All Activity

I could see this if it’s ’seek and miracles in general and not specific ones’. My children are miracles, the internet and this board is a miracle for me, living in Canada was one, many others…none of which I asked for specifically, just left it to the Lord to choose what to give me. It’s been a long time since I trusted myself to know best what I needed. My mother was the most faith full person I have encountered and she was never blessed with much healing, just enough to keep going. Her survival as a child was likely a miracle, but left her insides a mess. She wanted to be a mother when doctors told her she couldn’t be and she managed five times. She told me she prayed to be healed, she sought and expected to be healed, the get up and walk version even (she accepted whether in this life or the next; though it seemed to me she wanted it sooner rather than later, she never seem to be upset with God’s timing as she had what she desired most in her view, a wonderful family). Maybe that is what set me up not to ask God for much in detail, but leave it to him

I could see this if it’s ’seek and miracles in general and not specific ones’. My children are miracles, the internet and this board is a miracle for me, living in Canada was one, many others…none of which I asked for specifically, just left it to the Lord to choose what to give me. It’s been a long time since I trusted myself to know best what I needed. My mother was the most faith full person I have encountered and she was never blessed with much healing, just enough to keep going. Her survival as a child was likely a miracle, but left her insides a mess. She wanted to be a mother when doctors told her she couldn’t be and she managed five times. She told me she prayed to be healed, she sought and expected to be healed, the get up and walk version even (she accepted whether in this life or the next; though it seemed to me she wanted it sooner rather than later, she never seem to be upset with God’s timing as she had what she desired most in her view, a wonderful family). Maybe that is what set me up not to ask God for much in detail, but leave it to him.

I could see this if it’s ’seek and miracles in general and not specific ones’. My children are miracles, the internet and this board is a miracle for me, living in Canada was one, many others…none of which I asked for specifically, just left it to the Lord to choose what to give me. It’s been a long time since I trusted myself to know best what I needed. My mother was the most faith full person I have encountered and she was never blessed with much healing, just enough to keep going. Her survival as a child was likely a miracle, but left her insides a mess. She wanted to be a mother when doctors told her she couldn’t be and she managed five times. She told me she prayed to be healed, she sought and expected to be healed, the get up and walk version even (she accepted whether in this life or the next; though it seemed to me she wanted it sooner rather than later, she never seem to be upset with God’s timing as she had what she desired most in her view, a wonderful family). Maybe that is what set me up not to ask God for much in detail, but leave it to him.

So nothing here is responsive in any way to anything I said. Positivism is a strawman because you can't respond to the historical problems of the Book of Mormon using historical scholarship. You're shopped around for the one obscure Biblical scholar who you suppose makes the apologetics mission a little easier. But even if she represented some kind of consensus or even large minority view (she doesn't - her hypotheses haven't caught on at all in the academy and she doesn't even represent a small group of like-minded scholars), her fanciful hypotheses are not enough to rescue the Book of Mormon from its 19th century milieu. Your inability to muster any historical case for the Book of Mormon from the standpoint of Biblical scholarship speaks for itself. Time is linear, therefore the Book of Mormon is not ancient.

