What if you want the church to be true,

[Dill Pickles]

Your experience is not universal nor is it in any way binding or applicable on anyone else. Please find another way to express yourself, or produce a study that supports your premise.

We're kind of damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Here we who question are accused of sin and pride. Why? Because sin and pride are the reasons why people question. And if we deny that we're guilty of sin and pride, well, that just proves that we are guilty of sin and pride.

I suppose one's approach to questioning depends on one's motivation. If one wants to help people regain their faith and commitment, I can't imagine a less-effective way of doing that than making unsupportable accusations of sin and pride.

from the Pickle jar: it's kind of like the humble problem. If you think you're humble, you're not. If you claim to be humble, you're not.

[ScriptureLover]

The Picle Jar has thus spoken:

from the Pickle jar: it's kind of like the humble problem. If you think you're humble, you're not. If you claim to be humble, you're not.

From the Shirtail:

I humbly disagree. I love to proclaim I am humble, and I am damn proud of it!

[Mark Beesley]

Dill Pickle's earlier response regarding absolute truths and proof was amusing. But was basically unhelpful. It assumes that every truth that exists in the universe must be capable of scientific proof as of October 21, 2005. (I assume Dill was referring to scientific proof.) Need I say more? I shouldn't have to, but I will, just to give a simple example.

As of October 21, 2005, there are absolute truths that exists that the earth rotates on its axis, that that moon revolves around the earth, and the earth revolves around the sun. Prior to Galileo, the prevalent western belief was that the sun revolved around the earth. The contrary was not provable by scientific means at that time. When Galileo suggested the contrary, he was labled a heretic. Today we have the scientific means to prove the true order of the solar system.

When I declare that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, and that the LDS Church is true, and proclaim that these are absolute truths, I do it knowing full well that they are not capable of scientific proof today. That does not make them any less true. The day will come when the light of these truths with be manifest for everyone to see, and every knee shall bend, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ . . . and in the next breath will confess the other truths presented above.

And just so Dill and dimbulb do not misunderstand, I never suggested that sin and pride are the only possible explanations for loss of faith. There are lots of other explanations. The initial post asked if if there "an explanation" and I gave "an explanation." Had the initial post asked for every explantion, I would have moved on to a new topic.

And Abulafia, of course I don't think you are less of a person because you lost faith in the Church and now believe something else. I hope I never gave that impression. I hope that people who know me and all of the sins I have committed and struggles I have had won't think I am less of a person, but I know many do.

[Abulafia]

No problem mbeesley.

I guess we all look at the evidence, look at our experiences and try and make the best decision we can based on what we learn. I may be wrong and I may be right and I appreciate that there are many people on this board (some far more intelligent than me I daresay) that look at the same evidence, have different experiences and come to a diametrically opposed opinion of belief than mine.

I was watching a very interesting political UK program on Thursday called 'Question Time' (The Brits will know it well). It was talking of the laws that they are thinking of bringing in that have to do with the use of religion to incite hatred.

It was a really interesting discussion, and one wag was insistent that many religions are divisive in nature. They say, if you join and believe us you are on the right path and saved, and if you don't you are damned and going to 'hell'. (His words not mine). He was arguing that this was itself 'hateful' and predjudicial.

I thought that in part he certainly has a point. Yet, underneath all the differences of religious belief and the inherant diviseness that they can cause, we are all asking the same questions (if we are fed, clothed and homed well enough to get that far). Just that we all seem to come to different conclusions!!!!

In that way, maybe there is a part of all of us in Joseph Smith, kneeling in that grove of trees at the age of 14 (if that is how it really happened) and seeing all the religions and being confused at which way to go.

Abulafia

[dimbulb]

And just so Dill and dimbulb do not misunderstand, I never suggested that sin and pride are the only possible explanations for loss of faith. There are lots of other explanations. The initial post asked if if there "an explanation" and I gave "an explanation." Had the initial post asked for every explantion, I would have moved on to a new topic.

I appreciate your saying that. We are all trying to make our own way through life and find truth. We don't need to throw rocks at each other.

[Dill Pickles]

Dill Pickle's earlier response regarding absolute truths and proof was amusing. But was basically unhelpful. It assumes that every truth that exists in the universe must be capable of scientific proof as of October 21, 2005. (I assume Dill was referring to scientific proof.) Need I say more? I shouldn't have to, but I will, just to give a simple example.

As of October 21, 2005, there are absolute truths that exists that the earth rotates on its axis, that that moon revolves around the earth, and the earth revolves around the sun. Prior to Galileo, the prevalent western belief was that the sun revolved around the earth. The contrary was not provable by scientific means at that time. When Galileo suggested the contrary, he was labled a heretic. Today we have the scientific means to prove the true order of the solar system.

