Yes, we believe that both God and angels have visited the earth.  All Christians, if they stopped to think about it, believe the same thing.   Some of the most well-known examples are

1) When God visited Moses in the burning bush (Exodus ch. 3),

2) When an angel told Mary that she would be the mother of Christ (Luke ch. 1), and

3) Angels visiting shephards in the fields announcing that Christ had been born (Luke ch. 2).

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unique in that we believe that God still speaks to men today.  In the early 1800′s, a young boy named Joseph Smith was concerned about which church he should join.  After much study, he finally realized that there was no way he could figure it out.  One night he read a verse in the book of James, which stood out to him (James 1:5).  He realized that the only way he could find out what to do would be to pray and ask God for direction.  In response to his sincere prayer, God the Father and Jesus Christ visited him and told him that none of the churches were true.  They told him that they were calling him as the next prophet to restore the true church to the earth again. (To see a short video representation of this story, click here.)

We believe that God has called prophets and apostles again to the earth.  Just as God visited Moses and gave him directions on how to lead His people, He has a prophet on the earth today who can receive guidance on what we should be doing now – President Thomas S. Monson.  Just earlier this month, we had the opportunity to listen to the prophet and apostles in a General Conference of the Church.  I love watching conference.  As I watch and listen, things stick out to me and I write them down, so I can work on them.  I know that God speaks to prophets today, because I receive help and guidance with my life as I listen to their messages.

Short answer: yes.

Our church has four officially canonized books of scripture, of which the Bible is one. We use and love the Bible because it is a book that contains revealed truth about God and Jesus Christ. No other book in our canon is referred to as a “Bible”, so when you say “the Mormon Bible”, you are really talking about the same Bible used by any other Christian church. In that sense, our Bible has the book of Revelation in it just like any other Bible does.

However, when somebody refers to “the Mormon Bible”, we assume they mean The Book of Mormon, which is another book in our canon of scripture. It is the testimony of Jesus Christ as recorded by a branch of the house of Israel that emigrated from Jerusalem before the Babylonian captivity. It contains many great truths, prophecies and testimonies of Jesus Christ, but it does not have the Revelation of John referred to in the question.

For more information as well as a discussion of our other books of scripture, you can follow the links below:

More Than the Bible?

The Book of Mormon: The Mormons’ Bible?

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ

We occasionally get the following question:

Is green tea against the word of wisdom?

A simple yes or no question, right? Here are a couple more in the same vein:

Do you have a statement that has been issued by the First Presidency regarding the usage of decaffeinated green tea either as a drink or in a vitamin formula.

I’m a little confused about Green Tea. Some members say they avoid it as it is breaking the Word of Wisdom. Yet others say it is totally fine, a much healthier alternative to soda. I’ve seen other members drinking those popular tall green cans, including my bishop. I’ve wanted to ask him about it, but didn’t really want to put him on the spot. I found this site and thought it a perfect opportunity to ask. What do you think?

Because this website is devoted to answering questions posed primarily by non-latter-day saints, we’ve generally kept ourselves out of debates that take place within the Church. For one thing, if it’s an unsettled issue among Mormons, that usually means there isn’t a definitive answer. We also strive to represent ourselves as “typical” Mormons, which means when we pick a side on some issue, we might be misrepresenting faithful Mormons who believe differently.

Since this is a persistent question and it pertains to the requirements for baptism, I’ll do my best to clear out some of the weeds surrounding this issue, but keep in mind that the truly “perfect opportunity” to discuss it is, in fact, in counsel with your bishop.

Hot Drinks and the Word of Wisdom

The Word of Wisdom refers to the dietary restrictions the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith in D&C 89. It includes a prohibition against tobacco, “strong drinks” (alcohol), and “hot drinks,” as well as recommendations for eating herbs, fruits, grains, and meat (sparingly).

Following this revelation, there was some dispute among Church members about what exactly was meant by “hot drinks.” Tea? Coffee? Soup? Eventually, in 1842 Joseph Smith’s brother and fellow Church leader Hyrum Smith gave a sermon and clarified the matter in this way: “And again ‘hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;’ there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.”

Modern Church leaders have not offered any more definitive interpretations on which kinds of tea might be permissible. The most recent handbook just says, “The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.”

This open-endedness has led Latter-day Saints to speculate about what exactly is in tea and coffee that is harmful. Is it the caffeine? The tannic acid? The high temperature? If it is the caffeine (a common speculation), then should we also shun colas, energy drinks, and chocolate? Is decaf okay?

