Quote From Lds.Org About Bom Translation

[blackstrap]

We are advised to take even the desire to believe and let it grow within and watch belief blossom.We will then be known by our fruits.

That works also with the opposite.Our unbelief can also blossom and we will be known by our fruits.Five or ten years from now one ought to be able to honestly assess ones position and see how ones life and the lives of loved ones have faired for good or ill.Unfortunately,honest self assessment, while we see as through a glass darkly, is tough.

[MIkew]

We are advised to take even the desire to believe and let it grow within and watch belief blossom.We will then be known by our fruits.

That works also with the opposite.Our unbelief can also blossom and we will be known by our fruits.Five or ten years from now one ought to be able to honestly assess ones position and see how ones life and the lives of loved ones have faired for good or ill.Unfortunately,honest self assessment, while we see as through a glass darkly, is tough.

OK

[Calm]

Mikew, when you heard about what happened with Heber C Kimball I assume you learned it did not make Brother Kimball doubt Joseph's calling. Perhaps you should have thought about that aspect of why that was so more.

Both Brother and Sister Kimball received very powerful spiritual witnesses, including a vision for Sister Kimball. How did you deal with those?

[MIkew]

Mikew, when you heard about what happened with Heber C Kimball I assume you learned it did not make Brother Kimball doubt Joseph's calling. Perhaps you should have thought about that aspect of why that was so more.

Both Brother and Sister Kimball received very powerful spiritual witnesses, including a vision for Sister Kimball. How did you deal with those?

I think that like us they deperately wanted to believe.

[kolipoki09]

It is threads like these that make me all the more grateful that I find excellent scholarship early on. But I realize what may suffice for me may not suffice for others.

This address among a select number of others, had a profound counterbalancing for me when I thought I was on my way out. Mikew, you can choose to read it or not. But I can tell you now, the only way to overcome anti-Mormon propaganda (and I hesitate in most situations to actually use the term "anti-Mormon") is to press on to another level of scholarship.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Fallacy_of_Fundamentalist_Assumptions.html

[MIkew]

It is threads like these that make me all the more grateful that I find excellent scholarship early on. But I realize what may suffice for me may not suffice for others.

This address among a select number of others, had a profound counterbalancing for me when I thought I was on my way out. Mikew, you can choose to read it or not. But I can tell you now, the only way to overcome anti-Mormon propaganda (and I hesitate in most situations to actually use the term "anti-Mormon") is to press on to another level of scholarship.

http://www.fairlds.o...ssumptions.html

Thanks I will read it in the morning. But I haven't read much on that website that made me feel any better about mormonism. Usually people poo poo scholarship and say to pray and read the scriptures more so I find it interesting that you are saying more scholarship is what I need. You may be right I will find out.

[altersteve]

That wasn't my intention, sorry man.

Apology accepted, but when someone takes the time respond to your concerns, the best thing to do would be to respond intelligently and actually take what they say into consideration. We're all trying to help you here, like any member of the Church would, but if you're not even going to respond to what we're telling you, then there's no point continuing. Like Log said above, you've chosen your own path here. There was nothing external that forced you to stop believing, it was your own choice to do so, when instead you could have taken the time to consider different possibilities, to question your question and doubt your doubts, being honest with yourself while doing so. Remember, once again, that scholars and historians who are aware of everything you are now learning are considered the most knowledgeable people there are when it comes to Church history and doctrine, and they still believe. So you can too.

Something to consider here -- maybe the fact that you can't stop thinking about the Church is the Spirit's way of telling you exactly what we're trying to tell you. Something, whether it's God or your conscience, is trying to speak to you. Listen to it. Then take a few steps back, reassess the situation, study what the scholars say about it, and ask God if His Spirit will lead you to a higher understanding in light of what you now know, and you can rest assured that everything will fall back into place. If you need any help with a certain issue, the Church members on this board are always ready to discuss it.

