If You Received An Answer...

[aletheia]

Hello annewandering,

I don't know who you were responding to but I'm an ex mormon. I've only stopped believing in the book of mormon in the last couple years, as I've been able to learn more from the internet. In answer to your question no I'm not afraid of it being true. I don't see any basis for your claim that it would be. If the book of mormon is true than fine. Why should I be afraid if the book of mormon is true?

You lost your testimony because of the internet?! You got to be kidding me...?

[aletheia]

Hello selek,

I don't mean to be offensive, but my impression of typical mormon reasoning is I believe the book of mormon is true therefore the cojcolds is the one true church. It doesn't appear as you go through any critical thinking process to arrive at this conclusion.

If the BOM is true then why wouldn't the church be true?

[Deborah]

You lost your testimony because of the internet?! You got to be kidding me...?

I agree that is a lame excuse. Why on earth would anyone take what they see on the internet at face value, particularly when the source is someone who is blatantly hateful toward the church. Indeed that applies to any subject.

[Billy]

If the BOM is true then why wouldn't the church be true?

More than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based out of SLC believe in the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is true, then it is possible that one of the other sects is right and the CoJCoLDS is wrong. Wouldn't you at least agree to that possibility?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects..._Saint_movement

[sleepyhead]

Hello deborah and alethia,

alethia>>>You lost your testimony because of the internet?! You got to be kidding me...? <<<

deborah>>>I agree that is a lame excuse. Why on earth would anyone take what they see on the internet at face value, particularly when the source is someone who is blatantly hateful toward the church. Indeed that applies to any subject.<<<

I didn't and I wouldn't use the term lost with regards to my beliefs as they were compared to my beliefs today. I see it more as a growth which involved a rejection of old ideas. I have rejected the purpose of our life here being a test to a belief that it is a learning experience. I've rejected any and all aces in the hole, whether it be accepting Jesus or going through ordinances, in favor of a belief in a judgement based on my actions. The internet has provided opportunities to correspond with others, which has been helpful.

[aletheia]

More than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based out of SLC believe in the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is true, then it is possible that one of the other sects is right and the CoJCoLDS is wrong. Wouldn't you at least agree to that possibility?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects..._Saint_movement

Yes, I agree to that possibility.

[Avatar4321]

Maybe my "authoratative source" (Wiki) is wrong, but if you note the last sentence it says that they did NOT recant their testimony as you claim that they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton

"Supporters argue it is an important and persuasive case, because of the number of corroborative eyewitnesses (the vast majority of alien abduction reports are based on a single individual's testimony), the fact that all of the witnesses passed polygraph exams in support of their accounts, and because in the more than thirty years since the event happened, none of the witnesses have changed their accounts, in spite of at least one cash offer to do so."

So what your saying is that the testimony of the Twelve Apostles who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus Christ is false becase of this.

[Avatar4321]

More than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints based out of SLC believe in the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is true, then it is possible that one of the other sects is right and the CoJCoLDS is wrong. Wouldn't you at least agree to that possibility?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects..._Saint_movement

With the Book of Mormon alone, Maybe.

With the other revelations of the prophet, no way in hell.

And since the Book of Mormon being true does testify to the calling of Joseph Smith as a Prophet, and the prophets revelations point to one Church, it seems clear unless you want to ignore the revelations.

Besides, I think the Lord revealing to Joseph that the Church should be called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pretty much makes it clear which one is His.

[William the Conqueror]

3. 7 + 62=69 weeks of years (483 years)

When we examine the period between March 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D., and correct for leap years, we discover that it is 173,880 days exactly, to the very day!

Billy,

I studied under Dr. Harold Hoehner in 1974. His Doctoral Thesis completed that year was on the 70 weeks of Daniel.

He had slight corrections to Dr. Robert Anderson's analysis (done in the late 19th century). Apparently either Anderson didn't account for leap years or he didn't use a Jewish 360 day year. Anyway Hoehner arrived at the Triumphal entry on Tuesday(?) of AD 33. I took a crash course in Greek (the Book of Ephesians) under Hoehner that summer at DTS. It was murder because it met five days a week for 3 to 5 weeks, I can't remember. You could get Hoehner's book on the subject (70 weeks) as it is not available on the Internet, at least his view.

[Billy]

Besides, I think the Lord revealing to Joseph that the Church should be called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pretty much makes it clear which one is His.

The name above is the 4th name. Note that the difference between 3 and 4 are very similar but the 4th has a hypen and a small d for day which was not in the original name number 3.

1. Church of Christ 1830

2. The Church of the Latter Day Saints 1834

3. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1838

4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (? date)

[Billy]

With the Book of Mormon alone, Maybe.

With the other revelations of the prophet, no way in hell.

