General Religious discussion

[Skar]

Reaves:

I think there is a difference. The first statement is a response to Jade in which he is asking whether she is qualified to judge the historical veracity of the books she has read. He is not questioning that she has, in fact, studied the issue.
In the second statement she is claiming that none of her Mormon friends have actually studied the issue.

Ah, how mutable words can be.  Perhaps you are right.  I do not claim to be the ultimate arbiter of what people actually mean on the internet.  I freely admit that I could be wrong.

The irony I saw, however, was JK being labeled as a snob for asking if mtbm had studied historiagraphy, while mtbm smugly excoriated her friends for not studying the issues she considers pertinent.  Historiography itself is at least as relevant as the texts it would be used to analyse in this case.

That aside, I'd like to emphasize the importance of taking nearly everything you read about mormon history, from both inside and outside the religion with a hefty grain of salt.  Two examples.

*I read the first few chapters of Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven." I didn't bother to finish because in the first few chapters he egregiously misquotes the Doctrine and Covenants. I don't mean he flipped words around or made stuff up.  He simply took the verses out of context and implied terrible things that are only creditable if you don't read the verses before and after the ones he chooses to quote. Either he had an anti-mormon D&C scholar feeding him verses which he blindly planted and analysed in his book or he knew exactly what he was doing.  I found the former hard to believe and thus the rest of the book became irrelevant.

*Minor example concerning the murder of the prophet Joseph Smith.  I've read first hand accounts that explicitly state that Joseph had a pistol and fired down the stairwell at his assailants as well as a stick he used to attack them in self-defense before he went through the window. You will not find this in any of the "official accounts" of his death.  I suspect that is because the church leadership prefer, for some reason I personally can barely understand, the more peaceful version with the vigorous self-defense left out.

Long post to try and say 'take everything you read with a grain of salt.' 

In the end religion cannot be proven or disproven by history or logical analysis.  It always comes down to an individual's personal Q&A relationship with God.  And that's one thing the Mormon church teaches with vigor.  Question? Ask God.  He will answer you and you should do what he says.  Period.

[Hero of Ages]

*Minor example concerning the murder of the prophet Joseph Smith.  I've read first hand accounts that explicitly state that Joseph had a pistol and fired down the stairwell at his assailants as well as a stick he used to attack them in self-defense before he went through the window. You will not find this in any of the "official accounts" of his death.  I suspect that is because the church leadership prefer, for some reason I personally can barely understand, the more peaceful version with the vigorous self-defense left out.

I always thought it was interesting that the church glossed over that as well.  In multiple accounts it was stated that they had a pepper-box pistol (a 6 barreled muzzle loading pistol to be exact).

In the Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, he states that "...a man named Townsend...was one of the mob...[and] the pistol discharged by Joseph Smith wounded him in the arm near the shoulder..."

[Patriotic Kaz]

Wow you have the Bene Gesserit litany against fear as your signature.... that takes up alot of space....

[mtbikemom]

So, to tease out the implication, you do believe you're as qualified as a historian to determine how historiographically honest a work of history is?  It's very clever of you, to play the game of ὕβρις and then call me a "snob" when I ask a simple question about how highly you rate your own opinion.

Despite the fact that I'm quite certain that you're wrong, and the fact that you'd make such a statement and then say that you "refrain from boasting" (how humble of you!), what really amazes me is that you think that I am a snob after all that.

  The truth is, we're both snobs in our own way.  I tune out when someone tries to shut down a good point by claiming that only historians should discuss points of historical significance. Or that any given professional is the obvious expert over any amateur.  Ho hum.  Or when anyone takes heart issues to their head in endless intellectual diatribes.  Zzzzzz . . .  You will only discuss issues of historical validity with trained and degree-laden professionals?  Excuuuuse me.  You try to diffuse and disqualify when someone like me has an opinion on which you feel intellectual superiority.  I am not so easily intimidated, though maybe I should be.   

   Neither of our biases serves the main point: Can the real life and fruit of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (not the sanitized version put forward by LDS literature) compare favorably to any of the mainstream Christian  men and woman I've mentioned?  How about Elisabeth Eliot who returned to the village of the people who had murdered her husband and served them for years as a missionary?  Compare this to the call, by  for "blood atonement" in early Mormon teachings.  This is a valid comparison of the fruit of two differing belief systems.  Enighten us all with your historiographical brilliance, if you will, on this one point.

