The Mormon Church before 1900

[Devin]

Instead of relying on what other people say, try doing what Joseph Smith did when he say Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and ask god, if you can't believe him, don't believe anyone else.

Will asking God about something make history go away?

Does gods answer depend on history? I've never heard of such a requirement.

[Devin]

Mormon Fool , Cinepro, and Jarrod Why don't you want to aanswer my questions? Are they too controversial? My father told me not to be surprised when you would decline answering my questions. If I am going to invest my life in something as encompassing as the Mormon Church, I intend to investigate it to the nth degree before I committ. Is this wrong? If you think so, you don't have much faith in God's power to lead a person to truth through the human senses. Do I pray? Yes I pray, for God to allow me to use wisdom as I gain knowledge. I watched one of the videos that your missionaries presented. It was called "Man's Search for Happiness." The last few lines of that video made the statement that I am making now. "Prove all things, hold fast that which is true." Folks, that's what I'm trying to do. If the Mormon Church is the one true church on the face of the earth and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, prove it to me. There is a scripture in the New Testament, I don't know where it is, but it Paul the Apostle talking about the Bereans who were more noble because they opened their scriptures to see whether the things Paul said were true and of God. Paul didn't say they were more noble because they "prayed" about those things for God to tell them that they were true. I do remember I Timothy 3:16 that says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man (or woman) of God may be thoroughly furnished unto every good work." I memorized this scripture when I was very young. It didn't say "prayer" was the way to be thoroughly furnished. Prayer is important, but referring to the scriptures in times of doubt is more important.

My father told me about a family of five that was broken up in my hometown because the Mormon missionaries encouraged the mother and wife to join the Church even though her husband was fervently Catholic. The children were involved in a catholic school and so on. Anyway, the wife told the missionaries that she didn't understand all of the strange doctrines of the Mormons. The missionaries told her to just trust the felling that she had about Joseph Smith. She did and, against her husbands wishes she was baptized. The next day she gave her husband an ultimatum to either join the Mormons or she would get a divorce. Well, the husband got the divorce and went to court and got custody of the children. To make a long story short, this family was ruined. They were happy before the Mormons knocked on their door. The really sad thing about it was that the mother later learned a lot of things about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, from a book from her ward library called "Joseph Smith, by Donna Hill, that the missionaries hadn't told her, and, shortly after, left the Mormon Church. The family never got back together. I guess you'll say that her testimony was great enough to withstand the stubbornness of her husband, but not great enough to withstand the truth of history.

"For many think they are wise and hearken not unto the counsel of god".

So the devil has power to answer prayers by the power of the holyghost, quite contradictory don't you think, or is the holyghost not part of your beliefs?

So which church does daddy belong to?

[Devin]

Pre-law Well I'm a pre-eeeeeeeeeiiittttyyyy big guy, wanna wrestle computer geek!

[Makarios]

Instead of relying on what other people say, try doing what Joseph Smith did when he say Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and ask god, if you can't believe him, don't believe anyone else.

Will asking God about something make history go away?

Does gods answer depend on history? I've never heard of such a requirement.

Mormonism, like Christianity in general is an historical religion. If the history is a fraud, the religion is false.

If Joseph Smith was not who he claimed to be Mormonism is false, regardless of what kind of testimony you have. Your own prophets have made similar statements.

Paul made the same point about Christianity: 1 Corinthians 15:17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins

[Kenngo1969]

Makarios Previously Posted: If Joseph Smith was not who he claimed to be Mormonism is false, regardless of what kind of testimony you have. Your own prophets have made similar statements.

Ken Responds: That's true. The Church's veracity stands or falls on the reality (or lack thereof, at least from your perspective) of the First Vision. But I reject the other (implicit) premise of your argument--that in order for the First Vision to be a reality, the Church's history otherwise must somehow be pristine. As I noted to you in my previous post (which led you to accuse me, essentially, of going off on an irrelevant tangent) the Church can still be, and in fact is still true, even though its history (like all history, to a greater or lesser extent) is not "pristine."

[Makarios]

But I reject the other (implicit) premise of your argument--that in order for the First Vision to be a reality, the Church's history otherwise must somehow be pristine.

I have never made the claim implicitly or explicitly that church history needs to be 'pristine' in order for the church to be true. You keep reading things into my posts and then objecting to your own suppositions. Try responding based upon what I say, rather than what you think I might be saying.

[Kenngo1969]

Ken Previously Posted: Rather, once you've gained a testimony of the Church's foundation Scripture (The Book of Mormon) and of its foundation events (chiefly, Joseph Smith's First Vision), nothing else in the Church's history should be able to shake that foundation.

Makarios Responded: Unless it turns out the foundation is made of sand.

Look, I'm not saying it is.

But if someone gained a testimony that the earth is flat they might want to reconsider how valid that testimony is when confronted with new information.

Ken Now Says: Sure, we'd all have an easier time accepting The Book of Mormon as what it purports to be if we found the physical evidence to buttress its claims. Hence, the existence of FARMS. I happen to find some of the physical evidence--chiasmus, word-printing, name similarities, and so on--persuasive. If you don't, that is your right. But if you're not saying that the Church's foundation is made of sand, then what exactly are you saying?

