Fifth Columnist Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Over in the News portion of this website, Dan Peterson linked to an article about Chris Nemelka and his most prominent follower, Ida Smith. Chris Nemelka claims to be a prophet who has revealed the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon and Ida Smith is a believer.Here is a link to the thread started by Dan: http://goo.gl/wWwR3Here is a link to the article: http://goo.gl/52mJKHere is a link to the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon: http://goo.gl/KQU11The thing that really struck me about the article is this:Ida Smith nevertheless had an intense, life-changing reaction when she read the book [the sealed portion revealed by Nemelka]. She devoured it over six weeks, in the process emptying two boxes of tissues and several red ballpoint pens as she wept and underlined page after page of scripture.Ida Smith's experience seems like a classic Mormon Holy Ghost experience - except she received a witness that Nemelka is a true prophet (instead of Joseph Smith) and that the Sealed Portion is a true book (instead of the BOM).How can this be?I should note that I was struck by this passage because it is very similar to my conversion experience with the BOM when I was a teenager. I read it every night after high school for a few months and had what I thought were amazing spiritual experiences confirming that it was true. I shed many tears and highlighted many verses, just like Ida Smith. How can I say that my experience is valid and hers is not?
frankenstein Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 what do you consider valid? That she cried? I got very sad when I thought Gandalf was dead, that was a valid emotion. I would say she has "itchy ears and feet" she wanted the "sealed portion" and fully expected it if the whole church read the BoM, she went searching and received exactly what she yearned for.
Fifth Columnist Posted January 28, 2011 Author Posted January 28, 2011 what do you consider valid? That she cried? I got very sad when I thought Gandalf was dead, that was a valid emotion.Valid meaning it is a legitimate way to determine truth. I take it then that you believe she is misinterpreting her experience. If that is the case, how does one determine the validity of one spiritual experience versus another? She obviously experienced something real that she interpreted to mean that Chris Nemelka is a prophet and the book he restored is true, just like I experienced something real and interpreted it to mean that Joseph Smith is a prophet and the book he restored is true. I can't see the difference.I would say she has "itchy ears and feet" she wanted the "sealed portion" and fully expected it if the whole church read the BoM, she went searching and received exactly what she yearned for.That is a good point. Another similarity to the Mormon Holy Ghost experience is the "desire to believe."First: Desire to believe. The Book of Mormon encourages us:
Deborah Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 The Holy Ghost only confirms that which is true. Obviously there are imitations of the spirit, but in reading it I didn't get the feeling at all it was like anything I experienced when the Holy Ghost confirmed something. I think she was a lonely old lady who was looking for something to make her life more interesting. The key is that she found "something better" than the Book of Mormon we already have. Given that that is what God wanted revealed to Joseph Smith I find that very questionable.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 "I got a 'burning in the bosom' about [x]; that person got a 'burning in the bosom' about [y], which is diametrically opposed to [x]. Therefore, one (or both) of us must be wrong." That's an oversimplification of how it works. There's much, much more to it than that. For example, consider Doctrine and Covenants 42:11:11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.Was Nemelka regularly ordained by the heads of the Church, who have authority, to bring forth the Sealed Portion? If so, is it known to the Church that the people who ordained Nemelka were also regularly ordained? Was the thing involving Nemelka done in a corner (see Acts 26:26)?
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 She obviously experienced something real that she interpreted to mean that Chris Nemelka is a prophet and the book he restored is true, just like I experienced something real and interpreted it to mean that Joseph Smith is a prophet and the book he restored is true. I can't see the difference.The differences start to manifest themselves as we act upon what we interpret to be promptings of the Holy Ghost. By defintion, a 'prompting' prompts us to action. If we leave it as nothing more than a prompting, we will never know.For example, if Joseph Smith had never bothered to go to the hill near his house and look for the rounded stone of his vision, he never would have had much to validate what he'd deemed to be a genuinely divine communication. Moreover, if he had gone and found no stone, no stone box, and no plates, he would have been in a good position to conclude that his visions were merely dreams induced by eating too much gingerbread the night before, regardless of the intensity of the reaction he may previously have had to them.
