From: wcsa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Mormon FAQ (part 1 of 2)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Indian Hill West - Naperville, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:15:34 GMT


The recent discussion, especially of various interpretations of Mormonism
pushed by David Lee and John Muehlhausen, have prompted me to throw a little
fuel on the fire. The following is the first part of a two part FAQ on
Mormonism which was written for soc.religion.christian. It is an attempt to
present a series of very basic beliefs and then respond to a series of
typical objections which I have seen posted on the net over the last four
years. I acknowledge that it will not leave *certain* individuals satisfied
since they seem to believe that they have a "lock" on what can be labeled
Christian and what cannot, but it is an attempt to present basic beliefs and
responses accurately.


                         INTRODUCTION TO MORMON FAQ

This file  represents  an  attempt  to  identify  and  respond  to  the  most
frequently  discussed issues on Mormonism so that future discussions will not
be mired back in the basics. Mormonism is a nickname for The Church of  Jesus
Christ  of  Latter-day  Saints  (sometimes called  by its initials  LDS). The
nickname  is  taken  from the Book of Mormon, which is part of the LDS canon.
Though  originally  derogatory,  the  term  "Mormon"  has  eventually  became
accepted by members of the Church.  Many members, however, prefer the correct
name because the nickname lacks any association with the Savior.

Let me begin by stating up front that this is one Mormon's view of  Mormonism
and  that  not  all  Mormons  will agree with everything described hereafter.
Earlier versions of this FAQ were distributed among other Mormons on the  net
for criticism and suggestions.  While not all of the Mormons agreed with 100%
of everything written (it would take nothing short of a miracle to accomplish
that),  most  of  them agreed with most of the material. I have tried to show
the differences of opinion and terminology whenever possible.  I  acknowledge
the patience and contributions of many other Mormons on the network.

Unfortunately  these files are  VERY LONG. I apologize for that. In reviewing
my notes, I tried to  identify and  address only  the most basic  topics that
have come up repeatedly during the years that I have participated on the net.
Attempts  to  solicit  suggestions from other Mormons on where to reduce were
actually counterproductive. In most cases, they wanted me to  expand  certain
topics or add information in yet another area. For the most part I resisted.

I acknowledge the tremendous learning experience of reading and participating
on  the  net  over  the  last  three  and a half years. What I know of my own
religion has been enhanced by learning the whens, hows,  and  whys  of  other
religions.   I  also acknowledge the contributions of the moderator of s.r.c,
who offered a few suggestions, raised a few  questions,  and  brought  a  few
facts to my attention.

This  file does  not represent  an official  position of  The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. I accept full responsibility for its contents.

                     SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON MORMONISM

Outside of the LDS canon (termed Standard Works), the authoritative status of
many  works about Mormonism is fuzzy. The best thing I can do is list some of
the most cited works, describe what they are,  and  the  problems  associated
with them.

The  LDS Standard Works  consist of four  collections: The Bible, The Book of
  Mormon (BoM), the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), and  the  Pearl  of   Great
  Price   (PGP).  The  LDS  Church publishes an AV (KJV) edition of the Bible
  which   includes  extensive   reference  notes,  topical  guide,   Biblical
  dictionary,  gazetteer, and  maps.  For a lengthy discussion on The Book of
  Mormon see the section THE BOOK OF MORMON. The Doctrine and Covenants is  a
  collection  of   revelations  received  by Joseph Smith and his successors.
  The current (1981 edition) has 138 sections and two Official   Declarations
  (which describe changes in Church practices).

  The Pearl of Great Price is a collection of materials produced  by   Joseph
  Smith   and published in the Church periodicals of his day. This collection
  was first gathered by Franklin Richards in 1851 for  the  members  of   the
  Church   in  England   and  had  no canonical  status.  It was added to the
  Standard Works in October  1880.  It  contains  the  following  items:   JS
  revision  of   the  first  part  of  Genesis (called the Book of Moses), JS
  revision of the 24th Chapter of Matthew, The Book of Abraham (see   Section
  MISC   OBJECTIONS, subsection on The Book of Abraham), JS's 1838 account of
  the origin of the LDS Church, and the Thirteen Articles of Faith   (similar
  to a Creed).

Topical Guide to the Standard Works.
  The  first  edition,  published in 1977, was based on a computer  generated
  text.   Members  were  invited  to  add  changes, and  a  greatly  expanded
  edition was published  and  bound  with the LDS edition of the AV in  1979.
  The guide is arranged by subject with concordance-like entries.

Messages of the First Presidency. Edited by James R. Clark.
  Six volume work covering Jan 1833 to Feb 1951. They include  almost   every
  public   and private statement signed by the First Presidency of the Church
  accompanied by short historical backgrounds written  by  Clark.  You   will
  find   doctrinal expositions on controversial and non-controversial issues,
  revelations (canonized and uncanonized), church policy, and the  (ho   hum)
  annual Christmas and Easter messages.

An American Prophet's Record; the Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith.
  Edited by Scott Faulring.  Consists of JS's journals from  1832  to   1844.
  Faulring   reproduces  the  exact spelling, shows what was added or crossed
  out, and indicates whose handwriting appears where.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Edited by Joseph Fielding Smith.
  This book  purports  to  be  the  sermons  and  remarks  of  Joseph   Smith
  faithfully   reproduced  in book form, but is actually nothing of the sort.
  What we have of Joseph Smith's sermons are  reconstructions  made  on   the
  basis    of   notes   taken  in  long  hand,  and  the  majority  of  those
  reconstructions were made several years after his  death.  A  much   better
  source   is  _The  Words  of Joseph Smith_ edited by Andrew Ehat and Lyndon
  Cook (1980) in which the actual notes are reproduced.

History of the Church. Seven volumes.
  Alternately this work has been called,  The  Documentary  History  of   the
  Church   (sometimes  abv.  DHC,  generally  it  is  abv. HC). It began as a
  project of collecting all the primary material relating to the history   of
  the   church from 1829 to 1847. You will find minutes of meetings; sermons;
  letters; diary entries; newspaper 'clippings'; and what appear to be  diary
  entries, but are actually rewrites of other primary sources.

  The individuals responsible for collecting and  publishing  this   material
  were   not  trained  historians.  Although  they followed practices current
  among historians of the 19th century, some of  those  practices  would   be
  considered rather appalling by today's standards.

