Ida Smith, Chris Nemelka, and Spiritual Witnesses of Truth

[CQUIRK]

Ida's father was the patriarch of the Church. I think it is reasonable to believe that she was taught how to feel and recognize the influence of the Holy Ghost. I think the burden is on you to show how her Holy Ghost experience is any different than countless Mormons'.

Personally, I do not feel the Holy Ghost or any kind of euphoria with Nemelka and his 'book', a book that those that knew him claimed he said he made it all up on purpose.

That said, I find Ida as credible as Ed Decker, along with a few bats in the belfry upstairs.

BTW, lots of ex-mos come from LDS families and even pioneer stock, but I didn't have trouble grilling them because many actually knew few details of their former faith that was worn on their sleeves while they were still members, in most cases.

That makes no sense. Ida described having a Holy Ghost experience that is very similar to many Mormons' experience.

Hahaha! You actually believe her?! Man, you are a dupe!

I can take her at her word (that she had a powerful experience while reading the Sealed Portion) without taking Wayne Bent at his word. Besides, Wayne Bent's claim to be the Messiah is very different than Ida's claim to have received a burning in her bosom.

Because either you're a anti that's unsuccessfully trying to prove a point, or one naive and quite gullible person to believe Ida and Nemelka, despite all the damming evidence against him.

She only had a 'powerful experience' due to her irrational joy when finding out that a bum off the street had "translated" the sealed portion of the BOM, which she was so overzealous to see happen in the first place.

Travesser and Nemelka are both false prophets; the same logic still applies.

I'm glad you brought Wayne Bent up. I have watched the Wayne Bent documentaries on NatGeo and the comparison you should be making is whether Mormons' Holy Ghost experiences are similar to those of Wayne Bent's followers.

Not really, they're just overzealous in their own faith and devotion to him; after all, he used to be a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor and many of his followers were then members of his former congregation.

It seems from my own witness and research, that many of the EV, pentecostal, and fundamentalist protestant persuasions are very prone to take their religious devotions to the unChrist-like extreme.

LDS rarely do, thank God.

His followers also had profound spiritual experiences while lying naked with him (this was from a teenage girl) or trying to decide to enter a polyandrous marriage with him. Further evidence that the spiritual experience is highly unreliable at best.

Just like Ida Smith- more akin to delusion and wishful thinking then the Spirit itself.

I even bet that if Nemelka asked her to lie naked next to him, she would do just that and suddenly have a "spiritual experience".

[CQUIRK]

It is interesting that you apply a character test to the messenger before even considering relying on the Holy Ghost to determine the truth of what the person says.

Well, I did't feel any 'burning in the bossum' with this idiot in the first place.

Plus even if I do feel it with a certain person or thing, I don't just drop everything and act on blind impulse, instead I do my research to try to find out more about this person or thing before jumping in.

That's how I joined the church; I did my homework first before getting baptized.

I don't know what to say about Ida, I guess not all elderly are smart.

Why would you need to do that if the Holy Ghost is a reliable indicator of truth? Simply drop the character test and commit to be led by the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Spirit and knowledge are supposed to go together. Consider Proverbs 24:3-5.

Another thing, Nemelka fits the exact biblical & BOM description of a false prophet, especially in what he preaches and the vulgarity he uses in his speech.

Interestingly, my wife often argues that I should not worry about Joseph Smith's character (I think I view it differently than you do) and simply rely on the Spirit. Does that only work for Joseph Smith, but not Nemelka?

Having done the homework on Church history before joining; Joseph Smith and Chris Nemelka are two completely different people with different backgrounds, different grammar, and preaching different things.

Even when one examines the evidences, the evidence of any bad character on Joseph Smith is distorted, flimsy, taken-out-of-context, or just doesn't hold up at all.

Chris on the other hand, has a detailed record of criminal activity on legit charges with overwhelming & solid evidence that's impossible to look past, especially this-

http://chrisnemelka.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/070401714-Jeff-Richins-Affidavit-Nemelka-.pdf

Doing research is a good thing, since the more I studied the doctrine and history about the church and Joseph Smith, the more the felt the real spirit and increased in my testimony.

[Kenngo1969]

It's worth noting that although he later backpedaled and said that the reason he recanted is because of a judge's harassment, Mr. Nemelka did recant his story in 2001. Brother Joseph never recanted.