Fifth Columnist Posted January 28, 2011 Author Posted January 28, 2011 The Holy Ghost only confirms that which is true.Are you saying there is another way to determine the truth of something that trumps the Holy Ghost or is your reasoning just circular?Obviously there are imitations of the spirit, but in reading it I didn't get the feeling at all it was like anything I experienced when the Holy Ghost confirmed something.A quick search of lds.org produced this story, which sure sounds similar to hers:As I read these words [the Book of Mormon], I started to cry. My heart was filled with the great love the Lord has for me. I cried in my heart,
Fifth Columnist Posted January 28, 2011 Author Posted January 28, 2011 Was Nemelka regularly ordained by the heads of the Church, who have authority, to bring forth the Sealed Portion? If so, is it known to the Church that the people who ordained Nemelka were also regularly ordained? Was the thing involving Nemelka done in a corner (see Acts 26:26)?Doesn't the Holy Ghost know that He shouldn't be testifying of things done by people who haven't been regularly ordained by the heads of Christ's Church? Why would the Holy Ghost provide conflicting promptings only to let us sort it out through an appeal to Priesthood authority? You would think that he would know not to do that.
Fifth Columnist Posted January 28, 2011 Author Posted January 28, 2011 The differences start to manifest themselves as we act upon what we interpret to be promptings of the Holy Ghost. By defintion, a 'prompting' prompts us to action. If we leave it as nothing more than a prompting, we will never know.For example, if Joseph Smith had never bothered to go to the hill near his house and look for the rounded stone of his vision, he never would have had much to validate what he'd deemed to be a genuinely divine communication. Moreover, if he had gone and found no stone, no stone box, and no plates, he would have been in a good position to conclude that his visions were merely dreams induced by eating too much gingerbread the night before, regardless of the intensity of the reaction he may previously have had to them.Hamba, did you read the article? I think Ida Smith definitely acted on her promptings.
TAO Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Are you saying there is another way to determine the truth of something that trumps the Holy Ghost or is your reasoning just circular?No there isn't.A quick search of lds.org produced this story, which sure sounds similar to hers: http://lds.org/liaho...y-life?lang=engYou don't base it's truth on what others feel, you base it on what you feel. If she felt such, it is her choice to go such a way. If I don't feel such, I must take the other path.What you think is questionable was revealed to her through the Holy Ghost too. How do we know that her Holy Ghost feelings are wrong, but our are right?The reason we go with our own feelings is so that in the end, if we make the wrong decision, others cannot be blamed for it. In other words, it means personal responsibility.And I tell you, the next best person who you trust as being the most responsible in deciding between two options, besides the Lord, would be your own self.To know that you yourself made a mistake is much better than knowing you forfeited your ability to know for yourself by following one whom you had not confirmed.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Hamba, did you read the article? I think Ida Smith definitely acted on her promptings.Indeed, she has. And what has she found? In her case, perhaps, only time will tell. In reading the article, I already detect differences between her experience and mine.
Fifth Columnist Posted January 28, 2011 Author Posted January 28, 2011 You don't base it's truth on what others feel, you base it on what you feel. If she felt such, it is her choice to go such a way. If I don't feel such, I must take the other path.Are you saying that whatever path anyone else chooses based on their spiritual experiences is okay? More importantly, is God inspiring both individuals to proceed in contrary ways?
Fifth Columnist Posted January 28, 2011 Author Posted January 28, 2011 In reading the article, I already detect differences between her experience and mine.What differences did you detect between her spiritual experience and yours, or, more broadly, the Mormon spiritual experience in general (i.e., influence of the Holy Ghost)?
TAO Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Are you saying that whatever path anyone else chooses based on their spiritual experiences is okay?No, I'm saying they will be responsible to God for it. As said though, if you were to trust your own instinct, or another's with no other evidence, you probably would go with your own.Another reason why you trust your own is because only you can guarantee that you yourself did all that was necessary to find God. You can't determine if others did that - only you can determine if you yourself did that.More importantly, is God inspiring both individuals to proceed in contrary ways?I don't know what God's plans are. As D&C 64:11 says,And ye ought to say in your hearts
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 What differences did you detect between her spiritual experience and yours, or, more broadly, the Mormon spiritual experience in general (i.e., influence of the Holy Ghost)?Well, to begin, she swore to Elder Holland that she wouldn't 'bug' her conversation with him, and then she did. That feels pretty different to me.