When I declare that Joseph Smith is a true prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, and that the LDS Church is true, and proclaim that these are absolute truths, I do it knowing full well that they are not capable of scientific proof today. That does not make them any less true. The day will come when the light of these truths with be manifest for everyone to see, and every knee shall bend, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ . . . and in the next breath will confess the other truths presented above.

from the Pickle jar: in order to know what you say you know, you must be able to prove that you know, mbeesley. And you cannot. Man cannot prove God's existence. The Plan of Salvation fails the instant man can prove God exists. All else in your claim stems from that. God must first exist before Jesus can be his son, before any man can be his prophet, before any church can be his church. Until man can prove that God exists, he cannot prove that Jesus is the Christ, cannot prove that any individual is a prophet, cannot prove that any church is anything more than just another church.

Without proof of God's existence, there is no knowledge of God. There is faith. and since faith is what we're supposed to have, and what drives the Plan of Salvation, I see no profit in claiming a knowledge you do not have and cannot obtain.

I am content to seek to worship God, who I believe exists, but cannot prove exists, through faith, because I believe that claiming knowledge is overstepping that which is given to any man. Faith is how we are to live, not by knowledge. If you claim knowledge, you must be able to prove what you claim. You cannot. I'm not critical that you think you have knowledge; I simply don't believe you have what you claim to have, and until you can prove that you have it, I will not believe it. Instead, I will seek God through faith. I neither seek nor need knowledge in order to accomplish that which I believe God has laid out for me.

[Dill Pickles]

The Picle Jar has thus spoken:

from the Pickle jar: it's kind of like the humble problem. If you think you're humble, you're not. If you claim to be humble, you're not.

From the Shirtail:

I humbly disagree. I love to proclaim I am humble, and I am damn proud of it!

from the fruit cake: it's that humble sweetness in you that belies all boastful claims of humility, Lord of the Laundry Basket.

[dimbulb]

I used to talk in absolutes, as does mbeesley. I was sure I knew. And I think I believed that if I just "testified" to people, they would understand that I really knew.

Now I'm getting old and questioning everything I thought I knew. Somebody said the other day that I seem to have moved beyond questioning and to some hard conclusions. That may be so with some specific issues, but I hope not.

[charity]

For dill and dim, We have faith in what we do not know. There are many, many things I have faith in. And there are a few things I know. But when the Spirit testifies, then there is knowledge.

I think we humans make a mistake when we believe that only through scientific evidence or through the five senses can we gain knowledge. Many times, what we think we see or hear is not really "true." Optical illusions, absolute threshold, sayer-naysayer phenomenon. The history of scientific "knowledge and truth" which has been overturned. These should let us be very humble about what we think we can know from the physical world.

On the other hand, the Spirit to spirit witness is absolute.

I'm getting old, too. I have accomplished all I need to in this world, except outlive my mother. And the older I get, the more little bits and pieces I have of knowledge. I would like people to have a confimring witness that what I testify of is true. And some of them do.

[dimbulb]

That was a nice post, charity. Thank you for that.

It would take a lot of time to explain how I got to where I am. Some people may not believe me, but I am simply trying to find truth wherever I can and live by what is true. My wife tells me that the only way she can cope with my struggle is that she knows that my heart is in the right place, that I simply seek to do the will of my Father.

I'm glad you are where you are. I may get there some day. I hope so.

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar: until you can prove that God exists (which has been tried repeatedly, and always unsuccessfully), you have no knowledge. That which you call spiritual knowledge is not knowledge, it's faith, mainly because just as there's no proof of God, there's no proof that what you call the spirit exists. Again, it's faith.

[dimbulb]

That which you call spiritual knowledge is not knowledge, it's faith, mainly because just as there's no proof of God, there's no proof that what you call the spirit exists. Again, it's faith.

I used to think it was absolute knowledge. But my life has taught me that, when spiritual knowledge collides with reality, reality usually wins. I guess that makes me a proud and sinful man.

[charity]

Dill, you have to prove anything by means which are valid to the experience. I cannot prove colors by sound waves, I can by light waves. I cannot prove touch sensations through sight.

Neither you nor I can prove God through sight and sound. Joseph Smith did, and we can trust him just as you trust that there is ultraviolet light. You cannot prove ultraviolet light through your own eyes. You trust by seeing something floresce under ultraviolet light that there is ultraviolet light.

God has been proven.

[Loki]

Dill, you have to prove anything by means which are valid to the experience. I cannot prove colors by sound waves, I can by light waves. I cannot prove touch sensations through sight.

