| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 51.1 | Seek, and ye shall find | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Feb 19 1988 09:57 | 19 |
| We are instructed by our Savior to ask, and promised that our Father
will give good things to them that ask.
Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find;
knock, and it shall be opened unoto you.
For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh,
findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
Or what man is there of you, who, if his son ask bread, will
give him a stone?
Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven
give good things to them that ask him?
3 Nephi 14:7-11, Matthew 7:7-11
|
| 51.2 | God Gives Liberally | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Sat Feb 20 1988 10:47 | 25 |
| God has promised that he will give liberally when we ask for wisdom,
if we ask in faith. So it is, if we would receive wisdom from God
on any subject, whether it be in our personal lives, or regarding
the truth of spiritual teachings, we may ask of God in faith, and
receive.
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to
all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given
him.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that
wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and
tossed.
For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of
the Lord.
James 1:5-7
Note: This was recently posted also in the Spiritual Thoughts topic,
But it occurred to me that it belongs here, as well, since it pertains
to the process of finding out the truth of things from God.
Rich
|
| 51.3 | Trial of Our Faith | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Sat Feb 20 1988 11:49 | 35 |
| One important fact of getting a testimony is the trial of faith.
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious
than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire,
might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the
appearing of Jesus Christ 1 Peter 1:7
And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these
things; I would show unto the world that faith is things
which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not
because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after
the trial of your faith. Ether 12:6
Often, God doesn't answer prayers at the beginning. Sometimes He waits
to see how much faith we have. How sincere we are. How desirous of a
blessing we are. How dedicated to Him we are. If we pass this trial
of our faith then the blessing comes.
To gain a testimony of truth, people need to "hunger and thirst" for
that spiritual knowledge. If someone wants to know if the Book of
Mormon is the Word of God, they must desire the truth from God, and not
merely to justify what they already believe, whether it be in favor of
or against this claim.
They must be willing to accept its teachings, and to accept the
teachings of the prophet who brought it forth, Joseph Smith, if it is
true. They must be willing to join the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and to change their lifestyle, if God reveals to them
that these things are true. They need a lot more than just an interest.
They must also be willing to heed the light and knowledge that God will
give.
The willingness to do this can be a great trial of faith.
Rich
|
| 51.4 | Persevere! | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Feb 24 1988 00:48 | 43 |
| To know spiritual truth, we must have an intense desire. The Savior
taught that those who have this desire are blessed:
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after
righteousness: for they shall be filled. Matt 5:6
We are also taught that we must have perseverance in our prayers:
Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the
Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance
and supplication for all saints; Eph 6:18
The Savior also taught that, when we desire a blessing from God, we
ought to pray always and not faint, as in the case of the importunate
(annoyingly persistent) widow:
And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men
ought always to pray, and not to faint;
Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not
God, neither regarded man:
And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto
him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.
And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within
himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;
Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her,
lest by her continual coming she weary me.
And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.
And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day
and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
Luke 18:1-8
From this, we learn that the Lord would have us persevere in our
prayers for those things that we need and desire, in righteousness. And
should we not also persevere in our prayers to know the truth of all
things?
Rich
|
| 51.5 | We must be in harmony | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Feb 24 1988 01:12 | 20 |
| If we desire the Lord to reveal sacred truths to us, by the power of
the Holy Ghost, then we must be living a life that is in harmony with
His Gospel.
We should not think that the Holy Ghost will come unto us, if we are
living in open violation of God's laws. If we are living in immorality,
or dishonesty, or are guilty of stealing, or are covetous or full of
bitterness and hate toward others, or if we are proud and wise in our
own minds, and unable to humble ourselves before God, then these things
will prevent us from enjoying the benefit of the witness of the Holy
Ghost.
The Spirit of the Lord did no more preserve them; yea, it had
withdrawn from them because the Spirit of the Lord doth not
dwell in unholy temples Helaman 4:24
This is not to say that we must be perfect, but that we must be willing
to repent of wrongdoings, in order for the Holy Ghost to be with us.
Rich
|
| 51.6 | Summary | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Feb 24 1988 02:10 | 34 |
| Summary
-------
The LDS church teaches that every person has a right and a
responsibility to find out for themselves from God if what we teach is
true.
Is the Book of Mormon the Word of God? Was Joseph Smith a prophet? Is
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the only true church on
the earth? Is there a living prophet and living apostles on the earth
today?
But how can one find out such things from God?
These are the elements of the process that have been presented in the
previous replies:
1- Study it out. For example, read the Book of Mormon.
2- Ponder it in your heart.
3- See that you are in living in harmony with Christ's gospel.
4- Ask God in the name of Jesus Christ if these things are true, having
faith that He can make it known to you.
5- Be willing to live by what God reveals to you, even if it means
a trial of your faith.
6- Be willing to persevere in your prayers, until you receive an
answer.
|
| 51.7 | Witness of the Spirit | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Feb 24 1988 02:43 | 88 |
| How to Recognize the Witness of the Spirit
------------------------------------------
The witness of the Holy Ghost is hard to adequately describe, but the
Holy Ghost will bear witness of the truth in an unmistakable manner.
Many people have felt at one time or another the warm glow within and
the assurance and peace that a thing is right and good. This is what
the Holy Spirit is like, for it will fill you with joy and peace
regarding the thing that you are asking, if it is right.
Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in
believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of
the Holy Ghost. Romans 15:13
On the other hand, you will have no such feeling if the thing is wrong.
You will also have no such feeling if you are not ready or the Lord is
not ready to reveal it to you. If no such feeling is experienced, then
that means you must study it out again, ponder it in your heart, try to
determine the truth of the thing in your own mind, and then ask if your
conclusion is right or true. Be sure that your own life is in order,
and that you are asking sincerely and in faith, praying to God in the
name of Jesus Christ.
Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I
would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was
to ask me.
But behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in
your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is
right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you;
therefore; you shall feel that it is right.
But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but
you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to
forget the thing which is wrong... D&C 9:7-9
When the witness of the Spirit comes, it will be easy to recognize, for
you will be filled with a spiritual assurance that these things are
true. Later, after you have received such a witness, you may begin to
doubt and question what the Spirit revealed to you. Though it was
unmistakable at the time, the feeling is not a permanent one, unless
it is nurtured and cared for. If we dwell on our doubts and fail to
nurture the small testimony which we have received, the door is opened
for Satan to destroy our testimony.
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the
devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest
they should believe and be saved.
They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the
word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while
believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they
have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches
and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and
good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth
fruit with patience. Luke 8:11-15
By the power of the Holy Ghost we may truly know the truth of all
things.
Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these
things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that
ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the
children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until
the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in
your hearts.
And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you
that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of
Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask
with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in
Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the
power of the Holy Ghost.
And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of
all things. Moroni 10:3-5
It is by the power of the Holy Ghost that I know these things are
true.
Rich
|
| 51.8 | Pray with Real Intent | MDVAX1::DULL | Tamara Dull @STO | Wed Feb 24 1988 13:35 | 54 |
| Rich:
I was going to reply to this note yesterday, but I didn't get the
time. I agree with all the points that were made. You discussed
many things that I was going to discuss - so thanks for taking care
of that for me ;-) !!
There is one more point that I would like to present that has really
helped me out. In earlier replies, a passage of scripture has been
often repeated: Moroni 10:3-5. I would like to emphasize verse
4 which states:
"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you
that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of
Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask
with a sincere heart, WITH REAL INTENT, having faith in
Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the
power of the Holy Ghost." (Emphasis added.)
The "clincher" for me in this verse is the real intent part. We
must pray with real intent. In my eyes, only two beings really
know the true intentions of my heart - Heavenly Father and myself
- that is, if I'm in touch with these feelings.
This idea is brought up in Mark Twain's book, "Huckleberry Finn" -
there's a part in the story that Huck is trying to pray to God, and
he's having a difficult time praying because he *knows* that he cannot
pray a lie. Heavenly Father knows the true intentions of our hearts - He
knows if we're being straight with Him or not.
I don't believe that Heavenly Father would reveal the truthfulness of
*anything* to us if the intention of our heart was to use this revealed
truth AGAINST the building up of His kingdom.
I think about this "real intent" stuff when I hear of people who
have tried to find out if the Church is true or if the Book of Mormon
is the word of God, etc., and have received a negative response.
I have no idea why someone would receive a negative response from
Heavenly Father (through the power of the Holy Spirit) if the
intentions of their heart was to help build up the Kingdom. Perhaps
their intentions are not in sync with Heavenly Father's plan? This
is just a thought.
Back to verse 4: It has always struck me odd that the verse "exhorts
[us] that [we] would ask God . . . if these things are NOT true;
. . ." (Emphasis added.) Why would we ask if these things are
*not* true - why not ask if these things *are* true? Is there some
hidden message that I'm missing in this statement?
Tamara
|
| 51.9 | Is it not so? | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Feb 24 1988 14:07 | 23 |
| Hi Tamara,
Thanks for contributing to this topic. I was hoping it wasn't going
to end up just being my own ramblings... :-)
> Back to verse 4: It has always struck me odd that the verse "exhorts
> [us] that [we] would ask God . . . if these things are NOT true;
> . . ." (Emphasis added.) Why would we ask if these things are
> *not* true - why not ask if these things *are* true? Is there some
> hidden message that I'm missing in this statement?
I was thinking about this just last night, as I was entering my
last few replies. I came to the conclusion that the word *not* is
used as a sort of figure of speech, sort of like you might say "Is
he not coming?", when you really are saying "Is he coming?" If we
rephrase it just a bit to read, "ask God... are not these things
true?", then it could have the same meaning as "ask God.. are these
things true".
Anyway, that's the conclusion I came to. I'd be interested to hear
anyone else's view.
Rich
|
| 51.10 | Knowing and Feeling | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Thu Feb 25 1988 12:14 | 24 |
| I always enjoying hearing how others responded to the Gospel. But
I do have a question.
In the Church we always talk about FEELINGS as the prime method
for discerning. Yet, I have always approached Gospel teachings
from a logical, cognitive approach. Let me explain a bit.
When I was taking the Missionary Discussions the one thing that
stuck me about Mormonism was the ease with which I could understand
its teachings. Thus, for me the the ability to think about, understand
and KNOW the truth is just as important (maybe more for me) as FEELING
it is true. True, a testimony is built upon both the foundations
of Knowing and Feeling, but in my case I seek to Understand before
I seek to Feel.
Has anyone out there had the same experience? I feel alone becasue
in the Church we dwell so much on feelings.
If any reader of this note believes that true Intellectualism
does not exist among Mormons, I challenge
them to read and understand Hugh Nibley, Mormonism"s (and perhaps
the world's) foremost Egyptologist. I have recently begun reading
him and marvel at the breadth and depth of his insights.
|
| 51.11 | I prefer to UNDERSTAND first, too ... | ECADSR::SHERMAN | time for this one to come home ... | Thu Feb 25 1988 12:55 | 27 |
|
Howdy, Paul! You ain't alone ...
My dad and I like looking at things from an intellectual vein, too. As I
indicate in note 52.1, for me the logic has to be there. The intellectual
side is a logical multiplier in that it's either there (a 1) or it's not (a 0).
And, if it isn't there, it isn't the Lord's Church. But, the presence of logic
does not yield necessary and sufficient conditions for truth. With all the
emphasis on feeling, it's easy to feel frustrated that little is mentioned of
logic or intellect. I have found some frustration with clich�'d responses I've
sometimes gotten to deep doctrinal questions. This causes me to dig into the
books and find out how everything really fits together. Sometimes I uncover
something that is new (at least to me). Our leaders tell us to search the
scriptures and to read from the best books we can find. They don't tell us
to just listen to them and to pay no heed to any reputable outside info.
This conference has been great for me. It's helping me search the scriptures
for my understanding. I love to put my testimony to the test. That's how
it grows. My own desire to find the intellectual aspect of the Gospel is one
of the things that allows my testimony to be strengthened. Of course, if
the feeling weren't there, it would just be a mental exercise, and I've got
other mental exercises piling up on my desk. So, the name of the game for
me is to find the balance of intellectual appeal and personal feelings that
is right for me.
Steve
|
| 51.12 | A Rational Theology | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Thu Feb 25 1988 14:34 | 45 |
| Re: .10 & .11
Good discussion!
I have emphasized the feeling aspect in my previous notes, since that's
how the Holy Spirit bears witness to our spirit. Even so, I think the
whole "intellectual" approach appropriately falls in the category of
"studying these things out".
God is omniscient: He knows all truth. We hope, over time, to come to
know what He knows, as we continue to learn, both in this life and in
the life to come. Truth is consistent with itself, and, as both of you
have pointed out, it will "fit in place", so long as we have not built
a scotoma (blind spot) that prevents us from "seeing" just how it fits
in.
As long as we remember that a knowledge of the truth is gained line
upon line, and we are willing to accept that we have to learn the
"basics" before we can understand the "advanced concepts", the
intellectual approach is excellent.
What am I driving at? My son is having his challenges with long
division. If I hand him my college calculus text, it will be so much
garbage to him. Given time, and the process of understanding the
prerequisite basics, he, too, will learn the "truths" that pertain to
calculus (I don't know if he will retain them, as I'm not sure I have).
Some people using the intellectual approach make the error of saying,
"since I don't see how this fits, I'm not going to believe it". As long
as our approach is, "I want to learn how this fits", I think the Lord
will help us to learn. Sometimes we need the witness of the Spirit that
something is true, to sustain us until we are able to learn why it is
true.
Speaking of intellectuals in the church, one of the foremost in my
mind, in addition to Hugh Nibley, was Elder John A. Widstoe. I think he
was designated as one of the seven most intelligent people in the
country when he was alive, if I remember correctly. You would really
enjoy a book he wrote called "A Rational Theology".
One of the things I enjoy the most about the church is how well it
answers so many of the questions that have puzzled man for centuries in
such a rational way.
Rich
|
| 51.13 | | TOPCAT::ALLEN | | Thu Feb 25 1988 14:55 | 30 |
|
HI Paul, your not alone. My wife accuses me of being to logical and
analytical, especially when it comes to the gospel. One of the reasons
I'm an executive sec. and not a bishop is probably for that reason.
In fact for years I hated....and I mean hated, testimony meeting.
It just wasn't logical and I couldn't understand why the Lord included
it in the meeting schedule. It wasn't until I decided that I may not
need testimony meeting, but others did and it was for those that
need it that I now can sit through the meeting without questioning
the Lord's wisdom :^).
Anyway, I like being logical, having an answer that can stand up
to testing is for me the way that I accept the gospel, whereas others
accept it through through their feelings or other methods. I once had
a good Sunday school teacher, a hw engineer, talk about the danger of
basing all our faith in logical deductions regarding the gospel, and I
suppose he was right. But I do think it is a good foundation to which
we can return when there is a crack in the upper chambers.
I have also noticed that I don't get a witness from the Spirit very
often, but when it does happen it is not usually because I asked and it is
usually for something very important.
BTW, I have one of Hugh's tapes on the forty days after the
resurrection and he is the best I have found. I have a few friends
that went to BYU and they say his classes were always packed. You
can order his tapes from BYU.
richard
|
| 51.15 | To Know for Yourself | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Sun Feb 28 1988 15:54 | 40 |
| On this subject, I came across these quotations, which may be of
interest:
Joseph Smith said:
Search the scriptures - search the revelations which we publish,
and ask your Heavenly Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ,
to manifest the truth unto you, and if you do it with an eye
single to His glory nothing doubting, He will answer you by the
power of His Holy Spirit. You will then know for yourselves and
not for another. You will not then be dependent on man for the
knowledge of God; nor will there be any room for speculation.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p 11-12.
Brigham Young said:
I am ...afraid that this people have so much confidence in their
leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether
they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of
blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny to the hands
of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would
thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that
influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for
themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the
right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the
Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in
the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation
continually...
Let all persons be fervent in prayer, until they know the things
of God for themselves and become certain that they are walking in
the path that leads to everlasting life.
Journal of Discourses Vol 9 p150, as quoted in the Gospel Doctrine
Teacher's Supplement 1988.
Rich
|
| 51.16 | Be thou humble | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Mar 08 1988 14:15 | 8 |
| If we are humble, the Lord will answer our prayers.
Be thou humble; and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the
hand, and give thee answer to thy prayers.
D&C 112:10
Rich
|
| 51.17 | If your eye be single | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Mar 08 1988 14:19 | 8 |
| If we seek God's glory, we may comprehend all things:
And if your eye be single to by glory, your whole bodies
shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in
you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth
all things.
D&C 88:67
|
| 51.18 | Real Intent | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich (Welcome Back) Kotter | Tue Aug 16 1988 12:23 | 22 |
| Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone, one of the General Authorities of the
church recently related at a Canadian youth fireside how he obtained
his testimony of the Book of Mormon:
Elder Featherstone also recounted how, as a young man, he obtained
his testimony of the gospel by reading the Book of Mormon "with
real intent," on the advice of a leader.
"Real intent," he said, "means you are willing to do something in
your life if you determine the book is true. It took me 30 days to
read, and when I closed the cover, I believed it with all my heart
and soul. It meant I would spend the rest of my life serving the
Lord." (Church News 8/13/88, page 6)
His emphasis of what 'real intent' means struck me as being
particularly important. The Lord will reveal truths to us, if He knows
that we will act in accordance with these truths. But if we ask without
real intent, being unwilling to act upon the answers He may give us,
then we ask in vain and risk bringing the condemnation of the Lord upon
ourselves for calling upon His name in vain.
Rich
|
| 51.19 | Emotions vs Truth | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Fri Mar 16 1990 09:38 | 70 |
| In .10 I brought up a question about the interplay of feelings/emotions
and understanding/knowledge in the Church. I would like to elucidate
a little more and then ask others to respond to an observation.
As a convert to the Church, the one thing that drew me to it was the
doctrine. In those early days when I was studying the BofM, P of GP
and D&C, I experienced a sense of enlightenment and understanding in
my mind that I had never before had. I could not get enough
information to satisfy all the questions I had. Since then, my growth
in the Gospel has always started with the acquisition of new knowledge,
followed by analysis, and then prayerful consideration.
However, what I am observing in the Church, both locally and generally,
is what I call the Emotionalization of the Gospel. It seems that
every speaker on Sunday or in conferences deals with either a
discussion of a value (friendship, fellowshipping, love at home,
service, etc.) or feelings/emotional response to given experience (the
most recent was last Sunday's testimony in which a person went on
an on about a romance they are ins). This situation is further
compounded by Church media, in which feelings (rather than doctrines)
are discussed or portrayed. REcent Church videos are almost content
free as far as doctrines/messages go. The recent one discussing
missionaries was really well-done and an excellent nostaglic look at
missionary life, but when I asked a non-member friend of her reaction
to it she said, "Oh, it was cute."
I ask myself where have all the doctrines gone and why
this emphasis on feelings/emotions. (Sometimes I explain it all by
saying the Church is only 2 states east of Calif., so naturally it is
influenced by that west coast culture).
Then I had a discussion with a professor at BU, who teaches
philosophy/theology, and he said the following. "After all my years of
studying, I am convinced that a person's orientation is either Platonic
or Aristotellian. That is, Plato believed in the Ideal, Eternal Truth
which God deigned to dispense to humanity when they were ready to learn it.
Thus people receive information about Truth and then incorporate it
into their lives. Their feeling/emotional response to Truth is
irrelevant because Truth stands by itself. Aristotle, on the other
hand, believed that truth was nothing more than the sum total response
of a person's experience, and by extension all of mankind's experience
(similar to Jung's collective conscious). In this century starting
about 1940 Aristotellian views have gained the upper hand and in the
1960's CArl Rogers and Eric Berne evolved Aristotle's idea one more
step by saying that truth was really determined by a person's
feeling/emotional response to their experience. Today, about 40% of
psychiatrist's and psychologist's use Rogers and Berne."
Another Ph.d friend has labeled this Zeitgeis (excuse the spelling for
those German speakers) or "Spirit of the Times", meaning that in the US
today we have deified feeling/emotional response. Perhaps this state
is an outgrowth of all those T-Groups, New Age, Est seminars, or the Me
orientation of the 70's. I have a woman working for me on assignment in
Europe and she has come back and said that the Europeans do not spend
the time we Americans spend of feelings, but get right to the point
(truth) of a situation and that using all the verbage we Americans use
to spare "tender feelings" does not work with the Europeans.
Now for the question (I took a long time to get to it) - has anyone
noticed this situation of the emphasis on feelings rather than
doctrines in the Church. And are feelings more important
than Truth?
Paul
PS I think my own preference is Platonic, so you need not worry about
my feelings if you disagree.
|
| 51.20 | est seminars | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Fri Mar 16 1990 10:33 | 24 |
| Hi Paul,
You mentioned the est seminars in the context of their being Aristotelian.
I found that interesting because I've always thought of them as being Platonic.
I took the est seminars about 7-8 years ago, and I found they strengthened my
testimony of Jesus Christ and gave me some basic tools to help with the
practical things of life. The basic idea behind est (what is...is or something
like that) is that reality exists and we can't change it; we can only change
how we react to it. For example, Communist leaders in Russia may not like
the movements towards freedom in the Eastern countries, but that makes no
difference--the movements still exist. The Russians can pretend the movements
don't exist, but the reality is that the movements do exist, and what the
Russian leaders think about it makes no difference. What does make a difference
is what the Russian leaders do about this reality.
I've found this "est" concept very helpful to me. Reality is reality. Joseph
Smith taught this when he taught that truth is what has been, what is now,
and what will be: truth is things as they are. We can't change truth, but we
can change our reaction to it.
I'll save for a later reply my comments about your question of emotions vs
truth.
Allen
|
| 51.21 | Emotions are an essential part of gospel. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri Mar 16 1990 10:35 | 37 |
|
When I converted to the church, I was a cold-hearted
individual from a heathenishly lifestyle. What converted me?
I was ready to listen to the spirit of God. But it took a little
longer for me to become emotionally involved in the church. By
this I mean letting my emotions show forth. I feel that because
of this I am a better person. Oh, I still seek after truth or
doctrine, but I live it by emotion.
I remember how I could not understand grown men crying. I
was brought up to believe that this was not "manly." All the
spiritual experiences I had I kept to myself as they brought about
a feeling I was not used to. Then, one day I was reading the
scriptures. The New Testament. And I came across the shortest and
most powerful verse in scripture - "Jesus wept." Here I was trying
to stifle my emotions because I thought it was wrong and the most
important human being on the face of the earth wept and openly
showed his emotion. It changed my life.
When the Holy Ghost uplifts you in doing your duty or calling,
it is a most emotionally experience. Love is emotional. God is love.
Emotion is not bad. However, I have come to this conclusion. First
you must study and come to know the doctrine of Christ. This is the
letter of the law. The spirit of the law is emotion. I do not
believe a person can understand the law completely until they have
emotionally experienced it. When a person is totally committed to
live the commandments of God to the best of their abilities, they do
so by knowing and understanding the doctrine, but live with an
understanding of emotion, love, and happiness. So it is not bad,
this emotion.
To base all understanding just on emotion is not what I am
proposing. But the living of doctrinal law takes emotion. Otherwise
I do not believe you can successfully live it.
Charles
|
| 51.22 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Fri Mar 16 1990 10:43 | 31 |
| Hmmm. This has potential for some interesting discussion. As I read,
I was impressed that perhaps the difference is also one of practice
versus preaching. I like the new directions because the emphasis isn't
so much on preaching to me about how bad I am and that I need to
repent. Shoot, I get that all the time. That message, though it can
have good effect, tends not to inspire me to get out there and do good.
Rather, it tends to inspire me to not do bad. On the other hand, the
uplifiting messages that show me how good life can be if I practice the
Gospel really inspires me to do good. I like being shown how good I
can be rather than how bad I am.
One thing that comes to mind is some good advice that I came across
when I was checking out New Age. (Keep in mind that my conclusion is
that some parts of New Age are great and some parts not.) The advice
was to be leary of something where most of the evidence is anecdotal.
In a testimony meeting type of situation we have opportunity to be
stirred by the personal accounts of people who are applying Gospel
principles to their lives. Such personal witnesses can be inspiring
and warm to the brink of tears. But, as this requires an environment
that is accepting of flaws, there will be a lot said that need not be
said. And, there will be tendency to present anecdotal accounts which
are less edifying. My approach has always been to overlook the flaws
and try to see that core of human experience that is uplifting and
helps me draw nearer to God.