Edited December 3, 2011 by altersteve

[selek1]

I really feel like the church would rather lose people like me than deal with these issues openly. People like me are an acceptable loss to the leaders of the church.

I've been watching you for eight pages now- and the bitterness, accusation, and recrimination on display in your post above are typical of your entire tenure thus far.

How- in your estimation- would the Church "deal with these issues openly"? You've done a lot of complaining- but you've yet to offer any sort of solution.

You make the extraordinarily inflammatory accusation that the leaders of the Church consider you "an acceptable loss". Upon what do you base this extraordinarily charge? Is it something the leaders themselves have said? If so, please quote them.

Is it merely your unprecedented talent for mind-reading? If so, why aren't you using this extraordinary talent to win the International Poker Championship? Clearly, someone who knows every thought in his opponent's head and every card in their hand is nigh unbeatable....

You've blown a lot of smoke about how deceitful, dishonest, and uncaring the leadership of the Church is.

What you haven't offered is any sign of an open mind.

[Calm]

I really don't understand your position. You apparently believe now that all spiritual witness to the truthfulness of the gospel as taught in the LDS Church is a result of a desire to believe and not actual truth. There can therefore be nothing that the Church can do to teach the truth since it is fundamentally false...,except perhaps to admit it is just a social club or some such thing.

So is your unhappiness that they didn't teach you the disturbing parts earlier so you would have doubted before and have it over and done with or do you wish they had taught the history in such a way that you would still be deceived so you wouldn't be obsessing about it now?

[selek1]

People like me are an acceptable loss to the leaders of the church.

This particular crack deserves further attentiion.

"Acceptable Loss" is a technical/actuarial term meaning that the ultimate gain/benefit of an action is worth the price paid.

What "benefit" do you see the Church leaders gaining, that they are willing to "sacrifice" your membership?

What "price" do you think they should be willing to pay to retain you, when you clearly do not wish to stay?

Let's assume for the sake of argument, that you have a pistol to the heads of the First Presidency, and that they are willing to meet any price to retain your allegiance to the Church.

So... what are your demands?

It is also worthy of note that your entire "case" against the Church is based upon opinion, rather than fact, and upon style rather than substance.

Every accusation you've thrown out against the Church over the last eight pages has been subjective and a matter of opinion. Every one of the "charges" you've leveled has been dependent on the most negative interpretation of the available evidence.

Not a single one of your instances of "je accuse" has been based on indisputable fact. Each has relied on someone else's subjective (and biased) interpretation of the available evidence.

You claim that the Church is deceitful because they mention Joseph dictating to a scribe rather than reading from the rock-in-a-hat?

You are quite correct that there is evidence to support the latter description of the process. But you ostentatiously gloss over the fact that there is ample evidence for the former description, as well.

The Church is not lying when it describes the former process. It is trying to convey an idea- that the plates were tranlated by the Gift and Power of God- .in a succinct, clear manner.

Its published lessons and manuals accomplish that purpose.

That YOU might prefer to do it differently is a matter of style and opinion. But it does not make the Church dishonest.

Finally, you kvetch endlessly about the rock-in-the-hat, but that in itself begs two questions:

First, if you accept the possibility of translation by supernatural (God-given) means, then what does the precise method matter? The ancient prophet Joseph in Egypt divined the Lord's will by reading tea leaves. The Israelites were cured of venomous serpents merely by looking at a brass idol on a stick. The apostles divined God's will by casting lots. The Savior himself cured blindness by making a mud-and-spit paste.

Considering all these things, is it really beyond God's power to work through a rock-in-a-hat ?

Second, if you reject the possibility of translation by supernatural (God-given) means, then what does the precise method matter? Once you reject that possibility- It is all folly, and one degree of stupidity is no better or worse then another, right?

Edited December 3, 2011 by selek1

[MIkew]

Apology accepted, but when someone takes the time respond to your concerns, the best thing to do would be to respond intelligently and actually take what they say into consideration.

