Best Evidences For And Against The Church Being True...

[Questing Beast]

@Jude2: Institutions of men remain viable all the time. Why should the LDS faith be any different from other successful organizations? The Church is clearly "of man", what else could it possibly be? I don't see anything or anyone else but people causing the Church to be what it is.

Pros: Strict lifestyle and moral base, including charity and a willingness to get along with everyone everywhere, which is quite possibly the best institution to raise a family in.

Cons: If you don't adhere to the singular model of Church family life, you don't really fit in. The Church's model family is the one that gives everything and asks for nothing, and that includes asking for answers....

[Freedom]

Can't help but notice the ironies here. I ask you for something profound and you offer me a talk about going back to the simple teachings and the basics.

Then perhaps you should provide a definition of what you consider profound. Would you consider the teachings of Jesus to be profound? Or those of Isaiah?

[Nathair/|\]

I had the general authorities in mind; sorry for not being clear. About you finding them profound, all I can say is that that hasn't been my experience and, when I try and read or watch things said by them, I get terribly disappointed.

Would appreciate if you directed me to good material, though. What are some of the talks you think are the most profound of the general authorities?

Bruce R. McConkie: The Purifying Power of Gethsemane, especially, at the close, his final testimony,

And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person.

I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.

But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

Any talk by J. Golden Kimball

[thesometimesaint]

I realize that for most spiritual confirmation will be number one, but please expand. I also realize that many of the same evidences will continue to pop up, that's okay, I as it will probably confirm which are the strongest. I'll go ahead and give mine in no particular order:

Pros:

1. The eleven witnesses.

2. Internal complexity of the BoM.

3. NHM/Nahom

4. No apostles or members of the presidency have left the church (since the beginning days of the restoration) after rising to the top and seeing the man behind the curtain.

Cons:

1. Polygamy/polyandry.

2. Blacks and the priesthood.

3. BoM (anachronisms, King James style English used, scripture taken directly from a future New Testament, all spot on specific prophesies occurred before Joseph's time period or involved him).

4. BoA obvious mistranslations.

5. Changing doctrine (Adam/God theory, blood atonement, black less valiant).

6. Gays-current doctrine teaches they didn't choose to be gay, so why would God deny them marriage and all the blessing that come with it?

7. Becoming god-like...I've just never been able to wrap my mind around this one.

8. Kinderhook plates

Pros.

1. There were more witnesses than that. Those are just the officially recognized ones. However not one ever denied their testimony of the BoM, even after some left the Church.

2. Good evidence that JS was a complicated man, but says nothing about the Truth Claims of the Church.

3. Good evidence, but could have been just good luck and a map. I believe that Old World Bountiful is much better evidence.

4. A. That it is a conspiracy,

B. That they actually believe it.

C. That it is true, and of God.

Cons.

1. Mere social convention, as is irrelevant as to the truth claims of the Church.

2. There have been blacks holding the Priesthood since the beginnings of the Church, and the issue was resolved more than 30 years ago.

3. How else would someone testify of Christ except by using his words?

4. No. The BoA is very much in line with other ancient accounts of Abraham which JS could not have known about. He died before they were discovered.

5.Those were never doctrines of the Church.

6. No one really knows why someone is tempted in one/or more areas. While others are not. However; We are all tempted in one area or another. God still expects us to remain faithful to his commandments.

7. We are already Gods. We are here is to prove to ourselves, with Christs' help, that we are.

8. JS lost interest in them very quickly. Not so with other Scripture.

My personal opinion is that without our own experiences with God that Agnosticism has the better arguments.

Edited January 27, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[why me]

Pros.

1. There were more witnesses than that. Those are just the officially recognized ones. However not one ever denied their testimony of the BoM,

Mary Whitmer is an example of this. She saw the plates and believed and no longer complained about her sons spending so much time with Mormon things.

http://www.moroni10....ry_Whitmer.html

Very few mormons seem to know the Mary Whitmer story.

Edited January 27, 2013 by why me

[Nathair/|\]

I don't mean to be argumentative but are you married? If you find polygamy or polyandry simply a "neutral" issue, I'm assuming you haven't had that conversation with your wife or future mate. I am in my second marriage, following the death of my first wife. My first wife, prior to her death, wanted me to promise to never marry again. A promise I did not make. My second wife gets uncomfortable about any mention of my first wife, even when my children talk about their mother. If mere conversations can stretch across the abyss of the grave, I don't see how it is possible to be married to two or more wives simultaneously.

I, for one, gladly live without such torment.