   Btw, "I refrain from boasting" was meant as self deprecation.  I jump too quickly from defensive to silly sometimes.  Try to follow!  (I kid . . . this was not your fault.)

    I trust certain others to do the research I am unqualified/unwilling/too lazy to do on my own, namely Will Bagley in his excellent book Blood of the Prophets.  I encourage you to read it and comment here.  You cannot possibly discount his credentials or his academic standards.  He continues the important work that Juanita Brooks began, I believe, but with greater access to primary testimony and documents than did Mrs. Brooks.  I have also read page after page of critical review of this work, none of which addressed much more than side issues and conjecture.  Lots of lawyer-ly babble, little substance, IM not so H and inexpert O.  Bagley's depiction of early Mormon church history is important, but you be the final judge of its accuracy.  If your mind is truly open, I believe this could change your life and I will take all the credit in my ever-humble fashion.  (I tried to make it obvious that time.) 

 

[mtbikemom]

In para. 2, I should have written:  Compare this to the call, by  Brigham Young himself, for "blood atonement" against apostates in early Mormon teachings authored by him.  (See 21 December 1856 and 8 February 1857, Journal of Discourses, 4:53, 219-20.  See also Doctrine and Covenants, 132: 19, 20, 26, 27.)

[mtbikemom]

I know what you're trying to do, but it's an impossible question for me to answer. Especially since you didn't specify the type of lie.

   You will not know what I'm "trying to do" for sure until you answer directly.  Just a rough estimate will do.  A lie is a lie, from "little white" to " bearing false witness in a court of law."  About how many do you think you may have told in your lifetime?  (me: thousands, maybe)

[origamikaren]

I've been on vacation for a week.  Looks like things are moving along here.

Back on page 12, Writerinage said (referring, I believe to my post on the afterlife and the possibility of Eternal Progression, and forgiveness of sin after death):

Your thoughts on a loving God who doesn't not create sinners and then punish them are beautiful... but your lovely personal sentiment is not backed up by christian doctrine, the bible, or even the book of Mormon.

 

I've been thinking about how to answer this, because I think it's very important to point out that this is not just "my lovely sentiment."  This is fundamental Church doctrine, as preached by our prophets, and backed up by scripture.   

My brother recently did a short post about our doctrine on his blog, and has some good quotes to back it up.

I was talking to my mom today about this thread (mostly how interesting it is to have an intelligent rational discussion with people who really want to understand the other point of view), and found myself articulating the reason why it's been so hard coming up with an adequate response.

Latter Day Saints believe that we were sent to earth to try to become more like God.  We were to be tested to see who would do the best they could with what they'd been given, and who would be decieved, take the easy way out, or just plain rebel (Think of Christ's Parable of the talents in the New Testament) Those who passed the test would be given more responsibilities, and more opportunities to learn and grow until they became like God, having all that he has.  If you have a view of the afterlife that includes Eternal Progression, active work, and a purpose to continue existing, then you can begin to see the reasons for so many of the commandments and prophetic counsel that others see as so restricting. If you don't believe in such an afterlife, then the commandments could easily seem like "a tool to keep the masses in line."  What's the point of exercising such self control, if your reward is to sit around on a cloud playing a harp as an asexual being, or even worse, if you cease to exist altogether? By twisting and hiding this one small bit of doctrine in the Bible as it was copied and translated, and in traditional Christian theology, Satan has done an enormous amount of damage to the gospel as most people learn it -- without that crucial piece, large portions of it simply don't make sense, and very rational people have a hard time reconciling the conflicting bits.

There have been a lot of questions asked about the Mormon view of Heaven and Hell.  Some of that discussion has moved into PM's, but Ookla asked me to address it a little in this post, since that's what I'm talking about anyway.

Before we were born, we (human beings) were all spirits living with our Father/Creator (God) in the spirit world. In order to help us progress, God the Father directed his firstborn spirit son Jesus to create the Earth and everything on it (pretty much as described in Genesis). When we come to Earth, our spirit gets a mortal body, and together these two are the "soul." When we die, we leave the body behind, and we're spirits again, in the spirit world.  In this spirit world, there are two states -- paradise (for the people who were good) and spirit prison (for the people who weren't).  We don't know if these are two separate places, or just two different states of mind, but we do know that there will be communication between the two groups, and those in prison will be taught about the plan of salvation and how Jesus died for our sins, and they will be given a chance to accept Him as their personal Savior, and be set free.  Baptism is a part of this process, and if they weren't baptised in mortality, someone will have to be baptised for them by proxy, and then they will have to accept that ordinance in order for it to have any effect.