You are right, I am sorry. I really don't like the doctrine of spiritual gifts as it pertains to believing in some other person's testimony and I expressed myself poorly.

Something to consider here -- maybe the fact that you can't stop thinking about the Church is the Spirit's way of telling you exactly what we're trying to tell you. Something, whether it's God or your conscience, is trying to speak to you. Listen to it.

I am not immune to that line of thought.

[Log]

Do you have to be participating in the program to be a good member?

Yes.

[MIkew]

I've been watching you for eight pages now- and the bitterness, accusation, and recrimination on display in your post above are typical of your entire tenure thus far.

A bit of anger goes with the territory, sorry if it caused you distress.

How- in your estimation- would the Church "deal with these issues openly"? You've done a lot of complaining- but you've yet to offer any sort of solution.

I will start by saying how would I know. I don't run 14 million member church. What would probably help me understand these things better would be for Pres Monson to deal directly with each one of the claims against the church and say this is offical church policy as it pertains to each claim, take it or leave it.

You make the extraordinarily inflammatory accusation that the leaders of the Church consider you "an acceptable loss". Upon what do you base this extraordinarily charge?

I use this term as it is my experience that the church has no outlet/outreach for someone who is bothered by the weird goings on in the church and it's hsitory. I think, and it is only opinion, that church thinks it would lose more members by addressing the issues that it does by not.

Is it something the leaders themselves have said? If so, please quote them.

Not speaking to an acceptable loss but speaking to the idea that it is better to keep some things quiet than give rise to doubt Elder Packer gave a talk called "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater that the Intellect(http://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5472)

Is it merely your unprecedented talent for mind-reading? If so, why aren't you using this extraordinary talent to win the International Poker Championship? Clearly, someone who knows every thought in his opponent's head and every card in their hand is nigh unbeatable....

I don't gamble.

You've blown a lot of smoke about how deceitful, dishonest, and uncaring the leadership of the Church is.

Well, is it dishonest to say Oliver wrote the words that Joseph read from the plates? No account of the translation has him reading the plates, I think that has been established. We have accounts of him using a medium of one kind or another. Why not give a straight story?

What you haven't offered is any sign of an open mind.

I disagree.

[MIkew]

I really don't understand your position. You apparently believe now that all spiritual witness to the truthfulness of the gospel as taught in the LDS Church is a result of a desire to believe and not actual truth. There can therefore be nothing that the Church can do to teach the truth since it is fundamentally false...,except perhaps to admit it is just a social club or some such thing.

So is your unhappiness that they didn't teach you the disturbing parts earlier so you would have doubted before and have it over and done with or do you wish they had taught the history in such a way that you would still be deceived so you wouldn't be obsessing about it now?

I would hope that a prophet of god who has superhuman ability(http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=8853) according to Hugh B Brown, could explain the weird stuff and the church's position in a way that I could say "hmmm, I guess I was wrong I need to repent of my thoughts and attitude."

Or is a prophet not what Hugh B Brown thought a prophet was? I would say my belief in our prophets bordered on Hugh B Brown's thought in the linked speach.

[MIkew]

This particular crack deserves further attentiion.

"Acceptable Loss" is a technical/actuarial term meaning that the ultimate gain/benefit of an action is worth the price paid.

What "benefit" do you see the Church leaders gaining, that they are willing to "sacrifice" your membership?

I explained my thought on this in a reply to an earlier post of yours.

What "price" do you think they should be willing to pay to retain you, when you clearly do not wish to stay?

I would expect that they would leave the 99 to come get me.

Let's assume for the sake of argument, that you have a pistol to the heads of the First Presidency, and that they are willing to meet any price to retain your allegiance to the Church.

So... what are your demands?