Some of the other sects of Mormonism also believe in some of the revelations of Joseph Smith, so how do you know that they are not true and mainstream LDS went off tract?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects..._Saint_movement

[Deborah]

Some of the other sects of Mormonism also believe in some of the revelations of Joseph Smith, so how do you know that they are not true and mainstream LDS went off tract?

Because Joseph told the leadership of the church before his death that if they followed the majority of the Qof12 and the records of the church they would not go astray. And we know where the majority of the Quorum went. The church was set up so that the Twelve together would have the same authority as the prophet in his absence.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Some of the other sects of Mormonism also believe in some of the revelations of Joseph Smith, so how do you know that they are not true and mainstream LDS went off tract?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects..._Saint_movement

Simple answer: The exact same way that I know--and the Apostle Peter knew--that Jesus is the Christ.

Matthew 16:15-17

[Brade]

Some of the other sects of Mormonism also believe in some of the revelations of Joseph Smith, so how do you know that they are not true and mainstream LDS went off tract?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects..._Saint_movement

Or, how about this. I don't know. Not any more than you "know" Mormonism is off track. Each of us is "stuck", for the most part, forming beliefs based on our own best evidence. Some of our own best evidence includes putative spiritual experience in line with some religious doctrine or another. Do I believe Mormonism is true. Sure I do. I'd be a fool not to based on the experiences I've had. Do I know, "without a shadow of a doubt", that Mormonism is true. Not at all. I certainly could be wrong. But, what would you have me do given the experiences I've had? I believe in Mormonism with a hope that, if what I believe is true, one day I'll know it for sure. That's what scriptures promise.

[Avatar4321]

Some of the other sects of Mormonism also believe in some of the revelations of Joseph Smith, so how do you know that they are not true and mainstream LDS went off tract?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects..._Saint_movement

Because they dont believe all the revelations of Joseph Smith. More specifically:

4 For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (D&C 115:4)

Little things like that.

[Billy]

Because they dont believe all the revelations of Joseph Smith. More specifically:

4 For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (D&C 115:4)

Little things like that.

Are you sure that the original name was as you note above? The Strangites claim the "original" name, maybe they are wrong? I do not have a old version of the D and C, maybe you could check a version that dates back to Joseph to see what it says. Maybe they are the true church if they in fact have the original name?

http://www.strangite.org/Name.htm

"Name of the Church

We are not a regularly organized church, at least in the corporate and administrative sense. But we are the original church, comprised of people who are members and priesthood holders, continuing uninterrupted as the original church as it was organized in 1830 and as it existed when Joseph Smith was killed in 1844.

There were three successive names used by the original church:

â??Church of Christâ? was made official by Joseph Smith in April 1830.

â??Church of Latter Day Saintsâ? was made official by Joseph Smith in April 1834.

â??Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsâ? was made official by Joseph Smith in April 1838.

â??Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsâ? was still in use by Joseph Smith when he was killed in 1844.

â??Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsâ? was used by James J. Strang from 1844 until he was killed in 1856.

â??Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsâ? has been continuously used by members of the church ever since.

â??Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsâ? is a name or phrase that has been in the public domain since 1844.

The additional corporate first article and British hyphenation differentiate â??The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsâ? headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, which is now incorporated as â??Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utahâ?; which existed without a presidency from 1844 to 1847, was incorporated in 1851, and was dissolved as a corporation by an Act of Congress in 1887 (see the Late Corporation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. The United States, Supreme Court, which upheld the dissolution).

We are the original, and we welcome any publicity and clarification about the name difference."

http://www.strangite.org/Name.htm

[sleepyhead]

Hello Billy,

Actually In the book of mormon, prior to being edited, makes it clear that the name of the church should be "Church of Christ". There's one group that separated from the main part located in independence that has that name.

http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/

[Ulysses]

What has made you decide that the Bible shoudl be used as a standard of truth? Why do you think it is the word of God?

Okay, Iâ??m back. And ryanelwood will have his reply (and several others who asked me the same question).

The challenge for me is that thereâ??s no way to answer the question without citing personal experience. And once I do that, Iâ??ll run afoul of the mods. But if you read this introductionâ??let me just say I can relate to a remarkable degree. I think itâ??s a relevant and useful illustration of the power of God's revealed word (and how the Bible is different from the works of men)--

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=13224&hl=

Mind you the comparison is not a perfect fit. This guy was single and evidently a bit frustrated (understandably so), while God has blessed me with a wife andâ??very soon to beâ??a daughter. That said, something tells me God has taken good care of old ErikJohnson since he posted his introduction a couple years back (D&C 130:21 notwithstanding).

However, the mods on this board showed no such grace. They judged him unworthy and disposed of him sometime laterâ??as youâ??ll see on the last page here.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=34221

No doubt thereâ??s a lesson hereâ??although Christians and Mormons may divide on what exactly that lesson is.

