Ida Smith, Chris Nemelka, and Spiritual Witnesses of Truth

[Vex]

I have no idea what you are talking about. The words of the prophets are not a spiritual witness of truth. The Holy Ghost provides a spiritual witness of truth. Perhaps you could spell out your logical fallacy argument a bit more.

Let's break it down into simple to understand points:

1. Spiritual Truth is declared through a prophet
   
2. The spiritual truth existed prior to the declaration
   
3. Therefore the declaration through a prophet is a spiritual witness (first witness)
   
4. The Holy Ghost therefore also testifies of truth for a spiritual witness (second witness)
   
5. Apply the scriptures to verify; "In the mouth of two or more witnesses shall every truth be established."
   

Since this revelation violates the revelations of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Nemelka and even Ida believe Joseph Smith, Jr to be a prophet (as it appears to be according to Nemelka); then we have a logical fallacy presenting itself. Thus the Holy Ghost does what it does and testifies of truth (regardless of medium). That results in only 1 spiritual witness, there be no second to verify less we look to JS concerning it which then nullifies the medium in question.

Ida interpreted her Holy Ghost experience as being in conflict with the modern church and not the early church. If you want to disagree with her about that, then go ahead. It still doesn't change the fact that she says the truth of the Sealed Portion was confirmed to her in a way that is similar or identical to most Mormons' spiritual experiences.

Which is neither here nor there. You brought it up, it's up to you to either defend the position or concede the point. She obviously did not seek congruency between the scriptures and the 'sealed' portion (see above for why scriptures count as a spiritual witness).

It seems that your position is that although the Sealed Portion is full of falsehoods and Nemelka is a false prophet, there may be some amount of truth in it that the Holy Ghost will confirm. For example, perhaps the Sealed Portion says "thou shalt not lie." Ida read this, the Holy Ghost confirmed it, and Ida mistakenly believed it was a confirmation of the entire book.

If this is true, then it calls into question everyones spiritual experience including Mormons. If spiritual experiences are so difficult to interpret, how can a Mormon say that he/she has properly interpreted the same experience. Perhaps Islam is the true religion and the Holy Ghost is only confirming those aspects of the BOM that are consistent with the teachings of Islam as we read it, but we misinterpret it as confirming the truth of the entirety of the Book of Mormon.

That's the quandary that isn't really a quandary. Spiritual experiences are not difficult to interpret but it does take conscious effort to not apply witnesses of truth to something that does not garner it. For instance from my own personal experience I received a witness of the truth of the BOM while reading the Psalm of Nephi, but that only dictated that the Psalm of Nephi is true, I still had to pray and receive a witness of the book itself. Thus the spiritual witness I received while praying is the confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

Again, if Holy Ghost experiences are so difficult to interpret, how can anyone, including Mormons, be sure that he/she has correctly interpreted them.

The process by which to determine spiritual truth is not in practice difficult. I've had individuals tell me that they prayed, received their witness that the BOM is true, but that the same witness dictated that they should not join the Church yet. Does that mean that the spiritual experience is incorrect or misinterpreted? Not necessarily, it could mean that he may be able to bring more people to Christ before he brings himself into the fold.

Interesting. You reject their claimed spiritual experience unless they followed a set process.

No. I reject claims of spiritual experience that violate their own internal paradigm. Individuals can have spiritual experiences outside the church; and as such bring them closer to Christ.

I guess that would invalidate most spiritual experiences from sacrament meeting, EFY, firesides, etc. since they people who experienced them did not follow Moroni's promise.

Yes, and I'm okay with that. Individuals can have spiritual experiences but that does not validate the medium it transpired in. For instance; a Testimony that is accentuated by tears about a recent vacation does not equate to a spiritual experience. Some of the strongest testimonies I have experienced came from a new member as she testified of the reality of the atonement, how the spirit worked with her, and testified of the truth by answering her questions she had for years but never had them answered. Does that mean that what she stated is doctrine? No, but it is a spiritual experience.

Sure, they encourage you to get your own confirmation, but have they ever said that a spiritual witness to the contrary was valid and acceptable? I haven't seen it.