Neither you nor I can prove God through sight and sound. Joseph Smith did, and we can trust him just as you trust that there is ultraviolet light. You cannot prove ultraviolet light through your own eyes. You trust by seeing something floresce under ultraviolet light that there is ultraviolet light.

God has been proven.

When was God proven? Because Joesph Smith said so? What about Mohhamed? He said so. Because you have had the spirit testify that Joesph Smith was correct? What about those who have the spirit testify that Allah is the one true God? I dare say, these people are devout, believe with their whole, and are not afraid to kill or die in the name of Allah. Are you even that sure in Jehovah & Christ?

How else exactly has God been proven. I must have missed that day in school.

[Dill Pickles]

Joseph Smith did, and we can trust him just as you trust that there is ultraviolet light.

....

God has been proven.

from the Pickle jar: this is not anywhere near a universally accepted truth. Nor is Joseph Smith considered to be a universal source of truth (and given his strange relationship with the truth in regards to significant parts of his religion, that's no wonder).

Try again, please. What proofs, besides your feelings, do you use to determine that God exists? Feelings are notoriously poor indicators of truth, if history is anything to go by.

[charity]

Dill, if only one person believes the truth, and everyone else believes the opposite, it doesn't make truth any less true. So truth does not have to universally accepted. How many scientific truths do we recognize today, which had to fight for acceptance? If they were thrown in the trash bin for not being universally accepted, there would be no scientific truths.

I don't accept that Joseph had a "strange relationship with the truth." But even if I did, if Joseph told the truth about seeing God and Jesus, then it doesn't really matter what else he said, in regards to that. It might make a difference in who believes him. But, truth is truth, no matter how many people believe it. See above.

We are not talking about feelings. We are talking about proofs. You don't have to believe a word that Joseph Smith said. That doesn't change the proof. God will hold us all accountable for what we do with the proof He provides.

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar: you said God has been proven to exist, charity. I'd like to see your references for that, please. Because all I've ever seen is belief.

God provides no proof, because God's plan is that we walk by faith. Those who seek proof seek to walk outside of God's plan, and could possibly be seeking their own destruction.

Again, please show your proof that God exists. And feelings aren't proof. They aren't even evidence, as they can and are internally constructed within the individual's brain. You said God had been proven. I'd like to see your references please. Thanks in advance.

[charity]

Dill: Please listen. No feelings involved. Joseph Smith said he saw God, and Jesus Christ. He didn't think he did, he didn't feel he did. He did. Proof. That is proof to me. God wants to see if we will accept the proof.

I haven't seen an atom. I accept proof that I cannot see that they exist. Don't you?

[Mark Beesley]

Dill Pickles wrote:

In order to know what you say you know, you must be able to prove that you know.

Really? Since when is the test of knowledge the ability to prove it to others? People can have knowledge in disciplines in which they are trained, that they have studied. That knowledge is hidden to other people unless they go through the same (or similar) process to gain that knowledge.

I don't know, maybe we are talking about completely different things.

Let's take a hypothetical, and remember, it's a hypothetical:

Suppose I was fortunate enough that one day Jesus Christ appeared to me and told me who He was, and let's assume that He was telling the truth.

Would I then know that Jesus Christ was real?

Would I be able to prove it to you?

Would my inability to prove it to you make it any less real?

Let's take another hypothetical.

Suppose I go to a Mormon Temple, and I am really impressed by a particular portrait that hangs on one of the walls. It is an absolute truth that the portrait is hanging on the wall. Can I prove it to you? Well, photography is not allowed, so I can't take a picture. Other people could tell you that they've seen the portrait too, but they can't prove it either. The only way the truth that the portrait hangs on the wall can be proved to you is for you to travel the same road as those of us who have seen the portrait.

Dill, when I say I know, I know. When I don't know, I say, "I believe." I know the difference. You don't have to take my word for it. You could travel the same road I travelled. However, unlike Rome, there are many roads that lead to the knowledge that I cherish, and to be honest, I would suggest travelling one of those other roads. But keep moving forward until you do know. But please, do not presume to tell me I don't know when have not travelled the road I travelled.

[Dill Pickles]

Dill: Please listen. No feelings involved. Joseph Smith said he saw God, and Jesus Christ. He didn't think he did, he didn't feel he did. He did. Proof. That is proof to me. God wants to see if we will accept the proof.

