The Most Remarkable Thing in the Book of Mormon?

[consiglieri]

As long as I get to guide you on how and when God talks to you I can get God to corroborate anything.

Although I understand you are speaking at least partially in jest, I think this sentiment is unfair to Joseph Smith who tried to make available to all Mormons a revelatory link to heaven, which purportedly continues to this day, and of which I am a witness.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[charity]

MC, you wrote, "This possibility is supported by the D&C section in which God/Joseph explains the process of translation/revelation to Oliver Cowdery. That process is described as "pondering it" (whatever "it" is), and praying about the answer you come up with. If you get a good feeling, the answer you thought up on your own is revelation (or "translation," as the case may be). If you're met with the infamous "stupor of thought," then whatever your imagination was pumping out is decidedly not from God. "

We don't just think things up on our own. All knowledge is present in our spirits, and bits of wisdom come through now and then. That is what we are pondering. Allk truth comes from God, whether you are a member or not. Some day when all is known, then those great thinkers you are talking about, all those ph.d.'s who are atheists will recognize that.

B the way MC, I have an MS in psychology. Maybe that is not a ph.d., but it is a graduate degree, and I was not raised in the Church. I joined at the end of my sophomore year in college. No brain washing as an eight year old, here.

[Luigi]

Although I understand you are speaking at least partially in jest, I think this sentiment is unfair to Joseph Smith who tried to make available to all Mormons a revelatory link to heaven, which purportedly continues to this day, and of which I am a witness.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I didn't mean it in jest. I was quite serious. If I tell you how God speaks to you (positive emotions following prayer) and give you vague criteria as to when you meet the conditions necessary to receive an answer (you have to have sufficient faith, be striving to live the way God wants, etc) then I can guide you towards always accepting whatever answer confirms my way of thinking as coming from God and dismiss any failure and/or contradiction (he simply didn't have sufficient faith, etc).

[Avatar4321]

The most remarkable thing in the book of mormon....

Hebrews who . . . didn't have a clue of Jewish traditions and customs. Not one celebration of the Seder, Purim, or Shavuot.

I cant imagine why a text written in 400AD by several Christians to other Christians wouldnt focus heavily on Jewish Traditions and Customs in trying to convince people to come to Christ.

Nevermind the fact that there are several Jewish celebrations. But then I guess we wouldnt want to take away your flimsy excuses to dismiss the Book of Mormon.

[consiglieri]

I didn't mean it in jest. I was quite serious. If I tell you how God speaks to you (positive emotions following prayer) and give you vague criteria as to when you meet the conditions necessary to receive an answer (you have to have sufficient faith, be striving to live the way God wants, etc) then I can guide you towards always accepting whatever answer confirms my way of thinking as coming from God and dismiss any failure and/or contradiction (he simply didn't have sufficient faith, etc).

There may be some truth in what you say, and I think that there are people who are, in fact, susceptible to just that kind of suggestion.

Having said that much, I have to say that I personally do find it impressive that the Book of Mormon ends on such a note; putting the issue of the truthfulness of the Book not in the hands of Joseph Smith, but in the hands of God.

And I note that, although Mormons tend to embellish the promise somewhat as you have indicated, the text itself makes no such requirement of having "sufficient faith" or "striving to live the way God wants."

It just says you have to read, ponder and pray.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Luigi]

It just says you have to read, ponder and pray.

I'm afraid you're wrong:

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

Those sound like pretty vague criteria to me. If someone comes back saying they got an answer that contradicts the veracity of the BoM (or that fails to confirm it) I have three unmeasurable criteria I can use to dismiss them.

[Lightbearer]

I've come across similar statistics showing that something like 97% of PhD level biologists are atheist or agnostic, which is significant in my opinion. It is telling that those who are the most familiar with the workings of organic machines share the opinion that no gods were involved in the making of such machines.

As for Mormon education levels: yes, education is valued in Mormon culture. There's even a church supported institution of higher learning. I would never claim that Mormons are uneducated. But imagine for a moment, an individual raised on BoM picture books, indoctrinated with weekly religious education classes, followed by daily seminary classes, followed by a two year mission (during which time this individual is immersed in Mormonism 24 hours a day, and is expected to convert others to the religion) followed by 4 years in a Mormon university, where your studies will be supplement by (you guessed it) more classes on Mormonism. And just for good measure, let's say this hypothetical individual was born and raised in Provo, so all his family and friends are Mormon.