  While this source is very interesting, IT IS NOT TO BE USED   UNCRITICALLY.
  Several   years  ago,  Joe  Applegate  tried  to argue that JS had shot and
  killed several people at the time he was murdered by citing a passage  from
  HC.  At best the  passage  showed  only  what  one person thought, not what
  actually took place. I had to go back to the primary sources to show   that
  JS   wounded a  couple of his attackers  (superficial in each case) and was
  able to supply their names and describe their wounds in detail.

Journal of Discourses. A periodical of twenty-six volumes.
  The JD was originally put together by a group of Mormon entrepreneurs   NOT
  by   the general church officers. At the time, the majority of Mormons were
  actually in   England,  not  in  the United  States,  and  this  group   of
  entrepreneurs  got the brilliant idea to follow the general church officers
  around, take down their  sermons  in  phonography  (an  early  version   of
  Pitman's   Shorthand),  and  publish  these sermons in 16 page semi-monthly
  installments in England (NOT UTAH).

  To encourage  subscriptions,  the  editors  decided  to  select  the   most
  controversial   sermons of the lot.  This was all proper when one considers
  the culture (that Mormons will often speculate, brain  storm,  or  whatever
  wildly   in  public  without  anyone  considering  it  authoritative). This
  tradition has been carried on today in the form of _Sunstone_,  _Dialogue_,
  and   _BYU  Studies_, all of which are published independently and none are
  considered authoritative. This attitude is clearly evident by the time  one
  gets   to  the second sermon in the very first volume of the series: Parley
  P. Pratt spends a lot of time speculating about the  hereafter  and   where
  the   spiritualists'  spirits  come from.  No one in the  LDS church  would
  consider Pratt's remarks as authoritative.

  Finally, after about half a  dozen  years  of  independent   editorialship,
  there  was a falling out among the editors, a lack of funds to continue the
  project, and subscriptions were rather low.  The LDS church took over   the
  publication for several decades before discontinuing it in the mid-1880s.

LDS Conference Reports.
  Twice a year (in April and  October),  the  LDS  Church  holds  a   general
  conference  where various church leaders speak at length on various topics.
  Starting in April 1880  the  Church  began  publishing  a  report  of   the
  conference.   April  1880  marked  the Church's Jubilee (50 years since its
  organization) and President John Taylor  thought  it  would  be  nice   for
  everyone   to  have  a copy of its proceedings. The idea caught on, and the
  LDS Conference Reports have been published regularly since  October   1897.
  Like    most  church  publications  outside  of  the  Standard  Works,  its
  authoritative status is fuzzy. One has to consider  who  is  speaking   and
  under what circumstances they are speaking.

Articles of Faith. By James E. Talmage.
  Articles  of  Faith  is  a  systematic  study  of   Mormonism    originally
  commissioned   as  a  Sunday  School manual around the turn of the century.
  During the Smoot hearings in 1905, Talmage realized that several  positions
  that   he  had  taken  in  his book, were not strictly doctrine; thereafter
  Talmage made sure that the  preface  to  Articles  of  Faith  contained   a
  disclaimer.

There are a number of books that tend to be "cut and  paste"  in  style  with
authoritative  sounding  titles.  Generally it takes some "inside" experience
with LDS doctrine to be able to usefully determine from these books  what  is
actually  doctrine  and  what  is  speculation.  The short "blurb" make up of
these works doesn't help.  It would  have  been  better  to  see  the  entire
context  of  the  sermon,  letter, etc. Some of the more commonly cited works
are:

Gospel Doctrine: Sermons and Writings. Edited by Joseph Fielding Smith.
  Contains short extracts by Joseph F. Smith (who died in 1918)  which   were
  edited   by  his  son  Joseph  Fielding Smith (who died in 1972). Joseph F.
  Smith was the sixth president of the LDS church, but the passages in   this
  book   were  not taken strictly from the time that he was in that position.
  If you are on the ball, you can follow some of the references  and   deduce
  which   pronouncements  were taken during his presidency and which preceded
  it.

Doctrines of Salvation. Edited by Bruce R. McConkie.
  McConkie  edited the sermons, books, writings, letters, and whatnot of  his
  father-in-law  Joseph Fielding Smith  (d 1972). Joseph Fielding Smith loved
  to sound off (in an  authoritative manner) even when what he said  was  not
  strictly   authoritative.  Although  Joseph Fielding  Smith was also one of
  the presidents of the church (tenth), Doctrines of Salvation was  published
  14 years BEFORE he rose to that position.

Mormon Doctrine. An encyclopedia-type work by Bruce R. McConkie.
  The first edition (1958) was recalled for serious  doctrinal   inaccuracies
  and   McConkie  was  privately  censured  for it. Since copies of the first
  edition did make it into  circulation,  McConkie  was  forced  to   rewrite
  succeeding   editions  rather  extensively,  so  much  so that he privately
  regretted having started the project in the first place.  At best MD is   a
  good   place  to  begin  gathering information about extremely conservative
  Mormon positions.

                                   GODHEAD

Mormons believe the Godhead  is  made  up  of  three  separate  and  distinct
individuals  who  are  *one*  in  nature,  purpose, action, and plan: God the
Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  Furthermore, Mormons believe  that
God  the Father and Jesus Christ have perfected and glorified bodies of flesh
and bone, but that the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit (D&C 130:22).

This view contrasts sharply with Western Christianity's view of the  Trinity,
which  greatly  emphasizes  the One and deemphasizes the distinctions between
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, coming close to  making  them  simply  different
roles  played by the one God. Despite obvious differences, Mormonism seems to
have much more in common with Eastern  Christianity's  view  of  the  Trinity
which  starts  with three entities and sees them as one God by their unity of
nature and action.

However Mormonism view of the Godhead  is incompatable with the orthodox view
of the Trinity for several reasons:  most important the orthodox view is that
the term "one" has a sense of "singular," while  Mormons generally view "one"
with a sense of "exclusiveness" or "unity." In other words, there may be many
Gods, but they all work together "As One" with One purpose and share the same
nature,  and  Mormons are to  worship only One God, the Father, with a single
purposeness of  heart.

