Why I Know

[Vance]

Recently an alien who aspired to citizenship in the USA stumbled upon a lost parchment wherein George Washington issued commands to his followers to kill the British.

Immediately he went out to obey his leader's command and began leveling British tourists in the streets.

Not factual of course. People have too much common sense to make that mistake..

[Kevin Christensen]

SNIP

I don't believe God would not have chosen a racist person to 'restore His church'.

For "The Charge of Racism in the Book of Mormon" see John Tvedtnes,

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=508

And various discussions of the use of such imagery in the Ancient Near East and Mesoamerica by Hugh Nibley, John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, and others. Including the authors of Lamentations and Daniel.

And of course, think about the story in Acts about Peter being directed in a dream to take the gospel to the Gentiles. What cultural attitude do you see in Peter's first response? Did this event occur before or after Peter was called to the apostleship?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 23, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[zerinus]

Jesus established an organization of men. Not an organization run by men. We all do our part, which is controlled and directed by Christ, not any men.

You turning a blind eye to all the scriptures that I am citing. Why? Jesus established an organization of men, which was run by men whom He had made “overseers:”

Acts 20

:

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you

overseers,

to feed the

church of God,

which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Those “overseers” were not self-appointed; they were made ministers to the Church by direct authority from God Himself:

1 Timothy 4

:

14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee

by prophecy,

with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Hebrews 5

:

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is

called of God,

as was Aaron.

The “organization” had authorized human agents acting as lawful officers, appointed by God Himself, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, to manage its affairs and minister to it. Why are turning a blind eye to all the scriptures that clearly teach this?

Edited June 23, 2011 by zerinus

[altersteve]

I don't believe God would not have chosen a racist person to 'restore His church'.

That's why He chose someone who was not a racist.

[Xander]

For "The Charge of Racism in the Book of Mormon" see John Tvedtnes,

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=508

And various discussions of the use of such imagery in the Ancient Near East and Mesoamerica by Hugh Nibley, John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, and others. Including the authors of Lamentations and Daniel.

And of course, think about the story in Acts about Peter being directed in a dream to take the gospel to the Gentiles. What cultural attitude do you see in Peter's first response? Did this event occur before or after Peter was called to the apostleship?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Question.

Why should I trust John's apologetic take on this matter when former Prophet Spencer W. Kimball contradicted it - in Conference no less? According to Kimball, "white and delightsome" referred to skin tone. He went on to share stories about how some local "Lamanites" were becoming lighter in skin tone as they associated themselves with the Gospel more and more. He even joked that some of the missionaries were considering donating blood, to speed up the process.

[KevinG]

Question.

Why should I trust John's apologetic take on this matter when former Prophet Spencer W. Kimball contradicted it - in Conference no less? According to Kimball, "white and delightsome" referred to skin tone. He went on to share stories about how some local "Lamanites" were becoming lighter in skin tone as they associated themselves with the Gospel more and more. He even joked that some of the missionaries were considering donating blood, to speed up the process.

The counsel of living prophets trumps dead ones. More recent teachings tell us that discrimination based on race is beneath priesthood holders.

This could be covered in a whole other topic about learning line by line and precept by precept.

In short you should trust the apologetic take because it is in line with revealed truth today, even if it contradicts statements of past (and sometimes errant) leaders of the Church.

I am also quick to correct those who use these same views in defense of the priesthood policy towards descendents of Africans.

[Xander]

Easily discredited? Hardly. Else why would it continue to be discussed.

Apologists will discuss it no matter what case is presented against it. To judge the strength of an argument based on how apologists respond is silly. Besides, from my experience, most apologists aren't aware of the critical arguments. They generally get it second hand by self-appointed apologists who like to tear down straw men.

If it was already discredited there would be nothing else to discuss.

By this logic, creationism hasn't been discredited. Neither has the 9/11 conspiracy, or the idea than men live on the moon. I mean after all, some people still discuss these things.

In any case the proof isn't in the methodology but in the text itself.

It is in both, actually. The great myth among apologists is that critics haven't dealt with the text itself.

But then I haven't seen arguments about the text only the methodology.

I'm not surprised.

As to you other points, I never said other faiths didn't produce good fruits

I'm glad.

The point being made was that the church after severe persecution and near financial ruin and the death of two of its leaders was able to move forward and become a worldwide church in spite of continuous persecution even after moving to the Utah territory.

I'm not sure how this is evidence that it is true. There are many enterprises that were on the brink of financial ruin, and then managed to turn things around to become a highly prosperous organization.