Now, is it any wonder Mormons have a higher rate of religious retention even at higher levels of education? The indoctrination process is more thorough and all-inclusive than virtually any other major, mainstream religion.

So, I readily concede that there are many intelligent, highly educated Mormons, and that they most likely share your opinion of the BoM. There are even PhD level Mormon Egyptologists, and professors of Middle Eastern studies. After all, somebody has to teach at BYU. But here's the thing: these people were all born into the church, or were at least indoctrinated at an early age. They didn't get their PhD in, say, Egyptology, and then convert to Mormonism after reading the Pearl of Great Price and being blown away by the accuracy of the facsimile translations. I've asked on this forum if there are ANY prominent LDS apologists who converted after completing their education, and the silence was as deafening as it was expected.

Actually I think that the most remarkable thing in the Book of Mormon is the following:

(2 Nephi 9:28-29,42-43) "O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God... And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their richesâ??yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them. But the things of the wise and the prudent shall be hid from them foreverâ??yea, that happiness which is prepared for the saints."

So yes I can see how you could come to that conclusion, but did it ever occur to you that perhaps all of these wise and learned and educated men could have been so indoctrinated in what they think they know that they have no possible room for humility or faith in God?

[consiglieri]

I'm afraid you're wrong:

Those sound like pretty vague criteria to me. If someone comes back saying they got an answer that contradicts the veracity of the BoM (or that fails to confirm it) I have three unmeasurable criteria I can use to dismiss them.

Thank you for correcting me, Luigi!

I know that lots of Mormons tend to do just what you have said, and use such vague criteria to dismiss contradictory answers, but I think that is not fair.

While I may not know the answer as to why I received such a powerful witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon in response to my prayers, I do not feel in a position to judge why others may have different experiences.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Luigi]

While I may not know the answer as to why I received such a powerful witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon in response to my prayers, I do not feel in a position to judge why others may have different experiences.

Well I don't know that your experience is necessarily all that different-though it is obviously impossible to say. I know that I had what was for me a remarkable experience when I prayed about the BoM. I simply don't see any reason to attribute such experiences to God and so far the only reasons I've been offered are 'well I just know it had to be God'. That seems to me an excuse for not evaluating the reality that they identified the source as God because they were told to by others.

So yes I can see how you could come to that conclusion, but did it ever occur to you that perhaps all of these wise and learned and educated men could have been so indoctrinated in what they think they know that they have no possible room for humility or faith in God?

Faith in God always boils down to faith in man Lightbearer. Anyone who thinks they are putting faith in God is really just putting faith in what someone told them about God.

[Jason]

Faith in God always boils down to faith in man Lightbearer. Anyone who thinks they are putting faith in God is really just putting faith in what someone told them about God.

Wrong.

Just because you have failed to identify any direct influence of God in your own life or experiences doesn't mean that no one can.

[Avatar4321]

Faith in God always boils down to faith in man Lightbearer. Anyone who thinks they are putting faith in God is really just putting faith in what someone told them about God.

Well you clearly never had a revelation.

[cinepro]

Thank you for correcting me, Luigi!

I know that lots of Mormons tend to do just what you have said, and use such vague criteria to dismiss contradictory answers, but I think that is not fair.

While I may not know the answer as to why I received such a powerful witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon in response to my prayers, I do not feel in a position to judge why others may have different experiences.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Doesn't this raise an interesting conundrum? What happens at judgment day when a person stands before the judgment bar of God and explains that they did pray about the Book of Mormon, but didn't get a recognizable response?

[Luigi]

Wrong.

Just because you have failed to identify any direct influence of God in your own life or experiences doesn't mean that no one can.

I didn't say they couldn't-but I've failed to ever hear an explanation that justified attributing a spiritual experience as coming from God. All I get is what you just gave me 'you're wrong and I know you're wrong'. If I think someone is wrong I better have a reason-otherwise I just sound like I'm trying to convince myself through repetition.

[Luigi]

Well you clearly never had a revelation.

Well I had what Mormons traditionally label as a revelation. But that was the problem-all I was doing was having faith in what I had been taught by Church leaders- that certain experiences after prayer come from God.

[Jason]

Well I had what Mormons traditionally label as a revelation. But that was the problem-all I was doing was having faith in what I had been taught by Church leaders- that certain experiences after prayer come from God.

You mean you think you had what Mormons label a revelation, and then later convinced yourself that it wasn't.

What will happen when someone who prayed and didn't get an answer appears at the bar? I see two possible responses from God:

1) "I did send you an answer, and you know it."