The only thing that makes sense to me if God loves us perfectly is that in the oneness with God that is promised our experiences of mortality will be shared with each other as if we experienced it ourselves. I think this way for two reasons. Life becomes balanced and fair (in the sense that no one ends up suffering or having more than another) if we all end up experiencing the same thing. Even more important to my thinking though—because I believe life needs to be just, I don’t believe life needs to be fair to work for our eternal joy—is how can we make a truly informed choice of what we want to have and be unless we have pure knowledge of all the possibilities and results of our choices with all the thoughts and emotions attached to them. I did not come to this as a way to justify the endless suffering this life holds. I can’t justify that. This belief is just where my logic took me. It makes sense to me if Christ could somehow join with us and then experience all of our potential pain from our bad choices (sins, errors) as well as actual pain so we don’t have to, that such perfect sharing of experience should be possible when one becomes one with Christ. This does not make what we go through now just (there is nothing just in a child experiencing cancer or abuse no matter how many people share that experience and understand their suffering). Nor does it address how to have faith when there is no actual awareness of our future state being. I can’t speak to that at all. I don’t know how to tell others to have faith. I just know there have been a few experiences in my life I cannot explain in any other way besides God is aware of me and loves me and others. And those experiences tell me we will be where we want to be in the end no matter where we wander in the meantime (this literally happened once as I heard this, the other times reinforce he is there and paying attention even to the very little things). This and the sense of God’s presence/connection that has always been with me besides a few years I took a drug that made me feel I was bubble wrapped seems to be what secures my faith is what sustains me. I do not expect anything from God except peace and I get that when I ask when I have misplaced it. (I do ask for other things at times, don’t usually get them. Not very satisfying, but okay.) I am including the below not as a pity party or anything but to explain the process of my thought in how I can hold on to the belief in God’s perfect love while living in a world that looks insane. Nothing I feel or think about myself needs sympathy. I am content in my self which is what I need most. I understand I may simply be talking myself into this sense of all of us being cared for. I am not going to try and mess with it given how it’s worked for me for 65+ years. I prefer to avoid an existential crisis and loss of faith given my situation. If I have deluded myself and there’s nothing there, great, I am satisfied that to be deluded because it has allowed me to keep going when I feel I am not getting enough out of life myself to justify the effort. The idea of a future reward of a celestial or heavenly life does not motivate me in the least. It’s more like birthday gifts, an expected treat I am not working for, but know I am going to get because my family loves me. But another needs me to stay and care for them to survive and if my being around is worth it for them, it’s enough for me. And it’s not like I am suffering all the time. I have a very pleasant, comfortable life the vast majority of it. I live in luxury (not decadent luxury, relative luxury) and haven’t had to work much for it. It is just I don’t see much purpose in it for myself. My dreams I have had are unattainable in this life. (I have gotten wonderful things in my life, but they weren’t my dreams and almost all don’t fulfill me. This board has given me one dream, a community I feel like I belong in that fits me.) But I can’t climb any mountains to see the view. Can’t even get up in the foothills these days. I am stuck to getting my mountain views on a treadmill (this is both metaphor and literal, lol).

In my experience on the LDS side it's the ignorant fundamentalists who have the problem with Dan McClellan. LDS members with more critical thinking skills understand that there's a difference between saying, as an academic, "the data don't support X" and actually denying the spiritual validity or reality of X. Those types of members tend to like Dan. But fundamentalists don't get nuance, and insist that any expertise that doesn't support their personal beliefs has to be wrong or part of a conspiracy against them and so must be snuffed out. On the side of mainstream Christianity, Dan again runs into some ignorant criticism from the other kind of fundamentalists, who just assume because Dan is LDS that everything he's writing is biased in favor of Mormonism, even though what he says regarding Biblical scholarship is neutral and bog standard stuff you'd get in any halfway decent or better Biblical studies course. So fundamentalists on the LDS side think he's anti-Mormon, and fundamentalists on the mainstream Christian side think he's a Mormon apologist. Go figure.

