Terryl Givens Letter To A Doubter

[mfbukowski]

So, although the scripture says, "... he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" you believe that "he might or might not manifest the truth of it unto you." Correct? [emphasis mine]

No.

IF you ask in faith sincerely and without reservation- a very big IF, in my humble opinion- I am certain he will tell you what he wants you to do, as the consummate teacher he is. And what he wants you to do is come closer to Christ than you are now.

If you are a drunk on skid row, he could very well lead you to the Salvation Army, let's say. It might take you a life time to learn what they have to teach you before you can move on.

If you have never had a spiritual experience, perhaps you need to learn that lesson and he will lead to to Buddhism or something else- as I believe I was led. I also believe I personally had to be an atheist for a period of time- and I was.

By doing so, I was able to learn how to define what kind of God it would take for me to believe in- and guess what? The God I defined was identical to the God found in Mormonism.

So I think God takes us from where we are and leads us to where we need to be. And that may not include being a Mormon- yet.

Yet I also believe that as "all roads lead to Rome" the paths eventually converge in one truth that works for everyone once they get there and fully understand it. And I believe with certainty that that path is the one Mormonism provides.

[mfbukowski]

We get into trouble thinking that specific dogmas are "The TRVTH" when indeed, I think what moves us individually closer to being like Christ is the truth for us, at the time. Everyone learns at their own pace and in their own way. It will take all of us an eternity to become "perfect" in the sense of "complete" in our knowledge of what it means to be Christ-like.

And to my knowledge Mormonism is the only Christian faith that gives us that amount of time to do it.

[MiserereNobis]

Yet I also believe that as "all roads lead to Rome" the paths eventually converge in one truth that works for everyone once they get there and fully understand it.

See, you are all going to become Roman Catholics eventually

[Gervin]

No.

IF you ask in faith sincerely and without reservation- a very big IF, in my humble opinion- I am certain he will tell you what he wants you to do, as the consummate teacher he is. And what he wants you to do is come closer to Christ than you are now.

Then you don't agree with Wade because he said that "Be that as it may, and for various reasons (in addition to spiritual weakness), people can receive a negative answer."

If you have never had a spiritual experience, perhaps you need to learn that lesson and he will lead to to Buddhism or something else- as I believe I was led. I also believe I personally had to be an atheist for a period of time- and I was.

The idea that praying to God for truth and getting a negative answer in order to direct a person's spiritual walk toward atheism is ... interesting. I don't, however, believe it.

Yet I also believe that as "all roads lead to Rome" the paths eventually converge in one truth that works for everyone once they get there and fully understand it. And I believe with certainty that that path is the one Mormonism provides.

I believe that Christ is the way (the truth and life) and that there are alot of man-made roads meant to divert traffic.

[mfbukowski]

Then you don't agree with Wade because he said that "Be that as it may, and for various reasons (in addition to spiritual weakness), people can receive a negative answer."

I am trying to be charitable but for some reason you insist on either "misunderstanding" me or deliberately distorting what I said. I am beginning to remember why I seldom if ever interact with you. I said this:

IF you ask in faith sincerely and without reservation- a very big IF, in my humble opinion- I am certain he will tell you what he wants you to do, as the consummate teacher he is.

What Wade was talking about was what was included in that very big IF I mentioned.

The idea that praying to God for truth and getting a negative answer in order to direct a person's spiritual walk toward atheism is ... interesting. I don't, however, believe it.

That's nice. Believe what you will. God does not give "negative" answers- he only gives "no answer" which is called a "stupor of thought". Perhaps you have been getting a lot of those lately?

I believe that Christ is the way (the truth and life) and that there are alot of man-made roads meant to divert traffic.

Ah, well good for you. I suppose the Bible wrote itself, eh? I also believe that God is a perfected man.

Edited October 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

See, you are all going to become Roman Catholics eventually

[Gervin]

I am trying to be charitable but for some reason you insist on either "misunderstanding" me or deliberately distorting what I said. I am beginning to remember why I seldom if ever interact with you.