I think that the intellectual and the emotional require a careful mix,
much as is required with justice and mercy. Alone, emotion is
unstable. Alone, intellect is sterile and uninspiring. In the proper
mix, the results can lead to life-giving faith. Just my opinion.
Steve
|
| 51.23 | I agree | MUDIS3::WILLOUGHBY | FRANKly speaking | Fri Mar 16 1990 11:53 | 51 |
| Steve, that was very well put.
I feel that God, his doctrines & his Church must be rational and logical -
but that they are also tempered with love, mercy, and justice.
Speaking for myself, the doctrines of the Church appeal to my sense of logic
and emotion.
Doctrinal concepts like:
Baptism - Jesus being baptized instead of sprinkled
Sacrament - Partake of bread & water & why we partake of the sacrament
The purpose of the Atonement - Jesus dying for my (our) sins
The plan of salvation - Where I came from, why I am here, etc
Baptism for the dead - for those who couldn't hear the true Gospel
Marriage for time and all eternity
all appeal to my sense of logic.
Take the concept of Baptism for the Dead. We know from the Bible that
everyone has to be baptized to enter the kingdom of heaven and that it is an
earthly ordinance (it has to be performed here on the earth). What about
those who haven't had a chance to hear the Gospel like those who never had
a chance to learn about Jesus Christ. It wouldn't be fair to send those people
to hell (or wherever). We also know that these people will receive the
Gospel (and hopefully will accept it). Yet even if they accept it, if they
are not baptized, they are not "saved". Through baptism for the dead, they
are baptized. It is up to them to either accept or reject that baptism.
All of our work on genealogy is so that we can perform more baptisms for the
dead. Thus, more souls are "saved". This appeals to my sense of logic.
But the implementation of the principles of the Gospel appeal to my emotions
as well.
As an example:
When am living righteously, I am in tune with the Spirit. When someone bears
their testimony, I can feel the Spirit. The Spirit testifies to me of the
truthfulness of the testimony that I heard. It is a feeling of righteousness,
of purity, and of holiness. Although it feels like it is on an emotional
level, it is something much more than just ordinary emotions.
One thing that is (too) often overlooked by philosophers, is that they
forget to take the spiritual aspect into account. Some philosophers may
argue that spirituality is not provable, but we have a testimony that it
exists. My opinion is that spirituality encompasses *both* logic and emotions.
Best Regards,
Frank
|
| 51.24 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Moderator | Tue Mar 27 1990 10:42 | 32 |
| ================================================================================
Note 64.18 Direct-Evidence and Parallels 18 of 19
GENRAL::RINESMITH "GOD never says OOPS!" 46 lines 26-MAR-1990 16:50
-< A small comparison >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[portions of Roger's reply not pertaining to our "feelings" have been deleted]
> Similarly, I don't think the spiritual content of the Book of Mormon can
> be objectively validated; hence our exhortation for persons to use personal
> prayer, since prayer is the corner stone of Christianity. I agree with you
> and Ed that at the present time, the history of the Book of Mormon can not
> be objectively validated with *hard* evidence. However, it should be obvious
> to everyone that scholars are continually learning more about the ancient
> Americans, and I feel any conclusion about objectivity and the history of the
> Book of Mormon is premature.
But since the Book of Mormon contains word for word passages from the
1611 KJV of the Bible, I believe that it is very possible for someone
to 'feel' that the book is of divine origin. But I also believe that
someone could get the same 'feeling' from reading some of the works
of Milton.
Using a 'spiritual' approach alone is not enough. Since most people
seem to have trouble hearing from God anyway, it's probably a good
idea to look at it objectively first.
Roger
|
| 51.25 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Tue Mar 27 1990 10:52 | 26 |
| > But since the Book of Mormon contains word for word passages from the
> 1611 KJV of the Bible, I believe that it is very possible for someone
> to 'feel' that the book is of divine origin. But I also believe that
> someone could get the same 'feeling' from reading some of the works
> of Milton.
I agree with you, Roger, that when people use their feelings to gage truth,
they may be misled, because our emotions are strong influences on us. Your
caution to us about this is needed. I also believe, however, that God uses
our feelings as indicators that he has given spiritual truths to us via
communication between the Holy Spirit and our spirits. (I've express my
thoughts on this in note 4.7, and this note plus note 118 also discuss this.)
Thus, I believe that we must be cautious about following our feelings but that
we shouldn't completely disregard them. I think that our feelings and our
intellect balance each other and that either one without the other will lead
to an incomplete search for truth.
In note 4.7, I discussed Biblical scriptures that I believe teach that God
does use our feelings as indicators of communication with the Holy Spirit.
I would be interested, Roger, in knowing your understanding about this.
Allen
|
| 51.26 | A quotable quote from Steve | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Tue Mar 27 1990 11:33 | 15 |
| To Steve Sherman in .22
I really like this statement of yours:
"Emotion and intellect require a careful mix, much as justice and
mercy. Alone emotion is unstable. Alone, intellect is sterile
and and uninspiring. The proper mix can lead to life-giving
faith."
It spells out the need for balance between our emotional and
intellectual responses to Gospel principles.
Well said. Thanks, Steve.
Paul
|
| 51.27 | Intellectual balance for the BOM? | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Tue Mar 27 1990 14:56 | 12 |
| > I think that our feelings and our
> intellect balance each other and that either one without the other will lead
> to an incomplete search for truth.
I would agree that there needs to be a balance. I am not sure that I
would call the other side of the intellectual balance 'feelings', but
only because 'feelings' is a rather broad term. But I do believe that
there comes a point when you have to look beyond your intellect in
discerning spiritual things.
What I don't see is how I can balance the scale intellectually
when trying to determine that the BOM is true.
|
| 51.28 | not that I'm "into" being quoted ... :) | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Tue Mar 27 1990 15:37 | 55 |
|
There seems to be a lot of discussion regarding "hard" evidence and I thought
I might put my position regarding that here. Basically, I've not found much
in the Scriptures to indicate that God places much value on providing "hard"
evidence, especially with regard to signs on demand. We are, however,
encouraged to study and become wise as serpents, so it would seem that we are
not to abandon evidence, logic and reason. (By "hard" evidence I am
excluding evidence that might consist of a spiritual, personal or feeling
nature.)
There has been some discussion concerning the role of "hard" evidence in
science. I would maintain that "hard" evidence is often greeted with more
skepticism from scientists than from those who would use it in a religious
context. Scientific theory is subject to change even though the "hard"
evidence is unchanged. For example, "hard" evidence has been used in
long-held Newtonian mechanics. But, look what the theory of relativity did to
that. Or, consider what a unified field theory might do to the theory of
relativity. Or, look at what happened to Heisenberg's matrix theories after
Schroedinger introduced his equations. Fundamentally different theories can
result in spite of the same "hard" evidence. The key is that explanations of
"hard" evidence can vary widely even in spite of long periods of consensus
among scientists. This is no big deal for scientists who expect theories to
change over time. But, it is a big deal when "hard" evidence is used in a
religious context where the fundamental concepts may not be expected to change
over time.
Science does not require that "hard" evidence always have only one feasible
explanation. What is accepted at one time by the scientific community
may be completely rejected at another time. (Remember the ether theory for
the propagation of electromagnetic waves?) It is unreasonable for a scientist
to expect any "hard" evidence to always have only one feasible explanation in a
scientific context. Why is it then considered reasonable for a person to
expect any "hard" evidence to always have only one feasible explanation in a
religious context, divine intervention withstanding?
I suppose that God does not place a lot of value on the "hard" evidence (or
lack thereof) that man may come up with (demand) when it comes to the Gospel.
Even scientists cannot place much importance on consensus concerning "hard"
evidence since the interpretation of "hard" evidence can change rapidly
(witness developments over the past year or so in cold fusion,
superconductivity and optical logic). So, what basis is there among religious
advocates or instigators in expecting or demanding irrefutable "hard"
evidence either from God or from scientists with regard to the things of God?
I figure we are fortunate for what "hard" evidence we possess, but our faith
(or lack thereof) should not be based (or destroyed) on such evidence (or lack
thereof).
One last thought, the Scriptures indicate that even when "hard" evidence is
manifest through divine intervention, it may not take long before it can be
disputed and truth discarded. Witness the rapid degradation of the faith of
the children of Israel at different times under Moses' leadership. Or, witness
the lack of faith of many during the working of Christ's miracles while in
mortality.
Steve
|
| 51.29 | What is God's perspective? | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Tue Mar 27 1990 22:24 | 80 |
| Mormons believe that we are all spirit children of God. He has sent us
to earth to get a body and to use our free agency to see whether we
will choose to do good or evil.
As I think about this discussion of "hard" vs. "soft" evidence of
truth, I am reminded that we are still children in comparison to God.
This discussion, though very interesting and, yes, appropriate, reminds
me of some of the conversations that I have heard children carry on.
They debate about things that to adults seem so trivial. I find myself
wondering if God feels that way about us sometimes. :-)
For a moment, let's step back and look at this from God's perspective.
Let's assume that the question is this:
"Is the Book of Mormon the Word of God?"
Now, from God's perspective, do you think that He would expect us to be
able to answer that question by digging somewhere in the ground to find
artifacts that seem to corroborate the book? No, I don't think so.
Would you ask scientists to answer that question, or sociologists, or
linguists? No, I don't think so. Would you ask world religious leaders
to answer that question? No, I don't think even they can answer that
question.
There is only one person that CAN definitively answer that question.
That is God, Himself. There is no one else qualified to answer it.
So, this raises the following list of questions:
1) CAN God answer the question?
2) If so, WILL God answer the question?
3) If so, HOW will God answer the question?
4) HOW will the answer be recognized as being from God?
As for me, I believe that God CAN answer the question. I also believe
that God WILL answer the question, if we approach Him on His terms.
What are His terms? If we are living in open rebellion to God's laws,
then we must first repent, and then we must approach Him in humility,
with faith, with thanksgiving, and with patience for His timetable and
His method.
How will He answer? I don't think it is the same for everyone, but I do
believe that it is through intensely personal communication from God to
the soul of the sincere asker in such a way that there is no doubt as
to the answer.
How can the answer be recognized as being from God? It will bear the
fruits of goodness. It will entice the person to do good, and to obey
the commandments and teachings of God. It will speak peace and joy to
their soul. It will testify of the divinity of Jesus Christ. It will be
enlightening to the mind and to the soul. It will 'feel' good and right
and true.
Perhaps this isn't the kind of "hard" evidence that some people want.
But, if you think about it, such "hard" evidence can never answer the
question above. It might answer different, and much less important,
questions. But it is only God who can answer this question
definitively. I am one who claims to have received such an answer. But
my answer is not an answer for anyone else. It is only for me. (Go get
your own answer! :-)
Which brings me to Paul's dilemma. How could these friends each be
convinced that they were lead by God in such different directions. For
me, the answer is this: God's personal dealings with them is between
Him and them. I do not know if they approached God on His terms, or on
their own terms. It is for God to say whether it was Him who lead them
on the path they took, and not for me. I can only speak for that which
God has revealed to me that I should do, and not what He has or has not
revealed to another.
In the end, I believe that God will judge men by the desires of their
hearts. If they truly desired to live by every word that comes from the
mouth of God, then God will judge them accordingly. If they desired
something else, they God will judge them according to that.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 51.30 | maintaining context | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Tough as a two dollar steak... | Thu Mar 29 1990 14:25 | 33 |
| Steve,
> Or, look at what happened to Heisenberg's matrix theories after
> Schroedinger introduced his equations.
Gosh, you're right! I forgot all about that!! |8-)
> I would maintain that "hard" evidence is often greeted with more
> skepticism from scientists than from those who would use it in a religious
> context. Scientific theory is subject to change even though the "hard"
> evidence is unchanged.
What you are saying is consistent with the topic and how such hard
evidence is used in archaeological research, except that you are talking
about empirical research and not the reconstruction of the past. The more
of the past we unearth, the less likely we are to be required to
radically change our understanding of the past. Newer evidence at this
stage tends to refine and clarify rather than undermine and contradict.
> Why is it then considered reasonable for a person to expect any "hard"
> evidence to always have only one feasible explanation in a religious
> context, divine intervention withstanding?
I don't know, that's Paul's idea of hard evidence, not mine.
Like I said to Allen, given that the entire body of evidence of the
ancient past (discovered and undiscovered) is finite, and that each year
more and more of what is left to be found *is* found, then each year that
goes by without finding tangible evidence that the Book of Mormon is a
reliable historical document increases the likelihood that such evidence
is not there to be found.
Ed
|
| 51.31 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Thu Mar 29 1990 14:57 | 4 |
| We remain in disagreement.
Steve
|
| 51.32 | Trying to understand you better | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Fri Mar 30 1990 13:19 | 21 |
| Hi Roger,
One factor that is involved in this discussion is our relationship with God
and our receiving answers to prayer. The Bible contains many verses that
teach that we should pray. Let's pretend, for a moment, that we have been
offered early retirement by the Company. We have a decision to make; should
we accept the offer, or should we opt for retraining and relocation. This
is a serious decision, because it drastically affects the living conditions of
our families. Let's assume we heed the Biblical injunctions to fast and pray
about this decision.
Now, the key point is, how do we recognize the answer God gives to us. We
LDS believe that the answer would be recognized by our feelings, especially
peace of mind. I'm wondering, Roger, how non-LDS recognize answers to prayer.
I'm assuming from comments you and Ed have made that you would not look to your
feelings, and I'm wondering if you would be willing to discuss this for a
moment. I'm not trying to argue, because our relationships with God are
personal and not subject to debate, and I would like to understand this from
a non-LDS viewpoint.
Allen
|
| 51.33 | Not necessarly so | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Fri Mar 30 1990 14:36 | 32 |
| Re .30
>Like I said to Allen, given that the entire body of evidence of the
>ancient past (discovered and undiscovered) is finite, and that each year
>more and more of what is left to be found *is* found, then each year that
>goes by without finding tangible evidence that the Book of Mormon is a
>reliable historical document increases the likelihood that such evidence
>is not there to be found.
One important consideration is the size of the set of known knowledge compared
to the size of the set of all knowledge about the ancient past. If the set
of known knowledge is relatively large compared to the set of all knowledge,
then I would agree with you, Ed, that the lack of "hard" evidence of the
Book of Mormon makes it likely that such evidence is not there to be found.
However, if the set of known knowledge is relatively small compared to the
set of all knowledge, then, while your statement is technically true, the
lack of "hard" evidence for the BoM doesn't make it likely that such evidence
is not there. To express it in simple terms, if the set of all knowledge is
Mt. Everest and the set of known knowledge is a bucket of dirt, then even
though that bucket of dirt has no "hard" evidence for the BoM, that fact
doesn't mean much, because there are so many more buckets of dirt to be
discovered.
Of course, Ed, neither you nor I can say what the relative sizes are of the
two sets of knowledge, but I think there is no rational reason to say the
comparison is large, and I would guess that the set of known knowledge is
small in comparison to the set of all knowledge. As I said in note 64, let's
give the scholars more time to remove more buckets of dirt and see what
happens.
Allen
|
| 51.34 | Obtaining a balance | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Mon Apr 02 1990 10:02 | 58 |
| Hi Roger,
Re .27
> I would agree that there needs to be a balance. I am not sure that I
> would call the other side of the intellectual balance 'feelings', but
> only because 'feelings' is a rather broad term. But I do believe that
> there comes a point when you have to look beyond your intellect in
> discerning spiritual things.
>
> What I don't see is how I can balance the scale intellectually
> when trying to determine that the BOM is true.
I think it is hard for one to keep a proper balance between the intellect
and the spirit about the Book of Mormon, especially since this balance is
probably different for each person. It is hard for us LDS to have a wise
intellectual attitude toward the BoM because we have a spiritual conviction
of the book, and that conviction biases our attitude toward the book.
Similarly, I think it is hard for non-LDS to be objective about the book
because there is a tendency among many non-LDS to be skeptical about the
book, and that skepticism also biases their attitudes.
I think my suggestions to one who was trying to balance the intellect with
the spirit would be the following. These are only my own thoughts, and I
would appreciate hearing the suggestions of others, both LDS and non-LDS.
1. Try and develop an open-mind about the Book of Mormon. As I mentioned
above, this may be a difficult thing for one to do. In conjunction with this,
be honest with yourself and try and figure out how open your own mind is
about the book.
2. Recognize that the Book of Mormon is primarily a spiritual book, and that
it can be judged by its contents, i.e. does it teach things of God that are
in harmony with revealed truths of Deity? Does it teach of Jesus Christ and
bring us closer to Him?
3. Recognize that our scientific knowledge about the ancient Americans is
not complete, and in the decades to come much more will be learned.
4. Be aware that there is a lot of parallel evidence that supports the
Book of Mormon. Recognize that this parallel evidence does not prove the
book, but that it does suggest that we keep an open mind toward the book
and give the scientists more time to conduct their research. In addition,
if the Book of Mormon is true, then parallel evidence must exist. Thus,
the parallel evidence is necessary but not sufficient for an intellectual
proof of the book.
5. Be aware that there are many perspectives that one can use to
intellectually investigate the Book of Mormon. Traditional archaeology is
only one of them.
I highly recommend that persons interested in an intellectual viewpoint of
the Book of Mormon join F.A.R.M.S. (see note 125.1). Be aware that the
contributors to F.A.R.M.S. are for the most part Mormons and thus have a bias
in their perspective, but also be aware that they do provide a viewpoint that
is needed to balance the research being done by non-Mormons.
Allen
|
| 51.35 | My suggestions | MUDIS3::WILLOUGHBY | FRANKly speaking | Mon Apr 02 1990 11:42 | 39 |
|
I would like to add my comments to Allen's:
6. Ponder the book. Take your time when reading it. Try to understand
what is happening. Don't speed-read or "skim" through the book -
it is too important to do that. Try to understand _each verse_
or at each chapter before going to the next one. I find it really
gives me insight to the day-to-day living in a foreign culture in
a long time in the past.
7. Before starting to read the Book of Mormon, pray. Ask God to help
you to understand what you read and ask Him to have his Spirit be
with you to help you and to guide you. Don't forget the purpose
of the Book of Mormon - it is a second witness that Jesus is the
Christ, the only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father, our true
Redeemer. It is a spiritual book, try to approach it as such by
getting in "tune" with the Spirit before reading it.
8. When you have finished it, pray about it. Don't accept my word
that is true or the word of those who would try to claim that it
is false. If you are sincere in your search for the truthfulness
of the Book of Mormon, you will find it. Ask God if the Book of
Mormon is true - He will tell you Himself. "and you shall know the
truth and the truth shall set you free" (paraphrased).
" And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that
ye ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these
things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart,
with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the
truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all
things. "
- Moroni 10:4-5
Best Regards,
Frank
|
| 51.36 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Mon Apr 02 1990 11:42 | 10 |
| I think the points that Allen brings out are valid, from an
intellectual and feeling point of view. I have not yet started, but
some day I plan to get my own copy of the Koran and to study it. I
hope to extract what good I can out of it I can and to keep somewhat open
to its ideas. Mostly, this is because I have had friends who have found
good in this book and live by it. I don't expect to be "converted" by
it, but from what I've read so far that won't be a problem. I don't
expect my testimony in the Gospel to be greatly shaken.
Steve
|
| 51.37 | The spirit is always right - but the source can be different. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Apr 02 1990 12:21 | 41 |
|
RE: Note 51.34
>I would appreciate hearing the suggestions of others, both LDS and non-LDS.
My own situation was that when God had prepared me to receive his
church, I did have an open mind, whereas a few years before I had
rejected the Book of Mormon, or *golden plates*, concept. In fact,
I joined the church because of other reasons and not because of the
Book of Mormon. However, as I read it the spirit bore witness in
many places that it was true. The thing that I had to come to
really know was the D&C and Joseph Smith. These truths were given
me after I had studied and prayed. In all of my readings, the
things that were brought out all made more sense to my intellect
that did any of the other teachings of the world that I had studied.
So I constantly refer back to scripture to help me out when I have
conflicts in understanding. I would like to point out such a one
in D&C 63 :
7. And he that seeketh signs shall see signs, but not unto salvation.
8. Verily, I say unto you, there are those among you who seek signs,
and there have been such even from the beginning;
9. But, behold, faith cometh not by signs, but signs follow those
that believe.
10. Yea, signs come by faith, not by the will of men, nor as they
please, but by the will of God.
11. Yea, signs come by faith, unto mighty works, for without faith
no man pleaseth God; and with whom God is angry he is not well
pleased; wherefore, unto such he showeth no signs, only in
wrath unto their condemnation.
12. Wherefore, I, the Lord, am not pleased with those among you who
have sought after signs and wonders for faith, and not for the
good of men unto my glory.
I feel that *hard* evidence of the Book of Mormon is like a sign from
God that it is true. God has already established the Book of Mormon
by the mouths of two or more witnesses, and he has no more need to
give any "signs" for it.
Charles
|
| 51.38 | Hope you don't mind... | TOMCAT::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Thu Apr 05 1990 13:19 | 19 |
| > I have not yet started, but some day I plan to get my own copy of the
> Koran and to study it. I hope to extract what good I can out of it I can
> and to keep somewhat open to its ideas.
I guess I just have to ask the obvious question(s):
Will you pray and ask God of the Koran is true?
If not, why not?
And if you do...
How will you respond if he tells you that it's true?
What if he tells you that it isn't true? Will you still read it?
Why? Would you tell your friends who live by the Koran that
they are building their lives on a false book? Why not?
Ed
|
| 51.39 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Thu Apr 05 1990 14:31 | 5 |
| That's not a problem. I've already read sections of the Koran which I
know for myself are not true as they conflict with things I have
already studied, prayed and gotten confirmation about.
Steve
|
| 51.40 | Daily concerns influence feelings | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Fri Apr 06 1990 13:00 | 53 |
| RE: 51.32
Allen,
> One factor that is involved in this discussion is our relationship with God
> and our receiving answers to prayer. The Bible contains many verses that
> teach that we should pray. Let's pretend, for a moment, that we have been
> offered early retirement by the Company. We have a decision to make; should
> we accept the offer, or should we opt for retraining and relocation. This
> is a serious decision, because it drastically affects the living conditions of
> our families. Let's assume we heed the Biblical injunctions to fast and pray
> about this decision.
You've mentioned a very key point and that is the relationship with God to the
person who is requesting an answer to prayer. I know that many people (and new
believers in particular) have a very difficult time in hearing from God. Our
own desires, concerns, fears, insecurities, and prejudices all have the
potential to influence our feelings. A person who has never heard from God
before would not be able to tell the difference between his own feelings and
what God is trying to tell him. It takes time, and even with time, feelings
are still influenced by daily pressures and concerns and therefore are never
a sure indicator from God of truth.
> I'm wondering, Roger, how non-LDS recognize answers to prayer.
> I'm assuming from comments you and Ed have made that you would not look to
> your feelings, and I'm wondering if you would be willing to discuss this for a
> moment.
No, I definitely do not look to my feelings as an indicator of truth. Feelings
do come with prayer, but many times the answer is contrary to my feelings.
As an example, a friend of mine and his wife were being transferred to
Korea with their army unit. They needed someone to take care of their infant
child for the year while they were gone. Some of my feelings were:
'No, my wife will become too attached to the infant and then
have to give it up'
'This will be hard'
'This is a big decision that we will have to live with for a year and
we don't need this'
Although at first I secretly hoped that we wouldn't have to, God made it obvious
that we needed to do this, (based not upon feelings, but upon seeing, from a
common-sense point of view, what God had provided so that we could do this) and
so we let the couple know that we would. If I had gone by my feelings, I would
have missed an opportunity to really bless someone and to receive unexpected
blessings in my own life. You just can't go by your feelings -- they will often
mislead you, as they have many people.
Roger
|
| 51.41 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Fri Apr 06 1990 13:24 | 23 |
| Thanks, Roger, for sharing with us. You made an important statement that I
would like to repeat, just to emphasis it.
>Our
>own desires, concerns, fears, insecurities, and prejudices all have the
>potential to influence our feelings. A person who has never heard from God
>before would not be able to tell the difference between his own feelings and
>what God is trying to tell him. It takes time, and even with time, feelings
>are still influenced by daily pressures and concerns and therefore are never
>a sure indicator from God of truth.
I agree very much with what you said in that statement, and I also agree that
our feelings are never a *sure* indicator of spiritual truths. As people grow
closer to God, they become more in tune with Him, but as you said, it takes
time.
You described your feelings when you were approached by your friend about
caring for the child. I'm wondering, Roger, were those feelings the ones
you had before or after (or both) you prayed about your decision? I think
what I'm wondering about is if your prayer for guidance affected your feelings
about the matter.