CFR the sources Joseph Smith would have had access to on the frontier that he borrowed from other sources for his profound teachings on Priesthood authority, work for the dead, the three degrees of glory, pre-mortal life.

Much of this was simply derived from the Bible. Other concepts were borrowed from his Hebrew learning (i.e. his education of the word "elohim" resulted in his doctrine of multiple gods) and from ideas he gathered from books like the works of Flavious Josephus, and the Philosophy of a Future State.

The Book of Mormon was designed to support the teachings of the Bible and therefore would have many similarities.

No, the Book of Mormon was supposedly a record of Ancient Americans. These people, assuming they existed, didn't intend to "design" their historical narrative just to compliment some future text that they never knew existed. The problem is that the Book of Mormon includes NT concepts, words, phrases, that had no business in a text supposedly written around 600 B.C.

Still there is much in the BOM that you would be hard-pressed to show how an unlearned farm boy could write off the top of his head in such a short time with scribes describing how it came from him without pausing.

He was an unlearned Farm Boy at age 14. Who isn't? But he had years to prepare a general narrative for the Book of Mormon story., and he obviously borrowed huge chunks of text from the KJV.

[Ivan Komotios]

As I was flipping through channels last night I came across something on David Koresh (Waco, Texas). It ended with saying that many of his followers still believe he will come back in 2012 and judge everyone.

As I pondered this I thought about Joseph Smith in comparison. Both men and their groups were persecuted and both were killed defending their faith. But what is different about them? The thing that came to mind was what they left behind. Even without a spiritual testimony of the restoration of the true church, I find many things logically that convince me it is true.

We read in D&C 68: 1 “My servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them.” Of note is the word reasoning. So in reasoning this I came up with two main points why I believe on a rational level that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and this church he established is the true church.

The first is the amount of new doctrine and scripture he gave us. And when saying “new” I mean it in the sense that it had not been taught for centuries, though clearly its evidence can be seen in the Old and New Testaments if one knows what to look for. D&C 67 tells us:

No matter how many times people try to discredit Joseph, they cannot discredit in my eyes the doctrine and scripture he gave us. If he is not a prophet then the scripture and doctrine he gave us cannot be true, and yet it so conforms with what we already have in the Bible and clarifies and expands it and makes so much sense in the big picture that I can’t reconcile the new scriptures with the man whom the critics represent as some reprehensible con man.

The second point is the fact that despite the great persecution and almost extermination of the early saints, the Church has continued to grow and not only grow but prosper throughout the world. Because of it many nations of the earth are blessed just by having Priesthood and temples on their soil and many who have suffered have benefited greatly from the humanitarian efforts of the church.

The early saints made a great and beautiful city out of the mosquito infested swampland. They made the desert in the Utah valley blossom and prosper. Whatever they have touched through their industry and their faith they made beautiful. If by their fruits ye shall know them then the fruits of the church Joseph Smith established are evidence of its truth.

[Xander]

The counsel of living prophets trumps dead ones. More recent teachings tell us that discrimination based on race is beneath priesthood holders.

So Spencer W. Kimball taught false doctrine?

This could be covered in a whole other topic about learning line by line and precept by precept.

I know the drill on this, believe me. But it still ends up hitting a dead end. Line upon line apologetic doesn't handle the problems that come from teachings being determined false, when for years they were said to be true.

In short you should trust the apologetic take because it is in line with revealed truth today, even if it contradicts statements of past (and sometimes errant) leaders of the Church.

How do I know that current leaders aren't the "errant" ones? You can say pray about it, but this was the same standard when Spencer W. Kimball was a General Authority. People prayed to know what he said was true, too.

[KevinG]

So Spencer W. Kimball taught false doctrine?

I know the drill on this, believe me. But it still ends up hitting a dead end. Line upon line apologetic doesn't handle the problems that come from teachings being determined false, when for years they were said to be true.

How do I know that current leaders aren't the "errant" ones? You can say pray about it, but this was the same standard when Spencer W. Kimball was a General Authority. People prayed to know what he said was true, too.

There is a distinct possibility that Spencer Kimball was incorrect. Had it been added to the doctrine and covenants I would stand corrected. Instead there was an official declaration added that clarified our views on race in the other direction.

You should always pray to verify doctrines no matter who teaches them - brother Brigham was pretty clear about that.

I don't know what "drill" you are referring to but I see no conflict in a recent prophet or even the same prophet knowing more in later years than he did in his earlier ministry. We learn as individuals and as a church. If a substancial number of Saints were preaching race based doctrine today I'd have a problem with it. They aren't and they don't. Those who still believe such things are a minority and in contradiction of the living prophets.