I appreciate your charity. I'm honestly not trying to distort your words. You jumped in and agreed with Wade but what you said didn't align.

I said this:

What Wade was talking about was what was included in that very big IF I mentioned.

I understand the conditional "if" but must have missed Wade's invocation of it in his post. I'll go back and re-read.

That's nice. Believe what you will. God does not give "negative" answers- he only gives "no answer" which is called a "stupor of thought". Perhaps you have been getting a lot of those lately?

Thanks again for being charitable! I've not run across the stupor of thought caveat. Perhaps Wade meant "no answer" when he wrote "negative answer."

David wanted to build a temple but God told him no: 1 Chronicles 28:3

Paul asked that the thorn be removed from his flesh but God told him no: 2 Corinthians 12:7-10

Christ in the garden asks that this cup be removed.

Ah, well good for you. I suppose the Bible wrote itself, eh? I also believe that God is a perfected man.

Yes, it is good. I don't think I said anything about the authorship of the Bible. I understand your belief that God is a perfected man.

[mfbukowski]

I've not run across the stupor of thought caveat.

D&C 9

7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

[Gervin]

D&C 9

Stupor of thought as it relates to translation, not Moroni's promise.

Do you agree with the Biblical examples I cited that God does sometimes say no?

[thesometimesaint]

Gervin:

There is a difference between no answer and the answer is no.

[mfbukowski]

Stupor of thought as it relates to translation, not Moroni's promise.

Revelation is revelation. We use that passage all the time regarding any answer to any question one asks the Lord. That is the procedure for receiving revelation- study it out then ask the Lord if you are right.

Do you agree with the Biblical examples I cited that God does sometimes say no?

No.

I suppose I have to elaborate on that. None of the examples you cited indicate that the Lord gave a "no answer" in the way you think they do.

In all three cases, each individual knew what the Lord's will was but they were in effect complaining about it to the Lord.

In all three cases, THEY KNEW THE WILL OF THE LORD BUT DID NOT WANT TO DO IT.

That is very different from praying to find out the will of the Lord and getting a "no" answer.

In the garden Jesus affirmed that the Lord's will be done- not his will. That is hardly a "no" answer. He knew what the Lord's will was- and accepted it, and did the right thing, the thing the Lord commanded him to do.

Same thing with Paul- he knew what the Lord wanted, but went to the Lord to complain and the Lord re-affirmed what was best for him, and so Paul did the right thing as well and learned from it.

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

And then in the story of David we have the same thing. He knew the will of the Lord- that the temple should be built and that Solomon should be his successor- he just did not know the detail that the Lord did not want David to build the temple.

1Chron 28

2Then David the king stood up upon his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren, and my people: As for me, I had in mine heart to build an house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and for the footstool of our God, and had made ready for the building: 3But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood. 4Howbeit the LORD God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all Israel: 5And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel. 6And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.

In none of these cases is the Lord saying "NO" to a petition to find out what the Lord's will IS, but in each case, the Lord is correcting the person seeking the revelation's incorrect assumption or complaint caused by human frailties.

And in fact, in each case, the person has already "studied it out in their minds" and received confirmation of the Lord's will, but gone back to the Lord in their human frailty to complain or have the Lord modify what he has already told them.

If anything, your examples confirm our view of revelation. Good examples- thanks!

[Gervin]

Your statement that “he[David] just did not know the detail that the Lord did not want David (sic) to build the temple” proves my point: David did not know, he asked the Lord, and he was told “no.” the scripture does not indicate, as you claim, that David studied it out in his mind and knew God’s will.

Nothing in scripture indicates that Paul “knew what the Lord wanted” then complained before the Lord anyway. He recognized a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, that was tormenting him. He asked it be removed:

"I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. “And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.”

Most gladly, therefore. He asks, is told grace is sufficient (no), therefore he will boast. No indication that Paul knew God’s will but elected to complain about it.