I hope you won't mind me responding to your inquiry to Bluebell. Feel free to disregard if I am out of line. I addressed this inquiry back in 2021. It's a bit verbose, so here is a "TLDR" version generated by Grok, followed by the longer version: TLDR Version: Original Version: I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon / Moroni's Promise as the catalyst. Everything else is derivative of, is "downstream" from, those fundamentals. A few thoughts: 1. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool: I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful: The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation. Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively. 2. Hafens' Tripartiate Progression (Untested Simplicity --> Complexity --> Tested/Proven Simplicity): I've posted this a few times now: So we have: Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience"). This seems about right. Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up. Part of the answer, I think, is to seek simplicity that transcends, that is on the other side of, complexity. 3. My Attempt at a Framework: Here is a framework I tried to develop a few years ago (responding to a friend's inquiry that was fairly similar to yours) : So there you are. I think a person can differentiate between the Spirit and “mere emotion” by analyzing feelings and considering A) their duration, B) the circumstances in which they occurred, C) their apparent purpose, and D) their effect on behavior. 4. Defining Terms and Parameters: I think it is helpful for us to occasionally re-examine what it means to have a testimony. Consider the Temple Recommend questions (emphases added) : Note that the first three pertain to having "a testimony," the rest are "do you sustain," "do you strive," "do you obey," etc. As Joseph Smith put it: And, of course, there is D&C 76: So should a person have a testimony of, say, the Word of Wisdom? Or is that derivative of having a testimony of the "fundamental principles of our religion?" 5. Additional Resources: I would point an interested party to the following essays: The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson) I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton) The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson) Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin) Reading these have helped me understand some pitfalls, however well-intentioned, can be dug when we dilute the meaning of "testimony." It can. I think he can create some pretty good counterfeits. That's his thing. Lust can be confused for love. A correct principle can be distorted into something wrong. A charismatic figure can say or write things that are, as Paul put it, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." An individual or group may, as Paul also put it, "have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge," as they are "ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." I am reminded here of a part of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series. A key plot line in the book involves Shift, a talking ape who lived near his friend/servant, Puzzle the donkey. Here's a character summary: Shift's scheme is summed up this way: The heroes of the story, Jill and King Tirian, encounter Puzzle wearing the lionskin and sort out Shift's scheme. They intend to expose the scheme, but before they can do so Shift (who by this point is in league with Rishda Tarkaan, a captain of the Calormenes, the enemies of Narnia, and who has discovered Puzzle's absence) takes the scheme even further: The heroes of the story respond this way: "By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger." That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by some folks. Chad Daybell certainly springs to mind. Hence the value of Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool (see above). I think he can come up with pretty good counterfeits. Paul spoke of the devil appearing as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14), as did Jacob (2 Nephi 9:9) and Joseph Smith (D&C 128:20). Those that are of God are reliable. But then, how do you determine which are of God? Again, the Four-Legged Stood seems pretty useful. Each leg counterbalances the other three. Yes. Or that the information sought is not yet to be revealed. Or that the individual is not prepared. Lots of possible reasons. I think we sometimes make things a bit too difficult. See also the section above dealing with simplicity on the other side of complexity. In the end, though, we do need to "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7). I would appreciate any critique or assessment of the above. Thanks, -Smac

Unique is the only way that I can find to describe it as well.

I think that I struggle to trust God because I struggle to feel safe in His care. Does that make more sense? It's hard to talk about such nebulous concepts sometimes.

I agree, I don't think He creates hardships, but rather allows them. In the thick of it, it doesn't always feel like there is a difference in those ideas.

Welcome to the board and thank you for sharing your thoughts. It's comforting to know that I'm not alone. I like what you said about what you are doing right now.... I find that's how I have to operate as well. Find what gets me through at that time. It might not be what helps the next time but so far there has always been something else that gets me through the next time so I find comfort in that. And comfort in how every time I throw my hands up in the air and decide that I'm just going to take a step back from my relationship with God, or decide that something in the gospel isn't true, the spirit won't seem to let me. I mean, if I continued to push those impressions away or was determined to change the relationship He would let me I know. But He's never let me go that direction without trying to argue against it first, and that is probably one of the greatest blessings I'm given, even if I don't appreciate it all the time. (hopefully that makes sense)

I have no answers but someone a few weeks ago talked about how maybe this life is better understood less as a test that God has designed and more as a prerequisite that must be accomplished (not because He capriciously decided it but because there is no way, no literal way, for us to be able to access the celestial kingdom without the changes that mortality creates, not just physically but in all the ways). That person described it a lot better and it was actually connected to physics and the laws of physics (if I remember right it was the specific laws dealing with entropy) so it was a way cooler and more in depth explanation than my pitiful description of it, but it made a lot of sense to me.

Speaking only for myself, there is something that differentiates it from normal emotional reactions but I honestly could not put it into words in any way that would make sense. I can only say that I perceived it as being very direct and from a space that was outside of myself. But I don't want to give the impression that every interaction with the divine feels that unique way for me. I believe I have received answers to prayers or been guided but it was much more nebulous and could have easily been a normal reaction (emotional isn't how I would describe it). At those times I ascribed it to God because of what would probably best be described as circumstantial evidence.

Harris describes both a curtain and not a curtain. He describes using the plates and also just using a stone in the hat. His descriptions are the most confusing. The phase with Oliver and later is less confusing and is almost always with the stone in the hat. My best guess would be that Joseph first copied the characters from the plates behind a curtain. And then started doing the translation behind the curtain and then switched to the hat without the curtain. We have Emma's statement about nothing between him and her while his head is in the hat and she could have either been in the very beginning (before Martin), helping out while Martin was there, or between Martin and Oliver. Her story about the walls of Jerusalem include her being able to see him (he was "pale as a sheet") and that would have been pretty early in the 116 pages so by that point, it appears he wasn't using a sheet.