From my recollection they don't dictate one way or the other. The presumption is that they would get a witness of the affirmative for veracity. That is not the same as dictating something and then holding that oration as the only means of determining doctrine.

My main point is that prophets and apostles teach these doctrines because they feel that their truth has been confirmed by the Holy Ghost. If that is true, then why would we even think that we would get a contrary witness? Because the prophet misinterpreted his spiritual experience? Or because the Holy Ghost will confirm things to the prophet and deny them to us (i.e., provide contradictory experiences)? Or what?

See previous responses for better understanding. For an apostle and/or prophet the revelation is usually received very different than most others (see revelations from Joseph Smith, Joseph F Smith, etc). These are not just a 'feel good' type of confirmation they are more often than not doctrine that is expanded or based upon what previous apostles and prophets have stated and others have received their witness.

The whole idea that I can get a contrary witness from the Holy Ghost demonstrates that it is inherently unreliable.

That is an assumption which doesn't necessarily pan out under scrutiny.

[beth]

Though I am a believer in the Book of Mormon I am not a member of the LDS Church. I amazes, and saddens, me that you cannot feel the difference between the inspired words of the Book of Mormon and the demonic trash that Nemelka has put to paper. I will, however, agree with you on one point... Our mere feelings are not good gauges for evaluating truth, we need to compare what we are reading with what we already know to be the word of God and use our common sense a bit. Quick question.... do you believe in the Bible?

I don't believe in all of the Bible, for example I don't believe Noah's Ark really happened like it was a global flood and I don't think Adam was the first man and Eve was made from a rib - those seem like myths to me. I am inclined to believe in the stories of Jesus but don't know for sure.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I don't believe in all of the Bible, for example I don't believe Noah's Ark really happened like it was a global flood and I don't think Adam was the first man and Eve was made from a rib - those seem like myths to me. I am inclined to believe in the stories of Jesus but don't know for sure.

Next question...

Did you do your experiment this weekend because you sincerely wanted to know the truth, or because you wanted to prove a point in this discussion?

[beth]

There's a problem Beth- <a href=' class='bbc_url' title=''>http://www.mormondia...__p__1208969036</a><br /><br />Obviously you didn't do your research. Did I just hear a bubble pop? <img src='http://www.mormondialogue.org/public/style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /

Your reference states that Nemelka's sealed portion isn't true because his scripture contains anachranistic errors. Well, if I applied the same logic to the Book of Mormon, I would conclude that it also contains anachranistic errors like horses and quickly dismiss it like you did the Nemelka work. So maybe you can techinically pick apart Nemelka's work but you just can't ignore the BofM issues either. Now of course you will give me some sort of explanations for all of the BofM anachranisms but I have no doubt that there are Nemelka apologists that would explain his anachranisms too with similar conviction and logic.

Now did YOU just hear a bubble pop?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Your reference states that Nemelka's sealed portion isn't true because his scripture contains anachranistic errors. Well, if I applied the same logic to the Book of Mormon, I would conclude that it also contains anachranistic errors like horses and quickly dismiss it like you did the Nemelka work. So maybe you can techinically pick apart Nemelka's work but you just can't ignore the BofM issues either. Now of course you will give me some sort of explanations for all of the BofM anachranisms but I have no doubt that there are Nemelka apologists that would explain his anachranisms too with similar conviction and logic.

Now did YOU just hear a bubble pop?

Horses? Really? You really need to update your anti-Book of Mormon scholarship.

BTW, thank you for revealing yourself. It goes a long ways towards understanding your posts.

[Vex]

Your reference states that Nemelka's sealed portion isn't true because his scripture contains anachranistic errors. Well, if I applied the same logic to the Book of Mormon, I would conclude that it also contains anachranistic errors like horses and quickly dismiss it like you did the Nemelka work.

Then you do so based on a false assumption.

So maybe you can techinically pick apart Nemelka's work but you just can't ignore the BofM issues either.

From which you have not answered the internal conflict of origin and the revelations given to Joseph Smith concerning this same precedent.