Man, you have some strong opinions. Anyway. Let's be less dramatic. If I was locked in an elevator with Pres Monson, I don't need the other two, their opions do not matter. I would explain to him where I was what I thought was dishonest and ask him to explain to me how it wasn't, how he dealt with doubt and maybe for a blessing(why not, it couldn't hurt)

It is also worthy of note that your entire "case" against the Church is based upon opinion, rather than fact, and upon style rather than substance.

just like everyones testimony

Every accusation you've thrown out against the Church over the last eight pages has been subjective and a matter of opinion. Every one of the "charges" you've leveled has been dependent on the most negative interpretation of the available evidence.

just like your testimony

Not a single one of your instances of "je accuse" has been based on indisputable fact. Each has relied on someone else's subjective (and biased) interpretation of the available evidence.

just like your testimony

You claim that the Church is deceitful because they mention Joseph dictating to a scribe rather than reading from the rock-in-a-hat?

yes that is what I said, am I wrong. If so where is your proof?

You are quite correct that there is evidence to support the latter description of the process. But you ostentatiously gloss over the fact that there is ample evidence for the former description, as well.

which evidence is that? That he used interpreters, or the urim and thummim, that is not reading either.

The Church is not lying when it describes the former process. It is trying to convey an idea- that the plates were tranlated by the Gift and Power of God- .in a succinct, clear manner.

It is not clear at all, maybe you could explain it clearly, or quote the church clearly.

Its published lessons and manuals accomplish that purpose.

Not one manual that I know of talks about a rock in a hat. Pleas show me which one.

That YOU might prefer to do it differently is a matter of style and opinion. But it does not make the Church dishonest.

Your opinion.

Finally, you kvetch endlessly about the rock-in-the-hat, but that in itself begs two questions

I don't know what kvetch means but I am guessing it is another personal insult.

First, if you accept the possibility of translation by supernatural (God-given) means, then what does the precise method matter? The ancient prophet Joseph in Egypt divined the Lord's will by reading tea leaves. The Israelites were cured of venomous serpents merely by looking at a brass idol on a stick. The apostles divined God's will by casting lots. The Savior himself cured blindness by making a mud-and-spit paste.

I think those examples you mention are weird and likely not true. At one time I believed in the normal LDS method of receiving inspiration/revelation, which is thoughts to your heart and mind.

Considering all these things, is it really beyond God's power to work through a rock-in-a-hat ?

it is if it is contrary to the way I believed God worked. I originally did not have a problem with a rock in the hat, until I understood all that goes with it.

Second, if you reject the possibility of translation by supernatural (God-given) means, then what does the precise method matter? Once you reject that possibility- It is all folly, and one degree of stupidity is no better or worse then another, right?

wrong, not all levels of stupidity are the same. Like I said I had no issue with a rock in the hat until I learned what other weird stuff went with it.

[MIkew]

Yes.

You are totally wrong in this. Does anyone agree? Do you have to be 100% involved in the programs to be a good member?

Exaclty what kind of home teaching message would I deliver in my current state of thought? I would consider myself spiritually disabled and unable to participate as I normally would. I am however no less engaged in thought about it.

Edited December 3, 2011 by MIkew

[Log]

You are totally wrong in this.

Really?

Does anyone agree? Do you have to be 100% involved in the programs to be a good member?

Is someone who is not participating in the program of the church a good member? How about someone who doesn't believe the church's truth claims and is not participating in the program of the church, is he a good member?

Exaclty what kind of home teaching message would I deliver in my current state of thought? I would consider myself spiritually disabled and unable to participate as I normally would. I am however no less engaged in thought about it.

Are members who are publicly disloyal to the church good members so long as they are actively engaged in thinking about the church?

[selek1]

Rather than reinvent the wheel for you, here is a link detailing the various reports regarding how the Book of Mormon was translated. http://fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Method

It makes for fascinating reading- but it provides no "smoking gun" proving that the Church was lying. In point of fact, it supports the Church's position that th etranslation was done "by the gift and power of God".