To what degree  Mormonism can accept the term  "one" as meaning "singular" is
debatable.  While Mormons insist that  there is one and only one Godhead, its
composition  is  incompatible  with  the  orthodox view  of the trinity.  The
traditional  view is that the  Godhead is a higher-level abstraction, that is
in some sense a single entity.  The LDS view is that the Godhead is more like
a council which makes decisions that govern this and many other worlds.  This
view  is best  expressed in modern  revelation  received by Joseph Smith (for
example,  Abraham 4:1 to 5:15) where the term  "Gods" is repeatedly used in a
manner that unmistakenly appears to be council-like.

The  second  difference  between Mormons  and orthodox  Christianity is  that
Mormons  view  man  to be *potentially* the same nature as each member of the
Godhead rather than as a created  sub-species.  The  ability  to  reach  that
potential  is  dependent upon exercising one's faith in Jesus Christ, who was
sent to atone for our sins, to serve as a revelation of God to Man, to impart
Light  (knowledge  and power) to mankind, and to serve as a guide back to the
Father  (See the section GRACE AND THE PROCESS Of SALVATION  particularly the
OBJECTION Mormons believe that humans become gods).

Probably the best sources of information concerning Mormonism's view  of  the
Godhead  are  "Discourse  on  the  Father  and  Son",  _Messages of the First
Presidency_ 5:26-34 and _The Mormon Doctrine of Diety_ by B.H. Roberts.  Also
by Roberts the third thru fifth years course of study in _Seventy's Course in
Theology_, specifically "Doctrine of Deity,"  "The  Atonement,"  and  "Divine
Immanence and the Holy Ghost."

Be careful about condemning Mormonism's admittedly  unorthodox  view  of  the
Godhead.   Mormonism's  emphasis  on separate and distinct members is not the
same as Arianism. While Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is subject  to  the
Father,  they  do  not deny the divinity of Jesus Christ or try to make him a
"lesser" diety.  If you're going to take Mormons to task for  their  view  of
the  Godhead,  then  be  sure of what you're talking about: Often I have seen
someone belittle the Mormons' view only to offer an example that is  actually
incompatible with the Western trinitarian model.

OBJECTION: Since Mormons view each member of  the  Godhead  as  separate  and
distinct, then Mormons are polytheists.

RESPONSE: It all depends on what you mean by polytheism. If you mean  worship
more than one God, then Mormons are not polytheists. They do not worship Gods
who have their own agenda and compete against each  other  like  the  ancient
Romans, Greeks, or what have you. Each member of the Godhead works in concert
with the others to one purpose. "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father,
from  who  all  things  came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord,
Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."  (1 Cor
8:6, NIV).

However, if by polytheists, you mean one who recognizes the existence of many
individuals  who  have  the  same nature as God, granted Mormons are, by that
definition, polytheists. But polytheism is really in the eye of the beholder.
While  most Christians feel that they are not polytheists, if the beholder is
Jewish, then any Christian holding to the trinitarian  view  of  God  is  not
monotheistic either.

OBJECTION: There are strict monotheistic declarations in  the  Old  Testament
that  are  incompatible  with Mormonism's view of God (for example, Deut 6:4;
32:39; and Isa 44:6).

RESPONSE: Monotheism and its development among Christians is a critical issue
of  the  early  church  and  the  following  quotation  (taken  from _The New
Dictionary of Theology_ Published by InterVarsity Press (1988))  should  show
that  the  OT  passages  referenced  above  are  not interpreted by Christian
scholars today and historically as strictly monotheistic:

  At the same time, the OT also accepts  the existence of other 'gods' at all
  periods, though demoting those to the status of Yahweh's aids, beings whose
  divinity  is  not  absolute  as  his  is (cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6). The OT does not
  develop from animism or polytheism to monotheism. Further, some of the OT's
  monotheistic-sounding  affirmations  (eg.  Dt.6:4) are primary concerned to
  summon Israel to  an exclusive  commitment to  Yahweh;  and in general, the
  distinctive  feature of  biblical faith  is the  conviction that the God of
  Israel who is also the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is (the one)
  God, rather than merely that God (whoever he be) is one.  This later belief
  would  in any  case not  be  peculiar  to Israel,  its  clearest expression
  elsewhere  being in  Akhenaten's Egypt. ... The commingling of biblical and
  philosophical perspectives made it possible to work out the implications of
  the  scriptural  testimony  regarding  the  uniqueness  of God, BUT IT ALSO
  HINDERED  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  TRINITARIAN  THEOLOGY.   INDEED,  THE  WORD
  'MONOTHEISM'  IN  IS EARLIEST  USAGE DENOTED NON-CHRISTIAN OR SUB-CHRISTIAN
  BELIEFS  WHICH  CONTRAST  WITH  TRINITARIANISM. (Emphasis mine. see article
  on "Monotheism," pp.443-444)

The point of all this is that the passages in  question  are  interpreted  by
Christians (not just Mormons) as meaning that God is the ONE (for example, to
worship) *not* a strict  monotheistic  declaration.   Furthermore,  if  these
passages  are  to  be  interpreted as requiring *strict* monotheism, then all
trinitarian models of God come under attack.

OBJECTION: Mormonism's view of the Godhead is incompatible with the  Book  of
Mormon  which  declares  Jesus  Christ to be both the Father and the Son (see
Mosiah 3:8; Mosiah 15:2-4; Alma 11:38-39)

RESPONSE: Jesus is not only the Son of God (hence the  Son),  but  also  each
person  who  is  "born  again"  is spiritually begotten of Jesus. Hence Jesus
becomes a Father to each person who is spiritually begotten  of  God  (Mosiah
5:7).  In  this  sense,  Jesus Christ is both Father and Son, but NOT God the
Father and God the Son: which makes no sense in any trinitarian model I  know
of.

                         ORGANIZATION AND REVELATION

The LDS Church is organized in a hierarchical form. At the top is the  office
of President, who is sustained by the general church membership as a prophet,
seer, and revelator. Assisting  him  are  at  least  two  counselors.   These
individuals  are  designated as the Quorum of the First Presidency.  Directly
under the First Presidency is the Quorum of the Twelve  Apostles,  and  under
the Quorum of the Twelve are the seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventies.
Under the Seven Presidents are the two Quorums of Seventies.