The First Presidency gave a statement on cola in 1973, “With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided.”

Why it Matters

Latter-day Saints know that typically, where there is no specific direction on a given subject, we are left to our own judgment, guided by principles instead of rigid rules. This idea can be seen in the cola policy above; it’s not about setting and enforcing unyielding boundaries, but keeping ourselves un-addicted and healthy.

This would normally be a non-issue, then. Each member has access to personal revelation through the gift of the Holy Ghost and to scriptural principles that would guide them to a self-imposed standard that may legitimately vary from person to person.

But tea is not an entirely personal decision. In preparing to be baptized or to enter the temple, a priesthood leader interviews you for worthiness. One of the questions is about your understanding of the Word of Wisdom and whether you are living by it. A wrong answer could keep you from baptism or temple worship or perhaps make a liar out of you. Additionally, depending on your location, green tea may be a huge part of your culture and a cherished tradition. Abstaining could have significant ramifications on personal and business relationships. It is a pivotal decision for some, and wondering about green tea isn’t necessarily just “straining at a gnat,” as those who dismiss the question might uncharitably assume.

Our task, then, is to discover for ourselves a personal rubric for tea-selection, which must be in line with Church guidelines (note: there maybe more than one rubric that is acceptable, there are definitely many that are unacceptable, and we are not charged with creating a rubric for all members). Developing our rubric involves getting educated: learn what makes tea tea, read this article, study other relevant materials. It also involves searching for eternal principles upon which to build your decision, which can be found in scriptures and conference talks and in personal prayer.

The Practice

In the absence of authoritative direction, I thought I would try to see what Latter-day Saints actually do and learn about their guiding motivations for their tea selections. I created a survey, and asked a sample of 86 people who ran across this site or who are my friends on Facebook to take it (we can therefore extrapolate these findings to the general population of people who frequent this site or who are my friends on Facebook).

I listed as many different kinds of tea as I could think of (with the help of Wikipedia). Here are a few of the statistics. The following were asked of latter-day saints:

The first chart shows those teas that Church members believe to be prohibited for temple worthiness, the second chart shows teas that are believed to be expressly permitted. The clear front-runners to avoid are black, green, and iced teas, while peppermint and chamomile rank pretty high on the allowed list. The lesser-known ones (white, oolong, masala chai, yerba maté, rooibos) were a mixed bag, probably just because they are less familiar. Many surveyees added the write-in candidate “herbal tea” as a permitted type, which actually includes peppermint and chamomile (I couldn’t include all herbal teas in my list because there are infinitely many).

Exactly half of the members I surveyed were returned full-time proselyting missionaries. Missionaries have the unique responsibility of ushering converts into the church and they probably deal with this question of tea-types more regularly than any bishop or stake president. I asked them which types of tea they taught their converts they needed to avoid and which were allowed:

Basically, the same trends as before, but these answers look a little more confident.

Next, I asked how much allure tea had for them:

This is the sentiment that (in my experience) most Mormons have about tea. They just don’t give it much thought. It isn’t on their radar.

I also asked the ten non-Mormons who took the quiz a few questions. The sample size isn’t large enough to draw many conclusions, but I’ll post the results here for your interest.

I also asked members what their guiding philosophy was for selecting the tea that they did. This is where the real insight came. Since this was an essay question, I extracted the basic gist of their reason and categorized them into the following groups:

One thing you might notice from this is that the first two categories (made from the tea leaf and herbal tea) essentially draw the same line in the sand. Of the teas I listed in my survey, black, green, white, oolong, and iced teas are made with the leaf of the tea plant (Camellia sinensis). All the rest are “herbal teas,” according to Wikipedia’s (somewhat limey) definition: “A herbal tea, tisane, or ptisan is a herbal or plant infusion and usually not made from the leaves of the tea bush. Typically, herbal tea is simply the combination of boiling water and dried fruits, flowers or herbs.”

I got a lot of good, thoughtful responses for this question. I’ll provide a few of them here.

Jethro: “I am not very critical about it, I guess. I generally stay away from hot teas, and ice teas unless they are prepared by a trusted (usually Mormon) lady, who usually accompanies the tea with some kind of reassuring “here, this will make you feel better”.”

Steve: “I just don’t drink tea.  I even avoid wearing tea-shirts.
“I did some searching on LDS.org for green tea and I only found one article from 1985ish.  It was a story of some missionaries in Japan looking for an apartment to rent.  Spoiler Alert:  They found one.”