[sunstoned]

This is a fallacy. It is never just feelings. In the first place when the Holy Ghost influences someone it brings intelligence, or light and knowledge. Study is also involved and the mind and heart must be in sync.

Studying something like Nemelka's claims anyone who uses their mind would have to question why a person with no authority in the church would be entitled to such a revelation for the church when we know that only the Prophet who stands at the head of the church can do this. The Holy Ghost would not contradict the natural order which God has established. Therefore if one is investigating this they are already on the wrong track and if they get a "good feeling" it's not light and knowledge but something else that satisfies their own need.

Hello Deborah,

You are one of the people on this board who I feel is very sincere, and one who truly believes and follows her heart. I believe you when you say you have had a manifestation from the Holy Ghost. But you need to understand that your experience, and while very special to you, would be categorized by most people outside the LDS faith as

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Watching just 2 minutes of him on his youtube channel was enough to show me a is a creepy, creepy man with a demon inside him. I didn't need to know anything about him after that.

[beth]

Perhaps I have a different persepective than some of you. As most of you are already devout members of the Mormon Church, you already "know" Nemelka is not a prophet so you read his scripture without giving him any serious consideration that it might be true. Kinda like an investigator to the Mormon Church that won't consider that the BOM is true.

I decided to give them equal, real consideration this past weekend. I read some of the BofM scriptures on Saturday and sincerely prayed about them that night, with real intent as missionaries have told me too. I did not read any of Nemelka's sealed portion that day as to not confuse the 2. On Sunday I read some of Nemelka's sealed portion and prayed that night just as intently if it was true.

When I was reading the BofM, it seemed like I was reading a real historical account and I could imagine their stories as if they were real. When I prayed about it to "know for sure" if what I was reading was actual, literal history and not just a story, I did not get any real answer. I heard no voices nor could I detect any external influence telling me it was literally true.

The next day, when I was reading Nemelka's sealed portion, it likewise seemed like I was reading a real historical account and I could imagine their stories as if they were real. When I prayed about it to "know for sure" if what I was reading was actual, literal history and not just a story, I also did not get any real answer. I likewise heard no voices nor could I detect any external influence telling me it was literally true.

This was very disappointing. The stories both seem like they are ancient works about real people and real events when I read them. I prayed about each one independently (on different days) yet no answers were forthcoming on either one. From merely reading, thinking about and praying about these scriptures, I cannot determine if either one of them is really scripture from God.

I don't see from praying alone, how someone could "know for sure" that a book is literal history or not. I think that many people make up their mind before they pray about the church and just think they get an answer that confirms what they believed already. This seems like kind of a poor way to discern truth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I notice no one has commented on the logical fallacy I have presented concerning this matter. Is it really that far below one's desire for discussion:

Post #26

Well, if they did try to address it they would not be able to keep beating up the church with the "you can't trust your feelings" canard.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Perhaps I have a different persepective than some of you. As most of you are already devout members of the Mormon Church, you already "know" Nemelka is not a prophet so you read his scripture without giving him any serious consideration that it might be true. Kinda like an investigator to the Mormon Church that won't consider that the BOM is true.

I decided to give them equal, real consideration this past weekend. I read some of the BofM scriptures on Saturday and sincerely prayed about them that night, with real intent as missionaries have told me too. I did not read any of Nemelka's sealed portion that day as to not confuse the 2. On Sunday I read some of Nemelka's sealed portion and prayed that night just as intently if it was true.

When I was reading the BofM, it seemed like I was reading a real historical account and I could imagine their stories as if they were real. When I prayed about it to "know for sure" if what I was reading was actual, literal history and not just a story, I did not get any real answer. I heard no voices nor could I detect any external influence telling me it was literally true.

The next day, when I was reading Nemelka's sealed portion, it likewise seemed like I was reading a real historical account and I could imagine their stories as if they were real. When I prayed about it to "know for sure" if what I was reading was actual, literal history and not just a story, I also did not get any real answer. I likewise heard no voices nor could I detect any external influence telling me it was literally true.

This was very disappointing. The stories both seem like they are ancient works about real people and real events when I read them. I prayed about each one independently (on different days) yet no answers were forthcoming on either one. From merely reading, thinking about and praying about these scriptures, I cannot determine if either one of them is really scripture from God.