There is no sense of security with the peace that comes from movement in calm surroundings. No sense of another’s presence. For me at least, the experience of what I identify as the Spirit, as God is unique.

And you shift again instead of demonstrating your claim. Okay, never mind.

I am wondering if you could help me a bit. I've been working on this concept of "safe." My wife uses it here and there, a therapist we went to used it, some others of my acquaintance use it. It seems, by the usage of some, to refer to emotional or mental safety. But then I'm not sure what that means. For me, "feel safe" in this context appears to more or less be an expression of trust. That is, "reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence." I provisionally reach this conclusion by asking myself if a statement like this makes sense: "I trust you, but I don't feel safe around you." I haven't quite been able to make that work. I would therefore like to better understand what you mean by "it doesn't help me to trust God more or feel safe trusting Him." Could you elaborate on what you mean here? I'd like to better understand your perspective. In The Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis repeatedly speaks of Aslan - the Christ figure - as "not a tame lion." I have thought that what he means is that Aslan is free, sovereign, and not under human control. In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Mr. Beaver tells the children that Aslan is a lion and, when they ask whether he is safe, replies: “Who said anything about safe? ’Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.” Later the same book notes that Aslan “doesn’t like being tied down” and is “wild… Not like a tame lion.” The line is repeated across the series (Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, The Silver Chair, The Last Battle, and others) whenever characters are tempted to treat Aslan as predictable, summonable, or subject to their expectations. The point is twofold. First, Aslan cannot be domesticated. He comes and goes as he wills, cannot be kept or compelled, and does not exist to confirm human plans or expectations or comfort. Second, his goodness is not the same as safety or mildness. He is both terrible and good; encountering him produces awe as well as affection. Lewis is recovering the biblical sense of the divine as holy and other—powerful enough to inspire fear, not a tame pet who can be managed or reduced to moral sentiment. Because Aslan is Lewis’s imagining of what the Son of God might be like if incarnated in Narnia, the repeated reminder functions as a guard against sentimentalizing Christ. The Lion of Judah is not a domesticated symbol. So perhaps "safe" in the context of what Mr. Beaver meant pertains to something like this: "He is not 'safe' in that He may do things that we do not prefer or expect or fully understand, but He is good, so we can 'trust' Him. Not because He is predictable or under our control or subject to our preferences and expectations, but because no matter what He does, and even when He does things that are difficult for us to understand, we can trust that what He has done is right and good and true." Anyway, just some thoughts. Thanks, -Smac

Justice and mercy are connected, because the human idea of justice is often limited or flawed, which is why we might prefer a more perfect and wise Judge untangle it all. True justice isn't just about punishment. After all, what is justice for someone who was wronged or falsely accused, justice is mercy and vindication. It can mean restoring what was lost or fixing what is broken. Earth often seems serendipitous, I think It mostly is serendipitous. Meaning events are not always because God caused it, but because we live in an imperfect world where free will and earthly randomness does happen. Rather than viewing our heartbreak as 'God's plan' and forcing ourselves to call it good, maybe faith is believing the truth that its bad or otherwise not God's will, but rather that God has the ability to ultimately repair, heal, and set right everything that went wrong. That the story isn't finished until both justice and mercy have its day.

Yes, you do have to experience something to learn from it.

The But if not talk is one of my favorites. It doesn't help me to trust God more or feel safe trusting Him but it does help me to still feel loved by Him.

I do believe in justice and I think you are right in that we can't hope for justice in this world. I believe in mercy too of course. I'm starting to learn how the existence of God's mercy is another example of His justice. I don't think justice could exist without God providing us with a Savior, for example.

Good questions. I don't think I believe that everything is God's will, but I do think I believe that God makes choices to allow things He could stop from happening. I do think that letting go of expectations is mandatory in my relationship with God, but I also think that we do have a right to expect some things from Him because of our covenantal relationship. I guess I just need to better understand what I should expect and what I shouldn't. And yes! Letting go of expectations requires grief. And anger too.

The 116 pages were dictated from behind a curtain and Harris was told not to look behind the curtain while Smith was doing whatever because it would make God angry?