On a local level, a Ward (similar to a congregation) is under the  leadership
of a  Bishop  and  his   two  counselors. The office of Bishop is a temporary
position held by one of the members of  the  congregation  and  is  typically
rotated  every  five to  eight  years.  Where there are not enough members to
organize into a Ward, a Branch is organized and headed by a Branch  President
and  his  counselors.   Several Wards and Branches are organized into a Stake
which is directed by a Stake President, his counselors, and 12 High  Priests.
Stakes   are   organized   into  Regions,  which  are  overseen  by  Regional
Representatives  who  report  to  members  of  the  Quorums of the Seventies.
Some  members of the Seventies  Quorums, all Regional Representatives and all
Stake Leadership positions are also  temporary  and usually rotated every six
to eight years.

Within a Ward or Branch, there are several  auxiliary  organizations:  Sunday
School,  Primary (for young children),  Young Men/Women's organizations,  the
Priesthood Quorums,  the Relief Society (the LDS  women's  organization), and
the  Activities  Committee  (organizes  the social activities). The heads and
members of these auxiliaries are also temporary and are usually appointed  by
the Bishop or Branch President.

Church leaders and members, from Regional Representatives down to a member of
a local auxiliary unit, volunteer their time and do not receive a salary.

There is a salaried central administrative bureaucracy in  the  church.  This
bureaucracy  is  run  by  individuals  who administer and process the general
church membership records, the historical records, the genealogical  records,
the  church  welfare  resources,  the church education system, and the church
periodicals.

Mormons believe  that  God,  through  angelic  messengers  and  by  means  of
ordination,  restored  the Priesthood, or the authority to act in God's name.
All worthy male members over the age of 12 hold an office in the  Priesthood.
The  Priesthood  is used to officiate the ordinances and covenants which were
restored by God (see section GRACE AND THE PROCESS OF  SALVATION,  subsection
"Grace Through Ordinances").

The Priesthood is organized into two basic divisions: the lesser and  greater
Priesthoods  (termed  Aaronic and  Melchizedek Priesthoods). The Aaronic is a
"preparatory"  Priesthood  and  is  organized  into  three  Quorums : Deacon,
Teacher, and Priest. The Melchizedek Priesthood is  also divided  into  three
Quorums: Elder, Seventy, and  High Priest. Each Quorum's responsibilities are
described in the 20th and 107th sections of the D&C.

Mormons believe in continuous revelation from  God  to  the  members  of  his
church  through  the power of the Holy Ghost by means of inspiration, vision,
dreams, and visitations. One has a right to receive  divine  guidance  within
the  sphere  of  one's  authority.  Each  person  has  a  right  to  personal
revelations, the parents can receive revelation for their  family,  a  Bishop
can  obtain  instruction for his ward, and so forth. It is contrary to church
order for any person to receive revelation for those higher in  authority  or
outside of their sphere of authority (D&C 28:2-8; 100:11; 107:91-92).

Mormons do not believe that every word that comes out of a Prophet's mouth is
supposed  to  be considered God's word. As Joseph Smith put it, "A Prophet is
not always a Prophet, only when he is  acting  as  such"  (see  _An  American
Prophet's Record_, p 299, entry for Feb 8, 1843). Being human, a Prophet will
have his own opinions and can make mistakes. The scriptures testify only  too
well  to  that  fact:  Abraham was not above misrepresenting his relationship
with Sarah, Jacob did have intimate relations with his daughter-in-law  while
thinking she was a prostitute, Peter lied each time he denied the Savior, and
Paul could hold grudges and lose his temper with his missionary companions.

Within the church this lesson is emphasized over and over. One  of  the  more
memorable  meetings  I  ever  attended in the Salt Lake Tabernacle took place
shortly after Harold B. Lee was set apart as the  President  of  the  Church.
During  that  meeting,  President Lee repeatedly asked the members to go home
and pray, asking God to help him so that: "He will make only a  few  mistakes
at first, and then later, none at all."

The only way one may know for sure if a prophet is acting as such is  if  the
Holy  Ghost  confirms that fact. This places the burden upon the spirituality
of the listener, and continually challenges him to access his standing before
God.  In  many  LDS circles, Mormons who blindly go along with everything the
President of the Church says are seen as spiritually inept.

OBJECTION: Joseph Smith predicted the destruction of  the  United  States  of
America.  Specifically  he stated: "I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of
Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the saints
in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that
in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted and there
will be  not  so  much  as a potsherd left" HC 5:394. That prediction has not
occurred, therefore he is a False Prophet.

RESPONSE: Before answering this specific charge, I would like to address some
issues that deal generally with the problem of prophecy and specifically with
the way that anti-Mormons try to use it against Mormons.

First, there seems to be a tendency among critics of Mormonism to  find  some
remark  of JS or Brigham Young or some other leader of the Church, label it a
prophecy or something similar, note that the prophecy has  not  taken  place,
and then label that particular leader as a False Prophet.

I wonder exactly what gives anyone the right to label ANYTHING they want as a
prophecy.  Since  Mormons believe that a Prophet is a Prophet only when he is
acting as such, then not everything that  comes   out   of   his   mouth   is
suppose  to  be  taken as coming from God.  I'm not asking for much, just for
some kind of evidence that the prophet involved actually thought that he  was
giving  an  honest to goodness prophecy from God rather than speaking his own
mind: such as the prophet invoking God's authority.

Second, unless the prophecy is very specific, the fulfillment becames more of
a  matter  for  debate  than  anything else (a logical outcome of any private
interpretation, see 2 Pet 1:20-21). For example, each year on the net I  have
observed  one  or  more  critics of the New Testament accuse Jesus of being a
False Prophet because some the prophecies he made  in  the  24th  chapter  of
Matthew never took place. The response of most apologists has been to present
an interpretation which places the fulfillment of some of his  prophecies  in
the  future.  While  those interpretations do clear up most problems, frankly
those possibilities are obvious only to those who have a "stake" in defending
the  integrity  of Jesus and his calling and are not necessarily obvious from
the text. I rather suspect that like other "signs,"  prophecy  follows  faith
rather than preceding it.

With this understanding, let's look at Joseph Smith's remarks concerning  the
destruction  of  the  United  States government. First, JS really did believe
that he was giving an honest to goodness prophecy from God. He repeated  this
prophecy several different times, and in several cases actually invoked God's
authority.