At some point in time, Christ will come again, the world will end, and there will be a final judgement.  Everyone who was ever born will get ressurected and recieve their bodies again (in this way, Jesus saves everyone from physical death -- the separation of the body and spirit which make up the soul).  Those that accept Christ as the Redeemer will have their sins forgiven, and can live with Him and the Father (Thus He saves some people from spiritual death, or our separation form God). Those who won't accept Christ's suffering for their sins, will suffer for their own sins. This is known as being "damned" or having your forward progress stopped. There are three main, and many finer gradations of eternal reward/punishment. Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants talks more about the final judgement and what you have to do to qualify for each of the kingdoms, and what they will be like. Essentially, if you're the kind of person in this life who would reject Christ's plan or refuse to live the way you know you should because it's just too much work, then you'll be the same sort of person in the next life, and you won't want to do what it takes to go to one of the higher kingdoms.

Hell, in our theology, can refer to a few different things.  The most obvious is the spirit prison which exists between death and the final judgement.  In this case, the "everlasting and eternal" adjectives that have been applied to it in scripture are a sort of play on words by God because he is everlasting and eternal, whatever punishment he chooses to dole out will be everlasting and eternal punishment (see D&c 19 -- a chapter that explains a lot of what I'm saying here).  Hell can also refer to the "outer darkness" that is reserved for those who knew without a shadow af a doubt that Christ was the Son of God, and yet betrayed that knowledge and worked against His kingdom. Hell can also refer to the "telestial kingdom" which is one of the three degrees of glory (see D&C 76).  I don't have a citation handy, but we've been told that if we knew how great even this lowest of the kingdoms is, we'd kill ourselves to get there, and yet the highest, or Celestial Kingdom is amazingly better even than that. 

Most of my refrences so far have been to the Doctrine and Covenants, a compilation of revelations received by Joseph Smith and subsequent Prophets. If you read them, you'll find that they really describe the torments of Hell as a state of mind of knowing that you're guilty, and that you could have had so much more if you'd only been willing to do what it takes (believe, keep the commandments, etc). If you want a source in the Book of Mormon for this view of hell and the afterlife, read about the experience of Alma the Younger while he was in a coma-like state after being rebuked by the angel. Alma 36 (Oh, and sorry about all the footnote letters scattered in there -- if you want to read a clearer copy, click on the link)

  5 Now, behold, I say unto you, if I had not been aborn of God I should bnot have known these things; but God has, by the mouth of his holy cangel, made these things known unto me, not of any dworthiness of myself;
  6 For I went about with the sons of Mosiah, seeking to adestroy the church of God; but behold, God sent his holy angel to stop us by the way.
  7 And behold, he spake unto us, as it were the voice of thunder, and the whole earth did atremble beneath our feet; and we all fell to the earth, for the bfear of the Lord came upon us.
  8 But behold, the voice said unto me: Arise. And I arose and stood up, and beheld the angel.
  9 And he said unto me: If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God.
  10 And it came to pass that I fell to the earth; and it was for the space of athree days and three nights that I could not open my mouth, neither had I the use of my limbs.
  11 And the angel spake more things unto me, which were heard by my brethren, but I did anot hear them; for when I heard the words—If thou wilt be destroyed of thyself, seek no more to destroy the church of God—I was struck with such great fear and amazement lest perhaps I should be destroyed, that I fell to the earth and I did hear no more.
  12 But I was racked with aeternal btorment, for my soul was charrowed up to the greatest degree and racked with all my sins.
  13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was atormented with the bpains of hell; yea, I saw that I had crebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments.
  14 Yea, and I had amurdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.
  15 Oh, thought I, that I acould be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my bdeeds.
  16 And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the apains of a bdamned soul.
  17 And it came to pass that as I was thus aracked with torment, while I was bharrowed up by the cmemory of my many sins, behold, I dremembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.
  18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, ahave mercy on me, who am bin the cgall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting dchains of edeath.
  19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my apains bno more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.
  20 And oh, what ajoy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!
  21 Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy.
  22 Yea, methought I saw, even as our father aLehi saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels, in the attitude of singing and bpraising their God; yea, and my soul did long to be there.
  23 But behold, my limbs did receive their astrength again, and I stood upon my feet, and did manifest unto the people that I had been bborn of God.
  24 Yea, and from that time even until now, I have labored without ceasing, that I might bring souls unto arepentance; that I might bring them to btaste of the exceeding joy of which I did taste; that they might also be cborn of God, and be dfilled with the Holy Ghost.