CV75 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 How can I say that my experience is valid and hers is not?The conflict between two people describing identical symptoms as a witness of the truth of conflicting claims can ultimately be resolved, prior to Judgment Day, only within themselves (Alma 32). Or, the false witness will come to a head and be borne out in an exchange similar to what we see with Sherem, Nehor and Korihor. But if one person
Senator Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 The conflict between two people describing identical symptoms as a witness of the truth of conflicting claims can ultimately be resolved, prior to Judgment Day, only within themselves (Alma 32). Or, the false witness will come to a head and be borne out in an exchange similar to what we see with Sherem, Nehor and Korihor. But if one person
BookofMormonLuvr Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Often if you want something bad enough, you will get what you want. She really wanted the further revelations of the Sealed Portion, so when Nemelka's trash was put before her, her own desire for it gave her the emotions she was taught that she needed to have to confirm truth.David Whitmer quotes Joseph Smith as saying once... "Some revelations are from God, some from man, and some from the devil." This "revelation" she received was clearly from within herself.But truth will always confirm truth, that is why I like the Berean method of accepting truth... they not only heard and felt, but they verified, through established scripture, whether the feelings they had were coming from themselves or really from God.Acts 1710
beth Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 I have heard many testimonies on this board and I do seriously consider them when I try to figure out if the Mormon Church is really true or not. I cannot discount those people on this board who claim to have such strong feelings that I find very genuine. I have no doubt many on this board sincerely believe in the church from praying about it and receiving some sort of spiritual witness despite the problems they are aware of in the church. However, I feel just as moved when I read about this woman's account about this Nemelka guy and his work. How can this be? I really don't see the difference. I have been asked many times to just ignore the many problems brought up by 'anti-Mormons' and just rely on how I feel when I read in the Book of Mormon. Well, I read some of 'the sealed portion' of the BofM supposedly translated by the guy (Nemelka) that so inspired the woman in the article and frankly, I felt the same way when reading both sets of scripture. To me, they both seem like anciently written works and have the same effect on me. I feel kind of equally excited and anxious reading both of them. In fact, if you were to mix up the verses, I probably couldn't tell the difference between the two sets of scriptures. So my question is how do you know that the BofM is true and the 'sealed portion' is false when I get the exact same reaction in my inner self when I read both of them?
Deborah Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 So my question is how do you know that the BofM is true and the 'sealed portion' is false when I get the exact same reaction in my inner self when I read both of them?It's not an issue of whether the sealed portion is false. The issue is this guy is a false prophet with no Priesthood authority to have received the sealed portion or to translate it.
frankenstein Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 So my question is how do you know that the BofM is true and the 'sealed portion' is false when I get the exact same reaction in my inner self when I read both of them?that is a real quandry, if you get the same reaction to both.---------------the little blips I have read just few verses (can't find a download for the full text) would indicate that Mr. Nemelka is contradicting Joseph Smith, particularly a part about Heavenly Mothers (yes plural) given birth to our spirits. In the Joseph Smith Sunday School lesson book, there is a quote, to wit:But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all.
Hughes Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 beth, on 28 January 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:So my question is how do you know that the BofM is true and the 'sealed portion' is false when I get the exact same reaction in my inner self when I read both of them?It's not an issue of whether the sealed portion is false. The issue is this guy is a false prophet with no Priesthood authority to have received the sealed portion or to translate it.And on what date did Joseph Smith receive Priestly Authority to translate the BoM?
frankenstein Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 And on what date did Joseph Smith receive Priestly Authority to translate the BoM?interesting question.what do you consider "receive priestly authority" and would it be different from receiving preistly permission or preistly command
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 It's not an issue of whether the sealed portion is false. The issue is this guy is a false prophet with no Priesthood authority to have received the sealed portion or to translate it.Bingo.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 And on what date did Joseph Smith receive Priestly Authority to translate the BoM?I think you have mis-understood the position Deborah is taking. Since the LDS church is God's church, he would have used the exsisting authroity in the quoram of the 12. He would not have gone outside of that as Nemelka claims.With teh BoM, it is an entirely different circumstance.In essence your question is a red herring.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.