Allen
|
| 51.42 | I agree that general feelings can cloud ... | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Fri Apr 06 1990 13:46 | 14 |
| I agree about how feelings can cloud answers to prayers. I've had
crazy feelings about things after prayer. But, I also have some
experience in determining when it is my own feelings versus when it is
the type of feeling associated with an answer to prayer. I've often
had to exercise faith to get the "right" answer. And, nobody can
reliably tell me when I've got the "right" answer or the wrong one.
Only exercising of faith over time and the experiences I've gotten with
that have seemed to influence my ability to get what I have felt were
the "right" answers. It requires that I work for answers to prayers
(in whatever forms they come, feelings or otherwise) and have faith and
patience that they will come if I ask the right questions at the right
times and in the right ways.
Steve
|
| 51.43 | Before and After | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Fri Apr 06 1990 18:09 | 22 |
| Allen,
Those were my feelings both before and after prayer. It didn't help my
feelings in the matter knowing that God had cut the path (so to speak)
for us to do this. I really wanted God to tell me someone else would
do it. This wasn't going to be easy and therefore I didn't want to do
it. But I knew that as I pressed into this service that God had called
us to do that my feelings would change (or at least I had hoped that
they would). The point is that God's answer to prayer and your
feelings can and often are contradictory.
> I agree very much with what you said in that statement, and I also agree that
> our feelings are never a *sure* indicator of spiritual truths. As people grow
> closer to God, they become more in tune with Him, but as you said, it takes
> time.
Then your feeling about the BofM being true could also be wrong, or
that feeling could have been placed their by a decieving spirit or
by some other spirit that is not of God.
Roger
|
| 51.44 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Fri Apr 06 1990 18:43 | 43 |
| Thanks again, Roger, for sharing your experience.
>> I agree very much with what you said in that statement, and I also agree that
>> our feelings are never a *sure* indicator of spiritual truths. As people grow
>> closer to God, they become more in tune with Him, but as you said, it takes
>> time.
>
> Then your feeling about the BofM being true could also be wrong, or
> that feeling could have been placed their by a decieving spirit or
> by some other spirit that is not of God.
Since we are mortal and have limitations to our abilities to understand and
to communicate, there is always the possibility that we may misunderstand or
misinterpret. This is true, whether we're trying to interpret our feelings,
read a printed page, or understand a spoken word. I do believe that as I
studied and prayed about the Book of Mormon, my prayers were answered as
both a warm feeling and peace of mind came to me (on a number of occasions).
However, I do not claim to have a perfect knowledge that the book is true.
I have an experience I would like to share with you about my feelings before
and after prayer. I moved to New England 15 years ago. We bought our home
and negotiated with a bank for a loan. The bank offered a fixed rate at 8.5%
or a variable rate at 8%. My feelings about the variable rate were very
negative, because I could imagine the rate going higher and higher. I prayed
about the decision to buy the home and which rate to accept, and to my
surprise I felt peace about the variable rate. I told my wife that we should
use the variable rate, and we did. The rate went down to 7.75% and then
started climbing, reaching a high of 11%. Then it began coming down and is
presently about 9.18% or something close to that. Thus, I've lost money over
the years by going with the variable rate. I believed then and I believe now
that it was God's will that I take that rate, and I still feel peace about
my decision 15 years ago. I don't know why God wanted me to have that rate,
but there is no doubt in my mind that He did. Perhaps my wife's comment is
part of the reason. We're making extra payments to pay off the mortgage early,
and she commented that if we had a fixed rate there would be less incentive
to do that. If I don't find out in this life, I'll be anxious to ask Him in
the next life about this matter.
My reason for sharing this is to illustrate my belief as a LDS that God can
change our feelings about things if we listen to him as we pray.
Allen
|
| 51.45 | How I KNOW the BofM is true. | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Mon Apr 09 1990 11:00 | 35 |
| I would like to add a my testimony. Unlike some, I do not FEEL the
Book of Mormon is true. What I mean is that I do not sense, intuit,
have an emotional response to, or through any other sensory perception
BELIEVE that it is true. Through the years I have read, re-read,
pondered, researched, studied, argued about and questioned this book.
After all of this effort, I would say that I KNOW it is exactly what it
claims to be, a record of a Hebrew people who broke off and settled
elsewhere. I use the term KNOW meaning that my reason, my intellect,
my sense of logic has shown me it to be a book of scripture.
As for my feelings about this book, I am GRATEFUL for the teachings
that have helped me to understand the gospel. I EMPAHTIZE with some of
the situations people in the book find themselves in. I LOVE certain
passages (such as the Psalm of Nephi) that have personal meaning for
me. I MARVEL at the degradation that people evolve to when the spirit
leaves. I RESPECT the courage and faith of the persons in ths book. I
WISH that I could have more of the qualities of some of the righteous
persons. These are just a few of the feelings that I have for the book.
Do I FEEL the book is true? I do not know what that sentence means,
for I KNOW it is a true book of scripture. When I asked the question
of its truthfulness, I received a personal revelation that spoke to my
mind and intelligence that showed me in what ways it was a true book of
scripture.
BUT , I do respect those persons who FEEL (perhaps intuition, or some
indescribable sense) that it is true. Such is my wife's testimony of
the BofM.
The Lord knows each of us and speaks to each of us in a way that will
be understandable. In my case it seems to be through my mind rather
than my feelings that I receive answers and revelation.
Paul
|
| 51.46 | Say more | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Mon Apr 09 1990 11:59 | 11 |
| Paul,
> I would say that I KNOW it is exactly what it
> claims to be, a record of a Hebrew people who broke off and settled
> elsewhere. I use the term KNOW meaning that my reason, my intellect,
> my sense of logic has shown me it to be a book of scripture.
Could you be more specific and tell me more about how you KNOW by your
intellect and logic that it is true.
|
| 51.47 | | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Mon Apr 09 1990 12:24 | 24 |
| Allen,
I would agree that God can change our feelings about things. God could
change our feelings about giving to the poor, opening our home to the
homeless, or even remove the fear that we might have in sharing our
faith.
Since we agree that our feelings could be wrong, then how can a person
be sure that the BofM is what it claims to be.
I can understand how you could 'feel' that the BofM is true. After all
it contains many passages that are word for word from the KJV of the
Holy Bible. In reading those passages a person would get the feeling
that the BofM were true because those passages are certainly true.
If God were to answer and say that the BofM is not true, would that
mean that the passages copied from Isaiah are not true as well. Could
God answer and say that only parts of it are true?
Suppose the BofM were not true. Would it be impossible for people
to sincerely feel that it is true. And if it were not true and
people could sincerely feel that it were true, how would you determine
whether or not it was true?
|
| 51.48 | Different types of FEELINGS | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Mon Apr 09 1990 12:56 | 33 |
| Interesting discussion!
The thing that occurred to me in reading Roger's entry and Paul's
response is that perhaps the term FEELINGS does not really describe
what Latter-day Saints mean when they talk about how they receive a
personal witness from God of the truthfulness of such things as the
Book of Mormon.
What I'm saying is that it is not the same as other FEELINGS. Instead,
it might be more aptly described, as least in my case, as a direct
communication to the inner self, the spirit within, from God. It's like
a direct transfer of intelligence and knowledge from God. It is NOT
like feelings that fall in the category of DRUTHERS, LIKES, DISLIKES,
INCLINATIONS, HOPES, WANTS, PREFERENCES, ETC. I have often had such
communications from God that I have FELT that were in direct opposition
to my own personal PREFERENCES that I also FELT. In this way, he guided
me to go a different direction than I would have chosen on my own.
However, the two types of FEELINGS were very different.
In a way, what I am saying is perhaps not unlike what Roger was talking
about when he wrote of his personal preference (one type of FEELINGS)
to NOT care for his friend's child, but that God caused him to realize
through other means (perhaps through a different type of FEELINGS),
that it was something that he should do.
It is also perhaps not unlike what Paul is saying, in that Paul FEELS
(in one way) many things about the Book of Mormon, but in a different
way than he knows (which could perhaps be called another type of
FEELING) that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.
Anyway, something to think about...
Rich
|
| 51.49 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Mon Apr 09 1990 13:52 | 26 |
| Thanks, Rich, for that clarification. We LDS believe that our testimonies
of the Book of Mormon are the result of direct communication between our
spirits and the Holy Ghost; we use the word "know" to acknowledge the effect
of this communication upon us. Since we are mortal and can't directly observe
this communication with the Holy Ghost, we believe that God uses our mortal
senses as indicators that this communication has occurred. Thus, when I prayed
about the mortgage rates, I received peace of mind about the variable rate.
The peace of mind was an emotional or mortal indicator of revelation between
God and me. The answer came through revelation. The peace of mind was not
the answer but only an indication that the answer had come.
I've explained in note 4.7, and others have elaborated on this, that this
use of our emotional feelings by God is Biblical.
You brought out a good point, Roger, that we might be mislead by our emotional
feelings, since our emotional feelings can come other sources besides revelation
from God. Obviously that is true since we are mortal. However, I do not think
that is justification to completely disregard our emotions in our search for
truth. For those who haven't read it, I recommend note 118.0, an article by
Elder Oakes about learning to correctly use our emotional feelings as indicators
of revelation from God. It is also true that the written word can be
interpreted in more than one way because we are mortal and have imperfect
language, but that does not justify one's disregarding the Bible in his or
her search for truth.
Allen
|
| 51.50 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Mon Apr 09 1990 13:56 | 10 |
| Re .47
> Since we agree that our feelings could be wrong, then how can a person
> be sure that the BofM is what it claims to be.
Roger, your question concerns each persons relationship with God and how well
that person is in tune with Him as answers to prayer are given. This is
something that each person will have to handle.
Allen
|
| 51.51 | A rather long answer to a short question | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Mon Apr 09 1990 14:32 | 59 |
| To Rinesmith in .46
"Could you be more specific and tell me more about how you know by your
intellect and logic that it is true."
I'd be happy to.
My process for establishing the "truthfullness" of something:
1. Gather information, data, facts, opinions, documentation etc.
2. Ask for divine guidance as I ponder, question, study the data/ facts,
read commentaries
3. Using my judgement, reasoning powers, decide what I THINK about the
data, premise, proposal, etc. (Whether I agree/accept or not)
4. Then, after having decided, I prayerfully go to the Lord and
ask him to confirm my conclusion or to amend it.
5. I will usually receive an answer to my prayer in the form of
a message that confirms my conclusion or does not.
Now, here are some questions I have applied the above process to:
1. Which Church is Jesus' Church?
2. Which of all the "Christian" doctrines were really taught by Christ?
3. In what ways is the BofM accurate/authentic?
4. Was Joseph Smith truly a prophet?
5. Is tithing a correct principle?
6. Does the Word of Wisdom work?
An example of when I used logic/intellect to decide if something was
true or not:
Remember all that flap about the Hoffman letters and the "White
Salamander". (According to these forgeries of JS letters, JS did not
see an angel, but rather a white salamander told him where the BofM was
hidden). I read the letters, the commentaries which said salamanders
were used a metaphors for angels. I basically said to myself: "I don't
think JS would have used a complex literary metaphor for conveying the
finding of the BofM. Intellectually, I decided that it was not
consistent with the JS I knew, but would take a wait and see posture.
As it turned out, it was all a hoax.
When I am presented with a new idea, teaching, principle, doctrine,
policy, my first response is NOT how I feel about it, but I think about
it with questions like, is this new, have I read/heard/experienced it
before, what has been written about it, what do experts say, why should
I do/believe this, what in all of my knowledge supports/denies this?
ETc.
A good example of my preference for a thoughtful approach rather than
feeling one is in NOte 156, in which I entered NIbley's research on how the
BofM exhibits the earmarks of being a text written by a rich, educated,
well-travelled Israelite who once lived in the desert among Arabs. His
research is not conjecture, nor feelings, but evidence of its
authenticity that is undeniable.
By the way, I do have feelings about the BofM, but my testimony is
built on a knowledge of its veracity, both in doctrines and as
literature. The archeological proofs are just icing on the cake.
Paul
|
| 51.52 | More detail | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Tue Apr 10 1990 15:54 | 19 |
| Paul,
Thanks for taking the time to answer, but a little bit more
detail would help.
> Now, here are some questions I have applied the above process to:
> 3. In what ways is the BofM accurate/authentic?
> 4. Was Joseph Smith truly a prophet?
What do you mean by accurate/authentic and how did you determine it
using your logic. Also, how did you determine that Joseph Smith was
truly a prophet.
> The archaeological proofs are just icing on the cake.
Proofs? I you talking about parallel evidence?
|
| 51.53 | A long winded reply | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Wed Apr 11 1990 11:25 | 65 |
| To Rinesmith:
To answer your questions:
"What do you mean accurate/authentic?"
I mean this. Does the BofM contain accurate information that can
be verified. Such as the reason Lehi left Jerusalem in
600BC because of impending destruction. Did this happen? Yes! This
is just a simple accuracy.I would also look for accuracies within
itself. Some of these have to do with the construction of the BofM.
Inasmuch as the first books were written by rich, educated,
well-travelled Hebrews who lived among the Arabs, there must be
evidence of the culture, history, politics, geography, mores, values of
that civilization. After reading some of Nibley's research about the
BofM (See all the Notes in 156), it has been demonstrated that the book
observes an extremely complex set of constructs/conventions (unkown at
Joseph Smith's time) that are extremely consistent with its origins.
Now the definition of authentic is this (Webster's New World: 1) that
can be believed,reliable; 2) genuine, real. Not only is the BofM
consistent/faithful in its literary content to its heritage, but it is
internally consistent. For example, prophecies made by prophets in one
book forecasted to be fullfilled sometime later, are fulfilled. The
logic of the cause and effects of sin and corruption or righteousness
are completed. Remember JS translated the book in about 30 days without
using notes. After studying the book, my logical conclusion is either
it is what it claims to be (a record of a Hebrew tribe) or JS was
perhaps the most brilliant mind of the 19th Century, for he knew more
about ancient Hebrew civilizations than was then known by all of
the scholars of that day.
"How do I know JS was a prophet?"
Prophet means 1) a religious leader regarded as, or claiming to be,
divinely inspired; 2) one who predicts the future.
Here again you have to study his "inspiration" or revelations and his
prophecies to see if they were accurate. This I have done and I am
convinced that JS's revelations restored the Church of Christ as
Christ himself set it up. Modern research, especially Dead Sea Scroll
research, is painting a different picture of early Christianity.
Remarkably, the Catholic Church (self-proclaimed vestige of Christ's
original Church) is returning to original doctrines - which have a
similarity to LDS doctrines/structure.
So, the bottom line is that I have looked at supporting information for
the BofM, JS, the LDS Church (and have also looked at the criticisms
from the antagonists) and have concluded that the body of information
that supports JS, the BofM and the LDS Church as the Restored Church of
Jesus Christ is more conclusive than not that, which means that there is
accuracy and authenticity here.
I hope all of the above is clear. I guess the process I use is to look
at all the information for a claim, supporting or non-supporting, and
decide if the original claim is supported or not. If yes, then I
conclude that the claim/premise is logically authenticated, verifiable,
true, accurate.
Boy is this long winded! Let me know if I have answered to your
satisfaction.
Paul
PS What is your first name?
|
| 51.54 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Wed Apr 11 1990 13:16 | 28 |
| > Remember JS translated the book in about 30 days without
> using notes. After studying the book, my logical conclusion is either
> it is what it claims to be (a record of a Hebrew tribe) or JS was
> perhaps the most brilliant mind of the 19th Century, for he knew more
> about ancient Hebrew civilizations than was then known by all of
> the scholars of that day.
Comment: For all who doubt Joseph Smith's calling that brought forth
the translation of the BofM, who claim it was a fabrication cooked up
by Joseph and his cohorts, a challenge: try to write you own "Holy Book",
which will chronicle, say, a history of, say, one of the "lost" tribes,
complete with history, doctrine, prophesy, and accurately dovetail it
with biblical events, etc.
Even, better yet, find a young man with no formal education, who is
not an authority on biblical history and see if he can do it in a
short period of time (1 month long enough?)
My thoughts on this are similar to Paul's, that if the BofM is a hoax,
that JS was and still is one of the most brilliant minds of ANY age.
I believe that JS was exactly as he appeared to be....a simple farm
boy, who experienced and saw the things he claimed he saw. That the
BofM is the word of God!
Kevin........
|
| 51.55 | not exactly crib notes ... | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Wed Apr 11 1990 13:52 | 4 |
| If I might add to Kevin's challenge, it's okay if you want to do it
with Spaulding's writings as a reference. ;^)
Steve
|
| 51.56 | ...but with a year or they could have been. | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Wed Apr 11 1990 22:38 | 10 |
| RE: The last few
One month to write a book like the BofM is remarkable. But if
Joseph Smith lied about the origins of the BofM then he also lied about
how long it took to write it. I believe this topic has been discussed
elsewhere and there was really no way to prove that Joseph received the
plates and translated in about one month. It could have been much
longer.
Roger
|
| 51.57 | A Physical Feeling | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Wed Apr 11 1990 23:07 | 15 |
| > Suppose the BofM were not true. Would it be impossible for people
> to sincerely feel that it is true. And if it were not true and
> people could sincerely feel that it were true, how would you determine
> whether or not it was true?
I think that we would have to agree that our first analysis
as to the validity of the BofM would have to come by looking
at the historical accuracy of the book.
A few of you have said something about God speaking to a person's
mind. But the LDS church teaches that when praying concerning the
validity of the BofM that a physical feeling of warmth is the indicator.
Roger
|
| 51.58 | Expectations from a false Book and Prophet | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Wed Apr 11 1990 23:24 | 24 |
| RE: <<< Note 51.53 by SLSTRN::RONDINA >>>
So your saying a few of the reasons that you believe that
the BofM is accurate/authentic are:
o Construction of the Book or style in which it was written
(Are there any Non-Mormon studies of the style?)
o Internally Consistant
And here is what you said about a prophet:
o Accurate prophecies
** What kinds of things would you expect to find from a book that were
not true and what would you expect from a prophet that was not true as
well. Please do not use the opposites of what you said in your previous
note. I mean that is fine, but a few more guidelines would help.
Roger
|
| 51.59 | By the power of the Holy Ghost | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Thu Apr 12 1990 01:01 | 24 |
| Re: Note 51.57 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
Hi Roger,
> A few of you have said something about God speaking to a person's
> mind. But the LDS church teaches that when praying concerning the
> validity of the BofM that a physical feeling of warmth is the indicator.
I think this is an oversimplification of what the LDS church teaches. A
more accurate summary of what we believe is the promise found in the
last chapter of the Book of Mormon, where the ancient prophet Moroni
challenges the reader to ask God if these things true, and he testifies
that God will manifest the truth of these things by the power of the
Holy Ghost.
Exact descriptions of how the power of the Holy Ghost comes upon a
person to accomplish this are very tough, and in fact may differ
somewhat from person to person. For some people it may be made
manifest to the mind, and to others it may be made manifest to the
heart. The bottom line is that the promise is that God will manifest
the truth of it in HIS own way, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 51.60 | More of my 2 cents | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Thu Apr 12 1990 10:48 | 41 |
| Roger,
In the last few notes you said the following:
"But if JS lied about the origins of the BofM, the he also lied about
how long it took to write it. There was really no way to prove Joseph
received the plates and translated in about one month."
When you say "if JS lied about the origins", I take it to mean you
are presenting a hypothesis. What leads you to make this 'if"
statement?
As for proof of how long it took, he did have a scribe for the
translation, who documented the process and length.
You also said:
"...the validity of the BofM would have to come by looking at the
historical accuracy of the book."
I agree. Not only the history, but the cultural, geographical,
moral, literary, political accuracy as well. And the book is
faithful/accurate on these matters as well.
Also you said:
"What kinds of things would you expect to find from a book
that were not true and what would you expect from a prophet
that was not true as well?"
Well, that's a hard question to answer in a few lines! And
"untrue" book would be filled with in accuracies. Such is the book
"The Godmakers", which I read and promplty dismissed as "untrue"
because of its gross inaccuracies. As for a prophet, remember the
definition-divinely inspired and predictor of the future- an "untrue
prophet would be one who failed in both those definitions. I would
have to look at their "inspirations/revelations" and prophecies to tell
the difference between true and untrue.
Paul
|
| 51.61 | My feelings about seeking a "testimony" | ARCHER::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Mon Apr 16 1990 17:26 | 49 |
| Re 64.53
> Archaeological proof that the Book of Mormon is true is nice. But that
> is not what I base my testimony (of the Book of Mormon) on. Don't take
> my word that it is true. Find out for yourself. Read it. Study it.
> Ponder it. Pray about it. You will gain a testimony of its truthfulness
> - if you are _really_ sincere in your attempts to find out the
> truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
Sorry Frank, but I really have a problem with that approach. On the
surface it sounds very appealing, but I see serious flaws in it. First
you are saying that if, for whatever reason, someone does not "gain a
testimony" that the Book of Mormon is true, then they are not sincere. To
me, this is a poor test of sincerity. It sets up a situation where there
is only one allowable outcome for the "sincere" person.
This creates a dilemma for others who do not see the error in this
approach. If they are surrounded by very nice, very sincere people
encouraging them to "pray and gain a testimony" of something, "just like
we did," it virtually guarantees they will get some kind of "testimony"
just because they *want* to get one. This would work with just about any
kind of "testimony" you might want.
In addition, I continually hear that I should seek a testimony about the
Book of Mormon, yet I seldom, if ever, hear an appeal to have faith
in Jesus Christ, which is the very basis of salvation. Christ bought and
paid for our salvation, acts as our high priest and mediator, and it is
faith in Him and Him alone that effects our salvation, not faith in a
book.
I own a copy of the Book of Mormon. I have read it, studied it, pondered
it, and to be honest with you, I found it to be (with the exception of
the verbatim passages copied from the King James Bible) a tedious,
repetitive, badly written mimicry of the real Bible, with no historical
credibility. To ask me to "sincerely" pray about the "truthfulness" of
such book when I can't muster the least bit of respect for either the
reliability or veracity of it, is asking too much.
I do not have to suspend my intellect to have faith in Jesus Christ or
confidence in the Bible, but I certainly would have to before I
could "pray sincerely" about whether or not the Book of Mormon is true.
My mind, by any objective standard, says it plainly is a very flawed
work (the many attempts at credibility involving superficial parallels
and coincidences remain unconvincing) so how can I in good conscience
flush all that and ask for a sign that it somehow really is true?
Besides, I can't help recalling what the Bible says about those who
seek signs.
Ed
|
| 51.62 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Tue Apr 17 1990 00:03 | 40 |
| Ed,
I know that some have difficulty accepting the Bible from an
intellectual point of view. There are lots of things that are not well
confirmed by science or outside sources, such as virgin birth, miracles,
visitations and so forth. I have come across intellectuals that have
had serious problems with these concepts in the Bible even though they
identified themselves with Christian denominations and standards.
The B of M focuses on and is an appeal for faith in Christ
throughout, which leads to confusion with an assertion that there
is little or no appeal to have faith in Christ. If one sincerly
believes that the purpose is to believe a book and not in Christ, then
the purpose of the book has been missed. A similar argument could be
made about the Bible. I'm sure that there are cases where folks hold
the Bible sacrosanct and miss the true message of the Gospel and of
Christ.
As to the poorly written flaws, this is certainly a subjective opinion
to which you are entitled. Of course, similar assertions have been made
about the Bible by intellectuals. While in Denmark I met a priest of the
Danish Folk Church who insisted that the only portions of the Bible that
could be trusted were the four Gospels. He had an intellectual argument
for discarding the rest of the Bible which he and others regarded as moot
or spurious.
As Nibley points out, many of what were thought to be flaws in the B of M
(and other modern scriptures) have turned out to be evidence of
authenticity. I won't say "hard" since the interpretation of such
evidence does not have only one interpretation. But, this type
of thing reminds me that what may appear to be a flaw or quirky can
turn out to substantiate after further investigation.
As to the puzzle analogy, we remain in disagreement but my
understanding is that this is due mainly to the disagreement about
sample sizes and sampling methods. The puzzle analogy may not work
if total sample size is relatively small or if sampling is not random.
Steve
|
| 51.63 | Jesus is the Christ! | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Tue Apr 17 1990 10:03 | 28 |
| Re .61
>In addition, I continually hear that I should seek a testimony about the
>Book of Mormon, yet I seldom, if ever, hear an appeal to have faith
>in Jesus Christ, which is the very basis of salvation. Christ bought and
>paid for our salvation, acts as our high priest and mediator, and it is
>faith in Him and Him alone that effects our salvation, not faith in a
>book.