It is the fulfillment of this particular prophecy that is  in  question.  The
problem  is  that  some  Mormons  believe that this prophecy has already been
fulfilled,  some  Mormons  believe  that  Missouri  was  "punished"  and  the
destruction  of  the  government  was not necessary, and some Mormons believe
that  this  prophecy is  yet  to  be  fulfilled.   The  difference in opinion
is based  on the circumstances when the prophecy was given, the vocabulary of
the times, later historical events, and other revelations received by JS.

In the late 1830s, the Mormons were violently  expelled  from  the  State  of
Missouri.  Attempts  by the Mormons to seek redress through the United States
government came to naught for two reasons: The federalist nature of the  U.S.
government,  and the reluctance of Congressional representatives to intervene
on behalf of an  unpopular  group.  Under  the  U.S.  federalist  system  the
individual  states had a great deal of power, and the national government had
no right to directly interfere in the internal affairs of the sovereign state
of  Missouri.  In  addition,  members of Congress would not act indirectly or
symbolically  because Mormons were not very popular and no one wanted to risk
their  political  career  to  support their cause no matter how just. In this
context  some Mormons believe that JS's prophecy was fulfilled.

Some LDS have pointed out that U.S. government did  not necessarily mean  the
U.S.  Constitution,  and  that  historically  the  term  "government" had the
British meaning which linked it to a specific administration. In this context
it  is  possible that JS's prophecy was fulfilled: Van Buren's administration
was tossed out after a single term. When the Mormons reapplied to  the  Tyler
administration  and were rejected again, his administration was also defeated
after a single term.

Other Mormons have pointed out that the U.S. federalist system, which blocked
direct  intervention,  was the first major casualty of the Civil War. In this
view,  JS's  prophecy  was also  fulfilled, because the Constitutional power,
known  to  all  Jacksonian Americans, was literally changed as that power was
absorbed into a centralized Government.

Still other LDS have pointed out that "punish[ing] the  crimes  committed  by
her  [the  state  of  Missouri] officers" was effectively carried out to some
extent.  Since the  conditions of the Prophecy were fulfilled, the government
did  not have to be destroyed.  The Federal government expelled  the  general
population  from  the  western  end  of  Missouri  during   the  Civil War to
stamp  out  the  guerrilla  warfare taking place in that region. The affected
area was exactly  the  same region  where,  twenty  years before, the Mormons
had been expelled and effected the same individuals responsible for expelling
the  Mormons.  Further, the state government was  essentially  taken over and
run by the Federal government during the Civil War.

But there is still one more interpretation of  JS's  prophecy  that  suggests
that  the fulfillment of this prophecy is still in the not so distant future.
In December of  1832,  just  after  the  conclusion  of  the  South  Carolina
Nullification Crisis, Joseph Smith received a revelation now contained in the
87th Section of the D&C.

This revelation, in part, predicts the outbreak of the Civil War, but it then
goes on to predict National alliances, and that eventually, "... war shall be
poured out upon all nations." The destruction and  anarchy  continues  until,
"...  the consumption decreed hath made a FULL END OF ALL NATIONS;" [Emphasis
Mine] Since the revelation indicates that eventually all  nations  (including
the  United States) will cease to exist, then perhaps JS's prophecy is simply
a specific rewording of this revelation, and is something actually related to
the End Times.

In summary, given the context, I doubt very much that  one  can  conclusively
prove  or  disprove  JS's ability as a prophet on the basis of his prophecies
concerning the destruction of the United States government. Even the  Mormons
aren't  quite  in agreement on the subject, and I personally chalk it up to a
matter of one's faith.

                             THE BOOK OF MORMON

Mormonism's rejection of a closed scriptural canon is a  natural  outcome  of
their  view of continuing revelation from God. In addition to the Old and New
Testaments, the Mormons include among their canon the Book of  Mormon  (BoM),
the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), and the Pearl of Great Price (PGP).

The BoM was contained on a set of metal plates which "had the  appearance  of
Gold" and were delivered to Joseph Smith through an angelic messenger. Joseph
Smith translated the record through the gift and power of God  and  published
the  record  in 1829.  The BoM takes its name from the ancient prophet mainly
responsible for abridging all the records of his ancestors into the form that
the BoM takes.

Before delivering the record back to the angel, Joseph Smith was permitted to
show  them  to  two  sets  of  witnesses.  The first set was made up of three
individuals who saw both the plates and an angel, the second set was made  up
of  eight  individuals  who  examined  only the plates. Each set of witnesses
signed statements which have been included in each edition of the BoM.

The BoM contains an account of several families, who fled Jerusalem prior  to
its  destruction  by  Babylon  (approx 600 BC) and eventually migrated to the
American continent, and their descendants. The BoM also contains accounts  of
civilizations  which  they  came  in  contact  with.   The  BoM describes the
eventual demise (i.e. destruction) of that culture and the reasons for it.

The BoM is not intended to be a rigorous or comprehensive history. The BoM is
a religious  record  whose  emphasis  is on the coming  of the Messiah, Jesus
Christ, and of the actions of God's prophets among this group of people.   It
contains  an  account  of  the  appearance of the resurrected Christ to those
people, and as such it is considered to be a second witness for Jesus Christ.

Over the years I have heard a lot of individuals tell me that they have  read
the  BoM "cover to cover" and they are not impressed. In at least three cases
I probed their knowledge only to discover that their  reading  seemed  rather
superficial.  I suppose that, like the Bible, one can study the BoM and get a
lot out of it, or one can zip though it and wonder what the big deal  is.  If
you  are  going to "blast away" at the BoM, fine, but please try to have more
than just a surface understanding of the text.

OBJECTION: The BoM is a plagiarism lifted  from  the  lost  work  of  Solomon
Spalding.

RESPONSE: The Spalding theory originated with  D.P.  Hurlbut  and  was  first
described  in _Mormonism Unvailed_ (sic) in 1834. It states that the basis of
the BoM is a romance (now lost) written by an educated minister named Solomon
Spalding.   The  theory  was  based  on the fact that Joseph Smith was poorly
educated and completely untrained to the degree necessary to compose the BoM,
hence it had to have been copied from someone else's work.