In the scripture below, Zeezrom realizes the damage his lies have caused and starts to feel the chains of Hell Alma 14:6
  6 And it came to pass that Zeezrom was astonished at the words which had been spoken; and he also knew concerning the blindness of the minds, which he had caused among the people by his lying words; and his soul began to be harrowed up under a consciousness of his own guilt; yea, he began to be encircled about by the pains of hell.


In another chapter, (Alma 5), Alma talks to a group of people -- the children and grandchildren of converts -- about how their fathers had been saved from Hell by believing in Christ.  Again, Hell is equated with feeling the guilt of the sins they committed, and with chains that are holding them captive so that they can't progress.  To be released from these chains, they had to accept Christ and his Atonement for their sins, and become born again through Him. In this sermon, the goal at the judgement day is to have His image in our countenances -- in other words to do all we can in this life to become like Him.

Wow you have the Bene Gesserit litany against fear as your signature.... that takes up alot of space....

As a side note, I used to chant this as an exercise in "Rational Emotive Imaging" to cure myself of a paralyzing fear of the dark and parking lots.

[Patriotic Kaz]

About how many do you think you may have told in your lifetime?  (me: thousands, maybe)

Okay if everyone was honest on this subject those who lie the least would still have thousands and those of us who lie to save our skins or whatnot... manipulation ect. have reached the tens of thousands possibly more... and if you include deceit such as leaving out information imply falsities well I'm pretty sure you get into the hundred of thousands.... but this really isn't relevant to the discussion the bogus statement just deserved comment...

[The Jade Knight]

  The truth is, we're both snobs in our own way.  I tune out when someone tries to shut down a good point by claiming that only historians should discuss points of historical significance. Or that any given professional is the obvious expert over any amateur.  Ho hum.  Or when anyone takes heart issues to their head in endless intellectual diatribes.  Zzzzzz . . .  You will only discuss issues of historical validity with trained and degree-laden professionals?  Excuuuuse me.  You try to diffuse and disqualify when someone like me has an opinion on which you feel intellectual superiority.  I am not so easily intimidated, though maybe I should be.   

You appear to either be evading or misunderstanding my point; I'm suggesting that training in Historiography is critical in wading through historiographical messes (and there is no question that this is a massive historical quagmire in that regard, with numerous conflicting testimonies all over the place).  The degree is incidental into this, but your ὕβρις is not, as it is a reflection of your attitude, and, IMO, reflects a degree of scholarly "carelessness".

As I have stated before, I'm not interested in engaging you in a pseudo-intellectual debate.  You'll find plenty of historical insight to chew on here:  http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai048.html, and if that doesn't satisfy your questions, you'll find that individuals on that website will be more than happy to argue with you about it ad nauseam—and I expect that many of them are much more familiar with this particular issue than any of us here.

And I let me state quite clearly (again!), that this is not an appropriate place to put any religion "on trial".  Baiting is not okay here.  And flaming is absolutely not okay.  Obscure doctrinal issues should be discussed over PM.  I see a lot of great discussion here, and I do not want to lock this thread, but action will be taken if things start appearing hostile or offensive.

[mtbikemom]

Sorry, any and all who read this thread.  Life intrudes.  I know some of you just can't wait for my next post. 

Jade Knight: Lighten up, buddy!  Methinks I need to find better ways to get my message across since I seem to offend when I just want to introduce a topic or challenge you to look deeper into a subject for yourself.  I think I was responding to something you said waqy back about judging people by their fruit, but I am way too careless to check.  I admit it.

Let's both take a chip off our obviously-intelligent proverbial shoulders and get down to basics, maybe.  Here's the bottom line for me:  If one person reads Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets, who would not do so otherwise, I will consider my time on this forum well-spent.  If you read it, or something similar, and write about it, I will dance around my kitchen with joy.  I will at least smile warmly, if the dancing thing weirds you out.