Hi Ed,
I think it's a quirk of human nature that people emphasize their differences
instead of their similarities. We do talk about the Book of Mormon a lot,
because we claim that God has begun a new dispensation in which he is revealing
additional truths through modern Prophets. In addition, we don't mention
Jesus Christ in many notes we write, because we realize we are talking with
people who already have a deep faith in the Savior. The quirk of human nature
comes into play and we talk about our differences.
We agree with you that Jesus Christ bought and paid for our salvation and that
it is faith in him and him alone that effects our salvation. I think, Ed,
that if you were to review all of the notes in this conference, it would be
clear that we have consistently emphasized Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the
Son of God, our Redeemer, and that Salvation is through his Atonement. If
anyone would like to discuss our faith in Jesus Christ, I'll be glad to switch
to an appropriate note and exchange comments with them.
Allen
|
| 51.64 | KEEP A BELIEVING HEART | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Tue Apr 17 1990 11:35 | 69 |
| Ed,
I think I would not fit your argument about the sincerity thing, i.e.
that only the realy sincere people can come to only one conclusion
which is that the BofM is true, thus if you don't come to this
conclusion then you are not sincere enough.
When I bumped into the LDS Church, I was looking for the Church of
Jesuc Christ, and if not that then the direction my life could take and
still have a relationship with the Creator in it. At the first hearing
of the "mormon story", I rejected it saying it was all very nice, but I
had no intention of joining a church that quite frankly I thought had
died out. I was looking for Jesus, for his Church, for the Father.
Another book of scripture, what for? I couldn't understand the current
scriptures. So I kept telling the missionaries that I would not become
a Mormon, but rather some "middle of the road Protestant" (I had
exhausted my studies of the Eastern religion because they did not have
Christ).
The point I want to make is that I never had an intention of joining
the LDS Church (just a little too 'extreme' I thought). Yet as I
studied and sought after an understanding of Jesus and the Father,
light and truth filled my mind and my heart as never before.
Scriptural passsages about Jesus as Messiah, the existence and purpose
of the Father, the Plan of Salvation, and my relationship to it all,
were easily understood as I read the New Testament and BofM as
companions. Finally, dropping all of my preconceived ideas, notions,
and feelings, I simply asked God if what I had come across was his
truth.
This question was perhaps the most frightening one I had ever asked.
If yes, then I would leave the Catholic Church, which meant
excommunication in their terms and thus eternal damnation in hell. If
no, then I would have to continue the search.
In an overwhelming circumstance in which I received both understanding
and knowledge and a sensation of communion with the Father, I knew it
had been revealed to me that my search was over (something that had
started when I was a boy), that I had found Jesus, his Church, and the
Father, and my place.
This "revelation" was not where I thought I would end up, because I was
not interested in joining some obscure, almost defunct, peripheral
Christian Church, located in Utah. BUT I had received a sure knowledge
that it was true. In those days I did not know much about the LDS
Church, the intricacies of the BofM, archeological evidences for it, or
of the full story of Joseph Smith. I did know in my heart that I had
communicated with the Father and had learned that I had found truth.
So, while I was not "sincerely" seeking to find the LDS Church, I was
sincere in my search to find Christ, his Church and the Father.
It is my experience that those friends I expose the Gospel to and who
later reject it, seem to have some pre-conceived notion, attitude,
inclination, assumption, etc. (you name it) that inclines them one way
or another. For instance, a very good friend knew that the Church was
true, but he had set his heart on being a Lutheran minister and NOTHING
was going to stop him.
Ed, I do appreciate where you are coming from. LIke you, I, too, have
a questioning mind. Fortunately, the LDS Church encourages questions,
study, searches, ponderances. For from them we grow in knowledge,
insights, and testimony of Christ, of the Father, and of the Gospel.
While I do like to question and investigate, I also try to keep a believing
heart, to dispel skepticism and have faith that if I do not understand
something today, that tomorrow I will.
Paul
|
| 51.65 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Tue Apr 17 1990 12:13 | 14 |
| I like Paul's thoughts there and I appreciate Ed bringing up the issue
of whether or not a sincere person will always find the B of M to be
true. My personal opinion is that a sincere person could well read the
B of M, "test" it and arrive at a conclusion that it is not true. I
may disagree with Ed on a lot of things, but tend to not doubt his
sincerity. I have no reason to believe that he did not test the B of M
with sincerity. I appreciate Paul's points and can accept that, as with
many gifts from God, a testimony or even possibility of acceptance may
come with time and changing of circumstances. I guess what I'm saying is
that I think that sincere folks tend to come to a belief that the B of M
is true, but there is no time line on when that belief may come to
fruition. I think that the same can be said of the Bible.
Steve
|
| 51.66 | Reply to .61 | MUDIS3::WILLOUGHBY | FRANKly speaking | Tue Apr 17 1990 13:36 | 118 |
| RE: 51.61 (I wanted to answer your comments, Ed, but I the long weekend
held things up a little)
>> . . . Don't take
>> my word that it is true. Find out for yourself. Read it. Study it.
>> Ponder it. Pray about it. You will gain a testimony of its truthfulness
>> - if you are _really_ sincere in your attempts to find out the
>> truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
>Sorry Frank, but I really have a problem with that approach. On the
>surface it sounds very appealing, but I see serious flaws in it. First
>you are saying that if, for whatever reason, someone does not "gain a
>testimony" that the Book of Mormon is true, then they are not sincere. To
>me, this is a poor test of sincerity. It sets up a situation where there
>is only one allowable outcome for the "sincere" person.
Anyone who is _really_ seeking the truth, will find it. For me, it is
important for me to have help sorting out all of the rhetoric that one
is exposed to in searching for the truth. The Holy Ghost helps me to
do this. If you search long enough, with real intent, and prayerfully,
you will find the truth.
Again, neither I, nor anyone else is saying that anyone should accept the
Book of Mormon without praying about it. This is the key. It is a second
witness (right next to the Bible) that Jesus is the Christ, Son of the
Living God. The book was written by prophets inspired by God. Don't
take my word for it that it is true, ask God in the name of Jesus Christ.
In short, just follow the advice in James 1:5,6 which states:
James 1:5,6
5) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men
liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6) But let him ask in faith, nothing waivering. For he that wavereth is
like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
>This creates a dilemma for others who do not see the error in this
>approach. If they are surrounded by very nice, very sincere people
>encouraging them to "pray and gain a testimony" of something, "just like
>we did," it virtually guarantees they will get some kind of "testimony"
>just because they *want* to get one. This would work with just about any
>kind of "testimony" you might want.
IMHO, there is no error in this approach. You will not be surrounded by
(nor hounded by) "very nice, very sincere people encouraging them to
pray & gain a testimony or something)". Neither I nor anyone else is
here to twist anybody's arm to join our Church. We in the Church share
something special - our love for our Saviour and his Gospel. It is only
natural that we should want to share this with others. It is strictly
up to you to accept or reject it. Your testimony should be based on
personal revelation from the Holy Ghost - not on anything anybody else says.
This is a one-on-one - between you & God. Nobody is going to hold your
hand & make you do it. Nobody is asking you to pray "to gain a testimony".
We are just asking you to pray about the truthfulness of the Book of
Mormon (or anything else that we say for that matter). We in the LDS
Church are advised to do this in all things - even things that come from
the prophet. The more you pray and are in touch with the Holy Ghost, the
easier it is to recognize his promptings.
>In addition, I continually hear that I should seek a testimony about the
>Book of Mormon, yet I seldom, if ever, hear an appeal to have faith
>in Jesus Christ, which is the very basis of salvation. Christ bought and
>paid for our salvation, acts as our high priest and mediator, and it is
>faith in Him and Him alone that effects our salvation, not faith in a
>book.
You are right, Ed. I left out the most important part. Thanks for
bringing it up. Faith in Jesus Christ _is_ very important. I agree
with you on this. Faith in a book won't do much for your salvation,
what _is_ important is your faith _and_ your works (are you working good
or evil in your daily conduct). The devil knows that Jesus is the
Christ, but that alone isn't going to do him much good. "Faith without
works is dead" (I think this was covered in another note somewhere).
>credibility. To ask me to "sincerely" pray about the "truthfulness" of
>such book when I can't muster the least bit of respect for either the
>reliability or veracity of it, is asking too much.
To some, it is asking too much to stop drinking or smoking. To others,
it is asking too much to pay tithing (10% of gross income). I look at
it as a test of faith. It never is easy to do the right thing. My
father has a saying: "Anything worth having is worth working hard for"
It depends on how much it is worth to you. It is something that only
you can decide. Sometimes, choosing not to decide, is also making a
decision.
>I do not have to suspend my intellect to have faith in Jesus Christ or
>confidence in the Bible, but I certainly would have to before I
>could "pray sincerely" about whether or not the Book of Mormon is true.
>My mind, by any objective standard, says it plainly is a very flawed
>work (the many attempts at credibility involving superficial parallels
>and coincidences remain unconvincing) so how can I in good conscience
>flush all that and ask for a sign that it somehow really is true?
>Besides, I can't help recalling what the Bible says about those who
>seek signs.
Having faith isn't easy. It also isn't easy to pray for the truthfulness
of something when you are biased against it. But I do believe that you
_do_ have faith in our Saviour, Jesus Christ. "Ask & it shall be received.
Knock and it shall be opened to you". We are not asking for anything more.
BTW, we are not seeking signs only following the advice of James.
Best Regards,
Frank
|
| 51.67 | | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Tue Apr 17 1990 15:40 | 31 |
| Frank,
> Again, neither I, nor anyone else is saying that anyone should accept
> the Book of Mormon without praying about it. This is the key.
Let me repeat my earlier points that:
If God were to answer and say that the BofM is not true, would that
mean that the passages copied from Isaiah are not true as well?
Suppose the BofM were not true. Would it be impossible for people to
sincerely feel that it is true. And if it were not true and people
could sincerely feel that it were true, how would you determine whether
or not it was true?
If it would be impossible for people to sincerely feel that something
false was true, then your statement that praying is the key would have
some merit. But we know thousands of people who sincerely believe
something that is a lie. In light of this:
* How would you verify that your prayers were not answered by the same
'god' that has told thousands of people that they are correct in
following their beliefs and who are in religious groups that both you
and I would agree are not right?
* Is it only possible to pray about the BofM and get an absolute answer
as to its validity, or can you pray about other things and get a
definitive answer?
Roger
|
| 51.68 | Feelings, Intellect, I want it all! | XCUSME::QUAYLE | i.e. Ann | Tue Apr 17 1990 17:53 | 9 |
| Thanks, Paul, for sharing of your experience in .64.
Brethren, I've followed the entries in this topic with interest
and, as I've done so, one thought recurs: Why feelings *versus*
intellect? Both are ours to use and magnify, and either can be
used to the glory of God and the perfection of ourselves - or not.
aq
|
| 51.69 | Ye may know the truth of ALL things | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Tue Apr 17 1990 18:08 | 60 |
| Re: Note 51.67 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
Hi Roger,
> If God were to answer and say that the BofM is not true, would that
> mean that the passages copied from Isaiah are not true as well?
Good question. If this is your concern, then try having a conversation
with God in prayer like this: Tell him that you believe the Bible is
the word of God, and that the passages in the Book of Mormon that are
the same must then be the word of God. Tell him you want to know if the
other passages in the Book of Mormon are the word of God. Ask Him in
the name of Jesus Christ if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be:
writings of ancient Isrealite prophets who were led to the Americas,
and who wrote what God inspired them to write, including some of their
favorite passages from the scriptures they brought with them.
> * How would you verify that your prayers were not answered by the same
> 'god' that has told thousands of people that they are correct in
> following their beliefs and who are in religious groups that both you
> and I would agree are not right?
Though many people feel 'guided' by God in many ways, I do not know of
any other faiths that advocate putting all of their beliefs to the test
of asking God if they be true. If you know of some, I'd be interested
to hear of them.
I think your questions really boil down to something like this: How can
a person be sure that they will get an answer to such questions and if
they do get an answer, how can they be sure it is really from God?
If you believe the Bible, then I think there is ample indication there
from the teachings of Jesus that if we will ask God in His name, then
we will receive. As indicated in another note: 'Ask and ye shall
receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto
you'. Also, the passage in James 1:5 teaches that God will answer such
prayers. This takes care of the first part: God will answer (Note: Even
so, I believe He will do it in HIS own way and on HIS timetable, not
ours.)
To be sure that answers are from God, I believe there are some very
good tests that can be applied. Does the answer testify of Jesus Christ
and of his divinity? Does it teach a person to keep the commandments of
God? Does it bear the fruits of righteousness (by their fruits ye shall
know them)? Does it teach a person to trust in God and not in his own
wisdom? Does the answer bear the fruits of the Holy Spirit, as taught
by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 5:22 (love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance)? I do not believe
that answers from other sources will meet these tests adequately.
> * Is it only possible to pray about the BofM and get an absolute answer
> as to its validity, or can you pray about other things and get a
> definitive answer?
The Book of Mormon teaches that this principle may be applied to ALL
things. It testifies that by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know
the truth of all things. This is also consistent with Bible teachings.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 51.70 | | TOMCAT::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Thu Apr 26 1990 13:57 | 102 |
| > I know that some have difficulty accepting the Bible from an
> intellectual point of view. There are lots of things that are not well
> confirmed by science or outside sources, such as virgin birth, miracles,
> visitations and so forth. I have come across intellectuals that have
> had serious problems with these concepts in the Bible even though they
> identified themselves with Christian denominations and standards.
Steve,
Acceptance of all that is contained in the Bible is not required in order
to have respect for its historical credibility. The problem with the Book
of Mormon is that it has no historical credibility outside of Mormon
circles - certainly none that I am aware of.
There will always be those who will admit to having problems with the
things you mentioned, but this does not demonstrate a problem with the
Bible per se. We have been talking for a while about things which are
easily examined in a tangible, material sense when approaching the Bible
- and the Book of Mormon - and we have seen that in that department the
Bible has a great deal to recommend it, while the Book of Mormon has
none.
Simply because I accept the Bible as reliable history *and* accept its
accounts of the miraculous does not in any way mean that I should be
more inclined to accept the Book of Mormon because it appears Bible-like
and also contains miraculous accounts.
> As to the poorly written flaws, this is certainly a subjective opinion
> to which you are entitled.
I know that I am not alone in my opinion. Mark Twain himself called the
Book of Mormon "chloroform in print" and said that if every "and it
came to pass" was taken out there would be nothing left to come to pass,
an apparent reference to its overuse of King James-like English phrases.
There seems an incredible degree of repetition, rambling and restatement,
even in the modern version which has been polished as much as possible by
the LDS church. But you're right, it is my opinion only.
> Of course, similar assertions have been made
> about the Bible by intellectuals. While in Denmark I met a priest of the
> Danish Folk Church who insisted that the only portions of the Bible that
> could be trusted were the four Gospels. He had an intellectual argument
> for discarding the rest of the Bible which he and others regarded as moot
> or spurious.
Well, I know of no one who seriously considers the Bible to be poorly
written. Your example of the priest in Denmark mentions that he could
argue that the non-Gospel portions of the Bible were not trustworthy,
but then you say that he and others regarded his argument as spurious.
This is not a commentary upon its literary quality. If anyone's aware of
claims that the Bible is lousy literature, I'd like to hear about it.
> The B of M focuses on and is an appeal for faith in Christ
> throughout, which leads to confusion with an assertion that there
> is little or no appeal to have faith in Christ. If one sincerly
> believes that the purpose is to believe a book and not in Christ, then
> the purpose of the book has been missed.
I cannot argue with your statement - I simply am speaking from my own
personal experience with Mormonism. I have read Mormon literature and
heard Mormon messages, and the overwhelming emphasis is upon the Book
of Mormon, not Jesus Christ. Once I listened to an entire cassette tape
of church leaders (apostles, etc) who spoke at one of the large regular
conferences, and direct references to Christ were few and nearly always
of a seconday nature to those for Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.
> A similar argument could be
> made about the Bible. I'm sure that there are cases where folks hold
> the Bible sacrosanct and miss the true message of the Gospel and of
> Christ.
You are certainly right about that.
> As Nibley points out, many of what were thought to be flaws in the B of M
> (and other modern scriptures) have turned out to be evidence of
> authenticity. I won't say "hard" since the interpretation of such
> evidence does not have only one interpretation. But, this type
> of thing reminds me that what may appear to be a flaw or quirky can
> turn out to substantiate after further investigation.
At the risk of appearing tiresome and repetitive, the evidence Nibley points
to is mostly parallel and intangible, and as such could never qualify as
"hard" evidence, even if there was a singular or "best" explanation. The
tangible things he refers to are mostly isolated, and as you have pointed
out, the Mormon explanations for them are not the best available (that
is, more convincing than other explanations).
> As to the puzzle analogy, we remain in disagreement but my
> understanding is that this is due mainly to the disagreement about
> sample sizes and sampling methods. The puzzle analogy may not work
> if total sample size is relatively small or if sampling is not random.
Perhaps we are not in disagreement after all, since it was a given (I
thought) that my analogy presupposed a random sampling and not a small
sample size. We disagree - I think - about how large a body of evidence
we really do have about ancient America. I think we have quite a lot.
You (I believe) think we have very little. The best way to resolve that
would probably be to ask professional archaeologists for their opinions
on the subject.
Ed
|
| 51.71 | | TOMCAT::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Thu Apr 26 1990 13:58 | 24 |
| Re .63
> I think it's a quirk of human nature that people emphasize their
> differences instead of their similarities. We do talk about the Book of
> Mormon a lot, because we claim that God has begun a new dispensation in
> which he is revealing additional truths through modern Prophets. In
> addition, we don't mention Jesus Christ in many notes we write, because
> we realize we are talking with people who already have a deep faith in
> the Savior. The quirk of human nature comes into play and we talk about
> our differences.
Well Allen, I already covered that in my reply to Steve. As I said, I am
going as much on my "outside" dealings with Mormonism as my experience in
this notes conferences. Even when individuals share their own stories
about how they became committed Mormons, the emphasis is heavily upon
their belief in the "truth" of the Book of Mormon and the Mormon church.
I do not dispute your statements regarding the role of Christ in your
theology, I am only making an observation of what I see as an over-emphasis
of the role of a "testimony of truth" for a book to the point where it
seems to be more basic and more signifigant in the act of being a Mormon
than faith in Christ.
Ed
|
| 51.72 | | TOMCAT::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Thu Apr 26 1990 13:58 | 36 |
| Re .64
> I think I would not fit your argument about the sincerity thing, i.e.
> that only the realy sincere people can come to only one conclusion
> which is that the BofM is true, thus if you don't come to this
> conclusion then you are not sincere enough.
Paul,
My observation was based upon Frank's statement that if someone is
"really" sincere then they will get a "testimony" that the Book of Mormon
is true. If this is so, then there is no room for a sincere person to
investigate the Book of Mormon and conclude that it is not true.
I am not making distinctions between sincere Book of Mormon testimony
seekers and other sincere people - Frank's statement left no room for a
sincere person to honestly look into the Book of Mormon and conclude that
it isn't true. I also don't think that this approach is particular to
Frank, but pretty much the standard in Mormon circles.
Although you said that you originally weren't sincerely investigating the
LDS church, but were sincerely seeking God, so I think this qualifies you
as sincere in the context of Frank's statement and my own comments.
Still, the whole "ask for a testimony" approach troubles me. There's no
objective basis for validation. It would be far too easy to get a
"testimony" for practically anything, or be deceived by an outside
influence that can provide you with some sort of feeling or make you
think that you've had one. Almost any positive feeling could be
interpreted as a "testimony." And positive feelings can come from
anywhere, not just God. I cannot argue with someone's convictions, but I
can question the assumptions upon which those convictions are based. And
I think that it is a dangerous assumption to believe that truth can be
determined by feelings.
Ed
|
| 51.73 | a rat, racing with the cat ... | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Thu Apr 26 1990 15:58 | 104 |
| Ed,
Wow. There was some stuff that we actually agreed about ...
>Acceptance of all that is contained in the Bible is not required in order
>to have respect for its historical credibility. The problem with the Book
>of Mormon is that it has no historical credibility outside of Mormon
>circles - certainly none that I am aware of.
Historical credibility was not the issue to which I was drawing attention,
though I recognize that this is important to you. I believe that claims of a
spiritual nature are what tend to provide stumbling blocks for intellectuals
and in my comments it was to this that I wanted to draw attention. The Bible,
in my opinion, would still contain the Word of God if all historical references
were removed (not that I propose such a thing). The "problem", as I perceive
it for many intellectuals, is that historical references in the B of M have
neither been entirely confirmed nor entirely denied.
>- and the Book of Mormon - and we have seen that in that department the
>Bible has a great deal to recommend it, while the Book of Mormon has
>none.
"We" are not in agreement here. Interpretation being a fundamental part of
"our" definition of "hard" evidence, there are some evidences for the Bible
which are not interpreted the same by all peoples at all times. It is this
interpretation that allows you to claim that the B of M has "none" because
there are some who interpret evidence differently regarding it. (I might have
said "few" because of the interpretations that I accept that support the
B of M.) Similarly, I might say there are "few" to substantiate the Bible
(instead of "a great deal"). And, if we disagree it doesn't matter. There
are many who have different interpretations for evidence that is used to
support the Bible, who are probably smarter than you or me, and who neither
regard the Bible as an authentic work nor adhere to Christian beliefs.
>Simply because I accept the Bible as reliable history *and* accept its
>accounts of the miraculous does not in any way mean that I should be
>more inclined to accept the Book of Mormon because it appears Bible-like
>and also contains miraculous accounts.
That *would* be absurd, and I think we are in agreement on that. The Bible
and B of M are important to me, not for historical perspective, but for the
Word of God included in each.
>Well, I know of no one who seriously considers the Bible to be poorly
>written. Your example of the priest in Denmark mentions that he could
>argue that the non-Gospel portions of the Bible were not trustworthy,
>but then you say that he and others regarded his argument as spurious.
>This is not a commentary upon its literary quality. If anyone's aware of
>claims that the Bible is lousy literature, I'd like to hear about it.
I probably didn't present this part as clearly as I should have. It was not
his argument that was regarded as spurious. It was that the priests in his
class were being taught that all scriptures outside the four Gospels were
spurious. He was not alone in his opinion. I should explain that in the
Danish Folk Church, there is an odd mix of Christianity, agnosticism, atheism
and intellectualism. Thus, though these attitudes may seem radical they may
be tolerated within that Church. This is reflected in the attitude of the
population who, per my experience, largely regard the Bible as mythical and
flawed. This in spite of the opinions of many that the Danish translation is
in many ways superior to the KJV and other English translations.
>At the risk of appearing tiresome and repetitive, the evidence Nibley points
>to is mostly parallel and intangible, and as such could never qualify as
>"hard" evidence, even if there was a singular or "best" explanation. The
>tangible things he refers to are mostly isolated, and as you have pointed
>out, the Mormon explanations for them are not the best available (that
>is, more convincing than other explanations).
The book itself is tangible evidence if it is a faithful rendition. The
translation is a primary source for study and analysis. It is this evidence
that is subject to interpretation and becomes "hard" if all are in agreement
about the "best" explanation. It is here that the "flaws" have become,
as a result of study and analysis, evidence of authenticity. I point out that
this was an observation of Nibley's because it was appropriate to credit him
with the observation since that's where I first remember hearing it. I did
not mean to imply that parallel or intangible evidences presented by Nibley
constituted "hard" evidence.
>Perhaps we are not in disagreement after all, since it was a given (I
>thought) that my analogy presupposed a random sampling and not a small
>sample size. We disagree - I think - about how large a body of evidence
>we really do have about ancient America. I think we have quite a lot.
>You (I believe) think we have very little. The best way to resolve that
>would probably be to ask professional archaeologists for their opinions
>on the subject.
I agree about all but the last sentence, unless professional archaeologists
agreed with me. ;^) (Hey, that's not so unreasonable. What would you do if
a professional archaeologist disagreed with you?)
I think that at this point I would define "hard" evidence as being tangible
evidence for which an individual has a "best" explanation. It may not be
the same as truth because the "best" explanation can change over time. By
this definition, scientists may insist upon, converse about and work only with
"hard" evidence and bat around "best" explanations. This also allows them
to operate with the understanding that what they know today could be different
tomorrow. Otherwise, they could not keep an open mind.