“The very act of praying to God is satisfying to the soul, even though God, in His wisdom, may not give what we ask for. President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) taught us that all of our prayers are answered, but sometimes the Lord says no.” –President James E. Faust, July 2005

Edited October 25, 2012 by Gervin

[cinepro]

Revelation is revelation. We use that passage all the time regarding any answer to any question one asks the Lord. That is the procedure for receiving revelation- study it out then ask the Lord if you are right.

Not to derail the topic, but how in the world does this methodology make sense for translating? Oliver Cowdery was theoretically looking at Reformed Egyptian characters. How does the "study it out" methodology work when trying to translate from a language that you don't know?

For example, suppose you were given the following document and were told that you could translate it by the gift and power of God:

Assuming you didn't know any Chinese, how would you go about the translation process according to the guidelines of D&C 9?

[Lamanite]

Assuming you didn't know any Chinese, how would you go about the translation process according to the guidelines of D&C 9?

You just write what you think it should say, then ask God if you got it right. Hence, the presence of deutero-Isaiah. Of course I'm kidding....sort of.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

Not to derail the topic, but how in the world does this methodology make sense for translating? Oliver Cowdery was theoretically looking at Reformed Egyptian characters. How does the "study it out" methodology work when trying to translate from a language that you don't know?

For example, suppose you were given the following document and were told that you could translate it by the gift and power of God:

Assuming you didn't know any Chinese, how would you go about the translation process according to the guidelines of D&C 9?

At first blush there seems to be actual content here- but think about it. (Study it out )

One would have to be mindless to NOT be able to "study it out". You look at the patterns. You look to see if you can see pictures. You see if you have impressions about meanings. What do the characters look like to YOU?

Surely you must be able to do that. Surely you must have impressions.

Do you ever stare into a fire or look at the clouds and see pictures, or look at the ocean while you are thinking?? The creative part of the brain kicks in best when it is visually involved.

Do you really mean that you can stare blankly at those characters and NOT have some kind of impression or feeling about each one?

[mfbukowski]

I am not sure what the point of cinepro's Chinese Character post was.

Clearly we already know that Joseph was inspired to translate the BOM from characters none of us could read, and the same with the Book of Abraham.

This is supposed to be news or something? Can I do it? Probably not. Surprise surprise.

Are we really all supposed to be Joseph Smith? What is the point?

[telnetd]

Absolutely Love Terryl! Brilliant.

Part of the letter said "And though as late as 1981 the Book of Mormon introduction

written by Bruce R. McConkie referred to Lamanites as “the principal ancestors of

the American Indians,” absolutely nothing in that book of scripture gave warrant for

such an extravagant claim. That is why, as of 2007, the church changed the wording

to “the Lamanites are among the ancestors.”

If McConkie's premise was absolutely false, why did it take the church 26 years to

act? And is there anything in the Book of Mormon that says the Lamanites are

absolutely not the principal ancestors of Native American Indians?

Gail

[Lamanite]

Part of the letter said "And though as late as 1981 the Book of Mormon introduction

written by Bruce R. McConkie referred to Lamanites as “the principal ancestors of

the American Indians,” absolutely nothing in that book of scripture gave warrant for

such an extravagant claim. That is why, as of 2007, the church changed the wording

to “the Lamanites are among the ancestors.”

If McConkie's premise was absolutely false, why did it take the church 26 years to

act? And is there anything in the Book of Mormon that says the Lamanites are

absolutely not the principal ancestors of Native American Indians?

Gail

That's easy. Because the church has relied on non-doctrinal non-revelatory opinions of Church leaders including Joseph Smith.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Katzpur]

this is absolutely brilliant. too bad we don't to elect who we want as a GA, trust me, all my votes would have gone Terryl's way... [ lol ]

I'll happily second the motion.

[theplains]

That's easy. Because the church has relied on non-doctrinal non-revelatory opinions of Church leaders including Joseph Smith.