I would expect that they would leave the 99 to come get me.

So...you expect the leadership to abandon the four-fold mission of the Church to cater to your persistent hostility and to answer every question that you cannot or will not divine for yourself?

What was that scripture about the wise servant and the slothful servant.....?

Man, you have some strong opinions.

But at least they have the virtue (generally) of being informed opinions.

Anyway. Let's be less dramatic. If I was locked in an elevator with Pres Monson, I don't need the other two, their opions do not matter.

This reveals a remarkable ignorance about the function of Church leadership and how Church doctrine is formed.

I would explain to him where I was what I thought was dishonest and ask him to explain to me how it wasn't, how he dealt with doubt and maybe for a blessing (why not, it couldn't hurt)

And if he did all that, you'd return to full faith and fellowship?

Or would you add additional conditions, codicils, and provisos- such as "I think those examples you mention are weird and likely not true" or "It is contrary to the way I believed God worked"?

The answers President Monson would give you would vary little in substance from those you've received here.

So why would you meet President Monson's testimony with anything other than the errant and wave-of-hand dismissal you've dealt here?

just like everyones testimony

Including, unfortunately, President Monson's.

Not one manual that I know of talks about a rock in a hat. Pleas show me which one.

So? They do not need to quote your preferred version in order to communicate the intended idea.

They do so very ably with the current versions.

I don't know what kvetch means but I am guessing it is another personal insult.

And you'd be wrong about that, too.

I think those examples you mention are weird and likely not true.

Then perhaps you should spend some time on additional Bible study. Let's go down the list, shall we?

The ancient prophet Joseph in Egypt divined the Lord's will by reading tea leaves.

Genesis 44:4-5, 25

The Israelites were cured of venomous serpents merely by looking at a brass idol on a stick.

Numbers 21:9

The apostles divined God's will by casting lots.

Acts 1:26

The Savior himself cured blindness by making a mud-and-spit paste.

John 9:6

it is if it is contrary to the way I believed God worked.

My. How interesting. God's methods are now limited by how YOU (in your infinite wisdom and unfathomable humility) believe he might have operated. Because there is nothing possible outside what YOU assume to be the case.

And that is the root of your problem. You lack faith in the Church because it doesn't match YOUR EXPECTATIONS- no matter how poorly informed those expectations may be.

I originally did not have a problem with a rock in the hat, until I understood all that goes with it.

Ooooh! Cue the spooky music!

Your comment "all that goes with it" is delightfully vague, inviting the uninformed reader to imagine all kinds of bizarre and arcane practices and rituals.

None of which have anything to do with Joseph Smith or the translation of the Book of Mormon.

The lack of specifics render your statement no more than sinister innuendo and gossip.

"All that goes with it" works fine when demagoging to the ignorant or unlearned, but it holds no terror for the reasoning Latter-day Saint.

wrong, not all levels of stupidity are the same.

You are correct in one regard. I should have said, "Outside of attempting to cause deliberate harm to others, one degree of stupidity is no better or worse then another."

But that doesn't help your argument, now does it?

[MIkew]

Rather than reinvent the wheel for you, here is a link detailing the various reports regarding how the Book of Mormon was translated.

Do any of those methods show that he could read from the plates?

It makes for fascinating reading- but it provides no "smoking gun" proving that the Church was lying. In point of fact, it supports the Church's position that th etranslation was done "by the gift and power of God".

I have only been posting how I feel and what I think.

So...you expect the leadership to abandon the four-fold mission of the Church to cater to your persistent hostility and to answer every question that you cannot or will not divine for yourself?

I expect that if the church had a real answer to the things that bother they me would do something other than letting people like me leave. I am far from hostile. Most people here seem to be able to handle what I have been saying without getting as upset as you.

What was that scripture about the wise servant and the slothful servant.....?

I guess the church should stop visiting those slothful inactives, and cancel the addiction recovery program, maybe get rid of Sunday School too. Why would the church cater to all those lazy people.