Which brings up the question, could I be wrong? You bet!
Can you say the same? (You don't have to answer if you don't want to. It's
meant to provoke thought, not be a challenge.)
Steve
|
| 51.74 | Ultimate test of truth | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Fri Apr 27 1990 10:39 | 37 |
| Re: Note 51.72 by TOMCAT::PRESTON
Hi Ed,
>Still, the whole "ask for a testimony" approach troubles me. There's no
>objective basis for validation.
You keep saying this over and over, which is ok, because we LDS keep
saying over and over to ask :-).
But let me ask this. Do you believe the promises in the Holy Bible that
urge a person to ask God and he will answer you? Do you believe that
God can answer prayers for knowledge of truth? If you claim to believe
the Holy Bible, why do you seem to steadfastly reject the notion that
God can answer a simple prayer for knowledge of the truth? This is not
meant as an attack on you, but I am curious to know why you take this
position, which to me seems to be in opposition to what the Holy Bible
teaches.
Yes, each of us who DOES ask God must be careful not to be deceived by
some other influence. But does that possibility preclude the sincere
asking altogether?
The ultimate test of truth is not "an objective basis for validation"
as you imply. If they had to wait for an objective basis for
validation, the Isrealites would never have crossed the Red Sea, or
never have marched around Jericho, or Noah would never have built the
ark. Some of the Isrealites would not look upon the brass serpent Moses
raised to heal them from being bitten by fiery serpents because they
were looking for an objective basis for validation. It was the
apostle Thomas who was looking for an objective basis for validation
before he would believe that our Lord, Jesus Christ, had been
resurrected. The ultimate test of truth is pure revelation from God,
not "an objective basis for validation".
Regards,
Rich
|
| 51.75 | Anxiously Awaiting Your Reply | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Fri Apr 27 1990 10:53 | 78 |
| To Ed in .70
I am afraid I am at one of those impasses in which I do not know how to
continue our dialogue. Can you help me?
You said in .70
"The problem with the BofM is that it has no historical credibility
outside of Mormon circles- certainly none that I AM AWARE OF". (my
caps)
In these notes I have given you information from several non-Mormon
scholars and archeologists about the historical, archeological,
cultural, political and literary credibility of the BofM. Such scholars
as Heyerdahl, Gordon, Mahan, Lund (plus others as footnoted in
BofM studies which have presented evidence). I have even sent you
some information you requested.
So certainly you are AWARE OF the fact that there are non-Mormon
scholars who corroborate the credibility of the BofM, and AWARE of what
they have said/written.
My dilemma, Ed, is that I do not know where to go from here in our
dialogue. As I said, you are aware of the evidence from non-Mormon
scholars. Are you saying that do not accept their evidence? If you do
not, then what is it about their evidence (hard or soft) that you do
not accept?
Whether the evidence is hard or soft (parallel), in my opinion there is
so much of it, that when viewed as a whole, it does indeed support the
BofM story. If the BofM is a hoax, then the coincidences are of
enormous proportions.
So, I do not know where to go from here concerning discussions of
evidence.
As for how one gets a testimony of the BofM, the "feeling" one senses
is not the same "feeling" you have when watching a good movie or
listening to some tragic story. The normal range of human feelings in
day-to-day living, ie. love, hate, anger, envy, hope, euphoria,
jealousy, happiness, does not include the "feeling" one gets when you
have a Witness of the Spirit. Through the Still Small Voice one
receives a witness when they approach God in humility, with a broken heart
and contrite spirit and, in that state, acknowledge their nothingness,
their wickedness and their dependency upon his grace and his son, the
Chirst. The answer/revelation that comes to the sincerely humble
inquirer is received through a sensation/feeling unlike any other one I
have ever sensed/felt. I, myself, choose not to use the word "feeling"
because of its overuse in contemporary America (smacks too much of
California touchy-feely stuff). Rather I prefer to express this
experience of communion with the Father and Christ with the word
Revelation, Spiritual Communion/Communication; in other words to
elevate and differentiate the sensation of divine-human communication
above the level of mere "feelings". Yet to many people "feelings" (be
they intuitive, spiritual, emotional) are quite adequate to express the
revelatory experience.
I believe, Ed, that we LDS are trying to say to you that "this feeling"
we experience when we inquire of the Lord about the BofM is the very
same one we have when we inquire about the divinity of Christ, the need
for a restoration of Christ's true Church, the need for a priesthood
with authentic authority from God, the need for a modern-day prophet.
The "feeling" is the witness of the Spirit. And this witness is not
unique to Mormons! Every human experiences, to a greater or lesser
degree, the same "feeling" when they reach beyond themselves and seek
after God. So please, do not equate the Mormon use of "feeling" with
those other day-to-day range of human emotions. Since you also have a
testimony of the Savior, I know you know "the feeling" of witness and
testimony of which I am speaking.
Anyhow, Ed, after so many notes about "evidence" and "feelings", where
do we go from here? Why is the "evidence" presented so far not
acceptable to you?
Paul
|
| 51.76 | Wisdom | TOMCAT::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Wed May 02 1990 14:33 | 104 |
| Re .66
> (I wanted to answer your comments, Ed, but I the long weekend
> held things up a little)
Don't worry about the time lag Frank, I've got more things to do than
time to do them (do them right, anyway). I shouldn't even be in here..!
> Anyone who is _really_ seeking the truth, will find it.
I agree. It is the "pray for a testimony" that I have trouble with.
To assume that anyone, no matter how naive, compliant, immature or
impressionable, can know the truth or falseness of anything by seeking a
"feeling" about it is very dangerous indeed.
> Again, neither I, nor anyone else is saying that anyone should accept the
> Book of Mormon without praying about it. This is the key. It is a second
> witness (right next to the Bible) that Jesus is the Christ, Son of the
> Living God. The book was written by prophets inspired by God. Don't
> take my word for it that it is true, ask God in the name of Jesus Christ.
I'd like to know, then, why do you ask people to seek a testimony for the
Book of Mormon, but not the Bible?
> In short, just follow the advice in James 1:5,6 which states:
>
>James 1:5,6
>
>5) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men
> liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
>6) But let him ask in faith, nothing waivering. For he that wavereth is
> like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
I'm glad you brought that up, because I do not believe that this is a
valid example of the kind of "testimony seeking" that we have been
talking about. James is speaking of wisdom - not knowledge, not
revelation, and not a litmus test for determining "truth." He is
speaking to people who are already followers of Christ, who already know
the truth, and who he wishes to encourage in the faith.
Wisdom is not embodied in a feeling, nor is it driven by feelings. No
matter how strong, feelings can be misleading when they are used as a
means of guidance. In fact, Proverbs 14:12 says "there is a way which
seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof is death." Throughout the
Bible, when it speaks of wisdom, it often seems to indicate that
following feelings is often the opposite of wisdom, not a recommended
means for acquiring it.
> You will not be surrounded by (nor hounded by) "very nice, very sincere
> people encouraging them to pray & gain a testimony or something)".
> Neither I nor anyone else is here to twist anybody's arm to join our
> Church.
What I meant was that if anyone is at all inclined to respond to
enthusiasm and "niceness" of people who are encouraging them to feel
something, then it is not too much to expect that a testimony could be
manufactured soley from their desire to have one.
> Nobody is asking you to pray "to gain a testimony". We are just asking
> you to pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (or anything
> else that we say for that matter).
I don't see the difference. Isn't it considered a "testimony" when you
seek, and get, a feeling that the Book of Mormon is true?
You feel the need to seek - and encourage others to seek - a special
"testimony" about the truthfulness of the BoM, yet you do not apply the
same approach to the Bible. Why then is it so vital to have a special
testimony for the BoM and not the Bible?
>> To ask me to "sincerely" pray about the "truthfulness" of
>> such book when I can't muster the least bit of respect for either the
>> reliability or veracity of it, is asking too much.
> To some, it is asking too much to stop drinking or smoking. To others,
> it is asking too much to pay tithing (10% of gross income). I look at
> it as a test of faith. It never is easy to do the right thing. My
> father has a saying: "Anything worth having is worth working hard for"
> It depends on how much it is worth to you. It is something that only
> you can decide. Sometimes, choosing not to decide, is also making a
> decision.
I don't think that you are making a fair comparison. "Asking too much," in
the sense that I used it, is not a measure of effort, but of personal,
intellectual, integrity. I cannot honestly disregard what I see - the
obvious inadequacy and unreliability of the Book of Mormon, to ask for a
feeling that tells me differently.
> Having faith isn't easy. It also isn't easy to pray for the truthfulness
> of something when you are biased against it. But I do believe that you
> _do_ have faith in our Saviour, Jesus Christ. "Ask & it shall be received.
> Knock and it shall be opened to you". We are not asking for anything more.
I think applying the term "bias" in this case is innapropriate. In fact
this seems to be just an example of the one-way-out setup that I pointed
out earlier. You apparently believe that I am "biased" and therefore not
sincere, and since I am not sincere I therefore am not qualified to
receive a "testimony of truth" for the Book of Mormon.
> BTW, we are not seeking signs only following the advice of James.
I already said what I believe about that.
Ed
|
| 51.77 | feelings vs intellect | TOMCAT::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Wed May 02 1990 14:34 | 17 |
| > Brethren, I've followed the entries in this topic with interest
> and, as I've done so, one thought recurs: Why feelings *versus*
> intellect? Both are ours to use and magnify, and either can be
> used to the glory of God and the perfection of ourselves - or not.
Ann,
It becomes an issue of feelings *versus* intellect when the two are
contradictory. My intellect, which God gave me, tells me that there are
very serious problems with the Book of Mormon as it seeks to be accepted
as scripture. These are problems and shortcomings for which the Bible has
no counterpart, and that I feel disqualify the BoM from serious consideration.
This being so, then I believe that the *only* way anyone can reach the
conclusion that the BoM is the word of God is to get a "feeling" to that
effect, because the objective basis simply does not exist.
Ed
|
| 51.78 | Wisdom includes knowledge | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Wed May 02 1990 14:58 | 33 |
| Hi Ed,
>I'm glad you brought that up, because I do not believe that this is a
>valid example of the kind of "testimony seeking" that we have been
>talking about. James is speaking of wisdom - not knowledge, not
>revelation, and not a litmus test for determining "truth." He is
>speaking to people who are already followers of Christ, who already know
>the truth, and who he wishes to encourage in the faith.
I believe that James' counsel that we could gain wisdom through prayer does
include knowledge, as I've explained in note 4.7:
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to
all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given
him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he
that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind
and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive
any thing of the Lord. (James 1:5-7)
The Greek word used in James 1:5 for "wisdom" is "sophia" which
comes from "sophos" which means keenness or quickness in
understanding and dealing with situations. That is, wisdom is
not just the wise application of knowledge, it is having an
insight into the situation and seeing the "full picture" not just
immediate details. Thus, wisdom involves both gaining knowledge
and fitting the pieces together into the correct relationships.
Webster's definition of "wisdom" agrees with this: "Understanding of what
is true, right, or lasting." When we ask people to pray and ask God if
the Book of Mormon is true or not, we're asking them to ask God for an
understanding if the book is true. Understanding from God is knowledge.
Allen
|
| 51.79 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Wed May 02 1990 15:03 | 6 |
| This discussion can go on forever. I think that the bottom line depends on
each person's relationship with God and how that person receives answers to
prayer from God and recognizes those answers. This, of course, is an
individual matter.
Allen
|
| 51.80 | Ask and ye shall receive | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Wed May 02 1990 15:57 | 12 |
| Ed,
I've asked you this before, but you have never addressed it, as far as
I can tell.
My question is this: If you believe in the Holy Bible, then do you
believe that God can and will answer prayers about the truthfulness of
a thing, in view of the Biblical promise, "ask and ye shall receive,
seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you"?
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 51.81 | | TOMCAT::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Fri May 04 1990 14:42 | 117 |
| Re .73
Steve,
> Historical credibility was not the issue to which I was drawing attention,
> though I recognize that this is important to you.
I would hope that it is important to you as well.
> I believe that claims of a spiritual nature are what tend to provide
> stumbling blocks for intellectuals and in my comments it was to this that
> I wanted to draw attention.
I would like to make a distinction between what I consider to be
different types of "intellectuals." One is the type that buys into the
predominant mindset of the day, that being humanistic/materialistic,
anti-God, anti-faith, anti-religion, either rejecting out of hand
anything of spiritual content, or molding it to fit his material-only
concept of the universe. The other is the intellectual who applies his
knowledge and reasoning powers to any topic of relevance to life, and
does so objectively, even if it may be troublesome, realizing that
ultimately there will be no conflict or contradiction between intellect
and spirit. I would put Carl Sagan in the first category and C.S. Lewis
in the second.
> The Bible, in my opinion, would still contain the Word of God if all
> historical references were removed (not that I propose such a thing).
I guess you're right, though it would be like taking the bones out of it.
It just occured to me that the Book of Mormon would be a lot easier to
defend if all historical references were removed from it.
> The "problem", as I perceive it for many intellectuals, is that
> historical references in the B of M have neither been entirely confirmed
> nor entirely denied.
The real problem is the no complete historical connection has *ever* been
made, only a host of starts without finishes that try to suggest such
connections may be possible. The very fact that no completed connection
has ever been established is very problematic to establishing the
reliability of the text. This is just another way of saying that there is
*no* hard evidence for the BoM.
I have been trying to point to the concept of reliability in the Bible and
the Book of Mormon. If the reliability of a text is in question, how can
one trust it? This becomes very important, since we are talking about
matters of eternal consequence.
One measure of the reliability of a text is the accuracy of the
historical statements it makes. If it talks about places, it helps to
know that those were real places. If it talks about events, it's nice to
have supporting evidence that those events actually took place. No, we
cannot nor do not expect to have full support for every historical
mention, but to the degree that the corpus of evidence supports the text,
to that degree we can attribute a level of reliability to it.
> "We" are not in agreement here. Interpretation being a fundamental part of
> "our" definition of "hard" evidence, there are some evidences for the Bible
> which are not interpreted the same by all peoples at all times.
I presume you are thinking of the part of the definition that refers to
"no better explanation should exist" which is another way of saying that
it is not an inferior explanation. I don't want to belabor this part of
the concept. It should be fairly simple to grasp. Besides, if there were
things that were considered (by professional Mormon archaeologists) to be
hard evidence for the BoM, we would be arguing about those things by now,
not that actual concept of interpretation of evidence. I don't think that
there is a Mormon archaeologist, anthropologist or even apologist who
will come out and say "this (whatever) is hard evidence for the Book of
Mormon." We can continue to discuss the role of evidence or interpretation,
but the fact remains that the BoM has no more hard evidence to support it
now than it did in 1830.
> It is this interpretation that allows you to claim that the B of M has
> "none" because there are some who interpret evidence differently
> regarding it. ...And, if we disagree it doesn't matter. There are many
> who have different interpretations for evidence that is used to support
> the Bible, who are probably smarter than you or me, and who neither
> regard the Bible as an authentic work nor adhere to Christian beliefs.
I also don't think that the avenue of interpretation is wide enough to
say that everyone's interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's,
although it sounds like this is what you might be saying.
> The book itself is tangible evidence if it is a faithful rendition.
For the sake of argument - maybe so - but how do you know that it *is* a
faithful rendition?
> I agree about all but the last sentence, unless professional archaeologists
> agreed with me. ;^) (Hey, that's not so unreasonable. What would you do if
> a professional archaeologist disagreed with you?)
I'd ask two more. And if they also disagreed with me, I would start
seriously reviewing and reconsidering my assumptions.
> I think that at this point I would define "hard" evidence as being
> tangible evidence for which an individual has a "best" explanation. It
> may not be the same as truth because the "best" explanation can change
> over time. By this definition, scientists may insist upon, converse
> about and work only with "hard" evidence and bat around "best"
> explanations. This also allows them to operate with the understanding
> that what they know today could be different tomorrow. Otherwise, they
> could not keep an open mind.
That sounds good to me.
> Which brings up the question, could I be wrong? You bet!
> Can you say the same? (You don't have to answer if you don't want to.
> It's meant to provoke thought, not be a challenge.)
Of course I can't be wrong, I'm an INTELLECTUAL! ... oh, wait a minute, I
aspire to be a C. S. Lewis intellectual, so I guess I have to say "yes"
after all. (sorry, a little inapropriate ivy league arrogance sneaked in -
you understand...)
Ed
|
| 51.82 | | TOMCAT::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Fri May 04 1990 14:45 | 70 |
| re .74, .80
Sorry Rich - this has been a one-to-many correspondence lately, and I'm
having trouble keeping up....
> But let me ask this. Do you believe the promises in the Holy Bible that
> urge a person to ask God and he will answer you?
Yes.
> Do you believe that God can answer prayers for knowledge of truth?
Yes, I just don't believe that God operates according to the Mormon "seek a
testimony" approach.
> If you claim to believe the Holy Bible, why do you seem to steadfastly
> reject the notion that God can answer a simple prayer for knowledge of
> the truth? This is not meant as an attack on you, but I am curious to
> know why you take this position, which to me seems to be in opposition
> to what the Holy Bible teaches.
I believe that God answers simple prayer, but I also believe there exists
an overly simplistic approach to prayer that abrogates our responsibility
to employ our intellect and opens wide the door to error. I have pointed
out that it is possible for a person to manufacture a testimony for
anything they want, and no one has disagreed with me on this. I strongly
disagree with your attempt to equate the Mormon approach to gaining a
testimony to "what the Holy Bible teaches." I believe that there is a
great distinction between merely seeking knowledge of truth and applying
a simplistic "litmus" test to things like printed documents.
If a work is truly the word of God, then it needs no such technique to
prove it so. To an honest seeker after God, his word will verify itself,
as it is read and internalized, and does not require a special "moment of
truth" experience to get you started.
Besides, which of the many revisions of the Book of Mormon is most true?
Is the original more true than the 1982 version, or the other way around?
Since God presumably put his stamp of approval upon the original version,
why have changes been made to it?
> The ultimate test of truth is not "an objective basis for validation"
> as you imply. If they had to wait for an objective basis for
> validation, the Isrealites would never have crossed the Red Sea, or
> never have marched around Jericho, or Noah would never have built the
> ark. Some of the Isrealites would not look upon the brass serpent Moses
> raised to heal them from being bitten by fiery serpents because they
> were looking for an objective basis for validation. It was the
> apostle Thomas who was looking for an objective basis for validation
> before he would believe that our Lord, Jesus Christ, had been
> resurrected. The ultimate test of truth is pure revelation from God,
> not "an objective basis for validation".
I don't think that any of these examples is a fair counterpart to the
testimony seeking that we have been talking about. I am not aware of any
instance in the Bible where someone produces a book or prophecy or some
similar thing and goes about trying to demonstrate its validity by a
means similar to the Mormon approach to seeking a testimony. In fact, I
see the Mormon approach as not an act of faith at all, but much closer
to Thomas' desire for a subjective experience before he would believe.
Why do you need a special "testimony" before you will believe the Book of
Mormon?
> Yes, each of us who DOES ask God must be careful not to be deceived by
> some other influence.
Agreed, but how then does one make sure that they are not being deceived
by some other influence?
Ed
|
| 51.83 | thanks for your patience | TOMCAT::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Fri May 04 1990 14:47 | 16 |
| re .75
Paul,
Sorry to keep you waiting so long. I will probably have to do this faster
and in less depth than I otherwise would like, but I hope you understand
that in the rat race of life the cats are always outnumbered by the rats!
[please, please, please nobody take offense at this. My personal name
often has little or nothing to do with my attitude towards others. I
only employ them because I think they sound a little clever or humorous
and most of the time they don't mean anything! I haven't used my pers
name space to make a point since I used "Dump the Duke"]
My reply to your note will be next...
|
| 51.84 | Every one who asketh receiveth | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Sun May 06 1990 23:19 | 85 |
| Re: Note 51.82 by TOMCAT::PRESTON
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your answer to my question.
>I believe that God answers simple prayer, but I also believe there exists
>an overly simplistic approach to prayer that abrogates our responsibility
>to employ our intellect and opens wide the door to error.
Please show me from the Holy Bible where we are advised that we have a
responsibility to trust our intellect more than the simple prayer of
faith to God. Consider this passage:
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine
own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall
direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord,
and depart from evil. Prov 3:5-7
I say put your trust in God and ask Him. You say, if I understand you
correctly, if it doesn't make sense to your intellect, there is no need
to ask, but that truth will be self evident without asking. Actually,
this has been quite true for many who have read the Book of Mormon. It
has become immediately self evident to them that it is the word of God.
Some of us have to work at it a bit more, I guess! :-)
Should we ask. Jesus said to ask:
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and
it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth;
and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be
opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread,
will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a
serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto
your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven
give good things to them that ask him? Matt 7:7-11
>Besides, which of the many revisions of the Book of Mormon is most true?
>Is the original more true than the 1982 version, or the other way around?
Pick whichever one you want, it's not going to make any difference, as
far as I am concerned. Printer's errors and grammatical corrections to
fix the frontier language skills of the great men involved in its
translation do not change the message of the Book of Mormon one whit,
as far as I am concerned.
>I don't think that any of these examples is a fair counterpart to the
>testimony seeking that we have been talking about.
I used these examples to point out that if we wait for an "objective
basis of validation" for everything, as you had suggested, we are not
putting our trust in God. The Isrealites, had they waited until they
had this basis would not have crossed the Red Sea. They would have
said, "Moses, can you give us any "hard" evidence that the Red Sea will
stay that way until we get across?" Or, they would have said, "Moses,
can you give us any "hard" evidence that looking on the brass serpent
will heal us of the bites of the fiery serpents?" Or, "Joshua, can you
give us any "hard" evidence that the walls of Jericho will really fall
if we do the strange things you suggest?"
>In fact, I
>see the Mormon approach as not an act of faith at all, but much closer
>to Thomas' desire for a subjective experience before he would believe.
Thomas refused to believe the simple testimony of others until he saw
for himself. Those who refuse to believe the simple testimony of others
that God can and will answer a prayer asking if the Book of Mormon is
the word of God until they see "hard" evidence that satisfies their
intellect are "leaning to their own understanding" and are not putting
their trust in God, in my humble view.
>how then does one make sure that they are not being deceived
>by some other influence?
Jesus himself said to ask, and Jesus himself said that every one that
asketh receiveth. I say ask and continue to ask until you are sure in
your own heart that you have received from God. He promised that you
*will* receive. God will not deceive you. He will not give you a stone
when you ask for bread. Trust in God that you will receive from Him!
That is all I or any of us Latter-day Saints urge you or anyone else to
do. Please, don't take our word for it. Please, do ask God if these
things are true!
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 51.85 | Here's one who does | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Mon May 07 1990 11:46 | 20 |
| To Ed in .81
You said:
I don't think there is a Mormon archaeologist, anthropologist,or
even apologist who will come out and say 'This (whatever) is hard
evidence for the Book of Mormon."
I belive that Hugh Nibley has most emphatically made this statement
over and over in his book, An Approach to the Book of Mormon. I have
entered many of hos comments in this notes files. I am sure you must
have read them.
So, Ed, here is one Mormon scholar who has said and written that he
considers the BofM to have substantiating evidence. There are others.
I do not understand why you make these kind of statements.
Paul
|
| 51.86 | No way out | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Mon May 07 1990 17:44 | 8 |
|
Okay -- so let's say that I agree to pray and ask God if the BofM is
true.
What if the Book of Mormon is FALSE? No provision has been made for
this conclusion except to say that the person is not sincere!
Roger
|
| 51.87 | Prove All Things | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Mon May 07 1990 18:03 | 37 |
| Since our eternal destiny is dependent on what we put our trust in now,
shouldn't there be something more trustworthy than feelings? After all
feelings can come from:
1. GOD
2. Satan (see II Thessalonians 2:9)
3. Our own heart (see Proverbs 14:12, Deuteronomy 11:16)
Nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray for a feeling if a book is from
God, if a prophet is a true prophet or if a teaching is a true
teaching.
The Bible says 'PROVE ALL THINGS; hold fast that which is good."
A careful examination of James 1:5 reveals that WISDOM not KNOWLEDGE is
asked for. In context, the verse indicates that James is writing to
BELIEVERS who are experiencing various trials and afflictions (vv. 2,3).
These trials are necessary to produce patience (vv 3,4). If anyone
doesn't understand the divine purpose in these hardships, he is to ask
God. (vv. 5-7).