Hurlbut, an ex-Mormon who heard rumors about Spalding, went to his widow, and
got  permission  to borrow his manuscript to expose the Mormons.  When he got
back to Ohio, he and E.D. Howe (his co-author and editor of the  _Plainsville
Telegraph_)  examined the manuscript and found it to contain a romantic story
dealing with a Roman Ship blown off course  and  landing  in  North  America.
Hurlbut  and Howe postulated the existence of yet another manuscript and then
carelessly lost the manuscript which they had borrowed from Spalding's widow.

This version of the Spalding theory (two manuscripts) was widely accepted for
nearly  50 years among non-Mormons until the early 1880s when the first major
discrepancy became  evident.   Spalding's  widow  and  daughter  didn't  know
anything  about  a  second  manuscript.  In  a  series  of  widely  published
interviews they insisted that there was only  one  manuscript  which  Hurlbut
took  and never returned. Their position was championed by a cousin, Ellen E.
Dickinson (_New Light on Mormonism_, 1885), who set out to prove that Hurlbut
had  taken  the  only  manuscript  and sold it to the Mormons to cover up the
plagiarism. She attempted to do this by collecting  a  series  of  statements
that  showed that only one manuscript existed and that a number of people had
examined it between the time that it had been sent to a publisher  (where  it
was supposed to have been copied) and the time that Hurlbut borrowed it.

In 1839, E.D. Howe sold his newspaper to L.L. Rice  who  was  active  in  the
anti-slavery movement.   In 1884, James Fairchild, the  president of  Oberlin
College, visited Rice (then retired to Honolulu) with the goal of getting him
to   donate  some  of  his  papers  to  the  college  library's  abolitionist
collection. While going through  his  papers,  Fairchild  and  Rice  stumbled
across    the   manuscript   that   Hurlbut   had   borrowed  from Spalding's
widow.  Apparently  Howe  left  some  of   his   papers   behind   (including
Spalding's  manuscript)   when   he  sold his newspaper to Rice. The Spalding
manuscript has been widely published  since  then,  and   the   original   is
still  retained  by Oberlin College.

Remarks scribbled by Hurlbut on the back of the manuscript (apparently at the
time  that he had first received it, but before he had examined it), strongly
suggest that he had no inkling of any other  manuscript  and  that  he  fully
expected  it  to  be  the  source  of  the  BoM.  He even stated that all the
witnesses (whose statements he would later use) confirmed that THIS  was  THE
Spalding manuscript.

While some critics have wanted to retreat back  to  the  multiple  manuscript
version  of  the  theory,  their  principle  stumbling  block  has  been  the
statements of Spalding's widow, daughter, the  material  collected  by  Ellen
Dickinson,  and  Hurlbut's  remarks  scribbled  on  the  back of the original
manuscript.

OBJECTION: The three primary witnesses (who saw the Metal Plates  and  Angel)
disassociated themselves from Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church.

RESPONSE: Although all three witnesses left the  Church  (two  returned  many
years  later), none of them retracted their testimony about seeing the plates
and the angel. Typically, on the net, someone will state that one or more  of
the  witnesses  made  a  retraction. In such cases exact references should be
offered.  Todate the evidence cited has boiled down  to  either  hearsay,  to
known  historical  forgeries or to charges that they never physically saw the
plates.

One of the best known forgeries is "Defence [British spelling] in a Rehearsal
of My Grounds For Separating Myself From the Latter-Day Saints." In 1906, the
President of the Utah  Ministerial  Association,  R.B.  Neal,  announced  the
"rediscovery" of an original and unknown pamphlet published by Oliver Cowdery
in 1839. For a long time most historians treated it  as  authentic,  but  the
evidence against it has been steadly piling up. R.B. Neal steadfastly refused
to allow anyone access to the original, and upon his death an  original  copy
was not found among his papers. Attempts to locate an original copy or even a
contemporary mention of the original have failed. Even libraries  that  think
they  have  an  original  turn  out  to  have  only  the 1906 pamphlet. Other
problems: the place of publication, Norton, Ohio and  the  surrounding  area,
never  had  a  printing  establishment from 1838 to 1840, much less one named
Preseley. Finally, Oliver Cowdery was living in Kirtland, Ohio from late 1838
to  1840. Why he would suddenly travel over to Norton, Ohio is anyone's guess
(see: Richard Lloyd  Anderson,  _Investigating  the  BoM  Witnesses_  (1981),
pp.171-2). Several anti-Mormon writers have also concluded that the "Defence"
is a forgery, namely Wesley Walters and Jerald & Sandra Tanner (see:  Tanner,
"A  Critical  Look;  A  study  of  the  Overstreet Confession and the Cowdery
'Defence'", 1967).

The charge that the witnesses never physically saw the plates is based upon a
phrase  that  they  insisted  on using, wherein they stated that they saw the
plates "through the eyes of faith." Two of those witnesses, Martin Harris and
David  Whitmer, later commented on this phrase when anti-Mormons attempted to
use this phrase as a means of rejecting  their  testimony.  In  essence  they
insisted on using this phrase because at the time they were shown the plates,
a voice from heaven declared that they had been  shown  the  plates  "by  the
power  of  God," and unless they had the necessary faith, they could not have
seen them. See: _Nathan Tanner Jr Journal_ entry April 13, 1886 for  comments
from  David  Whitmer. Martin Harris' comments are found in _Saints Herald_ 22
(1875): 630.

Other anti-Mormon materials cite statements that Joseph Smith  made,  at  the
time  of their dissociation from the LDS Church, wherein he calls them liars,
blacklegs, etc.  Closer examination of the references  cited  by  anti-Mormon
literature  will  reveal  that  these  angry exchanges had nothing to do with
their testimony of the BoM, rather with charges that they made against Joseph
Smith such as supporting Sampson Avard's activities in Missouri.

The lives of these witnesses  have  been  closely  examined  and  are  *well*
documented.   Mormons can cite many primary and secondary sources, especially
of the type when the witnesses were  outside  the  Church,  were  invited  to
retract  their earlier statements, but choose to reaffirm what they had seen.
A few examples of some of these sources:

  Oliver Cowdery: _Deseret News_, March  24,  1858;  JD  2:259;  JD   22:254;
  Nielsen, _Liahona_ 8:162-3.
  David Whitmer: _Richmond Conservator_ March 24, 1881; _Saints  Herald_   31
  (1884): 442; _Instructor_ 80: 401.
  Martin Harris: _Saints Herald_ 22 (1875): 630; Quaife, _Kingdom  of   Saint
  James_ (1930), 243. _Autumn Leaves_ 2 (1889): 141.