Now of course you will give me some sort of explanations for all of the BofM anachranisms but I have no doubt that there are Nemelka apologists that would explain his anachranisms too with similar conviction and logic.

Not having read the sealed portion in it's entirety there very well could be individuals who do so, but they themselves must do it. Furthermore your example of anachronism is lacking to say the least.

Now did YOU just hear a bubble pop?

No. I didn't.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You keep insisting she had a Holy Ghost and I will keep insisting she did not.

I never saw a responce to my comments earlier. Did she even claim she had a witness from teh HG? Perhaps I will go back and read it again more slowly. The only thing that jumped out to me was "It felt like a bolt of lightning".

[Deborah]

I never saw a responce to my comments earlier. Did she even claim she had a witness from teh HG? Perhaps I will go back and read it again more slowly. The only thing that jumped out to me was "It felt like a bolt of lightning".

FC isn't interested in discussing anything anyway even though his OP asks

[TAO]

That does nothing to explain the contradictory nature of your Holy Ghost experience (the one that confirmed LDS leaders speak the truth) and Ida Smith's Holy Ghost experience (the one that confirmed the truth of the Sealed Portion).

One of the things I live my life by, is that I will not live based upon other people's experiences. Be it tasting cherry ice cream, or discovering the truth of the gospel, I will not live based on what others feel. So thus, my feelings do not contradict hers, because I am unconcerned with her experiences, and am more concerned with my own, and with making sure that I do things correctly. I cannot feel her experiences, thus I cannot judge them, nor should I use them. I may only use what I feel.

So my questions stands. Would a trust in the prophet's words prove a valid reason for not believing Nemelka, considering one's own personal feelings only (as you cannot feel what others feel).

[CQUIRK]

Now did YOU just hear a bubble pop?

Nope.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Animals#Horses

Keep dreaming, anti.

[beth]

Next question...Did you do your experiment this weekend because you sincerely wanted to know the truth, or because you wanted to prove a point in this discussion?

I didn't want to accept Ida's testimony by itself so I decided to try to find out for myself if I would get the same feelings she did. I didn't get the conviction she did on the sealed portion, nor did I get the same conviction that many of you have for the BofM. However, I do think this proved a point in the discussion.

[kitmarlow]

To me the debate whether the lost 116 pages of the BOM, the sealed portion, etc., will come from within church leadership our outside it--? I personally wouldn't be bothered/threatened in the least if it came from the outside and then took the church proper 100 years to accept it. But the proof is always in the pudding, and Nemelka's pudding (i.e., his translation) really stinks. It is unreadable--or, if you really push yourself and force your way through it, it comes across as a very amateur parody of the Book Of Mormon. For the life of me, I can't see how any intelligent person could take it seriously, and I don't need any spiritual witness to tell me this "translation" is nonsense.

[beth]

Nope.<a href='http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Animals#Horses' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://en.fairmormon.../Animals#Horses</a> Keep dreaming, anti.

You and others here dismiss the horse anachronism with a wave of your hand as if everyone should just immediately believe the apologists when they say either there were horses here in the Americas in BofM times, for which there is no definitive proof, or that Joseph referred to tapirs or some other animals as horses. That may be but certainly that's a valid criticism if we engage the rest of the scientific community. I Think most scientists would take the view that horses were not in the Americas in BofM times. I mean that's what they teach in public schools so it can't be so easily dismissed. http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.htm

Now I don't want to get into an argument about horses in the BofM - especially since the moderators want us to stay on topic and that's not what this thread is about. Obviously some people will choose to believe that horses were here and some people will choose to believe they weren't. The point is that despite what some people on this board believe, there are valid anachronistic criticisms to the BofM as well as to Nemelka's scriptures. The only way the criticisms can be dismissed are if every scientist agrees with the FAIR apologists and they don't. So dismissing Nemelka's work because of anachronisms and ignoring the BofM anachronisms by citing the opinions of a few apologists, while ignoring the rest of the scientific community, isn't really fair.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I didn't want to accept Ida's testimony by itself so I decided to try to find out for myself if I would get the same feelings she did. I didn't get the conviction she did on the sealed portion, nor did I get the same conviction that many of you have for the BofM. However, I do think this proved a point in the discussion.