Iâ??d go into more detail, but theyâ??d probably just terminate my account. And if they do anyway and I go dark, then know this, ryanelwood. Ulysses laid down his alias and account in order to respond to you query. And then ask yourselfâ??how many LDS would have done the same?

;0)

PS. Selekâ??you have way too much time on your handsâ?¦

[TrespassersW]

The challenge for me is that thereâ??s no way to answer the question without citing personal experience. And once I do that, Iâ??ll run afoul of the mods.

What's wrong with citing personal experience? I don't understand.

But if you read this introductionâ??let me just say I can relate to a remarkable degree. I think itâ??s a relevant and useful illustration of the power of God's revealed word (and how the Bible is different from the works of men)--

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=13224&hl=

That's great and all, and I can't speak for ryanelwood, but I don't see how citing Erik's post even addresses the question at hand, much less answer it. For me, the question is: why judge the Bible and the Book of Mormon by different criteria? If there is a test that is capable of determining that a book is the word of God, then we should be able to apply it equally well to both works. In your case, I don't see what this test is.

Iâ??d go into more detail, but theyâ??d probably just terminate my account.

I've always felt that the board rules were pretty simple to follow, and really were fairly basic rules of civil discussion. The question seemed fairly simple. But if you feel that you're not capable of answering it without violating those rules, then, I guess there's really not much to say.

[Billy]

For me, the question is: why judge the Bible and the Book of Mormon by different criteria?

I think that is a fair question. As has been said before, it is hard to prove the spiritual aspects of a religious text outside a spiritual witness. However, is there anything that each book claims to be true that we can evaluate to determine if that book is what it says it is? The answer is yes, they both claim to be a true historic record. How do the two books, the Bible and the Book of Mormon, stand up when looking at the same criteria for both as you suggest in your post?

Edit/Addition

As an example from a one of my previous posts

Example one

If I interviewed a person for a job and that person gave me his life story, I could go back and verify events in his life and see if they checked out. I could verify the things that he told me to see if in fact what he said was truth or a lie. I could verify places that he said existed at the time, like schools, churches, pastors, friends etc. I could also verify equipment that he said he used at the time he used them, such as computers or cell phones. What I mean by this is that if he told me he used a cell phone in the 1960's then I know that this would not be true and would make me question his truthfulness or his story. It would be impossible to check out every single aspect of that persons life, but by cross checking many different aspects of his life I could come to a reasonable conclusion of that persons honestly and reliability of his story.

Example two

Say you have two hypothetical books, Book A and Book B

Both state that they ARE a historical record along with a spiritual account. If Book A proves to be historically accurate and Book B proves to be historically inaccurate, can you trust both books equally in terms of the spiritual message?

[TrespassersW]

I think that is a fair question. As has been said before, it is hard to prove the spiritual aspects of a religious text outside a spiritual witness.

I think here we agree.

However, is there anything that each book claims to be true that we can evaluate to determine if that book is what it says it is? The answer is yes, they both claim to be a true historic record. How do the two books, the Bible and the Book of Mormon, stand up when looking at the same criteria for both as you suggest in your post?

Quite comparably, in my opinion. I suspect we disagree about this.

And if the discussion were whether or not the Bible and Book of Mormon were historical, then I think we'd agree about your test being valid. We would test what could be tested, using the appropriate scientific disciplines, and see how things line up.

But we aren't discussing historical, we're discussing the word of God. There are plenty of books that are historical that are not considered the word of God. And likewise, even if we can never verify that the Good Samaritan actually existed (or, even if we could somehow prove he didn't), that doesn't mean the story wasn't the word of God. In this case, I don't see how your test applies. I can't think of a single event in either book that we can conclusively test that would tell us objectively that it is the word of God. Thus, I don't see how we could build up a collection of verified facts that help us know the whole thing is the word of God.

Your example is interesting, but I'm afraid the Bible doesn't fare very well on that score. In my opinion, young earth, global floods, and people walking on water are far less likely than someone using a cell phone in 1960.

It seems to me that only God knows if a book is His word or not. I can't think of how to test the proposition other than, "Ask Him."

[William the Conqueror]

Okay, Iâ??m back. And ryanelwood will have his reply (and several others who asked me the same question).

The challenge for me is that thereâ??s no way to answer the question without citing personal experience. And once I do that, Iâ??ll run afoul of the mods. But if you read this introductionâ??let me just say I can relate to a remarkable degree. I think itâ??s a relevant and useful illustration of the power of God's revealed word (and how the Bible is different from the works of men)--

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...c=13224&hl=

Mind you the comparison is not a perfect fit. This guy was single and evidently a bit frustrated (understandably so), while God has blessed me with a wife andâ??very soon to beâ??a daughter. That said, something tells me God has taken good care of old ErikJohnson since he posted his introduction a couple years back (D&C 130:21 notwithstanding).

