "virgin."

Also, remember that the New Testament was written by human beings and translated and transcribed over the centuries.  To quibble over such a small thing as semantics is not relevant to doctrinal teachings.

Alright, rogue, just for you I looked up the "born in Jerusalem" quote.  It was a quote by one of the descendants who had fled Jerusalem before its destruction.  They referred to the homeland as Jerusalem just as I refer to my home as America, not Las Vegas, and it was a generalized quote long before Jesus was ever born. To take it otherwise is to take it out of context.  No one in the LDS church believes that Mary had labor and delivery anywhere but Bethlehem.

I repeat that the Holy Ghost is not considered a "God."  The primary difference you will find is that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus.  After Jesus was literally born, there came a need to separate him as a separate being from God the father.  Thus, you have the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  I don't know where you're getting "all the other gods" from.

As an RM, I don't think I branded myself as someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about. I used the term so others here, who might not know what I'm talking about, would know what I was talking about.

Also, the BoM says that Jesus was born in the land of Jerusalem. The alleged authors didn't know the geography of the land very well, since they were born in the americas, so it would have been accurate in their mind and to their people.

To us, it might not make sense to say I was born in the land of Anchorage, but it means the general area of Anchorage. I wasn't born in Anchorage.

Also, I believe that the statement is further clarified by saying, "In the land of our forefathers". Sorry, I don't remember the exact wording off the top of my head.

Sorry, Lawman.  I overstepped with the usage of the term issue due to the obvious misunderstandings being promulgated. I suppose it is true that the term is used by members to talk to non-members in a vernacular they can understand.  This is especially true in foreign countries.  The term "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" in Japanese is practically gibberish (except the Church of Jesus Christ part), but "Morumon-Kyou" (Mormon Church) is readily understood by all and used by the LDS and non-LDS community alike, especially since there are very famous members of the church in Japan and that term is well understood (and also, it would be meaningless to say "LDS").

Speaking of terminology, I think it is important to clarify:

When we say God, we are talking about God the Father, the only God we worship. This is the name Elohim in the Jewish texts.

Jesus is Jehovah, or the Messiah, or Yeshua, the Savior, the Lord.

There are portions of the Old Testament in which it is unclear from the translation which Being is referred to.  If I remember correctly, the portion quoting "The Great I Am" is one of those (but don't quote me on that).  I just don't want my statement in the post above to be taken too far.

The problem with any culture, language or religion is that an outsider coming in must first learn the terms of usage.  The loose term of the word "God" is inappropriate.  We refer to exalted beings.

I think the questions posed so far are very good.  The problem is that they are questions on the level of Calculus made by people who are still learning the Addition and Subtraction of LDS theology.  This makes it difficult to explain without pages and pages of describing the basic teachings first.  For example, it is difficult for a Bible scholar to explain the secrets of the Bible to someone who has not even read the Bible.  Things can be pulled out of context and read without a proper foundation, and this just makes things confusing.  The same is true of any religion, philosophy, or other teaching.

No worries, Heath. Am I correct in assuming you served a mission in Japan, then? I visited there once; it was a memorable experience.

btw, as far as this discussion goes, I am keeping out of it. I am no longer a member of the lds chruch, but I have nothing against it. (I may step in to clarify something someone is saying, having a strong background in both mainstream protestant (various) churches and lds churches, I tend to understand the conceptual diferences between them a little better.)

Yes, I was a missionary in Japan, and I currently live in Tokyo.  I admit I'm not the best spokesman for the church, since I know far more about Far Eastern religions than the various differences of the Protestant religions, but I hope the weaknesses of the messenger won't taint the message.

I think as Lawman suggests, every person is more knowledgeable in certain areas than others, even within their own religion.  For everything they don't have perfect knowledge of (which is the vast majority of the secrets of the universe), then they exercise faith.  My expertise is actually mostly concentrated on the early church starting with Joseph Smith, whom I have read countless pages about.  I guess I figure that if his story is false, then there's no point in believing in the rest of it.  So far, I haven't found anything.  The many Bible-related questions have been asked and answered a thousand times.  Hopefully, I won't say anything that isn't a proper representation of the church's position in trying to answer them.

I am referring to the LDS belief that it's believer's will become gods. That the LDS believe that are many gods.

No, not really. After my initial question of the LDS using the KJV, and why they do that if they place under the Book of the Mormon, that's when we started talking about differences of the two books. And there are differences. I used many sites, including non christian ones for this info. But neither here nor there. The bible and the Book of the Mormon do not agree, and that is known. When you asked for specifics, I had to go searching for the specifics. I certainly did not bring up the "big ones" or the most inflammatory. I kept it pretty simple, and was showing some differences between christianity and LDS.

I recall reading a story about the Church of Latter Day Saints baptizing people after death.  I think in the 80's they were caught baptizing the Jewish victims of the Holucost without the families' knowledge.  Is it true they can baptize someone into their church after they have died?

I think I can answer Rogue and Lycaon with one post (sorry I don't check this site very often):

The LDS belief follows this line of thought:  Man is created in God's image.  Man is a spiritual child of God with a body obtained through mortal conception.  This immortal spirit leaves the body at death and is reunited at resurrection.  The resurrection is only made possible due to Christ.  The resurrection will bring about an immortal and perfect body instead of these weak mortal bodies.