I'm currently separated (she met another person on the internet and decided to move across country to be with that person and another), which, of course proves I don't deserve even one wife, so you can take my opinion for what it's worth. She had multiple lovers of both genders throughout our marriage. I wouldn't have cared if our Heavenly Father hadn't asked us to obey the law of Chastity. My fourth great grandfather, whom I'm named after, had four wives and by all accounts, he kept them quite happy.

But the point is that there is nothing morally wrong with polygamy/polyandry per se (I am aware that it can be abused, but so can celibacy), it can be greatly beneficial to a society (fewer low-quality males like me produce offspring, we are more available for dangerous jobs, etc.) and the Saints have always been asked to take on significant challenges. Just because you find it difficult doesn't make it wrong. Are we greater than the Savior that we should never have difficulties?

[omni]

That aside, I see the BoM as the number one support to making the religion work. I see absolutely no problem with the writing style it was translated into. JS used a language that he was raised on in translating it. I would find it unbelievable if it was translated in some style no one could recognize or relate to.

Joseph Smith was not raised on King James English any more than we are now simply because we read it in the Bible. If you were asked to translate something today would you do it in modern English or King James?

[savedbygrace]

It stands to reason that if we were to translate anything it would be in readable and understandable language of the country we live in, not in archaic language that can hinder comprehension, hence the reason fo modern English translations of the bible

[Freedom]

Joseph Smith was not raised on King James English any more than we are now simply because we read it in the Bible. If you were asked to translate something today would you do it in modern English or King James?

How does this make the book of mormon false? I do not follow you. It was the writing style he felt prompted to use. If I were to stand as a witness in court, would my testimony be thrown out because of the use of thee and thou?

[bcuzbcuz]

I'm currently separated (she met another person on the internet and decided to move across country to be with that person and another), which, of course proves I don't deserve even one wife, so you can take my opinion for what it's worth. She had multiple lovers of both genders throughout our marriage. I wouldn't have cared if our Heavenly Father hadn't asked us to obey the law of Chastity. My fourth great grandfather, whom I'm named after, had four wives and by all accounts, he kept them quite happy.

But the point is that there is nothing morally wrong with polygamy/polyandry per se (I am aware that it can be abused, but so can celibacy), it can be greatly beneficial to a society (fewer low-quality males like me produce offspring, we are more available for dangerous jobs, etc.) and the Saints have always been asked to take on significant challenges. Just because you find it difficult doesn't make it wrong. Are we greater than the Savior that we should never have difficulties?

You're right. Polygamy neither proves nor disproves anything. I just find polygamy abominable and would have rejected the practice outright, were it still practiced.

[Nathair/|\]

You're right. Polygamy neither proves nor disproves anything. I just find polygamy abominable and would have rejected the practice outright, were it still practiced.

Do you have a moral or ethical reason for that stance, or is it just a matter of personal distaste.

For the record, I don't see why you should have to practice it if you feel that strongly about it, but you haven't given any reason to condemn another for practicing it as long as they are happy with it.

[Freedom]

You're right. Polygamy neither proves nor disproves anything. I just find polygamy abominable and would have rejected the practice outright, were it still practiced.

I know many single mothers who live in poverty and who's children are being raised without a father who disagree with this point of view.

[Bart Burk]

I would have to say the Book of Mormon is the best evidence for the LDS Church. It is getting harder for me to see how anyone can argue with its truthfulness especially when you consider its Christian message.

[Alvino]

Just because you are personally uncomfortable with it, it doesn't mean it should be a con which is looked at as ‘The Best Evidences …. Against The Church Being True’.

Imagine if Joseph Smith had had only one wife and was as faithful to her as can possibly be. No mention of polygamy or polyandry except to say the Lord now commands us to have one spouse.

Do you seriously think that isn't a better state of affairs? You might think God commanded Joseph to go polygamist but I think things would have run much more smoothly, all other things being equal, if he had not.

Some of us look at as a plus. Only God would ask us to go through the trial,

At least you admit it is a trial. How is that a trial that is also a pro? You would admit that every trial that can possibly be loaded on you won't necessarily be a plus, would it?

if it was of man the Church would have collapsed a long time ago.

...Because Calvinism, Islam, Catholicism, etc have all gone the way of the dodo and are much younger than Mormonism.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Alvino

[Stargazer]

Can't help but notice the ironies here. I ask you for something profound and you offer me a talk about going back to the simple teachings and the basics.