Big UP!

Lamanite

The author fails to prove that the Book of Mormon either supports or refutes the teaching that Lamanites are or are not the

principal ancestors of the American Indians. Maybe the church had some other reason to remove it from the newer prints.

If someone has some concrete reason why it was removed, please let us know.

Regards,

Jim

[wenglund]

Just curious; is this actually taught by the church or is it your response to those who aren't answered in the affirmative?

I don't recall it being overtly taught, but there are nuances of this notion throughout the scriptures, not the least of which is symbolically conveyed in the distinction between the old and new laws. Since Israel in Moses' day was not developed enough to abide the Adamic or Abrahamic law, they were given a lower law intended to prepare them as a people to eventual abide the higher law in Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Hogmeister]

While it has flaws, you might want to do some reading on how difficult it was to convince Peter that gentiles deserved the gospel, why didn't Jesus just visit him and straighten him out, and why allow the discord of opinion between Peter and the other apostles led by Paul and James.

The Lord revealed to Peter to extend the priesthood to the gentiles in his due time. You might want to consider why Jesus didn't do it himself when he had every opportunity to do so just a few years before? Was the Lord racist just ordaining israelites to apostleship? Don't think so. Why did God extend priesthood exclusivity to the Levites for so long? And why were they only ordained to the lesser priesthood? Did he not love them as much as those that came after? Be careful of putting criticism where it does not belong. I could probably list 100 things to criticize God for, all having to do with his timing, that would make God just as racist and biased as many make our past leadership out to be. I'm currently reading BYs recorded talks in chronological order, and they are legion, and I must say that I find very few faults in this man. Instead I find him refreshingly unbiased in his views and long before his time on many social issues. You need to read enough of his talks in order to be able to "read" this outspoken prophet of the Lord properly, something a critic would never do. I think I've reached the point where I would defend BY just as much as I would defend JS. I love the marvelous history of this church, there's nothing like it!

[Kevin Christensen]

The author fails to prove that the Book of Mormon either supports or refutes the teaching that Lamanites are or are not the

principal ancestors of the American Indians. Maybe the church had some other reason to remove it from the newer prints.

If someone has some concrete reason why it was removed, please let us know.

Regards,

Jim

It was removed because it was potentially misleading, if not technically misleading (based on dictionary definitions of "principal" which does not imply only, or exclusive, or even necessarily most numerous, etc.)

Closer reading of the Book of Mormon on the topic also provides good reasons for the change. See, among others, Matt Roper here:

Nephi's Neighbors.

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=505

And against the often implicit idea that LDS thought should be static, on the shelf, and unchanging, on grounds that the leadership is perfect and omniscient, see D&C 1:24-28

24 ...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.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

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

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

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited October 30, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Helen47]

In the Old Testament you have murder, rape, incest, adultary and ethnic cleansing. You have wisdom literature. You have Jonah actaully trying to change God's mind. You have people like David who seem to have so much promise ends up failing. The Book of Ruth is a story of seduction. Nothing in the Book of Mormon seems anything like the OT, which seems to me to point to it's 19th century origins.

[TAO]

In the Old Testament you have murder, rape, incest, adultary and ethnic cleansing. You have wisdom literature. You have Jonah actaully trying to change God's mind. You have people like David who seem to have so much promise ends up failing. The Book of Ruth is a story of seduction. Nothing in the Book of Mormon seems anything like the OT, which seems to me to point to it's 19th century origins.

Helen. The OT isn't much like the NT either.

Btw, there is are mentiones of murder(this is all over), rape (albight, it's in an unexpected verse), and harlotry (in a more commonly-cited verse) in the Book of Mormon. There's also stories of kings in the Book of Mormon who were originally righteouss, but became wicked, and of prophets who were originally wicked, but became righteouss. These aren't very good objections to the Book of Mormon, to be honest. It's different, yes, but it's not all that different.

Edited November 1, 2012 by TAO