Nowhere in the context is there an indication that a prayer for wisdom
is to be equated with receiving an "INNER TESTIMONY" that something is
true.
God has given TESTS for a true prophet as well as TESTS for sound
doctrine. If these tests are disregarded and one prays instead for
"inner confirmation", the door is left wide open for anything to
happen, including the 'powers of darkness':
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of
darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in
high places." (Eph 6:12)
Roger
|
| 51.88 | God works with the heart and the mind, IMHO ... | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Mon May 07 1990 21:48 | 25 |
| Roger,
There are lots of scriptures that can be interpreted to indicate that
one should use logic and lots that can be interpreted to indicate that
one should use inner feelings. Do you really want to start a
scriptural debate along these lines? I guarantee it won't get
anywhere.
I do appreciate your point about what happens if the B of M is false.
And, there is a condition that follows this. It's described well
in Alma 32 and, according to my experience, it is quite reliable. These
verses indicate to me that I need to already have within myself the
ability to recognize what is good. If I can't recognize what is good
through experience and through coming to know God, then this process won't
work. But, I learn to recognize good, to recognize God's hand in
all things, then this process works. The condition is that if what
results generates bad, then the potential spiritual truth being tested is
false.
I'm not saying to toss out history or logic. What I'm saying is to not
toss out feelings as another form of communication from God that He
uses frequently and often with as many as will accept and be sensitive
to it.
Steve
|
| 51.89 | Prove all things through the Holy Ghost. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue May 08 1990 10:25 | 61 |
|
RE: Note 51.86
> What if the Book of Mormon is FALSE? No provision has been made for
> this conclusion except to say that the person is not sincere!
That is because those who propose it's truthfulness do not believe
it to be false. Also, the scriptures insist that a person must be
sincere and truly desire the truth for God to make known or give
an answer. Even then, it is done in God's own time and at His will.
In fact, the answer may have been given and not recognized.
RE: Note 51.87
> Since our eternal destiny is dependent on what we put our trust in now,
> shouldn't there be something more trustworthy than feelings? After all
> feelings can come from:
> 1. GOD
> 2. Satan (see II Thessalonians 2:9)
> 3. Our own heart (see Proverbs 14:12, Deuteronomy 11:16)
> Nowhere in the Bible are we told to pray for a feeling if a book is from
> God, if a prophet is a true prophet or if a teaching is a true
> teaching.
Yes, the Bible does not DIRECTLY teach to pray for a feeling, but it
DOES teach that we are to be given answers through the Holy Ghost or
Spirit of God. This is how Peter was given the truth of who Jesus
really was - by the Spirit. (Matt 16:17) John 14:26 tells me that
the Father will send the Holy Ghost to teach us all things and help
us remember that which was given us.
Now, how does the Holy Ghost do this? Does he come face-to-face and
tell us these things? NO. He does it through that which can not be
denied - by spirit to spirit communications. This has been condensed
down to "feelings." We also are responsible for discernment of the
source of whatever feelings we have in regards to whether or not they
come from God, Satan, or our own base desires.
But once a person has has a witness from the Holy Ghost, it is not
that hard to tell after that. The whole basis of the gospel is line
upon line. If the Bible is true and one can believe in it, then
what better place to start. To increase in knowledge by having the
second witness of the Book of Mormon is delightful. And having the
additional and informative Doctrine and Covenants helps to tie in the
concepts just alluded to in the others. All three together help to
solidify the concepts and ideas that are needed to continue on to the
next step.
Sorry, but the manner in which God has established to communicate with
his children is through the Holy Ghost. That is how God set it up,
and that is how God will continue it. If his children want to
describe that as "feelings", then that is how it is. However, we
should realize that these "feelings" are the Holy Ghost, and what
could be more trustworthy than the Holy Ghost?
Charles
|
| 51.90 | Be true to what God says | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Thu May 10 1990 11:45 | 26 |
| Re: Note 51.86 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
Hi Roger,
> Okay -- so let's say that I agree to pray and ask God if the BofM is
> true.
>
> What if the Book of Mormon is FALSE? No provision has been made for
> this conclusion except to say that the person is not sincere!
My personal opinion is that if a person prays and asks God if the Book
of Mormon is true, and he believes that God answers him that it is not,
then that is between the person and God. That person should be true to
the communication that he has received from God. However, every one of
us must be very careful not to ascribe to God that which is not from
God.
In short, it is a very personal thing between God and every person.
As for me, I have studied and prayed long and hard to know if the Book
of Mormon is really true. I have received assurance by the power of the
Holy Ghost to my own soul that it is true. This I must not deny, lest I
offend God who has given me this assurance, for I must be true to this
communication that I have received from God.
Rich
|
| 51.91 | falling behind every day... | ARCHER::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Thu May 10 1990 13:06 | 92 |
| re .75
I'm sorry that I have not been able to keep pace with this topic. My
available time has been cut way down and there's more replies than I
can adequately keep up with. I'm afraid I will not be able to reply to
every point, but if someone feels they have made a telling or even earth-
shattering point and they want to make sure I'm not evading it, just
insist that I reply, and I will...
> In these notes I have given you information from several non-Mormon
> scholars and archeologists about the historical, archeological,
> cultural, political and literary credibility of the BofM. Such scholars
> as Heyerdahl, Gordon, Mahan, Lund (plus others as footnoted in
> BofM studies which have presented evidence). I have even sent you
> some information you requested.
Thanks for all the stuff that you have sent. I found it informative but
not substantive enough to be convincing, but I'm always open...
My question regarding these non-Mormon references is, have they actually
come out and said that they believe that the Book of Mormon is credible,
or have parts of their work merely been cited by Mormons as supporting
evidence? I know that you cited Cyrus Thomas, who happens to be the man
who finally debunked the Mound Builders myth, as finding a stone with
Hebrew inscriptions in a mound, yet Thomas went from being a pronounced
believer in the existence of an outside Mound Builder race to completely
rejecting the idea after doing his research. These Hebrew inscriptions,
as you cited them, seem to suggest that the Mound Builder theory may have
had credibility. It seems highly likely that if Thomas had been hoping
for support for his Mound Builders theories then he would have latched on
to this as signifigant evidence.
> So certainly you are AWARE OF the fact that there are non-Mormon
> scholars who corroborate the credibility of the BofM, and AWARE of what
> they have said/written.
I am aware that some of the work of these non-Mormon scholars has been
cited, but not aware that they themselves give credibility to the Book of
Mormon. That's a big difference.
> My dilemma, Ed, is that I do not know where to go from here in our
> dialogue. As I said, you are aware of the evidence from non-Mormon
> scholars. Are you saying that do not accept their evidence? If you do
> not, then what is it about their evidence (hard or soft) that you do
> not accept?
If exerpts from their work have been cited as evidence, it is not the
same as saying that they themselves came to the same conclusions. I
believe that bits and pieces of their work have been employed in an
attempt to support the Book of Mormon, but that there is not enough to do
more than make it APPEAR that the Book of Mormon is credible. For
example, the fact that Thor Heyerdahl was able to construct a raft that
could sail from Africa to South America does nothing to prove that people
from the Middle East settled in the New World. To me that is not evidence
for the Book of Mormon. Also, the presence of some roads in Mesoamerica
doesn't mean that they were built by BoM peoples. Besides, my understanding
about these "roads" is that they were mainly paved paths between temples
and major buildings in the center of cities, and that they did not run
between cities. At best this seems to be another parallel - and not a
strong one.
> So, I do not know where to go from here concerning discussions of
> evidence.
Well, you could always just agree with me that there is no hard evidence
for the Book of Mormon! I don't think you'd get an argument from the
scholars you cited.
> As for how one gets a testimony of the BofM, the "feeling" one senses
> is not the same "feeling" you have when watching a good movie or
> listening to some tragic story...
> ..So please, do not equate the Mormon use of "feeling" with those other
> day-to-day range of human emotions.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, but I don't think that even a
qualitative difference in feelings can raise those feelings above the
level of the purely subjective, and as such contain at least the
possibility of error. Some of the strongest and most sublime feelings
I've ever had turned out to be wrong - yes and some turned out to be
right, too - but the problem lies in the practice of employing feelings
in the role of preeminent truth arbiter, which is, I think, a dangerous
mistake.
> Anyhow, Ed, after so many notes about "evidence" and "feelings", where
> do we go from here? Why is the "evidence" presented so far not
> acceptable to you?
I hope I have answered the second question a least partly adequately.
Where do we go from here? That's up to you I suppose.
Ed
|
| 51.92 | this is why | ARCHER::PRESTON | A cat... in the rat race of life | Thu May 10 1990 13:20 | 28 |
| re .85
Regarding my statement that I don't think even Mormon scholarly
authorities would go so far as to point to something as hard evidence
for the book of Mormon:
> I belive that Hugh Nibley has most emphatically made this statement
> over and over in his book, An Approach to the Book of Mormon. I have
> entered many of hos comments in this notes files. I am sure you must
> have read them.
> So, Ed, here is one Mormon scholar who has said and written that he
> considers the BofM to have substantiating evidence. There are others.
> I do not understand why you make these kind of statements.
Paul, I have been trying for a long time to make a clear distinction
between hard evidence and much less signifigant "parallel" evidence.
The key word in my statement is "hard" which requires that it be
tangible and have at least as strong an argument "for" as any argument
"against." You should understand that distinction by now.
I have yet to see any evidence cited by Mormon apologists that amounts
to more than superficial parallels and coincidences. Even the
supposedly insightful cultural parallels cited by Nibley are hardly
convincing if you think them through. If you disagree, we can take them
on a point by point basis in some other note.
Ed
|
| 51.93 | Several Groups have a testiomony - which one is right | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Thu May 10 1990 16:59 | 22 |
| > My personal opinion is that if a person prays and asks God if the Book
> of Mormon is true, and he believes that God answers him that it is not,
> then that is between the person and God. That person should be true to
> the communication that he has received from God. However, every one of
> us must be very careful not to ascribe to God that which is not from
> God.
So what you are saying is that praying for a testimony of the Book
of Mormon is falliable.
Your right, a testimony is is not a trustworthy way to follow God. An
example of this is that there are 140 groups who proclaim by their
"testimony" that they follow the teachings of God and Joseph Smith Jr.
but not one of them follows the same "prophet". Each group teaches
that the others are wrong. Each of these groups have a 'testimony'
that they are following the truth.
Which one is right? The point is once again made that praying for a
feeling or a 'testimony' only opens the door for a person to be
deceived. Besides, the Bible is clear about how to determine if
someone is a false prophet and how to determine sound doctrine.
|
| 51.94 | Thanks | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Thu May 10 1990 18:06 | 20 |
| To Ed,
You mentioned in your last reply a scholar named Cyrus Thomas, who
debunked the myth of the MOund Builders. The scholar I noted was Cyrus
Gordon. He is the one I discussed about the Bat Creek Cave Stone with
the the Hebrew inscriptions.
Also, saying that Nibley's evidence is "superficial" is, I suppose,
your interpretation. For having read not only the text, but his
copious footnotes leads me to say that his research is hardly
superficial.
And yes, Thor Heyerdahl has publically stated his support for the BofM.
Well, Ed, thanks for responding to my question of why you do not accept
the analyses/evidence as quoted by non-Mormon scholars. I guess we will
have to let our individual opinions on all this "evidence" stand as
they are.
Paul
|
| 51.95 | Must reply on Holy Ghost through faith. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu May 10 1990 18:35 | 16 |
|
I was reading the scriptures and came across something the Lord was
saying to some missionaries in D&C 52 verse 9 :
"And let them journey from thence preaching the word by the way,
saying none other things than that which the prophets and
apostles have written, and that which is taught them by the
Comforter through the prayer of faith."
I was impressed by the last part - "taught them by the Comforter
through the prayer of faith." Now this is not hard evidence or
intelligence. This is exactly how God works. Only through faithful
prayer will we be taught by the Holy Ghost.
Charles
|
| 51.96 | See note 100 for test of a prophet | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Fri May 11 1990 11:02 | 4 |
| Roger has referred a couple of times to a Biblical method of determining if
a person is a false prophet or not. I thought I would open a new note so
we can discuss that method. The note is #100 and is an expansion of the
topic originally assigned to that note.
|
| 51.98 | Hear! Hear! | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri May 11 1990 13:00 | 10 |
|
RE: Note 51.97
Hear! Hear!
And don't forget the Doctrine and Covenents or the Pearl of Great Price.
Charles
|
| 51.99 | Ask, and ye shall receive! | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Fri May 11 1990 22:12 | 76 |
| Re: Note 51.93 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
Hi Roger,
>> My personal opinion is that if a person prays and asks God if the Book
>> of Mormon is true, and he believes that God answers him that it is not,
>> then that is between the person and God. That person should be true to
>> the communication that he has received from God. However, every one of
>> us must be very careful not to ascribe to God that which is not from
>> God.
>
> So what you are saying is that praying for a testimony of the Book
> of Mormon is falliable.
No, that's not quite what I am saying at all! What I am saying is that
you should not take my word or any other person's word about the
truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Instead, you should ask God. He has
promised in the Holy Bible that every one that asks shall receive. I
say trust Him and trust His promise. Ask Him and continue asking until
you receive. That is what I am saying.
I am also saying that if you do this, and you receive an answer that
the Book of Mormon is not the word of God, and you are convinced that
that the answer has come from God, then that is between you and God.
God must judge your sincerity in this matter, and not me or any other
person.
On the other hand, if I do this, which I have, and I receive an answer
that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and I am convinced this
answer is from God, as I am, then that is between me and God. God must
judge my sincerity in this matter, and not you or any other person.
But, in such a case, it would be certain that we both did not actually
get our answer from God. One of us has erred, in this case. This is why
I also made the statement that we must each be careful not to ascribe
to God that which is not from God.
Is this a fallible process? Not if you really believe the Holy Bible
that says that every one that asks shall receive. As long as the person
asking is doing so in faith, and is in harmony with the commandments of
God, I believe that God will answer him in an unmistakeable way. If
not, then I would expect such a person to receive no such answer, and
possibly even be deceived by sources other than God.
> An example of this is that there are 140 groups who proclaim by their
> "testimony" that they follow the teachings of God and Joseph Smith Jr.
> but not one of them follows the same "prophet". Each group teaches
> that the others are wrong. Each of these groups have a 'testimony'
> that they are following the truth.
>
> Which one is right?
The only answer I can give you is to ask God. He is the only one who
can tell you for sure.
> The point is once again made that praying for a
> feeling or a 'testimony' only opens the door for a person to be
> deceived.
Are you saying that those who pray to God will be deceived? Please
explain this position, and please show me from the Holy Bible where it
teaches, as you are suggesting: 'ask not, for ye will be deceived'. I
think it reads the other way around: 'ask and ye shall receive'.
By the way, don't pray for a 'feeling' or a 'testimony'. Just ask God
if these things are true. Then listen for Him to answer to your soul.
Don't get hung up on these terms 'feeling' and 'testimony'. Just ask
for and await communication from God directly to you.
> Besides, the Bible is clear about how to determine if
> someone is a false prophet and how to determine sound doctrine.
Yes, and one of the things that it is clear about is that we should ask
God, and that we shall receive!
Rich
|
| 51.100 | | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Mon May 14 1990 13:18 | 31 |
| RE Note 51.99 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI
>> An example of this is that there are 140 groups who proclaim by their
>> "testimony" that they follow the teachings of God and Joseph Smith Jr.
>> but not one of them follows the same "prophet". Each group teaches
>> that the others are wrong. Each of these groups have a 'testimony'
>> that they are following the truth.
>>
>> Which one is right?
> The only answer I can give you is to ask God. He is the only one who
> can tell you for sure.
You missed the point. The members of each of the groups have already
prayed and at least 140 different answers have been received -- each
conflicting with the other. The point is that you cannot say by your
personal testimony alone that you are more right than the other 139
groups because they also have their testimony. Now, if God is in the
business of giving testimonies of the truth, then why is God telling each
group something different?
> By the way, don't pray for a 'feeling' or a 'testimony'. Just ask God
> if these things are true.
Okay -- so then could I do like Gideon did and put out a fleece? Or
as an example -- Let's say that I pray and ask God and say 'God if the
Book of Mormon is true, then let my newspaper be all wet when I go out
and get it in the morning. (That's reasonable -- after all it was wet
this morning).
|
| 51.101 | In His own way | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Mon May 14 1990 17:09 | 70 |
| Re: Note 51.100 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
Hi Roger,
>> The only answer I can give you is to ask God. He is the only one who
>> can tell you for sure.
>
> You missed the point.
I know it seems to you like I missed your point, but a better way to
put it is that I disagree with your analysis.
> The members of each of the groups have already
> prayed and at least 140 different answers have been received -- each
> conflicting with the other.
You are making the point that praying to God to receive a personal
knowledge of the truth about a matter is fallible, and you use as
evidence of this point that so many people have (apparently) done so
and come up with so many different answers.
In citing this example as evidence of your point, you have made some
fairly broad assumptions. You have assumed that each one of these
people has in fact sought such a knowledge from God. We don't know
that. We do not know if the intent of their hearts was pure. We also
don't know if they prayed in faith, nor do we know if their individual
lives were in harmony with God's commandments, such that they would be
worthy to receive such communication from God. We do not know if they
have in fact received answers, and if they have, we do not know from
what source their answers came.
Now you can say the same about me and my testimony. You don't know any
of these things about me. That is why I said that you must not take my
word, nor the word of any such persons about such things at face value.
You can only know for sure by direct communication with God. It is then
between you and God to determine if you are worthy and able to receive
answers that He might give, and for you to determine if in fact any
answer you have received has come from God.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you are saying that God
cannot answer such prayers. I also don't think you are saying that God
will not answer such prayers.
Perhaps you are saying that no man can know if an answer he has
received to such a prayer is really from God. If so, then I must
disagree. I believe that a person can receive and should try to receive
such knowledge directly from God, just as Jesus admonished us to do,
when He said "Ask, and ye shall receive".
If you believe that it is not correct to ask such things in prayer, in
faith that you will receive, then please explain to me how you view
Jesus' teaching on this matter.
> Okay -- so then could I do like Gideon did and put out a fleece? Or
> as an example -- Let's say that I pray and ask God and say 'God if the
> Book of Mormon is true, then let my newspaper be all wet when I go out
> and get it in the morning. (That's reasonable -- after all it was wet
> this morning).
The way you choose to communicate with God and the way He might choose
to communicate with you are not for me to say. I think the most
important thing is the intent of one's heart when they do approach God
in such matters. Is the person seeking a sign out of mere curiosity, or
sincerely to know God's will? Is the person willing to obey the
communication from God, together with all that it implies, if He should
convey such knowledge to them? If a person's heart is right, then I
think God, in His own way, will let him know the answers to such
things.
Rich
|
| 51.102 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Mon May 14 1990 17:16 | 26 |
| Actually, I would suppose that one need not be Mormon to have God bear
witness of the Bible, the B of M or of Joseph Smith as prophet. Thus,
140 or even 1000 factions may consist of members with this testimony.
Just because I have a testimony of these things from God does not mean
that the particular faction that I belong to is His Church. The issue
of testimonies of Christ being shared among members of factions in
strife is probably thousands of years old.
God is not telling anyone anything different about the Gospel, though
He may be telling the same message in different ways. Men are probably
proudly choosing that which they will or will not believe, adding to or
taking from what God has revealed or does reveal to suit their own tastes.
Also, I believe that in order to accept an answer from God one must do so
on His terms and seek what answer He chooses to give. As far as my own
experience goes, I learned long ago that success involves figuring out and
asking the right questions. It involves humbling myself to receive and
accept His answer, however it might come. And, it involves avoiding the
temptation to tell God what to do. Otherwise, instead of seeking God one
may be seeking signs. Instead of knocking and finding God, one may be
ringing the devil's doorbell. (Hey, how's that for analogy?) Thus, to
find truth about God there must be a careful mix of the intellectual and
the spiritual. What should the mix be? That's between the individual and
God.
Steve
|
| 51.103 | Imagine such a situation | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Tue May 15 1990 11:34 | 40 |
| All of this dialogue is very interesting. I have talked to so many
devout persons, convinced that they are on the one and only right way.
I often ask myself that God seems to be defeating himself by "letting"
all these people have such differing testimonies about him and the way
to approach him. AFter all, it seems to me that if there were one and
only one way, God would say "no" when anyone asks him about this
religion or that one, this practice or doctrine versus that one. But
he does not. Instead, it seems he says "yes".
I remember my mother ( devout Catholic) saying her rote prayers and
her getting a "yes" (inspiration, support and communion) from God. How
can all this "yessing" by God be? It seems to me that he is just adding
to all the confusion. Why doesn't he just ignore people when they are
asking the wrong question or say "no"?
Imagine such a situation! Imagine the effect on human and spiritual
progression. Imagine how blocked, how stiffled, how restricted human
life on this planet would be. Human spiritual development might not
even exist since one could spend a whole lifetime seeking the one and
only way and never find it. What motivation would there be for a
pursuit in which you could never feel even the smallest reward for
having found a particle of truth?
Rather, God works with each individual on the personal level by
encouraging, supporting, teaching, chastizing and loving each one
enough to communicate with them. His purpose is to draw us all to him
and thus, he customizes his interaction with each and every person.
I sincerely believe that we will all one day come to a "unity of the
faith", but not in this life (not even during the MIllenium), but
rather when the earth is governed by a different order of existence.
The gift of free will/agency guarantees that humanity will create and
choose options for every facet of life. The demise of Communism (and
every other controlling "ism) is due to its not recognizing "the
unalienable rights" of the species to make and exercise choices.
Well, just my opinion and thoughts.
Paul
|
| 51.97 | Kneel...and then listen! | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Tue May 15 1990 13:20 | 46 |
| > I was impressed by the last part - "taught them by the Comforter
> through the prayer of faith." Now this is not hard evidence or
> intelligence. This is exactly how God works. Only through faithful
> prayer will we be taught by the Holy Ghost.
I think that Charles has brought out the important point in all of this
discussion: personal prayer to God!
Even though there is hard evidence for the Bible, that evidence says nothing
about the religious content of that book. There are records from
contemporaries of the Hebrews that are also supported by hard evidence, and
those records are (from the Christian viewpoint) full of myths. Hard
evidence only gives a basis for the historical content of the books.
As as been discussed in very great detail in note 10, the Bible is so
ambiguous that the Christian community can not agree on what it means. It
certainly can not be used as our basis for accepting truth.
I think that when you really get down to it, each Christian has only one
way to determine truth, and that way is through faith and personal prayer
to God! If we rely on the hard evidence that supports the Bible, then we
are obligated to accept the pagan records from the contemporaries of the
Hebrews. If we rely on only the Bible itself, we will be caught up in
the trap of assuming that *our* interpretation is *the* correct one and
that those who differ from us are wrong.
I think the bottom line of this whole note is that we only have one way
to gain truth from God, and that is through our faith in God, our personal
prayer to Him, and our receiving actual revelation from Him. He won't
appear to us in a vision. We won't hear Him speak words to us. Some of
us might receive inspired dreams. He will speak to us through the Holy
Ghost, and thoughts and ideas will enter our minds. I realize that this
is a very subjective way of learning truth, but if you study the Bible, it
seems obvious to me that it is God's way of dealing with us.
This concept of our receiving direct revelation from God seems threatening
to many Christians, because they have been influenced by hundreds of years
of "orthodox" Christianity telling them that the heavens are closed and that
we must rely on only the Bible as our source of truth.
Each of us must look deeply into our own soul and see how close we are to
God and how well we receive promptings from the Holy Ghost. Our
relationship to God is a matter of being close to Him through prayer, not
a matter of how well we understand the Bible (and Book of Mormon for us LDS).
Allen
|
| 51.104 | God answers ALL faithful prayers. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Tue May 15 1990 21:53 | 35 |
|
D&C 46
7. But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth
liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so
I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking
uprightly before me, considering the end of your salvation,
doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not
be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils; or the
commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.
D&C 50
23. And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.
24. That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and
continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth
brighter and brighter until the perfect day.