Also, President Uchdorf says, "The reason we return to these foundational principles, to the pure doctrines, is because they are the gateway to truths of profound meaning. They are the door to experiences of sublime importance that would otherwise be beyond our capacity to comprehend"

What is that talk? Is it itself basic of is it part of the truths of profound meaning (or a middle point) ? If it is basic then by your own source you didn't offer me what you thought I was looking for. If it is profound then it doesn't seem very beyond anyone's capacity to comprehend and what even Uchdorf considers profound just isn't.

I just thought that was funny. Again, I hope not to offend you but that wasn't what I would consider profound. I did like the analogy at the beginning, though. Please apologize the fact that by the very nature of my concern, to defend it is going to make me seem like a smug and pretentious individual.

Well, and I do apologize for that, but yes it does.

On the other hand, I must confess that perhaps my understanding of the word "profound" isn't quite what the dictionary gives us. A better word for what I am thinking of might be "elegant." There is a certain elegance in the simplicity of the basics, for example, and that is why I appreciate Pres. Uchtdorf's and Elder Oaks's remarks.

A decent definition of the word "profound" is:

3.Intellectually deep; entering far into subjects; reaching to the bottom of a matter, or of a branch of learning; thorough; as, a profound investigation or treatise; a profound scholar; profound wisdom. [from Wiktionary]

From your words and this definition, it is clear that what you are searching for by way of profundity are what are commonly called "The Mysteries". You bypass with impatience such basics as the question of the existence of God, and leap avidly after that which is "beyond anyone's capacity to comprehend". Since the GAs do not offer such things, you are disappointed and consider this failure to be evidence that the Church isn't true.

I am reminded of Jacob chapter 4 in the Book of Mormon. Especially where Jacob gives the following:

13 Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old.

So, these men who are sustained by the church membership as "prophets, seers and revelators" are admonished in scripture to prophesy "to the understanding of men" and in plainness. So, you are looking for your profundity in the wrong place, and ought not be disappointed.

But I am intrigued that you quote Pres. Uchtdorf where he says: "The reason we return to these foundational principles, to the pure doctrines, is because they are the gateway to truths of profound meaning. They are the door to experiences of sublime importance that would otherwise be beyond our capacity to comprehend"

He is saying here that before you can acquire this profound meaning (things are they really are) you must master the fundamentals. You can hardly expect someone to become a great theoretical physicist without first acquiring the basic mathematical and physical knowledge that every physicist must know. Yet, this is what you seem to be expecting -- either that, or you are looking for someone to say something fraught with mystery so you can nod your head sagely and remark "Oh, that is just SO profound!" And then walk away, satisfied that it is still mysterious!

Jacob goes on:

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

And I am sorry to tell you, but the scripture applies with great precision to you, who is looking for that which is "beyond anyone's capacity to comprehend". Good luck with that; I fear it will get you literally nowhere.

Alvino, before you can even get a handle on what is genuinely profound (if you truly desire to find the mysteries of God), then you need to first settle upon the fact of God's existence. If you start out assuming that He is totally fictional, then you might as well move along, because there's nothing for you to see here. You want the mysteries of God, and of the Universe, you will need to heed the following, from the Book of Alma, chapter 12:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the bmysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser aportion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the cchains of dhell.

Those men devliering those addresses at General Conference are constrained by scripture, and the Spirit, to not say too much, to not go beyond the basics. Much as Jesus commanded his apostles to give only milk to those who were new in the faith. If you truly want meat, however, you must find it yourself. There is some to be found in the public teachings of the Lord's witnesses, but ultimately it must be found by you, yourself, in seeking by faith and obedience. Assuming you really want it, which I confess I doubt.

In the closing verses of The Vision, in our scriptures today as D&C 76, we are told that that which Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saw in a great vision of the Plan of Salvation is something that is not reserved for those two men alone, but that it is available to anyone who prepares him or herself for it:

114 But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he showed unto us, which surpass all understanding in glory, and in might, and in dominion;

115 Which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit, and are not lawful for man to utter;

116 Neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him;

117 To whom he grants this privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves;

118 That through the power and manifestation of the Spirit, while in the flesh, they may be able to bear his presence in the world of glory.

If you seek for mysteries that cannot be understood, but seem profound, you will have to look for them elsewhere. If you are looking for things as they really are, on the other hand, they are available for you here among the Latter-day Saints. You will have to seek them out yourself, but the joy and the great reward of it is in the searching and the finding.

Your call.

I guess I will conclude by directing you to a bit of profound fundamentality given by Elder Boyd K. Packer back in 1971.