"Pseudo-intellectual debate"?  I choose not to be offended by that . . . and agree that any sort of intellectual debate is a waste of time.  I simply ask you to look into the lives of your prophets, un-sanitized and from primary sources, and compare them to the lives of people who I consider to be instrumental in the orthodox view of Christianity through the ages.  That's all.  I think we all agree that "by their fruit, we shall know them."  I believe this means that the behavior and "fruit" of a person declare whether or not he/she can be trusted for doctrine and truth, whether we should listen to them and follow them as God's spokespersons.   And, btw, what the heck is ὕβρις ??   

You might want to think a bit, also, about why my comments offend, but the anti-God/anti-religion comments by atheists and lapsed Christians here do not provoke accusations of "flaming" and cause you to consider closing this thread.  You have called this thread "general," right?  I'm interested if Mr. Reaves has anything to add to this point.  He has made such clear and insightful posts in the past and is better at diffusing sticky arguments than me. 

[mtbikemom]

About how many do you think you may have told in your lifetime?  (me: thousands, maybe)

Okay if everyone was honest on this subject those who lie the least would still have thousands and those of us who lie to save our skins or whatnot... manipulation ect. have reached the tens of thousands possibly more... and if you include deceit such as leaving out information imply falsities well I'm pretty sure you get into the hundred of thousands.... but this really isn't relevant to the discussion the bogus statement just deserved comment...

Yeah, a lie is a lie according to my Bible, and "leaving things out" counts, I think, unless you are doing it to save someone's life, but that's beside the point.  One lie per person will do for my next point.

Here's a pertinent quote: "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolators (anyone who makes their creator/God into something palatable rather than who he really is),  and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."  Rev. 21:8, parenthetical insertion mine.   Whatever you believe about heaven or hell, if this is true, it doesn't sound pleasant.  Especially if it is eternal as many believe. 

Matthew 12:36 says "But I (Jesus) say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment."  I think it's safe to say that the Bible teaches that there will be a day of judgment and that no one will escape it.  " . . .it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment." Heb. 10:27

Another interesting one: Jesus said that to look on a woman to lust after her is the same as committing adultery with her in your heart (Matt. 5: 27 and 28) and that to be angry with a man without cause is the same as murder (Matt. 5:21 and 22).

Next question: If God were to judge you according to his commandments on judgment day and this scripture is also true that " . . . whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all," then will you be innocent or guilty before him?  This is a yes or no, no squirming allowed.   

[The Jade Knight]

I simply ask you to look into the lives of your prophets, un-sanitized and from primary sources, and compare them to the lives of people who I consider to be instrumental in the orthodox view of Christianity through the ages.  That's all.

The problem is that you assume I have not already done this.  But since you are interested in primary sources—I am curious: have you read The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith and They Knew the Prophet (two collections of nothing but primary sources)?  Have you read any collection of primary sources related to the Latter Day Saint movement which is void of significant commentary?  If so, I'd be curious to hear which.

I think we all agree that "by their fruit, we shall know them."  I believe this means that the behavior and "fruit" of a person declare whether or not he/she can be trusted for doctrine and truth, whether we should listen to them and follow them as God's spokespersons.

Yes, we all agree with this—at least all the Latter-day Saints do, as well as a great many other Christians.
 

And, btw, what the heck is ὕβρις ??

It's a Greek word.  If you care enough to know, you'll care enough to look it up.   

You might want to think a bit, also, about why my comments offend, but the anti-God/anti-religion comments by atheists and lapsed Christians here do not provoke accusations of "flaming" and cause you to consider closing this thread.  You have called this thread "general," right?

You may not have noticed, but a while ago another religious discussion thread got closed because an Atheist became highly offended at some of the comments made in that thread which he found hurtful.  I do not think those comments were intended to be offensive, but we weren't going to keep the thread running when people's feelings were being hurt.  The same goes here—if people can't approach a topic respectfully enough to avoid hurting people's feelings (and it's possible that certain subjects cannot be approached without doing so), threads may get locked.  This is doubly true where flaming may be present.