The LDS belief is that each man is judged by his own sins and actions.  It is impossible for man to live a perfect life.  Each person will be judged individually according to his own understandings and limitations and given the chance to accept or reject the fullness of Christ's gospel and repent, whether in this life or in the next.  Then, it is only through the mercy of Christ and the forgiveness of God (termed the "atonement") that men can be perfected and receive the fullness of their potential.  Since they are children of God, the ultimate potential is to become like God, even though this may take a long time after we die.  But we only worship one God.

To enter the kingdom of God, certain covenants must be made and ceremonies by those with the appropriate priesthood performed.  One of these is baptism, as shown by the example of Jesus.  Most people don't have a chance in this life to receive baptism or accept Christ's church.  And after they die, they do not have bodies to get these necessary ordinances performed.  Therefore, members are baptized as proxies for the deceased.  If the deceased accept the gospel after they die, then the ceremonies have been performed before they face the resurrection and judgment.  If they don't, then the ceremony has no meaning, but at least the effort was made. (Part of the baptizing for the dead issue is mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29: "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?")

As for the Holocaust issue, I believe the Church issued a statement that when it was objected to, they stopped, and if there have been any further such proxy baptisms performed, it was not intentional.  On one hand, unless there is some spirit manifestation, the living cannot know the will of the dead or what they may want in the world to come, and most don't object to the ceremonies.  On the other hand, the church is always sensitive to the desires of those related to the deceased.

Rogue- The Book of Mormon is considered a companion to the Bible.  It is not meant to displace it.  And there are other records out there as well which we still do not have that were developed from the scattered lost tribes of ISrael.  You have given specific examples where you think they don't agree, and I showed you how they do.  I need specifics in order to address your generalized statement.  I presume your position comes without having read the Book of Mormon in its entirety.  I would urge you to do so first.  I have read both books many times, and thus having done so, I must disagree with you.  Again, I think you'll find many differences in doctrinal interpretation but not in valid interpretations of the doctrine.

For example, your "Jerusalem" quote is easy to take out of context.  If you read the entire book, you will see that time and again the people refer to their homeland as "Jerusalem."  Bethlehem is less than five miles from the city of Jerusalem (which is shorter than my daily commute), so it easily fits within the consistent context of the book.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:45, Mon 28 June 2004.

Alright, did you want to answer the one about the lds believing there are many gods? and they it's believer's will become gods.

The LDS quote is:  "As Man is, God once was; as God is, Man may become."  There is only one God we worship.  As to how many beings like God exist creating worlds and universes in the infinity of time and space, we do not know nor have we been told.  We call this type of being an "exalted" being.

And certainly not all "believers" will become exalted because there are probably few worthy or humble enough for such a high calling--and besides, it is impossible for man to rise to such a state without the aid of deity and complete forgiveness of sins and a purpose single to the eye and glory of God.  And many "non-believers" in this world can receive exaltation based on the choices they make after this life.

That's right, I forgot about that, LDs believes God was a man. (Not Jesus), but they believe that God was a man, before being a god. That is definite distinction between christianity and LDS.

But to your post, I didn't intend to suggest LDS worship more than one god. But that the "exalted" are numerous gods.

Since Christ is the center of our church, we consider ourselves Christians.  But you're right that this is a big distinction between the LDS church and the "rest of" Christianity.

Christ also, of course, walked the earth as a man.  He became the first on this earth to receive exaltation and lead the way for others.  But we consider him the eldest son of God (i.e. our elder brother).  Thus, God is the father over all humankind on this earth (and on the other earths he created), and Jesus was appointed to lead this earth and will therefore return to take his place as King of Kings on earth.

You are correct:  an exalted being receives the promise of Abraham and goes on to create worlds and continue the eternal cycle.  Those who do not receive this highest promise receive rewards comparable to their actions and spiritual readiness at the day of judgment.

We do not believe in a literal hell except in one instance:  Outer Darkness, which is where Satan and his minions and a few who lived on this earth will be.  Everyone else receives differing levels of peaceful, happy, and productive existence after judgment.

I didn't know how to eloborate when we were talking about it, because I have been doing much from memory, and didn't have any material to quote from. This is what I found:

Interesting. Does this mean that God is like a collective consciousness composed of all the souls of the world? And that a similar God may exist for each universe?

No, he meant God was once a man, like us. And that we too can become like gods. That we would become a god who can perhaps create our own world as well, like god.

Jesus was such a one... which counts Him as another God...
Only he called Himself the Son of God, and that he was one with the Father... So He doesn't count as another God and so, saying we worship only one God still holds true. Did I get that right?

Also if ever someone goes and makes himself exalted (with the grace of God), does that mean he should move on and create his own world so that we still have only one God to worship here? All hypothetical, of course.

God the Father is God. But LDS do consider Jesus a god. But is a physical son of God apparantly. I believe Heath has said the Holy Ghost isn't an actual being? But I do believe LDS do believe three gods make up the godhead.
Jesus does count as another God, but I believe Heath said they do not pray to Jesus, but only God.
The last question of exultation, I would assume Heath could clarify further, but I do believe the end answer of that is up to God.

God the Father is God. But LDS do consider Jesus a god. But is a physical son of God apparantly. I believe Heath has said the Holy Ghost isn't an actual being? But I do believe LDS do believe three gods make up the godhead.
Jesus does count as another God, but I believe Heath said they do not pray to Jesus, but only God.
The last question of exultation, I would assume Heath could clarify further, but I do believe the end answer of that is up to God.