The Spirit Beareth Record

[Alvino]

Then you haven't been listening. But for truly profound, succinct statements, read Neal A. Maxwell who could put a whole sermon in a few words.

I'll take the recommendation. What do you propose I read? Preferably something I can find on the net.

As I recall Christ himself spoke in very simple terms to the people, but those who were guided by the Holy Spirit understood so much more than the superficial message of his parables.

Simple terms? IIRC, the apostles themselves were having a hard time understanding him and constantly asked questions that indicated their confusion. Christ was definitely profound, I wouldn't deny that, and the apostles that wrote later on were, too.

It is often brought up that there is a superficial message and a profound, hard-to-understand-unless-you-have-the-spirit, message. What profound messages are those hard-to-understand? Are they just hard to accept and stomach, like the morals of the OT, in which case the Spirit helps in you accepting it as true when you probably wouldn't otherwise? Or are they really hard to understand like some advanced mathematics?

[Maidservant]

Well.

I consider these questions to be different: "Best Evidences for the Church's Truth" (your OP) . . . "Reasons why I participate in the Church (regardless of the level of truth)" . . . "Reasons why I think the church is good (but not necessarily the exclusive truth)" . . . and "Things that resonate the most with me in the church (versus things I can't handle well, regardless of which of these categories has any bearing on the truth of the Church)".

So I am going to try to answer the first question in my eyes, with the caveat that these items do NOT answer any of the other questions.

Also I am not thinking that any one of these things prove the Church, just that I find them to be plain and hard to challenge and have to be reckoned with as actual and true for themselves as elements and what it says about the Church that has arisen from them.

> Joseph Smith did NOT write the Book of Mormon. I take a VERY STRICT definition of this sentence. Whatever else can be said about the Book of Mormon (good, bad, ugly, true, untrue) it's source is NOT Joseph Smith as a writer. I find this to be plain as day and does not necessitate my being a scholar. If you compare Joseph Smith's writing to the Book of Mormon, they are very, very different just on their face. The revelations in the D & C similarly, whatever else they are, are not a sample of Joseph Smith's writing EXCEPT for a couple which ARE such as section 135, 128 and his account of the First Vision as included in our Pearl of Great Price. Whoever wrote these items (Joseph Smith) did NOT write the Book of Mormon (NOT Joseph Smith).

> The comprehensive effect of the church. That is really does have the power to change the earth--education, family love, easing up on condemning rules (although sometimes this has come over time) and strengthening the rules of wholesomeness (I have friends who can't believe that my teenagers would keep the law of chastity; these friends do not understand the way the church works to produce young men and women like this who are capable of making this choice and mastering themselves). Anyway, I find the church and the gospel to be very reality based and practical. And yet there is the hidden mysteries. It's like western religions; it's like eastern religions. It has something for everyone, and it has it all in one.

> The fact that the church changes. I do not want the same church the early Saints had. I understand that things will change hopefully the closer we get to Zion, and if that weren't happening in some way, I would wonder.

> That there is even a claim that Jesus Christ directs the church. I don't know if other Christian churches claim this. Worship Christ, yes. But Christ as the one who created THEIR sect, they cannot claim. That there is even a claim of a prophet who speaks for the Lord. If other Christian churches do not have a prophet, then who are they following if they do not have someone who speaks with authority from the Lord.

> The powerful testimony of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon. A poisoned fountain could not give rise to those powerful passages. I think for anyone who was already Christian and believed in Christ, I would be very leery of denying those parts of the Book of Mormon that speak of Christ so plainly, because they are true simply because they speak the truth of Christ. But this might only mean the Book of Mormon was "good" not "true", but again, from a poisoned fountain?

Hm, I'll stop there. Just the first few that came to mind. I have nothing to say about what makes it not true, because none of the historical items have no bearing in my mind on it's truth and I have reconciled myself to them in some way that makes sense to me.

[Maidservant]

Alvino, I don't know about General Authorities, but I think who you are looking for is Hugh Nibley. As a starting point. He's not the only.

[Alvino]

Then perhaps you should provide a definition of what you consider profound. Would you consider the teachings of Jesus to be profound? Or those of Isaiah?

By golly! Jesus is indeed profound and I often think of his words, believe it or not. I find Isaiah to be more poetic than profound but still quite profound. About providing a definition, I obviously can't. It seems to me just a matter of degree, not of definition, just like there really isn't a precise definition of "loud" in conversation (how high the volume is loud?).