The race issue is close to my heart. I had questions when I converted (post 1978) and I got to ask many of them to a classmate who was the first black missionary in the modern church. Don't try to present every utterance of a prophet as doctrine. That is an error of colossal proportions no matter if you are a critic or faith promoting.

[altersteve]

He was an unlearned Farm Boy at age 14. Who isn't? But he had years to prepare a general narrative for the Book of Mormon story., and he obviously borrowed huge chunks of text from the KJV.

I'm surprised people still use this argument. Joseph's mother and other witnesses said that Joseph never had an interest in reading or making up stories. He had never even read the Bible cover to cover from what I understand. Why should I believe that he spent "years" preparing a story for a book when he clearly had no interest in doing any of the sort in the first place? I have no reason to.

[Xander]

I'm surprised people still use this argument.

Don't be. I made the same point back in 2006 to David Bokovoy on this forum. He responded with the same reference you probably have in mind, where Joseph Smith's mother said, "a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life [who] seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children." I then pointed out that the Book of Mormon was produced seven years later. The notion that God the Father and Jesus Christ would appear to someone, and then over the course of the next decade that person would show no interest in reading, let alone mastering, the only book on earth that speaks of his divinity, seems pretty far fetched to me. Of course he studied the Bible prior to BoM publication. Bokovoy has since revised his position on this, and from what I understand, he actually believes Joseph Smith had a Bible with him during the translation of the Book of Mormon. That's how compelling the evidence really is.

Joseph's mother and other witnesses said that Joseph never had an interest in reading or making up stories.

You're mangling the reference you have in mind. One needs to look no further than the story of Zelph the Lamanite, in order to get a quick glimpse into the creative mind of Joseph Smith.

He had never even read the Bible cover to cover from what I understand.

You understand incorrectly.

Why should I believe that he spent "years" preparing a story for a book when he clearly had no interest in doing any of the sort in the first place? I have no reason to

You should. If you believe God the Father and Jesus Christ called him to be a prophet at age 14, you should have plenty reason to believe he would study the Bible over the course of the next 11 years.

[cinepro]

I'm surprised people still use this argument. Joseph's mother and other witnesses said that Joseph never had an interest in reading or making up stories. He had never even read the Bible cover to cover from what I understand. Why should I believe that he spent "years" preparing a story for a book when he clearly had no interest in doing any of the sort in the first place? I have no reason to.

Well, there is this...

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.[1]

Whether his stories came from his imagination, or tutoring from Moroni, it does show that Joseph was thinking of these things far in advance of the dictation of the actual Book of Mormon.

Edited June 24, 2011 by cinepro

[Xander]

I don't know what "drill" you are referring to but I see no conflict in a recent prophet or even the same prophet knowing more in later years than he did in his earlier ministry.

This isn't a matter of knowing more. I knew more about Mathematics at age 40 than I did at age 20. But if I thought 2+2= 376 at age 20, I'd have no business professing to be an authority on matters of mathematics. Likewise, when prophets speak errantly on the subject for which they are supposed to be an authority, it presents a similar problem: credibility. Especially when the "new" doctrine seems to conveniently correspond to a time when said doctrine is no longer tolerated by society at large.

We learn as individuals and as a church.

Yes, but either what Kimball said was true, or it wasn't. If what he said wasn't true, then conceivably, what the modern Church says to the contrary might very well be considered errant fifty years from now. So what's the point in it all if the Mormon authorities have no real authority on matters of scriptural truths, and doctrines change with the winds of society?

If a substancial number of Saints were preaching race based doctrine today I'd have a problem with it.

It is usually the old school Mormons who do this. Those who remember the speeches by LDS leaders who opposed the Civil Rights movement, who would casually refer to the black race as that which is suffering because they were disobedient in the preexistence, etc. Eventually this group will get weeded out by a newer generation, but the problem isn't with popular opinion, but rather the integrity of one of the more important selling points for Mormonism; that unlike other Churches, Mormonism is led by true Prophets who will always tell us what God and the scriptures want us to know. In short, they do not have any leeway when it comes to misinterpreting scripture. But we know they do it. Joseph Smith did it, Brigham Young did it, Kimball did it, etc.

[Xander]

Well, there is this...

Whether his stories came from his imagination, or tutoring from Moroni, it does show that Joseph was thinking of these things far in advance of the dictation of the actual Book of Mormon.

Good point. And then there were the detailed stories about the lives of the mummies he purchased in 1835.