We are commanded by God to pray to him. He is no respecter
of personages and will give liberally to all who ask. It makes no
difference as to what, if any, church they belong. Whatever the
Spirit gives you is light. Those who receive the light of God and
continue with it will not be left alone. People are healed by their
faith in God, and not by some person standing in a tent exhorting
them to believe in God. God heals by a persons faith. God answers
by a persons faith. And God leads His children line upon line,
precept by precept, hear a little, there a little, until they have
a fullness through the Grace of Him who was chosen before the
foundations of the world, even our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Charles
|
| 51.105 | answers sometimes before we recognize them ... | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Wed May 16 1990 10:38 | 11 |
| One of my favorites, came about the time that Oliver Cowdery introduced
himself to Joseph Smith after spending a lot of effort seeking him out:
D & C 6:14 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, blessed art thou for what
thou hast done; for thou has inquired of me, and behold, as often as
thou hast inquired thou hast received instruction of my Spirit. If it
had not been so, thou wouldst not have come to the place where thou art
at this time.
Steve
|
| 51.106 | | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Wed May 16 1990 12:53 | 19 |
| RE: Note 51.101 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI
> The way you choose to communicate with God and the way He might choose
> to communicate with you are not for me to say. I think the most
> important thing is the intent of one's heart when they do approach God
> in such matters. Is the person seeking a sign out of mere curiosity, or
> sincerely to know God's will? Is the person willing to obey the
> communication from God, together with all that it implies, if He should
> convey such knowledge to them? If a person's heart is right, then I
> think God, in His own way, will let him know the answers to such
> things.
Are you saying that I could 'put out a flease' as mentioned in my
previous reply or are you saying that God might not answer me in this
way.
Roger
|
| 51.107 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Wed May 16 1990 13:46 | 21 |
| Roger,
Can't speak for others, but as I read Judges 6, it becomes apparent to
me that the "Spirit of the Lord came upon Gideon" several times. He
had an extremely close relationship with the Lord which included
angelic visitation. As faith precedes the miracle, Gideon was made
partial to several miracles and manifestations including the event with
the fleece as a result of his tremendous faith.
So, in answer to your query, you probably would be able to put out your
own fleece and get a miraculous response if you had the faith, humility
and close personal relationship with the Lord that Gideon had. However,
if you do not have these attributes, and I suspect most of us don't,
putting out the fleece may be no more than faithless sign seeking. I
suspect that the Lord will be hesitant to reward such behavior as it does
not follow with the counsel that He has revealed to us. I suspect that,
like Moses, Gideon was given power from God to request such miracles in
faith and have it come to pass.
Steve
|
| 51.108 | My recommendation | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Welcome back Kotter | Wed May 16 1990 15:38 | 33 |
| Re: Note 51.106 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
Hi Roger,
> Are you saying that I could 'put out a flease' as mentioned in my
> previous reply or are you saying that God might not answer me in this
> way.
I am saying that I don't know if putting out a fleece would work for
you or not. That is up to God to say, not me.
If I were recommending to someone how to get an answer from God on a
matter, I would recommend that they prayerfully and thoroughly study it
out in their own mind and heart first and develop their own preliminary
conclusion about it. Then, in prayer, ask God in the name of Jesus
Christ to let them know by the power of the Holy Spirit if their
conclusion is right. Based on my experience, if the conclusion is
correct and you are prepared to receive the answer, the Holy Spirit
will fill you with the fruits of the Spirit. You will have an
unmistakeable assurance in your spirit that it is right. This is Spirit
communicating with spirit.
On the other hand, if you get no such assurance, then you must study
the matter out again, perhaps modify your conclusion or improve your
preparation to receive an answer and then ask again. Continue to do
this until you do receive an answer from God to you.
This process has worked for me on many occasions. Not only does this
process work on finding out, for example, whether the Book of Mormon is
the word of God, but it also works in finding out what course to take
in other matters, such as family, work, or personal decisions.
Rich
|
| 51.109 | | TOMCAT::PRESTON | fit as a fizzle... | Tue Jun 05 1990 17:58 | 10 |
| I'd like to clarify some terms here, starting with the word "true." It
may help facilitate our discussion.
We are told that someone can know if the Book of Mormon is "true" by
asking God to show them. Just what is meant by "true" in this context?
Thanks,
Ed
|
| 51.110 | What is truth?y | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Wed Jun 06 1990 08:57 | 33 |
| WElcome back, Ed. I am still waiting for some answers for some
questions I proposed to you back in other notes. But in the meantime I
will present a definition of "true" as applied to the BofM.
Webster says" True - 1)faithful, loyal; 2) in accordance with fact,
not false; 3) conforming to a standard, accurate; 4) rightful, lawful;
5)accurately fitted, shaped; 6) real, genuine
My definition of the BofM as a true book follows Webster's definition.
The Book of Mormon is a record of the history of the Lord's dealings
with a family/clan of Israelites who were removed from Jerusalem and prospered for about 1000 years in a
different place, until their final elimination by a horrendous war-like
enemy. As such it is faithful to, in accordance with, conforming to the
standards of, accurately fitted/shaped to, real and genuine in all of
the structure, mores, conventions, historical, geographical,
cultural and religious requirements of an historical/religious account
of a wandering tribe of Israel. Thus, it is a true book!
Nothing has yet been presented to dispel/destroy its
truthfulness/accuracy. Critics may come and go, but the book has stood
the test of time and scrutiny. Even today, more and more is being
uncovered that substantiates its claim.
This is my testimony/witness after 23 years of studying the book,
and following its teachings about leading a Christ-like life.
Personally, I prefer to use more accurately descriptive terms for
saying the book is true. "True" has so many connotations. I prefer to
use one of the definitions as shown in Webster's list.
Paul
|
| 51.111 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Wed Jun 06 1990 09:38 | 10 |
| Our belief that the Book of Mormon is true does not imply that the particular
words used in the book are "set in concrete". Everyone is aware that
changes have been (and probably will be made) to make the later editions
conform more to the original manuscript. IMHO, we believe the BoM is true
because of the information contained in it, not because of the particular
words used to express that information. Those who would like to discuss
the changes that have been made to the BoM are invited to use note 143 for
that discussion.
Allen
|
| 51.112 | it's a good question ... | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Wed Jun 06 1990 10:55 | 46 |
| Actually, I appreciate Ed's concern because the book itself allows for
"the mistakes of men" (title page) to be contained within the book.
However, the promises of verification of truth tend to focus on
the truth of spiritual issues, requiring spiritual verification
(Moroni 10:3-7). Since the focus of the book is on spiritual things
(1 Nephi 9:2-3, 2 Nephi 4:14, Jacob 1:3-4) and since the book involves
much abridgement (1 Nephi 1:17, Mormon 1:3-7, 3 Nephi 5:13-15, Ether 1:4-5,
Ether 3:17, Ether 15:33) the details that do not directly involve
spiritual issues have been intentionally abbreviated. The result is
that details involving non-spiritual things can be easily
misinterpreted and are at least sketchy. It is in this domain that the
book makes few claims as far as accuracy or detail. The "truth" that
some attempt to extract from this is subject to interpretation and may
not be subject to the same spiritual verifications.
For example, Lehi's course of travel, the locations of cities and the
technologies available can largely only be inferred. The book itself
says little about them. This being a pronounced and self-admitted
weakness of the book, it is easy for critics to assert that the tests
of faith in the book are unreliable since they cannot be reliably
applied to these areas. A problem with such assertions is that
the book makes little claim about historical details or of spiritual
verification of such temporal details. Another problem is that such
assertions draw attention away from the messages in the book which include
the spiritual verification of spiritual things.
When I say that I "know" the book to be "true", I do so with the
understanding that it is the spiritual things of the book that I know
to be true. The definitions that have preceded this note apply, but
only in a spiritual context. As this involves spiritual verification
(for me) my knowledge is based on results through application of faith.
(I shudder at the thought of "taken on faith". Faith without works,
such as study, prayer, application and so forth, is empty.) This means
that, from an intellectual point of view and out of a spiritual context,
there is a non-zero probablility that I could be wrong about what I say I
"know". But, given the spiritual context and my own experiences, to
"know" is the best word I have available to describe my position regarding
the truthfulness of the book.
As has been pointed out, the book has undergone much scrutiny and the
historical details have been neither conclusively proven nor disproven.
The criticism that the book does not have enough historical data to
suit ones taste is moot given the stated intents of the book located
from the title page through the last pages of the book.
Steve
|
| 51.113 | I must ask the obvious question... | TOMCAT::PRESTON | fit as a fizzle... | Wed Jun 06 1990 16:09 | 15 |
| Thanks for the responses on what "true" means (to you) in this context.
I will have a comment or two later, but something Allen said has me
wanting to ask an obvious question...
> Everyone is aware that changes have been (and probably will be
> made) to make the later editions conform more to the original
> manuscript.
Since the original manuscript is in English, and was direct from the
prophet himself, why then does the LDS Church not simply publish the
manuscript as it is, without coming out with new "editions" every so
often?
Ed
|
| 51.114 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Wed Jun 06 1990 16:52 | 5 |
| Hi Ed,
I moved your question to note 143.
Allen
|
| 51.115 | Gee Allen, you *are* fast! | TOMCAT::PRESTON | fit as a fizzle... | Wed Jun 06 1990 17:40 | 7 |
| I think that my comment/question should remain here, since it was in
response to your entry in .111.
I will agree that any discussion should be carried on in note 143,
however. I have a few comments on the subject that I will enter there.
Ed
|
| 51.116 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Wed Jun 06 1990 18:10 | 13 |
| > I think that my comment/question should remain here, since it was in
> response to your entry in .111.
> I will agree that any discussion should be carried on in note 143,
Sorry for the confusion.
My comment about moving your question to the other note wasn't clear. I
didn't mean to imply that your question would be deleted from this note,
only that your question would be duplicated in the other note and my
reply made to that note.
Allen
|
| 51.117 | My thoughts on James | KAHALA::PRESTON | Fahrvergn�gen in a Volvo | Fri Jul 06 1990 17:55 | 23 |
| Allen,
A number of replies ago, you outlined how you believed that James'
admonition to seek wisdom from God amounted to the functional equivalent
of asking God for knowledge. I think that you are really reaching a bit
too far in arriving at that conclusion.
Since you have brought the original Greek into the discussion, it might
be beneficial to point out that the Greek word for knowledge is "gnosis"
which is distinct and seperate from "sophia." While wisdom and knowledge
necessarily overlap to some degree, they are not the same. If James'
admonition amounts to asking God for knowledge, why then did he choose
the word "sophia" rather than "gnosis?" The seeking of wisdom, as James
appeals to, does not require adding new facts to a situation. Since the
truth or falsity of the Book of Mormon involves a fact, regardless of
wisdom, then wisdom is not required to know it. The difference between
wisdom and knowledge (sophia and gnosis) is sufficiently distinct that I
feel it is erroneous to imply that the seeking of wisdom somehow
translates into the ability to "know" if a fact is true or not. Thus I
feel that it is a fallacy to refer to that passage in the book of James
as support for the Mormon approach to divining truth.
Ed
|
| 51.118 | Is God really our Father in Heaven? Then talk with him! | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Tue Jul 17 1990 09:41 | 53 |
| Hi Ed,
>A number of replies ago, you outlined how you believed that James'
>admonition to seek wisdom from God amounted to the functional equivalent
>of asking God for knowledge. I think that you are really reaching a bit
>too far in arriving at that conclusion.
I went back and read .78, and as far as I can tell I didn't say that wisdom
and knowledge were the functional equivalent. What I did say in reply .78
(and note 4.7) was that wisdom *included* knowledge. That is, when we gain
wisdom, we also gain knowledge. (The converse is not true: we can gain
knowledge without gaining wisdom)
When a person gains wisdom about something, he or she gains information
that wasn't known, and this information is knowledge. Strongs Concordance
brings out that 'Sophos' (and hence 'Sophia') concerns gaining wisdom in a
general sense rather than in just an intellectual sense, and I believe that
James' admonition to pray to God for wisdom can (and should be) used in
any situation in which we need guidance from a divine Father. If I have
problems at work, with my family, with my Scout troop, I believe I can pray
and ask God for wisdom, i.e. a greater insight and understanding of these
problems such that I will make correct decisions about them. If I have doubts
about my religious beliefs, I believe I can pray to God for insight and
understanding about this. This insight and understanding involves my gaining
information about them and my being wise in using that information in my
decision making process. Information is knowledge.
>The difference between
>wisdom and knowledge (sophia and gnosis) is sufficiently distinct that I
>feel it is erroneous to imply that the seeking of wisdom somehow
>translates into the ability to "know" if a fact is true or not. Thus I
>feel that it is a fallacy to refer to that passage in the book of James
>as support for the Mormon approach to divining truth.
The "Mormon approach" to obtaining truth is to pray and ask God if things in
question are true or not. One thing I don't understand is why Christians who
are not LDS object to that method. They believe in God and Jesus Christ.
They believe that God loves us. They believe in prayer. They believe that
God answers prayers. Yet they say we should not pray and ask God if the
Book of Mormon is true or not. They seem to be placing limitations on what
topics can be the object of prayer. There are many people who do not
believe the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is the Christ. I wonder
if those Christians are saying that these people should believe in the
"Christian God" and in Jesus Christ as the Messiah but they should not ask
the "Christian God" if their beliefs in Him are true or not. It doesn't
make sense to me.
As I study the Biblical verses about prayer, I come away the impression that
we can ask *any question* to God, and He as a divine and loving Father will
answer our prayers if we ask with faith. This personal relationship with
God about *any topic* is a key part of the Christian religion.
Allen
|
| 51.119 | In God We Trust | MUDIS3::WILLOUGHBY | FRANKly speaking | Tue Jul 17 1990 11:41 | 75 |
| RE: .77 from Ed,
>It becomes an issue of feelings *versus* intellect when the two are
>contradictory. My intellect, which God gave me, tells me that there are
>very serious problems with the Book of Mormon as it seeks to be accepted
>as scripture. These are problems and shortcomings for which the Bible has
>no counterpart, and that I feel disqualify the BoM from serious consideration.
>This being so, then I believe that the *only* way anyone can reach the
>conclusion that the BoM is the word of God is to get a "feeling" to that
>effect, because the objective basis simply does not exist.
I could be misinterpreting Ed's beliefs, but I think that the issues involved
here are two-fold (from Ed's standpoint as I perceive it). I don't want to put
words in anybody's mouth. If I am wrong on my perceptions of your feelings/
beliefs, Ed, please let me know.
1) Should we pray for everything? Because we prayed about something (earnestly
& sincerely) should we expect our prayers to be answered?
I pray a lot, but not as often as I should. I pray for guidance, for
strength to bear my hardships, for wisdom, etc. Praying alone isn't
enough. Faith alone isn't enough. We all know that "faith with works
is dead". If I pray that I can be a better father & husband, yet put
my job as my highest priority, then I shouldn't be too surprised when
my prayer doesn't get answered. If I pray asking if the Book of Mormon
is true or not and don't make the effort to *sincerely* study & ponder
about it (with an open mind), then I shouldn't be too surprised if I don't
receive an answer. The problem will have been that I haven't done all I
could.
2) Which has priority - intellect or spirituality? I get the feeling that Ed
believes that if his intellect tells him one thing & he believes it, there
is no point in putting it to the test by praying about it. I think that
this is the crucial point.
For me, spirituality has priority. If my intellect tells me one thing, I
don't stop there. I put it to the test. After all, who knows more about
the truthfulness of something - God or I? God, of course.
An example: It goes against my intellect that the Red Sea could be parted
just because Moses wanted it to. Where is the proof? Where is the direct
evidence? Who can substantiate it? All we have is somebody's word for it
& it is tough to cross-examine a piece of paper. 8^) Since I don't know
anybody who has duplicated the event, then what must have been written was
only a fairly tale - if we were to rely on intellect alone. Now, I have a
conflict. Scientifically, it would be impossible to prove that Moses parting
the Red Sea ever took place. We can't even duplicate it. Yet I know that
this event occured. I have a testimony that this happened, yet it conflicts
with scientific fact. Which is right? God is perfect & is all-knowing. If
anyone can tell me if something is true, He can (and will). If He bears
witness of something to me (through the Holy Ghost), then I accept it.
Period.
I think it is wrong to say that because something can't be proven, or that
it goes against a person's intellect (knowledge, experience, etc); that it
can't be true. I think it would be somewhat arrogant of us to think that
we know all there is about something or that we shouldn't ask God for
something. We don't know everything. Actually, we know very, very little.
We have come a long way in the last 6,000 years, but our scientific
knowledge is insignificant compared to what God knows. When I was a child,
if I wanted to know something, I would ask my father. Since I am a child
of our Heavenly Father (just like everyone else who has ever lived or will
live), it is also appropriate for me to ask Him to let me know if something
is true or not. He loves us and He wants us to return to Him. He will
answer our prayers, but we must do our part first.
We can either put our trust in God or in our scientific knowledge. Who
knows more? We put the slogan "In God We Trust" on a lot of our currency.
Personally, I think it we should take it to heart.
Best Regards,
Frank
|
| 51.120 | BTW | KAHALA::PRESTON | Farvergn�gen? Get a Volvo. | Tue Jul 17 1990 14:12 | 9 |
| I think I asked a while back whether or not Mormons apply the same test
(or method) for divining the truth of the Bible that they do to the
Book of Mormon. No one has replied, (or I missed it) so I thought I'd
ask again.
Thanks,
Ed
|
| 51.121 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Tue Jul 17 1990 18:48 | 8 |
| I'm not sure what you mean by "divining" truth, Ed. The word "divining"
implies fortune telling, and I think it is an inappropriate word to describe
people praying for answers.
Yes, Ed, I pray and ask God if the Bible is true, just as I pray and ask Him
if the Book of Mormon is true.
Allen
|
| 51.122 | I think it fits | KAHALA::PRESTON | Farvergn�gen? Get a Volvo. | Wed Jul 18 1990 14:05 | 19 |
| Allen,
We are not talking (at least I'm not) about the issue of "praying
for answers" as much as the LDS approach to the truth of the Book of
Mormon. I do not believe that lumping the two together is valid.
I think that the word "divining" is perfectly applicable in this
context, since we are talking about someone looking for a certain thing
to happen that they will interpret as an indication of something else.
That's divination as I understand it.
The "burning in the bosom" is a perfect example of this. A burning
feeling means nothing (has no truth value anyway) unless you have put
yourself in a position to interpret it as such. I don't see any
difference between that and tea leaf reading or consulting a Ouija
board.
Ed
|
| 51.123 | Daniel was a diviner | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Wed Jul 18 1990 14:46 | 25 |
| > The "burning in the bosom" is a perfect example of this. A burning
> feeling means nothing (has no truth value anyway) unless you have put
> yourself in a position to interpret it as such.
It seems to me, Ed, that almost all answers to prayer are like this, and
from your viewpoint would be "divination". If answers came in the form of
words, then they would convey information, and they would not be "divination"
as you use the term. However, if answers came in the form of dreams, they
would have to be interpreted in order to have any meaning, and they would
be "divination". If this is the case, then many of the Biblical prophets
would be "diviners", and the Bible would be full of the occult.
In today's context, the word "divination" refers to the occult rather than
to God, and it is because of this that I don't think the word applies to LDS
and the Book of Mormon. We believe that emotional feelings, such as peace
of mind or a warm feeling, are used by God as *indicators* of revelation
from the Holy Spirit. I think that comfort and peace of mind are two of the
greatest influences we can receive from the Spirit. We agree that these
feelings have to be interpreted, but we object to one calling them
"divination", because of the implication of the occult instead of revelation
from God.
Allen
|
| 51.124 | Holy Ghost was and still is key to conversion. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Wed Jul 18 1990 15:29 | 24 |
|
The usual definition of "divination" is "the art or act of foretelling
future events or revealing occult knowledge by means of augury or
alleged supernatural agency." (Webster's II New Riverside University
Dictionary, page 393) The use of this word in regards to LDS
beliefs is an affront of the highest degree.
II Peter 1:21 tells us that "the prophecy came not in old time by
the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost." Besides just talking to man, God uses the Holy Ghost
to "move" or inspire men. The "burning in the bosom" is a perfect
example of this. II Timothy 3:16 supports this when he tells us that
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,..." How? By the
power of the Holy Ghost. For what purpose? Read the rest of verse 16
and 17.
The power of the Holy Ghost is used as final confirmation of the
truthfulness of the gospel. The day of Pentecost first brought
this power to the apostles. Then it was used on the multitude that
believed and were baptized. Cornelius and his house received it.
Why does anyone believe that the Holy Ghost stopped working the way
he was intended to? There is no parallel in the Bible to Moroni 10:3-5
that I know of, but the test is the same in either case.
|
| 51.125 | belief came first; then holy spirit | ILLUSN::SORNSON | What! No GRAVY? | Wed Jul 25 1990 11:22 | 17 |
| re .124 (BSS::RONEY)/Charles
> The power of the Holy Ghost is used as final confirmation of the
> truthfulness of the gospel. The day of Pentecost first brought
> this power to the apostles. Then it was used on the multitude that
> believed and were baptized. Cornelius and his house received it.
> Why does anyone believe that the Holy Ghost stopped working the way
> he was intended to? There is no parallel in the Bible to Moroni 10:3-5
> that I know of, but the test is the same in either case.
A thing or two to remember, though, is that they all had faith in
God (or belief in the truth) *first*; the (miraculous) gift of holy
spirit came afterwards. Holy spirit didn't help them to *decide* what
the truth was; they already knew it. Holy spirit was given to them to
empower them to preach the kingdom/gospel message.
-mark.
|
| 51.126 | The Holy Ghost *confirms* the belief or desire to believe. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Wed Jul 25 1990 12:11 | 21 |
|
RE: Note 51.125 ILLUSN::SORNSON
> Holy spirit didn't help them to *decide* what the truth was; they
> already knew it.
The Holy Ghost *confirmed* their belief. Cornelius may have had
more previous faith than others, but in any case, the final
confirmation was by the Holy Ghost.
Peter wanted to believe that Jesus was the Christ, but he didn't
know for sure until confirmation by the Holy Ghost. That is why
I said, "The power of the Holy Ghost is used as final confirmation
of the truthfulness of the gospel." ----- ------------
In the Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:4 says the same thing. If you have
a desire to believe and ask with a sincere heart, then it will be
manifested to you "by the power of the Holy Ghost."
Charles
|
| 51.127 | Was not, was not!! | FDCV09::PRESTON | | Wed Jul 25 1990 14:21 | 35 |
| > It seems to me, Ed, that almost all answers to prayer are like this, and
> from your viewpoint would be "divination". If answers came in the form of
> words, then they would convey information, and they would not be "divination"
> as you use the term. However, if answers came in the form of dreams, they
> would have to be interpreted in order to have any meaning, and they would
> be "divination". If this is the case, then many of the Biblical prophets
> would be "diviners", and the Bible would be full of the occult.
You have missed, or misappropriated, my definition of divination. Just
because something is interpreted does not make it divination, so your
comparison of divination to dreams is improper. Daniel was certainly not
a diviner.
I referred to divination as someone looking for a certain thing to happen
(that in and of itself was no truth value) that they will then interpret
as an indication of something else. The conditions are set up in advance,
and the interpretation is determined in advance. This is not how Daniel
dealt with dreams.
I see the Mormon approach to the verity of the BoM to be just this
kind of thing. Instead of merely presenting itself as the word of God and
letting the readers accept it as so (as with the Bible), a situation is
created where the entire outcome is determined by the appearance of a
feeling, which is designed to take supremacy over all subsequent
information. If history fails to support the BoM, that's ok, you have
your feeling to go on; if archaeology fails to support it, ok, no
problem. Even if the pictures painted by history and archaeology begin to
look more and more like the BoM could very well be false, it doesn't
matter, the feeling you received tells you otherwise. No matter what the
issue that calls the validity of the book into question, it doesn't
matter, because you received a feeling that told you it was true. It's a
neat system. At what point will you begin to wonder if that feeling might
possibly have been wrong?
Ed
|
| 51.128 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Thu Jul 26 1990 01:27 | 51 |
| >I see the Mormon approach to the verity of the BoM to be just this
>kind of thing. Instead of merely presenting itself as the word of God and
>letting the readers accept it as so (as with the Bible),
Hmmm. There are many other books that meet this criteria. What is it
(not related to feeling) that separates these for you from the Bible?
For example, my understanding is that the Koran and Apocrypha are accepted
by many to be historically correct and to claim to contain the word of God.
There are others.
>a situation is
>created where the entire outcome is determined by the appearance of a
>feeling, which is designed to take supremacy over all subsequent
>information.
This is your assertion and has no basis in the whole of LDS scripture.