Anonymous: “I was told once by someone or other that tea is only forbidden if it’s made with tea leaves; herbal teas and the like are fine. However, this came from a layperson, not from anyone in authority, and trying to pinpoint the forbidden ingredient in tea seems rather like the stance some people take that because coffee has caffeine, caffeine must be forbidden in all its forms. It’s entirely possible that this is true, of course, but the fact is that we simply don’t know. So for me, I drink herbal tea very occasionally when someone else is offering it, when it’s an innocuous-seeming variety like blueberry, and when it would be rude to refuse, but that’s all. My refusal is made easier by the fact that I do not like the taste of any tea I have tried.
“From what I have seen of other people’s tea drinking habits, I’d say a fair number also draw the line between herbal tea and tea tea. I don’t think that any type of tea has been explicitly allowed.”

Orpha: “It must be an herbal ‘tea,’ (which is not actually a tea), which means it will be caffeine-FREE, ingredients clearly listed. I drink herbal tea occasionally, sometimes in spurts, but especially to soothe a sore throat, help clear congestion, or to help me warm up after being outside in the cold.”

Nefi: “If the tea is herbal it is ok.  ’Herbal’ means if it has a cute teddy bear in pajamas and it says something like ‘sleepy time’ on the box then it is ok. If I have not heard of the name or it sounds oriental with kanji on the box and no cute pictures then it is not ok.”

Willie: “I can’t claim to know which sort of tea is acceptable or not according to the standards.  I have never read the standards.
“As for me, I just stay away from all teas and then I’m sure that I’ll be just fine.  I’ve been healthy enough this far into my life that drinking tea for any ‘health benefits’ isn’t going to sell me on it either.”

Andrew: “I try to follow the promptings of the Spirit. If the tea makes me feel uncomfortable, then I don’t drink it. When I was in Japan I drank a tea that a member said was okay to drink and it felt wrong to me. I took a look at the ingredients and one of them was Green Tea powder, so I stopped drinking it. Following the Spirit has always served me well.”

It was interesting to see the variety of opinions on this, as well as the emergent themes. None of these opinions are authoritative, and they each spoke only for the bar they set for themselves, not what they would impose on the whole Church.

I can’t draw any firm conclusions from this data on how to construct your rubric. As one respondent put it, “popular opinion does not a standard make.” Still, I think it is a good idea to take inventory of this issue once in awhile, and it would be good to use the data in drawing your own personal conclusions.

The Principles

As I mentioned earlier, in the absence of specific proscriptions, we must learn all we can about the issue and be guided by principles instead of governed by rules. Here is a short list of some principles to keep in mind when selecting which teas to avoid and which to accept:

• Avoid addiction. This isn’t just a good idea, it’s fundamental to the purpose of life. We cannot hope to overcome the tests of life if we have already sacrificed our free will to some unholy Mammon. Bear in mind also, that the addict rarely recognizes his own addiction.
• Health. This is one of the promised blessings for those who obey the Word of Wisdom, and as I quoted the First Presidency saying earlier, “Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided.”
• Covenant. Another of the blessings promised is that the “destroying angel will pass by them and not slay them” (D&C 89:21). This is a reference to the first passover in Egypt when the Israelites publicly displayed their covenant status and their faith in Jehovah by painting their door posts with lambs’ blood; then the destroyer “passed over” them (Exodus 12:23). Maybe, like painting your house with blood, certain tea restrictions don’t make intuitive sense. And maybe there is something grander at work here.
• Obedience. The Lord is more interested in seeing our willingness to follow Him than in seeing how smart we think we are (2 Nephi 9:28-29).
• Sustaining local leaders. If you are concerned about where to draw the line, talk to your bishop about it at your next temple recommend interview. He is a judge in Israel and his judgment is authoritative. Follow his counsel.
• Unity in Zion. Be careful making yourself the exception. Remember that there are thousands of Japanese converts who took a leap of faith by abandoning a cherished cultural practice (and identity) to qualify for baptism. “For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” (D&C 78:6).
• Personal revelation. If you have been baptized and confirmed, you have the gift of the Holy Ghost who “shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance” (John 14:26). Live up to your privilege and ask for revelation!

The great thing about principles is that they are widely applicable! This means you can also use these and other principles to help you in deciding what kinds of restaurants to eat at, clothing to wear, whom to vote for, and what to do with your free time. The Lord has withheld specifying rules in many cases so that we can learn to identify and adopt principles, thus becoming our own governors — becoming free. It also helps us draw closer to Him in prayer, knowing we need His personal guidance; we can’t just flip open the code book and have every eventuality spelled out for us.