[Hughes]

You turning a blind eye to all the scriptures that I am citing. Why? Jesus established an organization of men, which was run by men whom He had made “overseers:”

Acts 20

:

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you

overseers,

to feed the

church of God,

which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Those “overseers” were not self-appointed; they were made ministers to the Church by direct authority from God Himself:

1 Timothy 4

:

14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee

by prophecy,

with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Hebrews 5

:

4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is

called of God,

as was Aaron.

The “organization” had authorized human agents acting as lawful officers, appointed by God Himself, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, to manage its affairs and minister to it. Why are turning a blind eye to all the scriptures that clearly teach this?

I haven't turned a blind eye to anything. I simply haven't seen anything posted that shows in the Bible where one organization is to be in control (your "one true church"). What I see is a church (a group of believers throughout the world) who are working as God directs them. Yes, some are overseers, some prophets, but it's God who is over all, and does the directing, not man.

It is apparent that we disagree on this point. The basis for our disagreement is that you base your opinion on modern revelation, of which I reject. It's that simple.

[zerinus]

I haven't turned a blind eye to anything. I simply haven't seen anything posted that shows in the Bible where one organization is to be in control (your "one true church"). What I see is a church (a group of believers throughout the world) who are working as God directs them. Yes, some are overseers, some prophets, but it's God who is over all, and does the directing, not man.

In Mormonism God is in charge, not man. The "overseers" are agents of God appointed by the spirit of prophecy and revelation as was the case in the early Church. That has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Why do you persistently ignore this? Your sincerity is in doubt as long as you continue to do so.

It is apparent that we disagree on this point. The basis for our disagreement is that you base your opinion on modern revelation, of which I reject. It's that simple.

I have not given one quote from "modern revelation". All the quotes I have given you come from the Bible. Your real trouble is that you are stuck with an apostate religion, which skews your vision and prevents you form seeing the truth as it really is.

Edited June 24, 2011 by zerinus

[Kevin Christensen]

Question.

Why should I trust John's apologetic take on this matter when former Prophet Spencer W. Kimball contradicted it - in Conference no less? According to Kimball, "white and delightsome" referred to skin tone. He went on to share stories about how some local "Lamanites" were becoming lighter in skin tone as they associated themselves with the Gospel more and more. He even joked that some of the missionaries were considering donating blood, to speed up the process.

Why? Because John Tvednes contexualizes properly and the comments you refer to do not. That should be obvious.

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

This scenario fits exactly the story in Acts of Peter's revelation to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, as well as President Kimball's 1978 Priesthood revelation.

And 2 Nephi 25:5 explains the importance of reading scripture in light of the original cultural context:

I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.

In 3 Nephi 15 Jesus explains how disciples can get things wrong by supposing they understand, and not asking.

And now, because of stiffneckedness and unbelief they understood not my word; therefore I was commanded to say no more of the Father concerning this thing unto them....

22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

For some important background on Western Cultural assumptions on skin and race, see the review here of

http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7582

The LDS community progresses by both study and by faith, accepting ongoing revelation, including study and questioning as a prerequisite to that revelation, and recognizing in our own human limits and imperfection, the need for progressive revelation and ongoing study. The unrealistic and unreasonable picture that the community is bound to whatever someone said in past conference is no more than a convenient aid to building straw man arguments. It is one thing to observe social history. Quite another to deny the essential and ongoing process of revelation and learning.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 24, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[LeSellers]

I made the same point back in 2006 to David Bokovoy on this forum.

Since you have been a member of this forum for only two days, one wonders how you could have done what you claim here.

We are left wondering who you are.

Yes, this will probably get me banned from this topic, but I believe the answer is important.

Lehi

Edited June 24, 2011 by LeSellers

[Vance]

Since you have been a member of this forum for only two days, one wonders how you could have done what you claim here.

We are left wondering who you are.

Yes, this will probably get me banned from this topic, but I believe the answer is important.

Lehi

Oh oh,

His sockpuppet is showing.

[Deborah]

I prefer Truman Madsen when it comes to a discussion of Joseph Smith and his life. Br. Madsen studied Joseph's life and many of the journals and documents that are only now coming forth and his testimony of the prophet and his mission are compelling. Furthermore if one wants a very updated and through study on Joseph he should watch the Joseph Smith Papers Documentary which goes into detail not only on the journal writings they are investigating but on the background history and supporting evidence. The scholars working on these have come away more confirmed in their testimonies of who the prophet was and what he accomplished.

These are the things that I base my information and testimony on.

[IloveaMormon]

Didn't say JS was claimed to be jesus. My point is that the focus is on Joseph Smith and his org., not Jesus.

Nope, I don't disagree with Jesus, I worship him through the grace and power of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, she believes in Joseph.