In fact, the process as described in the B of M requires assembling
"subsequent information" and testing it, looking for more than just one
possible result (Alma 32 and other references). Also, there is consistent
reference to more than "a" feeling. There are many feelings, based on my
understanding of scriptural references, that people have during spiritual
experiences. I believe this requires that one learn how to recognize these
feelings and to eventually come to understand the whole of truth that God
would have one understand. It involves a challenge to a lifelong commitment to
understanding of spiritual things that may begin with "a" feeling, but is
sustained by much more than a solitary experience. As we live by faith, a
certain knowledge is probably not normally attained during a lifetime.
>If history fails to support the BoM, that's ok, you have
>your feeling to go on; if archaeology fails to support it, ok, no
>problem. Even if the pictures painted by history and archaeology begin to
>look more and more like the BoM could very well be false, it doesn't
>matter, the feeling you received tells you otherwise. No matter what the
>issue that calls the validity of the book into question, it doesn't
>matter, because you received a feeling that told you it was true. It's a
>neat system. At what point will you begin to wonder if that feeling might
>possibly have been wrong?
I think Alma 32 answers the last question sufficiently. You might consider
that archaeology includes scientists that are not in agreement about your
assertions as has been discussed. Of course, I understand that you feel the
opinions or credentials of these to be suspect.
Do I wonder if "that feeling" might possibly have been wrong? Actually, I do.
It causes me to search, to ponder and to exercise faith (per Alma 32).
I accept that I could be wrong because this is faith, not knowledge. But, the
sum of my experiences indicates to me that the Gospel is true. That includes
a lot more than "a" feeling and, for me, is enough for me to assert with
confidence that I "know" the Gospel to be true.
Steve
|
| 51.129 | God' Word vs. Mammon's Speculations | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Thu Jul 26 1990 12:41 | 20 |
| After reading your latest entry, Ed, in which you seem to ask how can
Mormons hold on to their "feeling"-based testimony of the BofM when
history, archeology, etc. may IN YOUR OPINION seemingly contradict,
I got the impression that for you the relationship between religious truths
(as either contained in the BofM or the Bible) and scientific theory,
discoveries, or fact must be non-contradictory. Have I made a correct
interpretaion of your position?
What a dilemma this position might provide! IN MY OPINION, there are
religious truths that science does not embrace, nor probably will ever.
Some of these truths migth include the existence of faith, faith as a
creative power, existence of God, etc. Yet sure of these truths I am,
and have learned and know of their surity through my "feelings"
(remember my definition which is that spiritual feelings of discernment
are not the everyday emotional responses). Thus for me I will hold on
most strongly to that which I have spiritually learned (felt) in spite
of what science may say.
I will take God's word/revelations before Mammon's theories.
|
| 51.130 | | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Thu Jul 26 1990 15:06 | 14 |
| RE: <<< Note 51.129 by SLSTRN::RONDINA >>>
> IN MY OPINION, there are religious truths that science does not
> embrace, nor probably will ever. Some of these truths migth include
> the existence of faith, faith as a creative power, existence of God,
> etc.
Granted. We are not talking about religious truths here. We are
talking about historical evidence. The BofM, unlike the Bible, cannot
easily be supported by historical evidence. And that is what we
are talking about -- objective measure.
|
| 51.131 | easy support != objective measure | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Thu Jul 26 1990 15:55 | 1 |
|
|
| 51.132 | Clarify that | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Mon Jul 30 1990 12:04 | 5 |
| RE: Note 51.131 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you clarify
what you mean?
|
| 51.133 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Mon Jul 30 1990 22:42 | 7 |
| Ease of support is not the same as objective measure. For example,
when it was thought that the earth stood still and the heavens revolved
around it, it was easily supported though not always in an objective
fashion. This was found out by those who first proved that the
assertion was false.
Steve
|
| 51.134 | | KAHALA::PRESTON | Farvergn�gen? Get a Volvo. | Thu Aug 02 1990 13:14 | 37 |
| re .128
Steve,
> Hmmm. There are many other books that meet this criteria. What is it
> (not related to feeling) that separates these for you from the Bible?
> For example, my understanding is that the Koran and Apocrypha are accepted
> by many to be historically correct and to claim to contain the word of God.
> There are others.
You're right. There's *lots* of books, writings, pronouncements, etc that
claim to be the "word of God." There's nothing new about that. (I noticed
that you used the word "contain" rather than "be." Just out of curiousity,
do you regard the BoM as "being" the word of God or "containing" the word
of God? I do not want this to become a sidetrack, however.)
� a situation is created where the entire outcome is determined by the
� appearance of a feeling, which is designed to take supremacy over all
� subsequent information.
> This is your assertion and has no basis in the whole of LDS scripture.
My assertion is based on the "burning bosom" sign sought by those invited
by Mormons to discover the truth of the BoM. Regardless of one being told
to read, study and ponder, the fact remains that it is a purely subjective
feeling that is set forth as the determining factor.
> It involves a challenge to a lifelong commitment to understanding of
> spiritual things that may begin with "a" feeling, but is sustained by
> much more than a solitary experience.
It is just that solitary experience which sets the tone for all subsequent
experiences, and becomes the standard by which subsequent experiences are
judged. If that feeling is based on something that is not so, then nothing
which follows it can really be trusted, even if it reinforces the original.
Ed
|
| 51.135 | | KAHALA::PRESTON | Farvergn�gen? Get a Volvo. | Thu Aug 02 1990 13:15 | 60 |
| Re .129
Paul,
> I got the impression that for you the relationship between religious truths
> (as either contained in the BofM or the Bible) and scientific theory,
> discoveries, or fact must be non-contradictory. Have I made a correct
> interpretaion of your position?
Throughout history there have been occasions where science and history
appeared to be in conflict with scriptural revelation. Given that the scope
of human discovery is by necessity less than the entirety of all that is,
it may at times have less to say on certain things than the scriptures. As
apparent contradictions are resolved, the trend is still that supernatural
revelation does not contradict scientifically discovered truth. Any
knowledgeable student of the Bible and the expanding sciences of history,
archaeology, etc is aware of the tendency for factual discovery to verify
the scriptures. The problem with the BoM (and other LDS scriptures) is that
this tendency does not appear, in fact the opposite seems to be the case.
> What a dilemma this position might provide! IN MY OPINION, there are
> religious truths that science does not embrace, nor probably will ever.
You are committing the fallacy of equivocation, where your conclusion
depends upon a different definition than one upon which your premise is
based. You correctly stated that I generally hold that there should be a
non-contradictory relationship between revelation and science, but then
you stretch it futher, implying that I somehow insist that they be in
full agreement on ALL THINGS, even those which are outside the realm of
science. Not so.
This creates no dilemma for me. It should present a problem, however, for
anyone holding to the truthfulness of something for which objective
support diminishes, rather than increases, over time.
> Some of these truths migth include the existence of faith, faith as a
> creative power, existence of God, etc. Yet sure of these truths I am,
> and have learned and know of their surity through my "feelings"
> (remember my definition which is that spiritual feelings of discernment
> are not the everyday emotional responses). Thus for me I will hold on
> most strongly to that which I have spiritually learned (felt) in spite
> of what science may say.
I don't see how "spiritual" feelings are qualitatively different from
"everyday" feelings. Just because you may have a deep sense of awe, or a
rosy glow, or whatever, does not magically raise these feelings to the
level of infallibility. Feelings remain subjective either way. If you
start down the wrong path because of a feeling, then the path remains wrong
regardless of whatever might reinforce the "rightness" of your feelings.
You may be hiking in the Grand Canyon and have a "feeling" that a certain
path is the right one. It may appear to go in the right direction,
it may afford you good views of your objective from time to time
("there it is, I can see the cabin!"), it may even make for a pleasant
hike - with gentle slopes, burbling streams and pretty flowers along
the way - yet when the sun dips low on the horizon and the last rays of
light begin to fade, you discover that you have somehow arrived on the
edge of a thousand foot chasm separating you from the cabin. And it's
getting dark, fast... some feeling then, eh?
Ed
|
| 51.136 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Thu Aug 02 1990 14:57 | 40 |
| I used "contain intentionally. Even the B of M allows for itself to
contain "the mistakes of men" (title page).
>My assertion is based on the "burning bosom" sign sought by those invited
>by Mormons to discover the truth of the BoM. Regardless of one being told
>to read, study and ponder, the fact remains that it is a purely subjective
>feeling that is set forth as the determining factor.
The "burning bosom" to which you refer has many descriptions which
differ but which many have learned to recognize. Since there are so many
descriptions, I assume that it may well feel different from person to person.
In addition to that, spiritual encounters in the Bible have been associated
with feelings of peace, astonishment, joy and so forth. All of these bear
differences as feelings go. For those who have learned to discern the
"burning", it is not subjective as it is not duplicated by their own
imaginations or internal forces. (At least, I've not been able to duplicate
it that way. I admit I've tried to at times when I wanted to get a specific
answer or I wanted it when I wanted it and not when God wanted to give it to
me.) For me, it does not come as frequently or predictably as peace,
astonishment, joy or whatever. But, it is associated with these feelings.
>> It involves a challenge to a lifelong commitment to understanding of
>> spiritual things that may begin with "a" feeling, but is sustained by
>> much more than a solitary experience.
>
>It is just that solitary experience which sets the tone for all subsequent
>experiences, and becomes the standard by which subsequent experiences are
>judged. If that feeling is based on something that is not so, then nothing
>which follows it can really be trusted, even if it reinforces the original.
If that "burning" is based on something that is not so, then anything coupled
with that "burning" which follows the original experience and indicates
something to be true which is known to be false will lead to a failure. Thus,
the original "seed" is bad, failing per the test in Alma 32. I have never
experienced such a failure with the "burning". The "burning", coupled with
joy, sadness, amazement or whatever other feeling, has never failed me. A
testimony involves building upon many ideas and experiences, not just one.
Steve
|
| 51.137 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Allen Leigh | Thu Aug 02 1990 15:33 | 7 |
| In note 118.0, Elder Dallin H. Oaks gives some ideas about differentiating
between our emotional feelings and feelings that come from the Holy Ghost.
I'm not aware, Ed, that answers to prayer come only in non-subjective ways.
Perhaps you can elaborate on this?
Allen
|
| 51.138 | ...like me... | KAHALA::PRESTON | Farvergn�gen? Get a Volvo. | Thu Aug 02 1990 17:05 | 12 |
| re .136
> failing per the test in Alma 32.
Steve,
For the benefit of those who do not keep a Book of Mormon always
within reach, could you please identify the test you refer to?
Thanks,
Ed
|
| 51.139 | | KAHALA::PRESTON | Farvergn�gen? Get a Volvo. | Thu Aug 02 1990 17:08 | 10 |
|
re .137
> I'm not aware, Ed, that answers to prayer come only in non-subjective ways.
> Perhaps you can elaborate on this?
What do you mean?
Ed
|
| 51.140 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Thu Aug 02 1990 17:44 | 15 |
| Sorry, Ed, for being cryptic. The point of all the discussion going on in this
note concerns the type of answers to prayer that God gives to us. The Mormon
position is that answers from God include feelings such as peace of mind,
joy, hope, comfort, and a warm feeling inside us (along with visions, dreams,
audible words, and words impressed on our minds). We believe that the feelings
are *indicators* that communication has occurred between us and the Holy Ghost.
You've explained your view that such feelings are subjective (we agree) and
are not reliable, and you've expressed your view that objective indicators
are needed. I've gotten the impression from listening to you that you believe
that answers to prayer do not come in subjective ways, and I was wondering if
you would care to elaborate on that and why you believe (if I'm correct in
understanding your views) that God does not give subjective answers.
Allen
|
| 51.141 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Thu Aug 02 1990 23:41 | 7 |
| re: .138
Ed, you don't have a B of M? We could post Alma 32, but that may take
some time. I'd rather give you a B of M and let you (or any other
noter that does not yet have a copy) read it for yourself.
Steve
|
| 51.142 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Thu Aug 02 1990 23:54 | 8 |
| re: .140
Well, I agree that feelings are subjective, but I disagree about the
"burning bosom" once one has learned to recognize it. Then again,
until one can really discern, maybe it is subjective ... I'm always
willing to learn.
Steve
|
| 51.143 | I'll try to remember to read it. | KAHALA::PRESTON | Farvergn�gen? Get a Volvo. | Fri Aug 03 1990 17:21 | 13 |
| Yes, I do have a Book of Mormon. I do not keep it at work, however.
Your mention of "the Alma 32 test" suggested that you were referring
to a few passages rather than the entire chapter. I figured that no
matter who might be reading this topic, if they were not familiar
with the text and did not have a BoM with them, they may be a bit
frustrated, not able to know what you're talking about, and maybe not
inclined to take the trouble to find out later (or like me, not
thinking of it when I'm at home).
Perhaps you could summarize the "test" for us in your own words -
unless for some reason it needs to be read straight from the book.
Ed
|
| 51.144 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Fri Aug 03 1990 18:27 | 12 |
| I read the whole chapter last night and feel that to be understood
correctly the whole chapter must be taken into consideration. I'd
rather not paraphrase much for risk of misinterpretation or leaving
something important out. The first part of the chapter emphasizes the
need to be sufficiently humble. The following parts illustrate the
"test", emphasizing the need to build upon more than just a solitary
experience and emphasizing how one can tell whether or not what you
start with is good. Failure of the test is implied but obvious as
a "bad seed" won't have the same effects. In my missionary scriptures
almost the whole chapter is highlighted.
Steve
|
| 51.145 | What is "Subjective" | SULTRY::LENF | | Tue Aug 07 1990 15:31 | 85 |
| It seems to me that the whole matter of accurate perceptions is a non-
trivial issue. One might say that something is not subjective if it is
seen, But what about the mirage of water in the desert? Can the five
senses be trusted? It is not too difficult to demonstrate ways to
"decieve" any of the senses. Then for that matter is the understanding
of what is seen a reliable matter? Again stories abound demonstrating that
in fact what a person percieves to be "factual" from an actual experience
is in fact very much affected by prior experiences and expectations on the
part of the observer. So what is "Subjective" or in other words certain?
Well a scientist learns to rely on instruments, and on the concept of
"repeatable" in otherwords can different people in different labs produce
the very same results? The courts of law have their own form by relying
on testimony from multiple wittnesses.
In other words, the direct experience of the senses of an individual are
still very much subject to inaccuracy, it is only when a group of
individuals report the same experience in much the same way that the
correctness of a situation can be approached. I say approached since of
course it is very easy to have a whole group of people come up with the
same interpretation and yet have it incorrect, consider of instance the
case of a magician performing before a crowd of people.
Now that we realize that truth is indeed a difficult thing to establish. In
fact it is very difficult to be certain that truth has indeed been
established on anything that is at all complex. We will point out that in
the matter of religion and understanding of God, that people's experience
vary very widely, further peoples expectation also vary very widely. Then
to complicate it very much, people tend to have VERY strong feelings on
these issues which pre-dispose their observations even more. In addition
people tend to gather together in groups around religious issues and "get
their stories together" thereby further diluting their value as accurate
witnesses. Hence establishing universal truth in religious issues is
not very feasible using "Subjective" observations.
Should we just give up? How can we know the truth of God?
Well we need to consider hat the 5 senses are. They are the means whereby
a person can percieve their physical surroundings. Touch, Taste, Smell,
Sight and Hearing. But if we accept the postulate that there is another
class of surroundings, ie. there is a God that is real even though he is
not percieved through these senses, and that there is a spirit in the human
that is some part of the being that actually is part of this other dimension,
Then why would there not be some other sense in addition to those five?
We all know that there are many aspects to ourselves that we do not have a
good way to explain. including "feelings". It might be that some of those
feelings that we do not really understand might be part of another sense,
something that is actually in touch in the spiritual dimension rather
than the physical dimension.
If such a sense existed, how would we learn to use it? Well how do we
learn to use the other 5? First we have to admit to ourselves that it
could exist and might have useful information to us. (if one refused to
admit the usefulness of sound, they would never learn to gain information
from their hearing). Second, one must attempt to give meaning to the inputs
recieved from that new sense. Just as an infant correlates sounds with
events, one could begin to correlate these feelings from this other sense
with events and messages. Further one would accept suggestions from others
as to the meaning of certain inputs just as a child learns the meaning of
words or explanation of sounds from someone explaining it to them. It
would take years of practice to become very adept in using this sense so
one would have to be patient and keep trying rather than giving up in a day
or week and saying that such a sensory input does not exist. Certainly a
child takes years to begin to learn to use the 5 senses.
Perhaps a child does experience this spiritual sense but as they get older
they are tought to rely completely on the 5 senses hence they start to
forget about the spiritual one if they ever knew it.
I hope that this little presentation might awake in someone the willingness
to suppose that a means of spiritual communication might exist between
themself and God. I assure you that I know that it does exist and that it
is in fact the most reliable of all of our senses. Try it, with patience
and effort and you too can learn of it. I assure you that you will be very
very greatful once you discover how to use this channel of spiritual
communication.
This is say in the name of Jesus Christ,
Amen,
your brother,
Len
|
| 51.146 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Tue Aug 07 1990 16:21 | 11 |
| Len's response reminds me of what happened in Acts 2. Basically, we
have a situation here where the Holy Ghost is manifest to many people
and involving many physical senses. While and in spite of what was
happening "others mocking, said, These men are full of new wine"
(verse 13). I suppose that as long as a mix of people can be present to a
spiritual event, there will usually be the possibility of someone that
doesn't fully understand or appreciate what is happening. Hence, in
spite of how wonderful the experience is, I suppose there will usually be
logical grounds for the assertion that the experience is "subjective".
Steve
|
| 51.147 | returning briefly to this... | KAHALA::PRESTON | getting Iraqi-phobia... | Tue Aug 07 1990 17:54 | 9 |
| Allen,
You said that you pray about the truthfulness of the Bible as well as the
Book of Mormon, but you didn't say what the answer was.
To be specific, then, is the Bible true?
Ed
|
| 51.148 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Tue Aug 07 1990 18:30 | 10 |
| Yes, Ed, I know that the Bible is true, the Word of God. I'm not claiming that
particular revisions are completely true, because as you know we LDS believe
that errors have crept into the manuscripts. And, I'm not claiming that
various translations by the scholars are completely correct, but I know that
the words written by the ancient prophets as they were inspired by the Holy
Ghost are true. I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah, and
that through him and only through him we can have redemption from sin and
from death.
Allen
|
| 51.149 | | KAHALA::PRESTON | getting Iraqi-phobia... | Wed Aug 08 1990 10:50 | 11 |
| re .148 (the truth of the Bible)
> I'm not claiming that particular revisions are completely true,
> because as you know we LDS believe that errors have crept into
> the manuscripts. And, I'm not claiming that various translations
> by the scholars are completely correct, ...
Have these errors been identified and corrected?
Ed
|
| 51.150 | This is interesting | KAHALA::PRESTON | Between Iraq and a hard place... | Mon Aug 20 1990 11:23 | 17 |
| re .149 (I've been on vacation, but I'm back)
I realize that the previous reply ventures into the topic of
the accuracy of the Bible, so I really don't expect the discussion
to continue in this topic. But I was just reading this part again:
> I'm not claiming that particular revisions are completely true,
> because as you know we LDS believe that errors have crept into
> the manuscripts. And, I'm not claiming that various translations
> by the scholars are completely correct, ...
...and it occurs to me that the very same thing can be said about the
Book of Mormon, so I do not understand hoe Mormons can claim to have a
higher degree of confidence in the Book of Mormon than the Bible.
Ed
|
| 51.158 | See note 224 for earlier replies about arguments. Moderator | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Wed Aug 29 1990 13:11 | 33 |
|
First, I think it would be a disservice for the moderators to
close this topic out. Why should we shut any topic down? Are
we that closed minded?
Frank - You are right when you say Christ never argued - he
discussed based upon the scriptures. This notes file
tends to lead more towards opinions than scriptures.
You are wrong, however, when you say Christ did not accuse.
In my way of thinking, he did a lot of accusing; especially
to those who had the leadership positions and were not
standing correctly in their callings. But Christ also had
the authority and stewardship to accuse them. He did not,
however, do the judging we sometimes do. I think maybe
words like "judge" and "judging" would be better to describe
the trap we enter. Do not judge other people for their
beliefs, but give them their agency to follow the light and
knowledge they are willing to receive.
Other than that Frank, I agree with your assessment as I
have been there before. There are many areas where we
could share information and knowledge and understanding,
but it should, I think, be under a scriptural basis.
As far as this topic goes, I was examining next years Priesthood
Manual, and there is an excellent lession on the feelings from the
Holy Ghost. If you (the readers of this notes file) would like,
I could post the pertinent section.
Charles
|
| 51.162 | Prayer is Accomplished through the Spirit. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Aug 30 1990 13:19 | 91 |
|
The following extract is from the Melchizedek Priesthood
Personal Study Guide 2, Lesson 3, page 10, section 1.
Prayer Is Accomplished through the Spirit.
Prayer is not simply audible sounds made with the mouth. A person
must feel deeply the things he prays about, or he may be sure that
his prayer is not effective.
1 Corinthians 2:9-11; Ephesians 6:17-18; D&C 8:2-3,10; 76:5-10.
These verses make clear that God speaks to his children through his
Spirit. As he has said, "My voice is Spirit" (D&C 88:66). When
you want to communicate with God, your words are just the physical
expression of your deep personal feelings. And when you listen for
God's answers to your prayers, you "listen" for feelings, impressions,
or sudden bursts of thought. All of these can be manifestations of
the Spirit of God. Through this Spirit, men communicate with God,
and God communicates with men. Of this, the Prophet Joseph Smith
said:"A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the
spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence
flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that
by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon;(i.e.)
those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God,
will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and
understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation,
until you become perfect in Christ Jesus" (*Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith*, p. 151).
I have included the full scriptural references.
1 Corinthians 2:9-11.
9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath
prepared for them that love him.
10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man
which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but
the Spirit of God.
Ephesians 6:17-18.
17. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God:
18. Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit,
and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication
for all saints;
D&C 8:2-3,10.
2. Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by
the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell
in your heart.
3. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the
spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the
Red Sea on dry ground.
10. Remember that without faith you can do nothing; therefore ask in
faith. Trifle not with these things; do not ask for that which
you ought not.
D&C 76:5-10.
5. For thus saith the Lord--I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious
unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me
in righteouness and in truth unto the end.
6. Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory.
7. And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden
mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come,
will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will
concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.
8. Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things
to come will I show them, even the things of many generations.
9. And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach
to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish,
and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught.
10. For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I
make known unto them the secrets of my will--yea, even those
things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered
into the heart of man.
D&C 88:66.
66. Behold, that which you hear is as the voice of one crying in the
wilderness--in the wilderness, because you cannot see him--my
voice, because my voice is Spirit; my Spirit is truth; truth
abideth and hath no end; and if it be in you it shall abound.
|
| 51.164 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Jesus Christ: our role model | Mon Sep 03 1990 05:05 | 18 |
| Re .150
> > I'm not claiming that particular revisions are completely true,
> > because as you know we LDS believe that errors have crept into
> > the manuscripts. And, I'm not claiming that various translations
> > by the scholars are completely correct, ...
>
> ...and it occurs to me that the very same thing can be said about the
> Book of Mormon, so I do not understand hoe Mormons can claim to have a
> higher degree of confidence in the Book of Mormon than the Bible.
Hi Ed,
You're right, Ed, errors have crept into the Book of Mormon, and the 1981
edition made a number of changes to correct them; if anyone wishes to
discuss this further, we should move to a more appropriate note.
Allen
|
| 51.165 | | KAHALA::PRESTON | Kuwait -> Iraq = Kuwaq | Tue Sep 04 1990 13:17 | 7 |
| Re .162
Thanks for posting that Charles, I appreciate your taking the time to
type it in.
Ed
|
| 51.174 | See note 135 for discussion of missionaries | CACHE::LEIGH | Moderator | Thu Sep 20 1990 13:00 | 2 |
| Several replies to this note are discussing LDS missionaries, and I've moved
a portion of .166 and all of .170, .172, and .173 to note 135.
|
| 51.175 | See note 224 for discussion of arguments & contention | CACHE::LEIGH | Moderator | Thu Sep 20 1990 13:18 | 6 |
| Several replies to this note are discussing arguments and contention, and
I've moved the following replies to note 224.
.156, .157, part of .158, .159, 1.60, .161, .163, .166, .167
.168, .169, .171
|
| 51.155 | See note 23 for discussion of the Bible | CACHE::LEIGH | Moderator | Thu Sep 20 1990 13:20 | 2 |
| Replies 51.151 thru .155 were discussing the translation of the Bible, and
I have moved them to note 23.
|