The Tribune: LDS scholar appears on Joe Rogan’s podcast — but not all his fans are celebrating I would have preferred to see a Latter-day Saint who professes faith in the things that are distinctive and important to the Restored Gospel and to the lives of observant and faithful Latter-day Saints. As it is, we got Dan, who has things to say about our faith along these lines: Based on the Trib article, it sounds like Rogan wasn't really interested in McClellan as a member of the Church. If so, I hope someday he books someone else, someone who will speak and act like, well, a Latter-day Saint. The same Jesus about whom Dan said this: Dan is competent on the biblical text and the historical context. The problem is that I think Dan seeks to implicitly encourage his listeners to take that competence and shift it over to his philosophical claims about what is possible, then treats the philosophical claim as if it were a finding of biblical scholarship. He does the same with sociopolitical issues. He's a smart guy and knows a lot about the Bible, so we ought to privilege his say-so about sociopolitical issues like elective abortion, same-sex marriage, trans issues, and so on. The first half is not a historical conclusion. “Physical impossibility” and “violates everything we know about the operation of the universe” are prior commitments about the uniformity of nature, our pristine and complete understanding of nature, and the exclusion of divine action. Historical method can assess the best explanation of the available evidence under a given set of assumptions. It cannot, by itself, establish that a resurrection is impossible. Once that impossibility is stipulated, the rest of the paragraph is just the stipulation restated: the evidence is insufficient because it would have to overcome a bar that has already been set beyond the reach of any historical data. That is a methodological choice, not a result delivered by "the data." The second half is more careful, and it is the part that actually falls within his field. The broad consensus that there was a historical Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher and was executed is real. The further claim that the resurrection narratives are later stories generated by his followers is a reconstruction, not a bare datum. The earliest material (the pre-Pauline formula in 1 Corinthians 15, the empty-tomb tradition, the appearance claims) is early enough and widespread enough that many scholars treat belief in the resurrection as part of the earliest Christian movement rather than a later invention. Dan’s version is one interpretive option; presenting it as simply “what the data show” elides the interpretive step. And that is, in my view, the principal flaw in Dan's schtick. He positions, through leveraged credentialism and bolstering, his opinions as "the data." Listeners are then invited to treat a negative conclusion about the resurrection as the output of neutral academic expertise rather than as the product of a naturalistic prior plus a particular reading of the sources. Biblical scholarship can tell us a great deal about what the earliest Christians claimed, when those claims appear, and how they developed. It does not uniquely qualify someone - Dan - to rule the resurrection out as a physical impossibility, nor does it convert that ruling into a scholarly finding that all non-dogmatic scholars must accept. The distinction between those two things is the core of the critique. Thanks, -Smac

^^This^^ has been true for me. For better or for worse, I tend to see what I'm looking for... one implication being that, to a certain extent, I am my own jailer; but on the other hand, the key is in my own pocket. If I give my intellect (limited as it may be) the task of finding all the injustices a decent God would never have allowed and/or could have prevented, my intellect will deliver in abundance. I have not found that to be the path of greatest light for me. But it may well be for someone else - who am I to judge? Perhaps the brightest path for some is to make sure that God (or at least what we've been led to believe about God) gets called out for not living up to expectations. If that is what works for you, carry on! Personally, I think Viktor Frankl figured this stuff out. Here are a few relevant quotes: "Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation." "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." "Our greatest freedom is the freedom to choose our attitude." Here's another take on the same basic concept, that of claiming and acting upon our freedom to choose our response and our attitude in the face of whatever circumstances present, this time not from a concentration-camp survivor but from a zombie: "Choose love in spite of all you see in the world. Choose love regardless of what you're going through. It does not matter how much you're suffering, the choice for love is still there. It never goes away despite any circumstance, despite any temperature in the world, despite any war, despite any famine, despite how wealthy you are, despite how happy you are, how sad you are, how depressed you are, the choice to remember to choose love never ever goes away. Regardless of whether the world is perfect or is going through the absolute fires of who knows what, the choice is still there. Be strong enough to make that choice. That's what it's about, to make [that choice] regardless." - near-death experiencer Jonathan Ashford That is what I aspire to, and I have a very long ways to go. Edited to add: This morning my YouTube feed fed me this short video, I have no idea who this guy is, but his message is to deliberately choose one's focus rather than trying to battle one's mind over every single thought. It's an imo very practical application of what @MustardSeed said, namely that we do find what we seek. Here it is, cued up to his core message, which he gets across in less than a minute and a half: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp9lIUHWyFc&t=263s