There is a specific caveat in the promise of Moroni concerning receiving answers to prayers...

Moroni 10:4

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.

... that I believe was absent in your experiment.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I mean that's what they teach in public schools so it can't be so easily dismissed.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

Did you seriously just type that?

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahha

Edit:

[CQUIRK]

The only way the criticisms can be dismissed are if every scientist agrees with the FAIR apologists and they don't.

Hahaha! In that case, it should be the same story with the Bible- since not every scientist agrees with everything that took place in it, and many are equally as critical of it as well.

BTW, the arguments you're using here can be easily used by atheists against Christianity and religion too.

[beth]

<br />BwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaDid you seriously just type that?<brhahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahha<Edit: <img src="http://www.mormondialogue.org/public/style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif" /

Say what you will but the fact is that public schools teach facts and are generally pretty accurate. And the fact is that the over-whelming majority of the scientific community would argue that there were no horses in the Americas duing BOM times. So you cannot dismiss the rest of the world because a handful of devout Mormons make up some explanations to explain away those anachranisms like horses were really tapirs. If you want to say that there are theories to explain the BOM anacranisms then that's fine but to imply that the rest of the world is without a doubt wrong because they believe what the facts support is just plain silly.

[Vex]

Say what you will but the fact is that public schools teach facts and are generally pretty accurate.

Not really, and is entirely dependent upon the location, principality, and leanings of those who dictate the curriculum. For instance I was made aware that many of the elementary books that covered the civil war are not standardized and many have agendas with which they contribute; for instance 'The War of Northern Aggression' as opposed to 'The Civil War'. There are also instances of government mandated propaganda infiltrating such lessons and discussions in the form of McCarthyisms just after WWII. This was tuned down in later years and is repeatedly brought up, albeit more subtly, when discussing Communism as late as the 1990's.

And the fact is that the over-whelming majority of the scientific community would argue that there were no horses in the Americas duing BOM times.

That's highly contestable as research in that current field is still on going and has placed horse remains much closer than previously assumed in the Americas. This may prove enlightening.

So you cannot dismiss the rest of the world because a handful of devout Mormons make up some explanations to explain away those anachranisms like horses were really tapirs.

To which we don't--but the scholarly aspect of this is still debatable at the source. For instance it was a commonly held assumption that Troy was fictional until sometime after the mid 1800's. Thus if we associate this argument with our respective stances; we see how easily it can and probably will swing.

If you want to say that there are theories to explain the BOM anacranisms then that's fine but to imply that the rest of the world is without a doubt wrong because they believe what the facts support is just plain silly.

To which we may attribute this strawman to your making.

[Hughes]

Hahaha! In that case, it should be the same story with the Bible- since not every scientist agrees with everything that took place in it, and many are equally as critical of it as well.

BTW, the arguments you're using here can be easily used by atheists against Christianity and religion too.

False. Christianity isn't based on the promise of Moroni. Nor is it based on one man's claimed revelations, none of which can be verified.

[Kevin Christensen]

Say what you will but the fact is that public schools teach facts and are generally pretty accurate. And the fact is that the over-whelming majority of the scientific community would argue that there were no horses in the Americas duing BOM times. So you cannot dismiss the rest of the world because a handful of devout Mormons make up some explanations to explain away those anachranisms like horses were really tapirs. If you want to say that there are theories to explain the BOM anacranisms then that's fine but to imply that the rest of the world is without a doubt wrong because they believe what the facts support is just plain silly.

Regarding the issue of Book of Mormon anachronisms, some perspective on the nature of paradigm debate, how "facts" get selected and significance applied to them, and how science works as a process is in order. A very brief primer on some of the essentials is here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Considering_Joseph_Smith/Paradigm_debate

And for the record, John Clark recently demonstrate that overall trend in comparing the Book of Mormon to various claims put for against since 1830 has been towards reconciliation. That is, the more detailed, accurate information and evidence we obtain, the better the Book of Mormon looks in the ancient contexts it claims for itself. Those who treat it like a soap bubble to discard with the merest touch tend not to be the ones who provide comprehensive and coherent accounts of the problem that the represents. That is, sure lots of people can dismiss the Book of Mormon because of what they read on Wikipedia (a useful starting place on many topics), but that does not mean that reading Wikipedia means that they suddenly have obtained all of the available facts. Questions about horses and DNA and metals come nowhere close to defining the range of relevant issues.