The prophet Joel saw that prophecies and dreams would happen in the last days when he said, “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. (Joel 2:28)” It’s the scope of such revelations that I’d like to talk about.

It’s true that the gift of prophesy can be given to any worthy individual, one must be careful giving these propehecies as doctrine to other people. The Lord does not run His kingdom based on revelations to one man, telling his neighbor to do something. The kingdom of God is a house of order and everything is done in order. Commandments and divine guidance are recieved and given under the proper stewardship. An individual may recieve revelation for him or herself. A husband and wife may receive revelation for their family. Bishops for their wards, stake presidents for their stakes, and the prophet is chosen to receive revelation for all the world.

At each of these levels, the revelation is given to someone who has the responsibility to care for someone else. Even then, it must be given righteously, as spoken in D&C 121:41-42.

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

For example, if a person were visit with his or her bishop concerning a personal problem, the bishop is authorized to receive revelation to counsel that individual. A bishop of another ward or a former bishop cannot recieve such revelation. That person can then receive personal witness that the bishop’s counsel is of God by praying to Him.

So concerning your dreams, I cannot judge how it may affect others but I can encourage you to study out the matter in scripture and in prayer and find what is required of you to prepare for these calamities.

You’ll often hear phrases like, “I know that God lives,” and “I know Jesus died for my sins,” and “I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.”  Sometimes visitors come away from these meetings non-plussed by our uber-confident ‘knowledge’ of things.  It got me thinking.

Whenever someone says they know something, they are saying they have high confidence that their belief coincides with objective truth.  We do this all the time.  You say, “I just know the dentist is going to lecture me on flossing” because 1) he’s done it before and 2) you still haven’t been flossing.  Your previous experience and the evidence of your behavior lead you to this prediction.  There are many ways we gather knowledge; I’ll list a few here for illustration:

• Personal experience (five physical senses,  sense of balance, pain, hunger, etc.)
• Emotion and intuition (love, fear, instinct, etc.)
• Experiences of others (advice, anecdotes, biographies, etc.)
• Logical and mathematical proofs (a priori)
• Found evidence (archeology, historical documents, paleontology, forensics, etc.)
• Robust scientific experimentation that controls for all variables (physics, chemistry, etc.)
• Scientific experimentation/observation that controls for variables where possible (sociology, political science, economics, etc.)

We all tend to have some level of confidence in these methods, some more than others, depending on many factors, but each of these can lead a person to say “I know…” if the learning method is compelling enough.  Even so, many would argue that none of the methods I listed above are capable of producing reliable knowledge of things as transcendent as God.  Archeological digs might lend credence to a religious belief, but surely not firm knowledge.  These critics have a point, so I would add one more item to the list:

• Revelation from God

God speaks to His children in various ways.  He gave Joseph prophetic dreams that came true; He spoke to Moses from a burning bush (and also face-to-face).  He sent an angel to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus.  Joseph Smith saw and listened to the Father and the Son in a grove of trees.

To Joseph of Egypt, Moses, Mary, Smith and many others, those experiences were indisputable.  They had every right to declare, “I know” instead of “I believe,” and they did.

For most of us, though, the glorious visions and visitations of heavenly beings haven’t yet happened.  For us, God has promised another form of revelation: a personal witness of spiritual truths through the power of the Holy Spirit.  He is available to bear witness of the Father and the Son.  ”By the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5).  This witness may be less dramatic or conspicuous than an angelic visitor, but its convincing power may be even more sure than a vision (see Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:151; 1 Nephi 17:45-46).  Because of His subtlety, it may take many prompts for you to hear the Holy Ghost and again many more before you trust them enough to say “I know.”  But it can happen.  This is how I know God lives and that Jesus is the Christ.

You can know, too.  Like other modes of learning, it won’t necessarily come in an afternoon of mild curiosity, but it will with dedicated seeking, knocking, and asking over the course of weeks and months and years.  Begin now and you will taste the deliciousness that is the knowledge of God.

Today, I want to share with you a talk given by Jeffrey R. Holland, one of the 12 apostles. His testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is powerful. I invite all to listen to this address, “Safety for the Soul”, and ponder what is taught and then study the Book of Mormon for yourself (you can get a free copy by following this link).   If you do so with a sincere heart and pray to know, with intent to act, if the book is from God, God will tell you in your heart and mind by the Holy Ghost that it is from Him.   The validity of Joseph Smith as one of God’s prophet goes hand in hand with knowing that the Book of Mormon is from God–if the book is from God, the man by whom God brought forth the book must also be of God.  Enjoy.