But at least they have the virtue (generally) of being informed opinions. This reveals a remarkable ignorance about the function of Church leadership and how Church doctrine is formed.

Silly ignorant me, I guess.

And if he did all that, you'd return to full faith and fellowship?

How would I know, while you think I am a mind reader I have no idea what he would say and neither do you.

Or would you add additional conditions, codicils, and provisos- such as "I think those examples you mention are weird and likely not true" or "It is contrary to the way I believed God worked"?

I don't know, like I said who knows what he would say.

The answers President Monson would give you would vary little in substance from those you've received here.

I guess you are the mind reader now.

So why would you meet President Monson's testimony with anything other than the errant and wave-of-hand dismissal you've dealt here?

Because maybe he could use some of the super human talents prophets have and speak to me on a level my uninformed, slothful, kvetching, errant, unvirtuous mind could understand.

They do so very ably with the current versions.

I am not the only person who thinks the manuals do a bad job in their current version of dealing with historical issues.

And you'd be wrong about that, too.

Kvetch means to complain, so you are calling me a complainer, sounds like another personal attack to me.

My. How interesting. God's methods are now limited by how YOU (in your infinite wisdom and unfathomable humility) believe he might have operated. Because there is nothing possible outside what YOU assume to be the case.

How is that different from you?

And that is the root of your problem. You lack faith in the Church because it doesn't match YOUR EXPECTATIONS- no matter how poorly informed those expectations may be.

Am i not allowed to have expectations of honesty. Show me how I am poorly informed, where does it say anywhere with authority that Joseph could read from the plates.

Edited December 3, 2011 by MIkew

[MIkew]

Ooooh! Cue the spooky music!

So you are saying that there is nothing weird that goes along with the face in the hat, seer stones and treasure seeking?

Your comment "all that goes with it" is delightfully vague, inviting the uninformed reader to imagine all kinds of bizarre and arcane practices and rituals.

I have included a number of times in this post the weird things that go with it.

None of which have anything to do with Joseph Smith or the translation of the Book of Mormon.

I disagree.

The lack of specifics render your statement no more than sinister innuendo and gossip.

I have included them in previous posts.

"All that goes with it" works fine when demagoging to the ignorant or unlearned, but it holds no terror for the reasoning Latter-day Saint.

Now I am irrational too, thanks. And if I am I am only doing it here where I assume all have been informed and can handle it. I don't bother the Home Teachers, Priesthood leaders or anyone else with it. Why would I want someone to go through what I am going through. I also assume you come here becuase you get something here that you can't get at your ward or with your family, because here you cant talk about the weird stuff.

You are correct in one regard. I should have said, "Outside of attempting to cause deliberate harm to others, one degree of stupidity is no better or worse then another."

Who am I harming? Like you said above nothing I say holds any terror for a reasoning latter-day saint.

But that doesn't help your argument, now does it?

I have no idea.

Selek1, are you this angry in person? Are your beliefs so shaky that you have to think up all kinds of bad things about me so you can dismiss my thoughts.

[MIkew]

Really?

Is someone who is not participating in the program of the church a good member? How about someone who doesn't believe the church's truth claims and is not participating in the program of the church, is he a good member?

Are members who are publicly disloyal to the church good members so long as they are actively engaged in thinking about the church?

I have not been publicly disloyal, is this not the place to talk about these kinds of things? It would be different if I was trying to convice people that the church isn't true. Have we not been taught it is better to not have a calling if you can't fulfill it? That you might as well not do something if you do it unwillingly?

[LifeOnaPlate]

No not really, the stone in the hat didn't bother me until I learned all the baggage that goes along with it. Just like joseph being a treasure seaker didn't bother me until i learned about the stone he used to look for treasure\lost things. Plus everything else that goes along with treasure seeking(treasure guardians).

I implore you to read Gardner's book. Will you?