I don't see from praying alone, how someone could "know for sure" that a book is literal history or not. I think that many people make up their mind before they pray about the church and just think they get an answer that confirms what they believed already. This seems like kind of a poor way to discern truth.

Though I am a believer in the Book of Mormon I am not a member of the LDS Church. I amazes, and saddens, me that you cannot feel the difference between the inspired words of the Book of Mormon and the demonic trash that Nemelka has put to paper.

I will, however, agree with you on one point... Our mere feelings are not good gauges for evaluating truth, we need to compare what we are reading with what we already know to be the word of God and use our common sense a bit.

Quick question.... do you believe in the Bible?

[CQUIRK]

The next day, when I was reading Nemelka's sealed portion, it likewise seemed like I was reading a real historical account and I could imagine their stories as if they were real. When I prayed about it to "know for sure" if what I was reading was actual, literal history and not just a story, I also did not get any real answer. I likewise heard no voices nor could I detect any external influence telling me it was literally true.

There's a problem Beth-

Obviously you didn't do your research.

Did I just hear a bubble pop?

[Fifth Columnist]

I notice no one has commented on the logical fallacy I have presented concerning this matter. Is it really that far below one's desire for discussion: Post #26

I didn't reply because your post seemed unrelated to the reliability of a spiritual witness. It seemed to focus more on evaluating Nemelka's claims logically.

[Fifth Columnist]

I will, however, agree with you on one point... Our mere feelings are not good gauges for evaluating truth, we need to compare what we are reading with what we already know to be the word of God and use our common sense a bit.

How do you "already know" that this is the word of God?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

How do you "already know" that this is the word of God?

Can't explain it, sorry. I just know the Book of Mormon and Bible are true. No warm fuzzies, no feelings, just instinctual knowledge. It's really cool.

[TAO]

Fifth, what if I know Nemelka isn't correct because I know the prophets speak the truth.

Would that not work... even if I trust them because of warm fuzzies?

[sunstoned]

How do you "already know" that this is the word of God?

If the answer to this is through the Holy Ghost, then I would think we are getting into some circular logic.

[Fifth Columnist]

Can't explain it, sorry. I just know the Book of Mormon and Bible are true. No warm fuzzies, no feelings, just instinctual knowledge. It's really cool.

Instinctual knowledge? That sounds an awful lot like you just decided to believe without having a legitimate reason to do so.

[Fifth Columnist]

Fifth, what if I know Nemelka isn't correct because I know the prophets speak the truth.

Would that not work... even if I trust them because of warm fuzzies?

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

[Vex]

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

See logical fallacy I brought up already.

Furthermore the Holy Ghost very well could be confirming the truth which is contained within the sealed portion (though I have not read it so I can't say one way or another). However did the Holy Ghost testify of the entire book or was it testifying of only what was true? Do we know if she applied Moroni's promise to the 'sealed portion'? If so, was it applied correctly (IE Sincere heart, with real intent)? There just seems to be a lot of guess work and hypotheticals going on.

[Deborah]

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

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

[Fifth Columnist]

See logical fallacy I brought up already.

As I explained already, what you brought up has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

Furthermore the Holy Ghost very well could be confirming the truth which is contained within the sealed portion (though I have not read it so I can't say one way or another).

Do you have any evidence or argument to back this up beyond your assertion? If you look at what Ida said, how she has behaved, etc., it points firmly to the conclusion that the Holy Ghost confirmed truths that put her squarely in conflict with the modern LDS Church (but not the early Church).

Do we know if she applied Moroni's promise to the 'sealed portion'?

Is that a requirement to receive a witness from the Holy Ghost? I already cited one example from the Ensign and I have personally heard countless others where Mormons receive a witness from the Holy Ghost without formally following Moroni's promise. For example, many Mormons, myself included, received a spiritual witness as we read the Book of Mormon, which is exactly the same thing that happened to Ida.

If so, was it applied correctly (IE Sincere heart, with real intent)? There just seems to be a lot of guess work and hypotheticals going on.

Do you apply this type of rigorous analysis to someone who reads the Book of Mormon and receives a witness from the Holy Ghost. Like the person in the Ensign article I have linked to multiple times in this thread?

Even if Ida did not ask with a sincere heart, she still received the same witness that she had when she was a member. There is no guesswork or hypotheticals. She said she experienced what she experienced. Believing Mormons have to introduce the guesswork and hypotheticals as a way to explain how she can receive a conflicting spiritual witness when the more obvious conclusion is that spiritual witnesses are not reliable indicators of truth.