And with respect to Chris Nemelka, I expect that the whole FAIR paper on discerning true and false prophets is on topic.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Vex]

False. Christianity isn't based on the promise of Moroni. Nor is it based on one man's claimed revelations, none of which can be verified.

As that was not the issue addressed with the response you quoted, I do not see this as debatable.

Let us look at Christianity in it's most congruent form (that is; not just Evangelical Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, etc, etc and their respective dogmas); we are left with a simile of the Iliad. Scientists therefore can no more prove or disprove the veracity of one over the other, and places the Bible firmly in the context of other mythological/religious texts. Veracity of each texts narrative is therefor independent of the locations in question and science can no sooner prove or disprove the accounts contained therein.

[Fifth Columnist]

I never saw a responce to my comments earlier. Did she even claim she had a witness from teh HG? Perhaps I will go back and read it again more slowly. The only thing that jumped out to me was "It felt like a bolt of lightning".

Listen to her video as well. She describes reading the Sealed Portion while weeping and marking passages. She had this experience repeatedly over a significant span of time (weeks or months if I recall correctly). The interviewer asked her how she knows the book is true and she responds multiple times that she read it (hearkening back to her strong spiritual reaction as she read).

Besides, must she actually state "I had a Holy Ghost experience." She described an experience that, in the context of a faith promoting experience, any LDS would understand as a witness from the Holy Ghost. If I was a missionary and she had this experience reading the BOM, I would have told her outright that it was the Holy Ghost. The only reason you have to dismiss her almost identical experience is that it conflicts with your own spiritual witness. I think you need to do better than that.

[Fifth Columnist]

FC isn't interested in discussing anything anyway even though his OP asks

[Deborah]

The point of what I am saying is that she had the same experience that many LDS have. If you can point to something that shows it is not the same, then I am interested in what you have to say.

And once again I repeat she did not, at least in reference to the promptings of the Holy Ghost. I and several others have tried to explain why it isn't the same and you continue to act as if nothing was said.

[Vex]

Let me see if I can help...

Oh please. Deborah, you have done nothing but state over and over that Nemelka did not have the priesthood as though that automatically makes Ida's spiritual experience invalid.

Not quite. It removes the possibility that the medium is not what it claims to be (as already demonstrated), thus the revelation you seem to dictate to Ida does not occur (see my previous responses for better understanding).

The point of what I am saying is that she had the same experience that many LDS have.

Which is your prerogative, but is not indicative of the actuality of experience.

If you can point to something that shows it is not the same, then I am interested in what you have to say.

Which has been done, but you have not responded to it, which begs the question: Why ask it if you don't engage in it?

Simply repeating over and over that Nemelka didn't have the priesthood does nothing to address the striking similarities between Ida's experience and many Mormons' experiences.

But it does as previously shown.

In fact, by arguing this, you are conceding that Holy Ghost type experiences are unreliable since they can be so easily misinterpreted that one must look to other factors such as whether the proper priesthood authority was present to determine if those feelings are correct.

Which is a fallacy as already demonstrated. Why are you rehashing a failed strawman?

By the way, how do you know the LDS Church has the proper priesthood authority and Nemelka does not?

Non-issue to this discussion as JS is considered a prophet by Nemelka's own admission, thus restoring the priesthood to the earth and all such histories pertaining thereto as being authoritative.

Did you receive a witness from the Holy Ghost? If so, your basis for rejecting Ida and Nemelka - i.e., you had a spiritual experience confirming that the LDS Church has the priesthood - is no different than Ida's basis for accepting the Sealed Portion - i.e., because she had a spiritual experience confirming that it was true.

See above. You start from a flawed premise