[Calm]

You are totally wrong in this. Does anyone agree? Do you have to be 100% involved in the programs to be a good member?.

How do you define "good"? I think people can be good members in some ways and not in others.

I think the most important aspect to be good in member wise (which can be significantly different than individual wise) is how one contributes to the uplifting and comfort of other members. I don't see making demands or focusing on the negatives all that uplifting. If this is your consistent attitude, especially around family, I think there might be significant problems.

What would you do if you were having problems with your marriage? After your marriage, it is likely you discovered things about your wife she hadn't informed you about, possibly even highly disturbing issues that you knew would be causing difficulties in the relationship. What was/would be your reaction? Do you think a wise approach would be to insist that your wife prove she loves you, is faithful to you beyond any shadow of a doubt, to inform you of every last detail of her history etc.? Would you see the responsibility for improvement in your marriage completely her responsibility? Or would you go about it a different way, giving trust to your wife that she was sincere as well as working on your end to increase your understanding and acceptance, working to adjust to the surprises rather than giving up on the relationship unless she met some ultimatum? What about other relationships in your life? If they are very important to you, how much sacrifice and trust and personal effort are you willing to give them? Are you perhaps holding this relationship with the Church which though led by the Lord still consists primarily of fallible and imperfect human beings to a significantly different standard.

You see yourself as a good member, yet you possess some significant negative attributes that you bring to the relationship. Do you see an inequality between what you demand from the Church and what you are willing to give of yourself?

[Calm]

I agree with LOAP it may be extremely helpful for you to read Brant Gardner's book.

---------

Have you considered that the answers may already be there and the problem is that your expectations of what the answers should be are so high that it may be blocking you from seeing the reality?

While there are a number of individuals who, like you, have lost their faith and framed that loss around their disappointments involving historical events, there are also many, many who have found a greater depth of faith and understanding in the same search. As long as you explain away the difference as a desire to believe, I don't see how anything anyone can say---even the Spirit---that you cannot rationalize away by simply saying the same thing. It would appear from your descriptions, including what you want from an encounter with the Prophet, that you would need something significantly different from him in order for it to register as prophetic and not just his opinion. His personal testimony, any relating of inspiration, revelations or even visions can be dismissed by you for him just as they were in the case of the Kimballs and all the others I am assuming you've come across in your studies. What you would need from him is knowledge that could only come from God to prove that he is truly a prophet

But the scriptures are full of stories of those who still remain unsatisfied even after being given a sign. Along with Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah, you have Laman and Lemuel or those who were fed by Christ himself yet turned away when the physical food was gone or when they became confused and did not trust enough to wait and seek for further understanding about the "hard" ideas the Lord was teaching them. If what you need is knowledge from God, then the only thing that will satisfy you is a face to face with the Lord. I'm not talking about Christ appearing to you, but a personal spiritual witness that satisfies you. Whether or not this can happen depends as much on you as it does on the Lord. Are you willing to make the sacrifice while trusting in the Lord that all will be well as Abraham was? As the women and men who willingly and even joyfully struggled with living the principle of Plural Marriage? If you are, then you likely know already what your part is to be, remembering to start as others have by beseeching the Lord not for answers, but by following the example of the man who first committed himself into the Lord's hands and then cried out his need: "Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief".

If not, if you are choosing instead to look on the stories of Abraham, of the lives of the early LDS with distaste, if you start from a place where you are dictating to the Lord what you are willing to find as acceptable rather than a position of "I accept, I trust, now help me understand", then anything provided is most likely just to become more obstacles to any renewal of faith rather than smoothing the path.

[Calm]

A thought on the story of the lost sheep.

Do you think if the shepherd had sent one of his servants to look for the lost one, do you think the sheep would have refused to go with him, even if it was the lowest, most raw recruit of those who worked for the shepherd? Did the sheep get to dictate under what conditions he was willing to return to the flock or was his only care to be with those that were his family?