[why me]

I would have to say the Book of Mormon is the best evidence for the LDS Church. It is getting harder for me to see how anyone can argue with its truthfulness especially when you consider its Christian message.

Or how a young man such as Joseph Smith could have written it and without a manuscript. It does seem unbelievable.

Edited January 27, 2013 by why me

[why me]

By golly! Jesus is indeed profound and I often think of his words, believe it or not. I find Isaiah to be more poetic than profound but still quite profound. About providing a definition, I obviously can't. It seems to me just a matter of degree, not of definition, just like there really isn't a precise definition of "loud" in conversation (how high the volume is loud?).

I think that the problem is: we have no idea what jesus actually said because we have second hand accounts of what he said. It would be great to have his words only. What is profound is the book of mormon because it is a book that came from prophets, revealed to Joseph Smith. And even if Joseph Smith wrote it, it would be profound because of its message from a young man.

Either way, it is a profound piece of work.

[teddyaware]

You're right. Polygamy neither proves nor disproves anything. I just find polygamy abominable and would have rejected the practice outright, were it still practiced.

You say this even though it is beyond qestion -- at least insofar as the Biblical record is concerned -- that a man can practice polygyny (yes polygyny, look it up) and still be considered faithful and holy by God's own assessment. After all, Abraham (a polygynist), even to this day is glowingly refered to as "the father of the faithful;" while Abraham's grandson, Jacob (also a polygynist), had his name changed by God himself to Israel, which means "he who prevails with God." So it seems it's very well possible that a man of God can be a practitioner of plural marriage and still be blessed and honored by both God and man. Even in the case of King David -- whose train of wives is the stuff of legend -- was told by the prophet, Nathan, that God would have given him even more wives than he already possessed, if only he (David) had not transgressed as he did in the case of the woman Bathsheba.

So even though your mind may not as yet be able to grasp just how polygyny can be practiced in righteousness by all parties involved, yet it is so. Remember, God's ways are not our ways.

Edited January 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[pmccombs1]

Evidences...

In favor:

1) Neighbors who help each other

2) People who have hope

3) Individuals who lead exemplary private lives

4) Civic virtue

5) Industry and thrift

6) People who have charity--who are generous even to the undeserving

7) Faith that produces loyalty and sacrifice at the expense of personal interests

That is to name a few of the things that strike me as evidence of Truth.

And what against?

1) A church "office" building

2) Investment firms

3) City Creek Mall

4) Everything a trademark or service mark, including Family Home Evening ™, under which commerce is done and programs received that bandage things like modern dissolute families in an effort to be "in the world, but not of it." This policy also demands that the Church do its alms before men, that is, never to mount a significant humanitarian effort without adequate media coverage and branding.

5) Jesus somehow only calls successful, suit-wearing men into his group of chosen leaders. There are no poor among them, apparently they being unqualified to hear the voice of the Lord.

6) The gospel has been so heavily correlated and standardized that there is no longer any need for a prophet who receives continuing revelation. Instead, we count new church policies as the inspiration we seek. This "hastening of the work" will almost certainly produce no measurable relief to the great majority of the world's suffering, as it has also failed to do in the past, and amounts to so much vanity.

7) A Church that confuses "serving the Lord" with "rest" and thus defiles its own Sabbath with hour-after-hour of meetings and programs, leaving many of its people exhausted.

Pilate once asked Jesus, "What is truth?" to which no reply is recorded. But Jesus had once said that He was himself the light, the truth, and the way; and even to Pilate He had indicated that those who seek truth will know it when they find it.

I see two churches here. One of them is local and fits the requirements for all worthwhile religion; it is the Church of God into which one is baptized and from which one might be excommunicated. The other is distant and pretentious, full of sincerity and certainty and that speaks beauty and draws very near unto God with its tongue. It is the Church of Mammon into which one is hired and later laid off. They are not the same church by a long shot, though they go by the same name; for one church cannot serve two masters.

That is just my personal view of things.

Edited January 27, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Alvino]

@pmccombs1:

I get the spirit in which you say all that but, still, none of your pros don't apply to other Churches, even non-Christian churches.

[Freedom]

By golly! Jesus is indeed profound and I often think of his words, believe it or not. I find Isaiah to be more poetic than profound but still quite profound. About providing a definition, I obviously can't. It seems to me just a matter of degree, not of definition, just like there really isn't a precise definition of "loud" in conversation (how high the volume is loud?).

So you criticize church authorities for not being profound but you are unable to provide a definition or examples what is profound. Hmmm