[Vex]

As I explained already, what you brought up has nothing to do with the point of this thread.

But it does have to do with the thread as it's proportioned unto us already is it not? Or in other words the words of the prophets are a spiritual witness of truth yes?

Do you have any evidence or argument to back this up beyond your assertion? If you look at what Ida said, how she has behaved, etc., it points firmly to the conclusion that the Holy Ghost confirmed truths that put her squarely in conflict with the modern LDS Church (but not the early Church).

Yes; read Moroni's promise. It states quite plainly that the purpose of the Holy Ghost is to bear witness of all truth. That is if there is truth, it will testify. Additionally I do not see the firm connection or conclusion to the conflict of the modern LDS Church but not the early. That connection I'm going to have to ask for a CFR on, or at the very least how you come to such a conclusion as I have already pointed out where it conflicts with early Church doctrine.

Is that a requirement to receive a witness from the Holy Ghost? I already cited one example from the Ensign and I have personally heard countless others where Mormons receive a witness from the Holy Ghost without formally following Moroni's promise. For example, many Mormons, myself included, received a spiritual witness as we read the Book of Mormon, which is exactly the same thing that happened to Ida.

Basing it off of my previous response we can see that the the Holy Ghost will testify of truth; regardless of where it is. Whether the context of witness is applicable within the medium is another matter and must come from the structure of Moroni's promise as the medium then becomes prayer. For example; one could take a fictional account such as the Chronicles of Narnia as have the Holy Ghost testify concerning the principles and imagery present in the story. Does this make the story true? Obviously not, but the Holy Ghost did witness concerning the principles of the matter.

Do you apply this type of rigorous analysis to someone who reads the Book of Mormon and receives a witness from the Holy Ghost. Like the person in the Ensign article I have linked to multiple times in this thread?

Yes. I have applied this same analysis to the BOM and I encourage others to do the same. While serving my mission even when individuals stated that they 'knew the book of mormon was true' without praying to get a confirmation about it I always encouraged them to follow Moroni's promise. To do otherwise is (for lack of a better word) not doing their 'due diligence.'

Even if Ida did not ask with a sincere heart, she still received the same witness that she had when she was a member. There is no guesswork or hypotheticals. She said she experienced what she experienced. Believing Mormons have to introduce the guesswork and hypotheticals as a way to explain how she can receive a conflicting spiritual witness when the more obvious conclusion is that spiritual witnesses are not reliable indicators of truth.

Not so. See above responses.

[Fifth Columnist]

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

Deborah, you have not provided any evidence that her actual experience is not similar to or the same as many Mormons' spiritual experiences. Instead, you cited Nemelka's lack of priesthood authority as though that alone somehow proves that Ida did not feel and experience what she said she did.

The fact is that Holy Ghost type experiences are not a reliable indicator of truth. Religious adherents the world over have the same experience and interpret them in a variety of contradictory ways. For example, a quick Internet search revealed the following testimony provided by a devout Muslim:

After months of study and research I could not deny the truth anymore. I had put it off too long, but was still living the life I had before, and knew that if I became a Muslim I had to give all that up. One day while reading the Qur'an, I began to cry and fell to my knees and thanked Allah for guiding me to the truth. I found out that there was a Mosque by my house so I went one Friday to see how Muslims prayed and conducted their service. I saw that people from all races and colors attended the Mosque. I saw that they took off their shoes when entering and sat on the carpeted floor. A man got up and began to call the Adthan (call for prayer). When I heard it my eyes filled up with tears because it sounded so beautiful. It was all so strange at first, but seemed so right at the same time. Islam is not just a religion but a way of life.

http://www.thepeopleofthebook.org/islam6testimony.html

Here's another one from an evangelical:

A group of young people from a church in Seoul gave us a wonderful welcome and taught us all about Korean history. I don't think I'll ever forget the experience when they showed us the church where the martyrs are buried. The first room that we went into was bathed in a warm light, and I couldn't stop crying as I heard the explanation; there were pictures and drawings in the next room but my body was shaking and I couldn't move. I don't know why, but I felt that this was why I had come. It was the first time I had felt anything like that in my 65 years.