I think it's fine for people to say that they think something is right or wrong (such as the existence of God), so long as they let other people speak for themselves.  I may say that I think that Christianity is right, and consequently Islam is wrong, but if I, as a Christian, were to go and tell a Muslim that Muhammad was a crackpot and therefore Islam is wrong, I'd be a moron if I expected anything other than that they would be quite offended, and rightly so; this would be an unreasonable approach to Islam, as it does not reflect Muslim scholarship and Muslim viewpoints.  As such, it entirely fails to understand the Muslim perspective on the issue.  The same approach is true of all religions.

[mtbikemom]

Brave and gentle Jade Knight,

Oh, ὕβρις is hubris.  That hurts my feelings just a little bit, y'know.

Let me ask you this, in answer to your last thoughtful and respectful post, which I truly appreciate:

If some great friends of yours were in a boat, having a wonderful time, floating past you who are safe on the shore and you knew for certain that in a short time they would get to a point in the river's current where it would be impossible for them to avoid a deadly waterfall ahead, which they obviously do not realize, what would you do?  If you wave and smile, not wanting to be the one to ruin  even a few minutes of their pleasant cruise, could you really live with the consequences? No, you run shouting into the water, making an utter fool of yourself for their sakes, and even upset the boat in order to save these people.  You are, after all, a noble Knight!

I believe that when Jesus said that he is the door to heaven, he meant that he alone is the door to heaven.  I also think that "I am the way, the truth and the life" means just that, and a good understanding of Greek supports the universally-held Christian belief that there is no other way to heaven than by faith in his work on the cross as payment for the sins that we all have committed. Carrying these sins, even just a few and no matter how much good we have done, make it impossible to even stand in the presence of God.  Jesus paid the fine and did the time for me and, when I finally realized it, I became a citizen of heaven.  I intend to bring as many souls along with me as possible and don't really care much about unpleasant consequences.

If someone tells me that there is another way to be sure to live in eternal bliss with the creator of the universe, sometimes I will risk hurting their feelings for the sake of their eternal soul.  Not always, much to my shame. 

Question (and I will do the reading you suggested and get back to you about it sometime this summer): What does the LDS church teach about the only way to heaven/salvation/eternal life?  Does your church teach that there more ways than one?  I know I've read about this somewhere, but I'm mostly interested in your personal take on it.
 

[mtlhddoc2]

mtbike: the waterfall scenario is a good analogy, except for one problem. there are those who do not believe there is a waterfall and their pleasant river cruise will go on just fine, after all we scouted ahead to make sure. And we can assure you, there is no waterfall.

And lets just say, for instance, that there is an invisible waterfall. Well, I for one, when I die, would like to be remembered as a caring invididual, someone who was respectful of others, donated his time, and money when he had it to helping the less fortunate, someone who loved others and was loved in return. And lets just say this waterfal of yours does exist. When i reach the bottom of it, i would like to think the pond at the bottom would be welcoming of a good person, regardless of whether I believed in the waterfall or not. And I would sincerely hope that the pond would NOT be welcoming of a person who was rude, disrespectful, uncaring of others feelings, even if they acted as they did in the pond's name.

[bookWorm]

I'm new to this discussion here, but I enjoy having friendly discussions and explaining a little about what I believe. Mtbkmom: your question is on our belief if the "Only Way to Heaven" right? Well, we would agree with the rest of the Christian world on the fact that Christ is the only way there. As has been stated before we believe that this life is here for us to become "ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48) This means that we need to grow to respond to situations in our life the way that Jesus Christ would act in that situation.  This is something that would really be impossible for anyone to reach on their own. We have already failed to do that many times and will continue to fail to do so for the rest of our lives. That is why there needed to be a savior- someone who was a perfect person who could then pay the price and suffer for our sins so that we could be forgiven and change. We believe that the Atonement of Christ is there for us to overcome our faults and mistakes- it is the only way for us to overcome those faults and mistakes.
         I would agree with many of the things that you wrote on the subject. If I try to get to heaven on my own- it don't matter how many good works I have done, in the end I just won't make it.  This is somethings that is mentioned many times in the Book of Mormon as well as in the bible such as-  And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. (Mosiah 3:17)  It is only through the the power of the Creator and Savior that our very nature can be changed and we may become a disciple of Christ.
         For the sake of discussion, even if someone was able to live a perfect life without Christ's help they still wouldn't be able to be saved because it is only through faith in Christ the power of the atonement that death and hell is overcome. He really is the only way into heaven.