(I have embedded the talk from YouTube and included a link as well if you want the video to load faster.)

Safety for the Soul, Part 1

Safety for the Soul, Part 2

My test strategy is to go through the whole test and answer all the questions, and then go through again and double check them as I transfer my answers to the scan-tron.    I came to a particular question where I was able to narrow it down to two answers.  Initially I had marked “e” being pretty confident with my choice.  But when I came upon it for the second time, I had a distinct thought, “No, that’s not correct”.  Then I suddenly remember the things I learned when I studied the topic earlier.   I changed my answer to “d” and I got the question right.

I thought about my experience throughout the day.  I know that God does answer our prayers.  We believe to receive answers for our questions, we must do our part.  We must study it in our minds and then ask God if it’s right.  If it is, we will feel that in our hearts and in our minds that it is right. (see D&C 9:8 & Moroni 10:3-5)

While preparing for a class, I came across this talk given by Hugh B. Brown, a member of the First Presidency of our church, who passed away some years ago.  It details a conversation that he had with a member of the British House of Commons and a former justice of the supreme court of Britain regarding our belief in the reality of modern-day prophets.

I will never understand why people reject the doctrine of God still being able to call prophets.  He has always done so and will continue to do so.  I firmly declare that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that there is a prophet today who speaks for God.  Prophets are essential to us knowing who God and Jesus Christ are—their characters and their teachings that will bring salvation.  You too can know of this truth if you will sincerely ask God in prayer with faith to act.

“[This man] called me on the phone one day and asked if I would meet him at his office and explain some phases of my faith. He said, “There is going to be a war [World War II], and you will have to return to America, and we may not meet again.”

When I went to his office, he said he had been intrigued by some things I had told about my church. He asked me if I would prepare a brief on Mormonism and discuss it with him as I would discuss a legal problem. He said, “You have told me that you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that you believe that God the Father and Jesus of Nazareth appeared to him in vision.

“I cannot understand,” he said, “how a barrister and solicitor from Canada, a man trained in logic and evidence and unemotional cold fact, could accept such absurd statements. What you tell me about Joseph Smith seems fantastic, but I wish you would take three days at least to prepare a brief and permit me to examine it and question you on it.”

I suggested that, as I had been working on such a brief for more than 50 years, we proceed at once to have an examination for discovery, which is briefly a meeting of the opposing sides in a lawsuit where the plaintiff and defendant, with their attorneys, meet to examine each other’s claims and see whether they can find some area of agreement and thus save the time of the court later on.

I began by asking, “May I proceed, sir, on the assumption that you are a Christian?”

“I am.”

“I assume that you believe in the Bible—the Old and New Testaments?”

“I do!”

“Do you believe in prayer?”

“I do!”

“You say that my belief that God spoke to a man in this age is fantastic and absurd?”

“To me it is.”

“Do you believe that God ever did speak to anyone?”

“Certainly, all through the Bible we have evidence of that.”

“Did he speak to Adam?”

“Yes.”

“To Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and to others of the prophets?”

“I believe he spoke to each of them.”

“Do you believe that contact between God and man ceased when Jesus appeared on the earth?”

“Certainly not. Such communication reached its climax, its apex at that time.”

“Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God?”

“He was.”

“Do you believe, sir, that after the resurrection of Christ, God ever spoke to any man?”

He thought for a moment and then said, “I remember one Saul of Tarsus who was going down to Damascus to persecute the saints and who had a vision, was stricken blind, in fact, and heard a voice.”

“Whose voice did he hear?”

“Well,” he said, “the voice said `I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.’”

“Do you believe that actually took place?”

“I do.”

“Then, my Lord”—that is the way we address judges in the British commonwealth—”my Lord, I am submitting to you in all seriousness that it was standard procedure in Bible times for God to talk to men.”

“I think I will admit that, but it stopped shortly after the first century of the Christian era.”

“Why do you think it stopped?”

“I can’t say.”

“You think that God hasn’t spoken since then?”

“Not to my knowledge.”

“May I suggest some possible reasons why he has not spoken. Perhaps it is because he cannot. He has lost the power.”

He said, “Of course that would be blasphemous.”

“Well, then, if you don’t accept that, perhaps he doesn’t speak to men because he doesn’t love us anymore. He is no longer interested in the affairs of men.”

“No,” he said, “God loves all men, and he is no respecter of persons.”