However, the mods on this board showed no such grace. They judged him unworthy and disposed of him sometime laterâ??as youâ??ll see on the last page here.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=34221

No doubt thereâ??s a lesson hereâ??although Christians and Mormons may divide on what exactly that lesson is.

Iâ??d go into more detail, but theyâ??d probably just terminate my account. And if they do anyway and I go dark, then know this, ryanelwood. Ulysses laid down his alias and account in order to respond to you query. And then ask yourselfâ??how many LDS would have done the same?

;0)

PS. Selekâ??you have way too much time on your handsâ?¦

[William the Conqueror]

When you counsel with a fool he either rages or laughs. There is no rest.

Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

A fool is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who give a discreet answer.

Like legs which hang down from the lame, so is a proverb in the mouth of a fool.

Proverbs

[William the Conqueror]

Iâ??d go into more detail, but theyâ??d probably just terminate my account. And if they do anyway and I go dark, then know this, ryanelwood. Ulysses laid down his alias and account in order to respond to you query. And then ask yourselfâ??how many LDS would have done the same?

;0)

PS. Selekâ??you have way too much time on your handsâ?¦

Well Ulysses, it sounds as if you may wear the shirt of Nessus after all, if you go into the vast sarcophacal sea of banishment. Remember many notables have gone before you besides Erik. Who knows, my days on the MADB may be numbered as well. Believe me there is life after the MADB.

[Cold Steel]

It seems you (and Deborah) would use the Bible (Luke 24) to undo the Bible. You suppose the Bible gives you an unfailing means to detecting the truthâ??your heart burning with in you. And if your heart burns within you regarding any questionâ??then you suppose that answer to be reliable even if it contradicts the Bible itself. Do you see the irony in your reply, Cold Steel? Do you see the paradox you've stepped into?

Ummm...frankly, no.

Look, Ulysses, try using the premise that the LDS church is true. If you do that, the paradoxes go away. What about the parts of the Bible that were corrupted? Or what of those parts that might be just the opinion of the writer? You say I create a paradox of something to be "reliable even if it contradicts the Bible." Okay, but what does one do if parts of the Bible contradict the Bible (or appear to contradict the Bible)?

You mentioned Nephi's account saying that it is by grace we are saved "after all we can do." You may think that's a contradiction, but it really isn't, as discussed above. When the apostles speak of their hearts burning within them, they took it as spiritual confirmation. This is something Satan cannot replicate. Where God is light, Satan is darkness. Where God brings joy and a desire to improve one's self, the Adversary brings only hatred and discontent. Satan can, of course, appear as an angel of light, but he appears to have restrictions placed on him as to the form he can take, how often and what he can do, otherwise he would be appearing to everyone.

Joseph Smith fits into the prophet persona of the Old Testament. Unlike Muhammad, Ellen G. White, Herbert Armstrong and others, most of whom, except Muhammad, were flash in the pan phenomena, had peers who also saw and heard what he did. Like some of the ancient prophets, he was tutored by divine guidance from early in his life and when he received the restored gospel, he carefully laid in motion its continuance. It wasn't a here today, gone tomorrow sort of occurrence.

So there's no paradox. In fact, the church is governed now the same way it was in the early church. The only real paradox is why anyone would think it would be governed in any other way.

Hugh Nibley spoke of this paradox:

Typical is the confused though resounding declaration of H. A. Kelly: "I boldly assert, therefore, that God does not speak today," because we have "His final written word," which renders it "impossible that He should ever speak again." There Mr. Kelly should stop, but he does not; he goes on to specify that God will never "speak again more clearly, more positively, or more directly" than he has in the Bible; and after leaving the door thus open for God to speak again after all, provided only he doesn't do it

more clearly

than he already has, Mr. Kelly proceeds to go through it himself: "I do affirm...that He does today speak indubitably to the hearts of men in each succeeding generation as He never spake of old." So now God speaks but he doesn't speak. The men of old who spake with Him face to face didn't, of course, know what it meant to have God speak to them in their heartsâ??that is a prerogative, as the doctors of the church often remind us, reserved for the cultivated Christian of a better-educated generation....

The Book of Mormon shows that the modes of revelation really weren't any different in Old Testament days as it is today. And of course one of the classic arguments against God speaking now is: if God did continue speaking, how on Earth would anyone what was of God and what wasn't? That may be compelling, on its face, but only to the point where it meets the ancient church.

What possible threat could continuing revelation be? For one thing, you can't have every pastor and priest today claiming to receive conflicting revelation. Where would that get anyone? That means that there would have to be a single recognized church that would dispense the word of God, and that, my friend, is the threat to the Christian world. One reason dead prophets are accepted while living ones often aren't is that dead prophets don't threaten power structures like living ones do. In short, the Christian world has to reach a consensus on revelation to prevent one church from having more influence than another. It's a sad state of affairs, but as you'll find sooner or later, it's true.