And it's not clear the church Joseph Smith established is Christ centered.

Unfortunately no.

1) Your opinion. I think it actually points to a different Christ, but that's my opinion.

2) Believers in Joseph Smith. Some survived, some didn't. No much different than any other group trying to survive (ie David Koresh's group).

3) Since it's Christ who said he'd build his church, nope. Christ prepares the world.

I agree with Hughs. It is also unclear to me the church Joseph Smith established is Christ centered. It seems rather Joseph Smith centered. This might account for the serious issues found in the doctrine and in the way the church is run today which keep me from baptism. Guilt, fear based thinking, judgment, defensiveness against 'science' and provable truths- this is what this church is made of in my view. The real message of God through Christ is love, open mindedness, freethinking, scholarship, knowledge, joy, forgiveness, empowerment, equality, freedom, sharing. Jesus Christ is the light of love itself which should be open, expanding, free and transparent... not 'secret and exclusive'. Gods love is for everyone. I do not feel this message in LDS chuch doctrine. To me this religion is based on fear "Hurry and prepare yourself because the end is near, save yourself, demons are everywhere trying to take your spirituality from you, nonmembers can't be trusted, society at large (our brothers and sisters who we are supposed to love as if they were Jesus) can't be trusted if they aren't LDS, be a full tithe payer so you can get to the temple.... these unloving and unChristlike messages I see within the church are what keeps me from joining. Where is the joy and the gratitude for THIS LIFE here and now? Why does the church focus on 'suffering' as a means to 'prove' our love for God? My God wants me to rejoice in his Son by loving to the fullest every day and being guided by that love. I don't want to waste this life as just a test... a to do list...

1. Baptism

2. Become Sealed to my husband

3.have as many children as I can possible afford

4.pay full tithe

5. Suffer in silence, constantly trying to 'perfect myself' and hope the church really is true because I'm wasting my life trying to embrace a faith which seems to thrive on my disconnect with God instead of strengthening it.

If I sound angry it's because I am. I want so much to believe in this church. I want to love it and be proud of it and live it 100% but over and over the same themes seap out of doctrine, the words of the LDS prophets, from members, from political actions of the church (lack of disclosure of financial records, Proposition and it is my connection with God which keeps me from joining such a church which ironically claims to be the ONLY true church which represents Him. I really wish it did. I really do.

[Deborah]

Where is the joy and the gratitude for THIS LIFE here and now? Why does the church focus on 'suffering' as a means to 'prove' our love for God? My God wants me to rejoice in his Son by loving to the fullest every day and being guided by that love. I don't want to waste this life as just a test... a to do list...

I don't know what church you are going to but it's not the church I've been a member of for 50 years. There may be individuals who live their lives in misery, but I don't know any presently and it certainly isn't what the church teaches. You either are in a very strange ward or have already decided what the church is and so have closed your mind to what is really being presented.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't want to waste this life as just a test... a to do list...

1. Baptism

2. Become Sealed to my husband

3.have as many children as I can possible afford

4.pay full tithe

5. Suffer in silence, constantly trying to 'perfect myself' and hope the church really is true because I'm wasting my life trying to embrace a faith which seems to thrive on my disconnect with God instead of strengthening it.

Since Deborah speaks for me, there is no reason to address what she already has. So I will finish up here.

You know, what is funny is that number 3 is totally false. That is not church doctrine. And number 5 is false as well. And the only requirements to enter the CK is ,faith, repentance and Baptism.

And being baptised is bad because? ANd being sealed to your husband is bad because? Oh and paying a full tithe is bad because?

Have you read Matthew 25? There seems to be a list of things we are to do in those parables. What are they?

What did the 5 virgins do that the other 5 did not. What did the 2 do with their talents that the one didn't do? What did the sheep do that the goats did not? Notice how faith is not mentioned in a single verse in those parables.

If I sound angry it's because I am. I want so much to believe in this church. I want to love it and be proud of it and live it 100% but over and over the same themes seap out of doctrine, the words of the LDS prophets, from members, from political actions of the church (lack of disclosure of financial records, Proposition and it is my connection with God which keeps me from joining such a church which ironically claims to be the ONLY true church which represents Him. I really wish it did. I really do.

What church are you talking about? I have never been told to live 100% as that is impossible. And how is a lack of financial discourse a strike against the church? Prop 8 tells me that God is leading the church. I fail to see anything that you have presented that would "it is my connection with God which keeps me from joining such a church."

Best of luck to you in your journey.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Good point. And then there were the detailed stories about the lives of the mummies he purchased in 1835.

Which has to do with what exactly?