2) "You weren't ready to receive an answer when you asked. You should have prepared more and asked again."

[soren]

I should think that everybody on the board is familiar with the promise at the end of the Book of Mormon, frequently referred to as Moroni's Promise, to the effect that if the reader wants to know whether it is true, they should ask God in the name of Jesus; the promise being that the truth of it will be made known by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The point of this thread is not to talk about those who have received answers (I would be one), and those who have not (whose sincerity I would not begin to question).

Rather, looking at the presence of this promise as objectively as I can, I think it a remarkable thing to have in a book of purported scripture.

It is possibly the most remarkable thing in a book filled with remarkable things.

I think the least that can be said is that, "Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon seemed confident that God would corroborate its authenticity."

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

There is also nothing in the Moroni prayer that sounds confident, becasue it gives no means of determining that the BOM is false. If you get the testimony, that makes it true; if you don't, that means you weren't sincere.

I am probably biased, but the promise of Moroni gives me the creeps, because it corresponds with my own experience of knowing a sociopath who deceived someone in much the same way a few years before I first read the BOM. A girl I knew told one of her friends that the friend's boyfriend had sexually abused her. The girl who told her had some credibility problems, and a possible motive to lie. When the bewildered friend confronted her boyfriend, he defended his innocence in somewhat plausible ways. When she was still unconvcinced and confused by the whole thing, he told her to pray about it. After doing so, she decided he was in the right after all and concintued to date him. About two months later, I personally presented her with damning evidence against the guy, but now, she was in the relationship so deeply that she stuck with him until it all ended in tragedy a month or so later.

That is my basis for bias: I will never be persuaded by an argument that known sociopath has used. It seems to me a particularly cynical abuse of trust to feed people a rationale for seeing their emotions as a measure of God's truth. It doesn't really do much credit to the Holy Spirit either, who can speak to the soul in many better, deeper ways.

I am all in favor of praying for truth, but I think measuring God's answer to your prayer by whether you get a special feeling about it is presumptuous. God can show you the truth in all kinds of waysa that don't gratify the emotions. In fact, when we believe agaisnt our personal fellings, that it is a stronger sign, becasue it comes from something other than itself. That is why repentance is the strongest testimony.

[Jason]

I am probably biased, but the promise of Moroni gives me the creeps, because it corresponds with my own experience of knowing a sociopath who deceived someone in much the same way a few years before I first read the BOM.

So an argument that a sociopath uses is forever after invalid? It's a good thing he didn't tell you it's a good idea to breathe.

That is my basis for bias: I will never be persuaded by an argument that known sociopath has used. It seems to me a particularly cynical abuse of trust to feed people a rationale for seeing their emotions as a measure of God's truth. It doesn't really do much credit to the Holy Spirit either, who can speak to the soul in many better, deeper ways.

Moroni says nothing about emotions or a special feeling in his promise. He says "...he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." He is speaking of the deeper, better ways of communication to the soul that you were referring to, not "warm fuzzies".

[Luigi]

You mean you think you had what Mormons label a revelation, and then later convinced yourself that it wasn't.

I think I received what your Church teaches is revelation, yes. From mormon.org, your Church's official website for introducing the Church to investigators:

As taught in the Bible, â??The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, [and] temperanceâ? (Galatians 5:22â??23). These feelings from the Holy Ghost are personal revelation to you that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is true.

You still are not offering any reason you believe your revelations came from God and that you weren't simply labeling some self-induced experience as coming from God because you were told over and over again in Church to do so.

Just because an experience is profound or unique does not mean it came from God.

[Jason]

I think I received what your Church teaches is revelation, yes. From mormon.org, your Church's official website for introducing the Church to investigators:

The language used here is only an approximation of the experience. We have to give some idea of what it can be like but cannot accurately describe the real experience.

You still are not offering any reason you believe your revelations came from God and that you weren't simply labeling some self-induced experience as coming from God because you were told over and over again in Church to do so.

The experience of spirit-to-spirit communication is simply unmistakeable as anything else when it occurs.

Imagine arguing with someone that they aren't really in love with their wife.

They try to explain what feelings they feel about their wife and you say "I have experienced those feelings too, and I'm not in love with your wife."

"Well, I'm just explaining it as best I can - a warm feeling in my heart isn't really what my love for my wife feels like."

"Well if you can't give me any reason for why it really is love, then maybe you're just labeling some self-induced experience as love because you've been told over and over again by our society that that's what you should be feeling."