[Jarrod]

Ken Now Says: And the Church's foundation, as built on The Book of Mormon, is sandy because . . . ?

Because the Book of Mormon, itself, is not the whole picture. Some people refute it, some people don't. Let's just say for the sake of this conversation that the Book of Mormon is untouchable. Then you pray about it and feel really super about it. You've got a testimony.

Did that really prove Joseph Smith is a prophet? I mean, after praying about the Book of Mormon and feeling really super about it, was there something else that followed that proved Joseph Smith actually translated it, and the he was really a prophet? We are taught to accept this as a valid syllogism, but it implies that feeling really super is, in fact, proof. In my experience, feeling really super as a result of prayer means that I feel really super. I have had a burning in my bosom when watching "The Sound of Music," (I am not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm serious) but I don't take that to mean the movie was "true" or that God wanted me to know the truthfulness of the movie.

And then what about the D&C and the BoM contradicting each other about plural marriage? Even if we toss that one out completely, why would God's own true church require so many strange practices that require so much explanation? As a missionary, I always hated bringing investigators to Fast & Testimony meetings because it always meant they would never come back. I've heard dozens of RMs share similar feelings. There are things in the church that have been accepted for so long, that we've disabled our BS detectors. Those with BS detectors that still work just fine, like investigators, find that Mormonism is indeed built on a very sandy foundation.

The very idea of basing zealous belief, and indeed your whole life, on the really super feelings you get when praying about the Book of Mormon requires that you also have to reject the things that controvert the church, as well as your BS detector. Even if those things are compelling and factually true.

[Tetraforce]

And then what about the D&C and the BoM contradicting each other

That is so blind. I think that is really too bad for you, if you cannot harmonize it if your accual stud of it yourself... or is that you study with anti-mormons and thats why you don't understand?

Christ taught that we can verify the truth of his message experimentally, by doing what He taught:

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself. (John 7:17)

Christ taught that knowledge is discerned through the Spirit of God. To Peter, who could declare that Jesus was the Christ, Christ said that it was not flesh and blood but God the Father that had revealed this knowledge to him (Matt. 16: 15-17).

Like the experience of Elijah in 1 Kings 19: 11-12. Here the Lord showed Elijah some mighty tangible manifestations: a great wind, an earthquake, a fire, but revelation from the Lord did not come through any of these, though they provided powerful input to the normal mortal senses. Instead, after all that, there came a "still small voice," soft, mild, but carrying revelation from God that provides true knowledge

Alma chapter 32:

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, ... it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves--... this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good.... And now behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith....

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because ye know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls ... and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 .... And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away....

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof....

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

[Makarios]

I happen to find some of the physical evidence--chiasmus, word-printing, name similarities, and so on--persuasive.

I don't doubt you can make a case for your position.

But if you're not saying that the Church's foundation is made of sand, then what exactly are you saying?

I said unless the foundation is made of sand. If it is, testimonies won't make it otherwise. That is all I am saying at this point.

Remember, I was responding to the idea that we don't need to take a serious look at history and all that is needed is to 'ask god.' If you think the history is important then we don't have a disagreement here.

[Kenngo1969]

Jarrod Previously Posted: Let

[Kenngo1969]

Ken Previously Asked: But if you're not saying that the Church's foundation is made of sand, then what exactly are you saying?

Makarios Replied: I said unless the foundation is made of sand. If it is, testimonies won't make it otherwise. That is all I am saying at this point.

Remember, I was responding to the idea that we don't need to take a serious look at history and all that is needed is to 'ask god.' If you think the history is important then we don't have a disagreement here.

Ken Now Says: Yes, I do think the history of the Church is important

[Jarrod]

As of your most recent post above, however, we are now compelled to add a third possibility:

3. God does not now (in the case of Gordon B. Hinckley), has not (in the case of Joseph Smith

[Calm]

Remember, I was responding to the idea that we don't need to take a serious look at history and all that is needed is to 'ask god.'

M, don't know if you are Christian or religious in any way. If you are, would you tell me if you feel that one needs to take a serious look at the history surrounding the Bible.

I am currently reading a book about the afterlife beliefs of Westren religions and the section on the Bible is quite interesting in how it interacts with the Egyptian, Cannanite and Mesopotamian religions of its day. The author goes so far as to say one can't know what the Bible is really saying without this context.

[Calm]

[Pray about BoM] + [Good Feelings] = [Joseph Smith is a prophet]

What if it was rewritten [Pray about BoM] + [spiritual Witness of the Truth] = [Joseph Smith is a prophet]?

[Jarrod]

[Pray about BoM] + [Good Feelings] = [Joseph Smith is a prophet]

What if it was rewritten [Pray about BoM] + [spiritual Witness of the Truth] = [Joseph Smith is a prophet]?

I could better answer that if you could tell me the difference between emotional manifestations and spiritual manifestations.

Whether you use the Alma 32 method to build faith or Boyd K. Packer's "Candle of the Lord" method, I find it difficult to know how to discern between emotions and spiritual manifestations.

If you could help me know the difference, then it would be easier to use your revised formula.