I haven't seen an atom. I accept proof that I cannot see that they exist. Don't you?

from the Pickle jar: charity, do you understand what proof is? Dozens of people have reportedly seen God. Did anyone take a picture, get a signature, bring back a relic... anything that would PROVE that they actually did indeed see God??? The answer is simple, even in Joseph's case: NO. You have faith that Joseph saw God because he said he did, but that doesn't mean he actually did see God. Why is this so difficult to understand? There are too many explanations of Joseph's story that don't include any interaction with the supernatural for non-believers to be forced by unassailable proof to agree that Joseph did indeed see God. Without documentation, without proof all you have is a story, just like dozens of other people who have also claimed, without proof, to see God. No more, no less, and certainly no proof.

If Joseph had produced anything that would support his story, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If we had the gold plates, if we had the urim and thummin, if we had the angel Moroni, if we had any proof that Joseph saw God, this discussion wouldn't be taking place. You take Joseph's word. My question to you is: why? Because of the spiritual witness you have? I'm sorry, charity, but when proof is asked for to substantiate a claim made, you have to produce more than one man's unsubstantiated, unsupported story and your feeling that he's telling the truth. Otherwise, all you have is one man's word. And men have been known to lie, to stretch the truth, to be, in a word, wrong. Even men with the best of intentions have been wrong.

So either produce your proof of God's existence, or I'll just assume you're like everyone else: you don't have any. All you have is your feelings, which are fine for what they're worth, but they aren't proof. Too many people have already poked holes in Joseph's story for it to be accepted at face value as proof that God exists.

[Dill Pickles]

Dill Pickles wrote:

In order to know what you say you know, you must be able to prove that you know.

Really? Since when is the test of knowledge the ability to prove it to others? People can have knowledge in disciplines in which they are trained, that they have studied. That knowledge is hidden to other people unless they go through the same (or similar) process to gain that knowledge.

I don't know, maybe we are talking about completely different things.

Let's take a hypothetical, and remember, it's a hypothetical:

Suppose I was fortunate enough that one day Jesus Christ appeared to me and told me who He was, and let's assume that He was telling the truth.

Would I then know that Jesus Christ was real?

Would I be able to prove it to you?

Would my inability to prove it to you make it any less real?

Let's take another hypothetical.

Suppose I go to a Mormon Temple, and I am really impressed by a particular portrait that hangs on one of the walls. It is an absolute truth that the portrait is hanging on the wall. Can I prove it to you? Well, photography is not allowed, so I can't take a picture. Other people could tell you that they've seen the portrait too, but they can't prove it either. The only way the truth that the portrait hangs on the wall can be proved to you is for you to travel the same road as those of us who have seen the portrait.

Dill, when I say I know, I know. When I don't know, I say, "I believe." I know the difference. You don't have to take my word for it. You could travel the same road I travelled. However, unlike Rome, there are many roads that lead to the knowledge that I cherish, and to be honest, I would suggest travelling one of those other roads. But keep moving forward until you do know. But please, do not presume to tell me I don't know when have not travelled the road I travelled.

from the Pickle jar: perhaps we're talking past each other again, mbeesley. Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say you know? Because I don't want to put words under your fingers that aren't there. Thanks.

[Kenngo1969]

Por supuesto no lleva bien conmigo Redman, pero si no fueran por mis esfuerzos, y los esfuerzos de mis compa

[charity]

Dill, You are not understanding what I am saying. Probably because I am not expressing it well. I will try again.

The world does not stand or fall on tangible proofs. The problem is that there is a different standard of proof depending on what you want to see as proven or not proven. You have never seen an atom. Some people have devised what they tell you are ways to know that atoms exist. But none of those ways can put an atom in your hand. If you say are sure atoms exist, it is without anything tangible in your hand, metal plates evidence. But scientists have told you they exist.

What is the difference? Do you have faith in atoms?

[Mark Beesley]

Dill Pickles wrote:

from the Pickle jar: perhaps we're talking past each other again, mbeesley. Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say you know? Because I don't want to put words under your fingers that aren't there. Thanks.

When you walk outside with your eyes open, and you look up and see the sun, and feel its warmth, you know that the sun came up that morning.

When you stand by a railroad track with your eyes open, and you see a train speeding by, hear the roar of the engine, and feel the wind rush past, you know that a train just passed you.

That is what I mean when I say I know.

[catholic]

Dozens of people have reportedly seen God. Did anyone take a picture, get a signature, bring back a relic... anything that would PROVE that they actually did indeed see God??? The answer is simple, even in Joseph's case: NO. You have faith that Joseph saw God because he said he did, but that doesn't mean he actually did see God.

Dill Pickles does have an interesting point...with prophets alone...Joseph Smith says he saw God, but Joe Public who makes the same claim the general public thinks he is either crazy or lying.

What makes seeing God the truth for one 'prophet' but not for another....