When I got back I started going to church at Mrs Kawai's invitation. Before I knew it I was going along by myself; I had always owned a small Bible but had never opened them myself. I still haven't told my husband that I'm getting baptised, although he knows that I go to church. Nevertheless, I am so thankful that God has led me here to this day.

http://www.wec-japan.org/en/content/a-new-start-building-old

The very fact that we must test the words or Prophets and Apostles is further evidence that spiritual witnesses are not reliable. The prophets and apostles felt that they received a spiritual witness of the truth of certain matters (hemispheric BOM geography, reason blacks were denied the Priesthood, Adam-God theory, God is still progressing, half of everything Bruce R. McConkie ever said that no believes now, Indians are getting whiter as they convert to Mormonism, etc., etc.). Apologists tell us, however, that we must now use the same procedure (Holy Ghost experiences) to verify the teachings of the prophets and apostles - the teachings that these prophets and apostles believe are true due to a contradictory spiritual experience. If anything, this should demonstrate that Holy Ghost experiences cannot be trusted. After all, what makes my Holy Ghost experience more valid than Brigham Young's or Spencer W. Kimball's?

[Vex]

The very fact that we must test the words or Prophets and Apostles is further evidence that spiritual witnesses are not reliable. The prophets and apostles felt that they received a spiritual witness of the truth of certain matters (hemispheric BOM geography, reason blacks were denied the Priesthood, Adam-God theory, God is still progressing, half of everything Bruce R. McConkie ever said that no believes now, Indians are getting whiter as they convert to Mormonism, etc., etc.). Apologists tell us, however, that we must now use the same procedure (Holy Ghost experiences) to verify the teachings of the prophets and apostles - the teachings that these prophets and apostles believe are true due to a contradictory spiritual experience. If anything, this should demonstrate that Holy Ghost experiences cannot be trusted. After all, what makes my Holy Ghost experience more valid than Brigham Young's or Spencer W. Kimball's?

This is a fallacy. Even Brigham Young himself stated that he would review what he said over the pulpit before setting it as doctrine and dictated that individuals should always test his words with their own spiritual confirmation. One can even see the practice of which from when Joseph taught about polygamy.

[Fifth Columnist]

But it does have to do with the thread as it's proportioned unto us already is it not? Or in other words the words of the prophets are a spiritual witness of truth yes?

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

Yes; read Moroni's promise. It states quite plainly that the purpose of the Holy Ghost is to bear witness of all truth. That is if there is truth, it will testify. Additionally I do not see the firm connection or conclusion to the conflict of the modern LDS Church but not the early. That connection I'm going to have to ask for a CFR on, or at the very least how you come to such a conclusion as I have already pointed out where it conflicts with early Church doctrine.

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

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

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

Basing it off of my previous response we can see that the the Holy Ghost will testify of truth; regardless of where it is. Whether the context of witness is applicable within the medium is another matter and must come from the structure of Moroni's promise as the medium then becomes prayer. For example; one could take a fictional account such as the Chronicles of Narnia as have the Holy Ghost testify concerning the principles and imagery present in the story. Does this make the story true? Obviously not, but the Holy Ghost did witness concerning the principles of the matter.

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

Yes. I have applied this same analysis to the BOM and I encourage others to do the same. While serving my mission even when individuals stated that they 'knew the book of mormon was true' without praying to get a confirmation about it I always encouraged them to follow Moroni's promise. To do otherwise is (for lack of a better word) not doing their 'due diligence.'

Interesting. You reject their claimed spiritual experience unless they followed a set process. I guess that would invalidate most spiritual experiences from sacrament meeting, EFY, firesides, etc. since they people who experienced them did not follow Moroni's promise.

[Fifth Columnist]

This is a fallacy. Even Brigham Young himself stated that he would review what he said over the pulpit before setting it as doctrine and dictated that individuals should always test his words with their own spiritual confirmation. One can even see the practice of which from when Joseph taught about polygamy.

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

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

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

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Instinctual knowledge? That sounds an awful lot like you just decided to believe without having a legitimate reason to do so.

Nope. In fact, I hated church and had no desire to be there after we joined (when I was 7) until I was about 16 or so, but the whole time, even in hating church I always knew the Book of Mormon was the word of God. All the "evidence" has just gone to show me that my knowledge is 100% correct.

PS... And I believe the fact that I have NOT remained LDS should show my inquisitive and questioning nature. I don't just believe what people tell me.