I also believe in the reliability of empirical & historical data, as I mentioned earlier.

[Devin]

So the question is: How reliable is history compared to the reliability of the witness of the spirit or holy spirit or whatever you might refer to it?

I believe god is capable enough to answer a prayer even when that person doesn't know every detail about the history of his question. I mean, I knew the bible was a book of god before I knew any details about the history of it, and I still don't know alot of the history behind the book or the history contained in it, and I've read it several times. To say that god won't tell you something is true when you don't know all the detail that surround it, is jacked up. Ask and ye shall recieve.

[Kenngo1969]

Jarrod,

Frankly, I'm not at all sure that Manifestations of the Spirit can be divorced from Good Feelings, at least not in all cases, and at least not entirely. In fact, the Scriptures often equate the two--or, at least, they don't separate them in the manner that your question implies that they should (or could). Take, for example, Galatians 5:22 (KJV): "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, [m]eekness [and] temperance..."

Still, as you point out, it would be an oversimplification at best (and incorrect at worst) to equate the "good feelings" one has when, e.g., watching a moving theatrical performance with the "good feelings" one has when one receives a Manifestation of the Spirit. Perhaps the difference lies in the fact that yes, one can feel "good feelings" such as peace from what's presented on stage when in attendance at the theater, but the difference between that and a Manifestation of the Spirit is that the Spirit conveys not only peace, but "peace which passeth all understanding." See Philippians 4:7, KJV.

This is a rather crass example to use (especially in this forum) but perhaps the words of former U.S. Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart regarding obscenity, with a slight alteration, are equally applicable--if paradoxically so --to Manifestations of the Spirit: "I can't describe them, but I know them when I feel them." It is difficult, if not impossible, to describe something which not only defies but also transcends such description. Reducing an experience with the Divine into human language necessarily limits that experience, perhaps in ways we don't intend--even when such an experience is related in the Scriptures. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why we're admonished to exercise care in relating such experiences.

I've had some incredibly powerful experiences with the Spirit in my life (two, in particular, which come readily to mind), but I hesitate to share them for fear that you would conclude, "Gee, I've never experienced anything like that. I guess I've never had any Manifestations of the Spirit myself..." And I've had other experiences, in circumstances which have seemed much more mundane, which, when I've considered them in hindsight, I've realized, "Hey, the Spirit was the presence that really helped me out, there..." Or, even more common (though much to my chagrin), I've felt a prompting to do something and have hesitated in acting on it (or have not acted on it at all) only to realize later, "Hey, you Dummy! The Spirit was trying to help you out, there..."

I'm sorry I can't be of more practical help to you.

P.S. Coding edit.

[Kenngo1969]

Jarrod Previously Posted: Why would God's own true church require so many strange practices that require so much explanation?

Ken Responds: I don

[rabanes]

KEN: Faith requires that you realize that the Lord

[Kenngo1969]

Ken Previously Posted: Faith requires that you realize that the Lord

[rabanes]

K: Saying that God can comprehend things which His children cannot is one thing; saying God Himself is incomprehensible is entirely another.

RA: Agreed. I would go further. Saying that God is incomprehensible in his entirety is one thing; Saying that there are som ethings about God that are incomprehensible is entirely another tihng.

K: Is God omniscient? Yes, He is. Is He omnipotent? Yes, He is.

RA: Agreed.

K: But even as difficult as it is for the finite mind to comprehend the infiniteness of God's attributes, it is still possible for Mormons (indeed, for all of God's children who wish to) to have a personal, Father-child relationship with Him.

RA: I agree that not comprehending God in his infiniteness in no way should stand against someone having a "personal, Father-child relationship with Him." However, I haev heard many Mormons accuse us EVs of just that

[Kenngo1969]

Ken Previously Posted: Saying that God can comprehend things which His children cannot is one thing; saying God Himself is incomprehensible is entirely another.

Rabanes Responded: Agreed. I would go further. Saying that God is incomprehensible in his entirety is one thing; Saying that there are [some] things about God that are incomprehensible is entirely another...

Ken Now Says: I would agree with that. I see no problem with that statement. We have finite minds, so there are surely some things about God we do not and cannot--or at least cannot yet--comprehend.

I would only add--and you, of course, are at complete liberty to disagree--that if Mormonism's advent represents a new dispensation (similar to the dispensations of Adam, Moses, Noah, and so on) has given us some information about who God is. For example, if one accepts Joseph Smith's First Vision account, then God, The Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, are two separate beings.

I here hasten to add that I know of at least nine different accounts of the First Vision, along with the fact that in some accounts, only one personage was mentioned, while two were mentioned in other accounts, and so forth. This information has been carefully hidden away from the prying eyes of the Church's "rank-and-file" faithful in its official magazine, the Ensign. Milton V. Backman Jr.,

[Calm]

However, I haev heard many Mormons accuse us EVs of just that

[rabanes]

CAL: And there are EVs who not only won't pray with LDS, but state that God won't hear their prayers. It's nondoctrinal for the LDS, don't know about EVs. There seems to be quite a division of opinion there as many believe LDS are Christian.

RA: I would pray with you anytime.

RA