OBJECTION: There are thousands of changes made in the  BoM  since  its  first
edition.

RESPONSE: Correct but irrelevant. There are tens of thousands of changes made
in  the AV since its  first edition too. Primarily most of the changes in the
BoM are updating the language of the text: for example, from "ajourneyed"  to
"journeyed." There are some cases where Joseph Smith added additional phrases
to clarify the meaning of the text (Mormons ever since  have  debated whether
the additional phrases should have been typeset in italics).

Differences are also related to the printing mechanism: the type of the first
edition  was  not  stereotyped but hand set. The printer did not simply print
5000 copies of the first  signature,  second,  third,  and  so  forth  before
sending  them  to the binder. Rather, he printed 500 copies of each signature
until he got a complete set, sent them up to the binder's loft, and went back
and  printed  another 500 copies, and so forth. Each time the type was broken
down and reset.  This has resulted in many differences just among  copies  of
the first edition.

Finally there are differences that relate to the manuscript that was used  by
the  printer  of the first edition. There had been several incidents in which
the integrity of the Primary Manuscript had been  threatened.  Joseph  Smith,
understandably,  would  not let the printer work off the original manuscript.
A copy of the original manuscript was made by  Oliver  Cowdery  (labeled  the
Grandin  Manuscript  -- after the name of the printer) and the printer worked
off  Cowdery's  copy.   There  are  not  only  differences  between   Grandin
Manuscript  and the final printed edition, there are also differences between
the Grandin Manuscript and the Primary Manuscript: These include cases  where
phrases and words were dropped, added, or repeated unnecessarily.

Attempts in the 1920 and 1981 editions to produce a correct  text  had  mixed
results.  The  1920  edition  made  corrections  based  solely on the Grandin
Manuscript and the  1981  edition  made  corrections  based  on  the  Grandin
Manuscript  and  what  remains  of the Primary Manuscript. If you want to get
into the nitty gritty parts of the  problem,  a  critical  edition  has  been
produced  by  FARMS  (though the current FARMS edition did not use either the
Grandin  or  Primary  Manuscripts,  rather  the  various  printed  editions).
However,  if  you  don't  mind  the  language  updating,  the 1981 edition is
probably the best there is.

If you really want to be picky about it, the LDS Church published, in 1980, a
facsimile   reproduction   of  the  first  edition  which  is  available  for
examination at most LDS Institute  of  Religion  libraries  (most  colleges).
Even  though  the  1980  reproduction is now out of print, a facsimile of the
First Edition is still available as part of Wilford Wood's set, _Joseph Smith
Begins His Work_, Vol 1.

OBJECTION:  The changes in the BoM are not irrelevant.  The  translation  was
given  to  Joseph  Smith  word  by  word. Respecting the word of God involves
preserving it exactly.

RESPONSE: The exact manner of translation is quite debatable. Although  there
are  some  descriptions that suggest a straight mechanical process, there are
also some problems with those descriptions involving the descriptors' primary
knowledge  and  their  prejudices  of what constituted revelation.  There are
also primary sources which strongly suggest a  mental  process  was  involved
(see D&C 9 for one such primary source).

But, for arguments sake, let's  pretend  that  the  translation  process  was
strictly  mechanical,  that  Joseph  Smith was given the translation word for
word.  That changes nothing. As far as Mormons are concerned the word of  God
is  not  contained on a printed page.  The word of God comes to an individual
when moved upon by the Holy Ghost.  Simply reading accomplishes nothing,  one
must read under the influence of the Holy Ghost to recover God's word.

Mormons do not look upon the recorded word as inerrant because it  was  given
to  fallible  individuals,  "... these commandments are of me, and were given
unto my servants in their weakness, AFTER THE MANNER OF THEIR LANGUAGE,  that
they  might  come  to  understanding" (D&C  1:24,  emphasis  mine).  The very
earliest challenge to Joseph Smith's authority *within* the church was  based
on  his  imperfect  expressions:  "Your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph
Smith, Jun., and HIS LANGUAGE YOU HAVE KNOWN, AND HIS IMPERFECTIONS YOU  HAVE
KNOWN;  and  you  have sought in your hearts knowledge that you might EXPRESS
BEYOND HIS LANGUAGE;" (D&C 67:5, emphasis mine).

If the process is strictly mechanical then God would communicate according to
"language"  of the  individual  to whom he is speaking, not according to some
grand universal rules, otherwise the message  could  be  misunderstood.   For
example,  if  God  choose to communicate with an individual whose grammar was
nonstandard  and  who used  double negatives,  then  God would  speak to that
person  using nonstandard  grammar and double negatives. If other individuals
are going to study the message, then restricting God's word to *exact*  words
on paper without adjusting the grammar for a more general audience is absurd.
Moreover, if God's word is restricted to *exact* words on paper, then  it  is
inevitable  that  one  will  become  distanced  from God's word as changes in
grammar, culture, terms, and thought naturally occur.

The preservation of God's living word  (as  opposed  to  the  recorded  word)
becomes the prime mission of his living prophets. From the LDS point of view,
a belief that requires a strict preservation of recorded words and grammar is
nothing  more  than  an  implicit  denial  of continuing personal and general
revelation from God.

OBJECTION: The BoM describes things that cannot be supported by archeology.

RESPONSE: The issues of BoM archeology, such as where did the BoM occur, does
the  archeological  investigations  in  that area support or come in conflict
with the BoM, etc. are probably too extensive to go into in  an  introduction
of this size. There is a mixed bag of results that is hardly one sided for or
against the BoM (although critics will emphasize the negatives and  believers
the positives).

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that most people tend to  approach  archeology
with  a  "common  sense"  mind  set.  This  approach  is  dangerous,  because
archeology is not like other sciences  in  terms  of  how  it  evaluates  its
evidence and derives its conclusions.