That's the position you've taken.

Just because an experience is profound or unique does not mean it came from God.

Quite true. Of course, just because you can have profound or unique experiences by other means does not mean that God cannot be the source of profound or unique experiences.

[Kyle]

Wrong.

Just because you have failed to identify any direct influence of God in your own life or experiences doesn't mean that no one can.

I have had direct influence of God. He tells me all Mormons are wrong and that using subjective experiences to try to prove his existence is ridiculous.

[consiglieri]

Doesn't this raise an interesting conundrum? What happens at judgment day when a person stands before the judgment bar of God and explains that they did pray about the Book of Mormon, but didn't get a recognizable response?

Is that when God apologizes for being too busy that day?

[Luigi]

The experience of spirit-to-spirit communication is simply unmistakeable as anything else when it occurs.

Imagine arguing with someone that they aren't really in love with their wife.

They try to explain what feelings they feel about their wife and you say "I have experienced those feelings too, and I'm not in love with your wife."

"Well, I'm just explaining it as best I can - a warm feeling in my heart isn't really what my love for my wife feels like."

"Well if you can't give me any reason for why it really is love, then maybe you're just labeling some self-induced experience as love because you've been told over and over again by our society that that's what you should be feeling."

That's the position you've taken.

Your feelings for your wife ARE self-induced, ie come from your brain. But you aren't claiming that I'll be damned for not believing that you love your wife nor am I claiming that anything should be taken from you because those feelings are self-induced.

If God has decided that his wisdom should be imparted to man in the same subjective way that humans define love and that is impossible to communicate reliably or observe as originating from Him then God clearly has no interest in his children discoverying truth since such a method can be easily applied to verify virtually anything.

Of course, just because you can have profound or unique experiences by other means does not mean that God cannot be the source of profound or unique experiences.

Yes, but there are infinite 'potential' sources if we don't have to provide concrete evidence for any of them. I could just as easily state that we cannot rule out fairies or mother nature.

[Mighty Curelom]

The language used here is only an approximation of the experience. We have to give some idea of what it can be like but cannot accurately describe the real experience.

The experience of spirit-to-spirit communication is simply unmistakeable as anything else when it occurs.

It may be a unique experience, but there's no way to know if that experience is "spirit to spirit communication," or just feels that way. It's like deja vu. It feels like you could predict the future for a few seconds, but it's just a feeling. You can't REALLY predict the future; you didn't REALLY experience whatever you were doing in a past life or a dream or a vision. Your brain just has a few wires crossed for a few seconds, you get an odd sensation, and that's that.

Quite true. Of course, just because you can have profound or unique experiences by other means does not mean that God cannot be the source of profound or unique experiences.

And just because you have unique, profound experiences doesn't mean they come from God and not your own brain. Given the track record of information gleaned from revelation, it's much more likely that feelings of revelation are not of a divine origin.

[Lightbearer]

Faith in God always boils down to faith in man Lightbearer. Anyone who thinks they are putting faith in God is really just putting faith in what someone told them about God.

But could you not say the same thing about your point of view? You think you deluded yourself into "feeling" a revelation. Isn't that the same? You say you believe in the evidences of science but is not that having "faith in man"? We have had this discussion before and I have come to the conclusion that you either believe in God or you do not... it is a choice. The men I believe in are the witnesses that God has provided... The men you believe in are men of science, but the fact that they use science to arrive at some truths does not make them infallible. I cannot explain why I have a testimony, I can only say that I do and that I can no more convince you of it than you can convince me that God does not exist. The things of the spirit must be understood by the spirit or they are forever unknown. I love the Church and I love the Lord and His Gospel, I hope that I might be able to help someone search for themselves the things of God. As for proving or convincing anyone, I do not have that power, Nephi could not do it... he could not convince his brothers Laman and Lemuel to partake of the love of God... that was something only they could do. Jesus could not force the Chief Priests to believe and accept the love of God... it is interesting that He did not choose to walk into Herod's court or Pilate's palace or even the Temple of Herod and show His resurrected body to all of the people... proving to them He was indeed the Christ, instead He chose to go to His apostles in a locked room and had them be His witnesses. So yes I guess it does boil down to having faith in the words of men who are inspired of God. But it is much more than that it is also the key of revelation, if God can really reveal Himself to anyone that seeks Him.

[Lamanite]

To use the words of Lamanite...Big Up!

I'm glad someone has caught on to what that means and how to use it properly

Big UP! Pa Pa

Lamanite