“Well, then, if you don’t accept that he loves us, then the only other possible answer as I see it is that we don’t need him. We have made such rapid strides in education and science that we don’t need God any more.”

And then he said, and his voice trembled as he thought of impending war, “Mr. Brown, there never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why he doesn’t speak.”

My answer was, “He does speak, he has spoken; but men need faith to hear him.”

(President Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, October 1967, Third Day—Morning Meeting 118.)

Ecclesiates 12:7 (italics added)  Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Jeremiah 1:5 (italics added)  Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Jude 1:6 (italics added)  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great day.

Revelation 12:7-9 (italics added)  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought againts the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Abraham 3:22-24 (italics added)  Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was: and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones.  And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.  And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

It is clear from just the Bible that there was a “pre-existence” where we, as spirits, lived with God.  The scripture that God has given us through Joseph Smith (I picked only one) confirms this doctrine.  Thanks for your inquiry.

I can understand why.  We aren’t like most break-off sects, based on our peculiar interpretation of scripture.  People are more or less comfortable with these groups.  After all, if Martin Luther said something you don’t agree with, you can rest assured that his foundation is firmly rooted in the Bible.  He might be mistaken on some things, but by and large he agrees with mainline protestantism.  He never claimed to be a prophet.

But Mormons are new and different.  It’s all or nothing.  It can’t be swallowed half-way.

Either Joseph Smith was honest about his first encounter with God or he lied about it.  He was visited frequently by angels or he wasn’t visited at all.  He was a prophet or a hoaxer.  If one is not Mormon and will not be baptized, “Joseph Smith was a fraud” is the stance one is required to take.  The middle ground is removed.

This polarization has energized detractors to produce mountains of criticism to discredit Mormonism, which if seen by itself makes our religion look plain silly, or worse.  The criticisms range from sophomoric name-calling and laughably-inconsistent retelling of our beliefs to historical documentation and intellectual DNA analysis.  Most of this is aimed not at Mormons (these kinds of attacks rarely have the gravitas to significantly shake LDS faith), but primarily at potential investigators of Mormonism.  They are designed to damage the Church’s reputation enough that you’ll dismiss anything we might offer.

The criticism, in turn, has prompted Latter-day Saints for years to rebut the arguments and point out evidences in our favor.  This rebuttal in defense of faith is called apologetics from the Greek apologia, meaning “defense.”

The leading body defending Mormon doctrine from critical arguments is the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR).  It is an independent, non-profit group of Latter-day Saints dedicated to “providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS (Mormon) doctrine, belief and practice.”  They have a website and a wiki full of every piece of anti-Mormon material you could ask for and a confident, clear response to each.

A few weeks ago I attended their annual conference in Sandy, UT.  They had speakers from a variety of professional backgrounds.  A lawyer-economist spoke on the failed Kirtland Safety Society, a banking endeavor that Joseph Smith initiated (and according to critics, caused to fail in order to steal parishioners’ money).  A physicist (a former member of the federal government’s — and no, this isn’t a joke – Dark Energy Task Force) gave a lecture on Joseph’s cosmology compared with a modern physics account of the creation of the universe.  There were talks with titles like, “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Plural Marriage (but were afraid to ask),” “Haplogroup X in Light of Recent Book of Mormon Claims,” and “Joseph the Seer, or Why Joseph Translated with a Rock in His Hat.” I came away impressed with their professionalism and their ability to make the topics accessible, interesting, and relevant.

My favorite FAIR contributor is a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic named Daniel C. Peterson.  I became a fan through watching his FAIR presentations on YouTube.  (Click here to see Dr. Peterson’s review of Christopher Hitchens’ infamous book god is Not Great).

Members of FAIR look into the criticisms in their spare time and on their own dime; the Church doesn’t fund their research.  There are important reasons for that.  One of the key reasons is that Father has a different method for teaching us, which the Church favors.  It doesn’t require advanced degrees or superior reasoning capacity, and the objective isn’t merely knowledge.  The objective is goodness, even Godliness.  He created this whole world as a sort of school.  A proving ground.  What is required is a humble heart and a will to follow Jesus Christ.  Learning how to pray is much more vital to this kind of education than writing a thesis.

So, if you are investigating the Church, and you’ve been bombarded with defamatory information in anti-Mormon pamphlets or movies, first go to God.  You can learn a lot through prayerful revelation.  This should be your first step.  Always.  If it still bothers you, poke around FAIR’s website.  They’ve heard it all.  You may find peace in knowing that when you don’t have all the answers, some smart, faith-filled people have blazed the trail ahead of you.  It certainly helps me.