The most current work describing the Mormon position on aspects of archeology
is  _An  Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon_ by John L. Sorenson
(Deseret Book, 1985). Sorenson is an anthropologist who goes into the  issues
thoroughly.  Although  Sorenson's book is not an official church publication,
most Mormons responding to archeological objections, are going to be familiar
with  his  book,  therefore, to  avoid  going  over  material that  has  been
previously discussed, one should borrow a copy of his book (InterLibrary Loan
is one  possibility)  and  read  it  before  initiating  a discussion on this
topic.

OBJECTION: The BoM is incompatible with the Bible.

RESPONSE: Usually, Mormons have found that when this objection is raised, the
incompatibility  is  actually  related  to  how the individual INTERPRETS the
Bible.   Mormons  reject  many  traditionally  orthodox  positions  as  later
additions  to  Christianity, and they believe that many Christians read their
Bible through eyeglasses tinted by those  traditions.  In  contrast,  Mormons
have been using the Bible and the BoM side by side for over 150 years without
any problem.

OBJECTION: If the BoM represented an ancient text then its  style  would  not
be patterned after the AV.

RESPONSE: I have often wondered exactly what the "proper style"  is  supposed
to be since every translation is rendered into whatever style the translators
wish.  The AV *was* the standard English scriptural style in 1829.

In the New Testament, when Jesus and the Apostles (and the angel Gabriel  for
that  matter)  quote the Old Testament, did they quote some ultimate original
or present their own inspired translations?   No,  they  are  represented  as
quoting  the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the
third century B.C. because it was the standard version of the Bible  accepted
by the readers of the Greek New Testament.

Inspired men in every age have been content to use the  received  version  of
the  people  among  whom  they  labor with the Spirit giving correction where
correction was necessary.

OBJECTION: The BoM copies passages from the Bible word for word.

RESPONSE: The issue isn't that simple. There are several passages in the  BoM
where  Old  Testament  prophets  are identified and quoted. Isaiah occurs the
most often. Portions of the Bible quoted or alluded to in the BoM represent a
small percentage (I once generously  computed it to  be 6% of the whole), and
the passages are not exactly word for word.

The differences generally fall into one  of  the  following  categories:  the
alteration  or deletion of italicized words, alternate words or phrases which
are found in other manuscript versions of  the  Old  Testament  but  are  not
contained  in  the  AV, and alternate words or phrases not found in any known
variant of the Old Testament.

While there are several schools  of  thought  among  Mormons  concerning  the
impact  of the differences and the relation of the tradition found in the BoM
to some ancient text,  the  majority  of  Mormons  attach  little  importance
between  the  similarities  of the BoM and the AV, it is the differences that
are important.  This attitude arises from Mormonism's rejection of inerrancy.
For  studies  of  Isaiah in the BoM, see Gary Bishop, _Tradition of Isaiah in
the BoM_, BYU Thesis, 1974; John Tvedtnes,  _Isaiah  Variants  in  the  BoM_,
Provo: F.A.R.M.S., 1989.

The BoM issues parallel the problems of the Septuagint in the New  Testament:
There are  cases  in which  the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint word
for word even when the Septuagint is a poor translation of the  Hebrew  (such
as  Acts  7:30); there are  cases in which the New Testament departs from the
Septuagint and is actually closer to the Hebrew (such as  1  Cor  3:19);  and
there  are  cases where  the New Testament quotation either does not resemble
any known variant of the Old Testament passage or seems to be  at  odds  with
the  original  intent  of  the passage (such as Acts 13:41, Acts 8:33, or Heb
10:37-38).  A  pair of  inerrantists  attempted to  reconcile  some of  these
problems. How  well  they succeeded, that's another matter, but their remarks
are not  unlike those Mormons who approach the same problem in the  BoM.  For
the  problem  of  the  Septuagint  in  the  New  Testament,  see  Archer  and
Chirichigno,  _Old  Testament  Quotations  in the  New Testament: A  complete
survey_,  Moody: Chicago, 1983.

OBJECTION: The BoM's use of the New Testament is anachronistic.

RESPONSE: Critics charge that the BoM borrows New Testament phrases and  have
compiled  several  lengthy  lists.  Most of the passages in question actually
have Old Testament equivalents.  For example, see Roper's review of  one  such
lengthy list in _Review of Books on the Book of Mormon_, vol. 3 (1991) for an
exhaustive demonstration. Of the *few* remaining passages there  are  several
explanations that do not compromise the integrity of the BoM.

First, some Mormons believe that God could have revealed the  same  ideas  to
people  in  different parts of the world, and that when Joseph Smith rendered
the BoM into English, he expressed those ideas  in  the  English  theological
terms of *his* day, most of which were derived from the AV.

Second, there is some evidence that many passages of the New  Testament  were
not   original   compositions,   but  paraphrases  and  quotations  of  other
writings.  The debate on this  point is far from  settled, but,  for example,
some  researchers claim to have  identified  New Testament phrases in some of
the  Dead Sea Scrolls.  Gaster's translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls includes
a lengthy appendix listing such passages.

OBJECTION: The BoM quotes passages of Isaiah which modern Biblical  criticism
identifies  with  2nd  Isaiah  and were probably written after the Babylonian
captivity, not before it.

RESPONSE: There are two schools of thought among the Mormons  who  deal  with
this  objection.  The  first denys the multiple authorship of Isaiah and will
cite computerized studies of Isaiah (called "wordprint analysis") that appear
to  support  the single author view.  They will also cite structural analysis
studies of Isaiah which emphasize  multiple stylistic structures that overlap
and "cross the borders" of the multiple authors (a next to impossible editing
task if there were multiple authors).

The other school of thought accepts the multiple author  theory,  but  argues
that  portions  of  "second  Isaiah"  could well have been written before the
Babylonian captivity. They will point out that  the  obvious  passages,  that
many  critics  point  out as "post Babylonian," do not appear in the BoM, and
that the sections that most critics consider to be third Isaiah also  do  not
appear  in  the  BoM.   They  will  also  point  out that themes such as "The
Captivity of Israel," found in "second" Isaiah and used by  Biblical  critics
to  date  it  after  the  captivity,  are  also found in other prominent pre-
Babylonian writings of the  Old  Testament  and  would  have  been  naturally
revived by "Isaiah" in light of the deportation of the Northern Tribes.

-- 

              Willard C. Smith
 Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnewsc!iwtgo!wcsa
  Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com