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

[3DOP]

Omni hi. I appreciate the replies. I wanted to respond to some of what you said. My response will be italicized to more easily distinguish from what had been said previously.

Pros:

1. The eleven witnesses.

Not convincing. I tend to agree that eleven people saw something happen. The question is not whether they saw something, but whether they were good at discerning what they saw. Because of the implications of their understanding, I have the strongest reasons for concluding that they misunderstood what they observed.

2. Internal complexity of the BoM.

Is it? I am unqualified to say one way or the other. Not all internally complex literature is inspired by God.

Omni: While it certainly doesn't prove it was inspired by God, I think it would have been incredibly difficult to do it, especially by one with Joseph's education.

3DOP: I just don't know how great the Book of Mormon is as literature. But two points. First, I am not convinced that formal education is a necessary preparation for all of the world's greatest literature. I do not know the educational backgrounds of Homer, Milton, or Shakespeare, but if they were all formally educated, I would not attribute their literary genius to education. Of course, education will help with things like grammar, but I am talking about greatness. Great literary gifts are perhaps polished with education, but they are never the cause. If I accept this argument about Joseph's education, what am I supposed to do with the Koran and other religious literature that makes virtually the same claims about how the human author would have been incapable of writing such beautiful literature because of their lack of education? Have you ever heard Muslims talk about the Koran? Do we think Muhammed was more educated than Joseph?

3. NHM/Nahom

I don't know what that is. (Please don't explain)

Omni: I would also like to add the old world geography "hits" with this.

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.

"The man behind the curtain"? What do non-LDS think there would be to observe that ought to make an apostle leave after being elevated to the highest offices? We don't think that you guys are insincere, and the higher up you go, the more serious and sincere you all tend to be. We don't think its some Wizard of Oz thing. I don't know why becoming an apostle would make you more susceptible to leaving. It seems like those who become apostles would be those with most faith. So all we have to do to prove our churches are true is to not have leaders leave?

Omni: One aspect of this involves the belief that once one becomes an apostle one also becomes a special witness of Christ. I was taught by my mission president in zone conference that when you are a special witness of Christ, you have seen him in the flesh. This isn't some fringe belief, as I've talked to many about this and most if not all have felt the same. If this is indeed true and an apostle didn't receive a visitation from Christ, along with other common assumptions made about apostles/prophets he might then question and leave. I wouldn't think this would be a common response, but you would think it would happen at least once.

3DOP: That is a strong point Omni. I hadn't thought of that. So all Apostles expect to see Jesus after they become so ordained? I wouldn't mind a little more info about that if you have it. If you can definitely say that every Apostle expects to see Jesus, it seems like we could expect one to have gotten discouraged about it by now unless they have had their expectations fulfilled. It would also make more valid, "the man behind the curtain" analogy I had criticised. Excellent point.

Cons:

1. Polygamy/polyandry.

If polygamy isn't compatible with the true church, then no Christian has found it. Would not this argument nullify the Jewish Church from which Christ came?

Omni: Perhaps maybe, just maybe God didn't authorize polygamy in the OT either.

3DOP: I sometimes forget that Mormons are pretty comfortable with strong criticism of the Old Testament. I guess what you are saying is that you don't care if it would nullify "the Jewish Church from which Christ came". I would find that problematic from a New Testament perspective but it would take too long to develop here. Is polygamy in the Standard Works or was it just a practise that was never canonized that way? If the latter, I guess you could just condemn it as being not from God. On the other hand, it seems like those who authorized the practise could be exonerated for it because of the biblical precedent in the Old Testament. That is why I don't see how polygamy could provide the opponents of LDS claims with any ammo. I think if I was LDS, I'd just believe that it was something that the founders of the Church got right and that God changed it back again for his own reasons just like He did before. Whether a mistake or a true practice, I could not use this argument against the CoJCoLDS.

2. Blacks and the priesthood.

For how long? Christ might not come back for another two thousand years or more. This is a naturalistic argument that doesn't take into consideration that for prudential reasons, at the very earliest beginnings of the Church, God withheld the priesthood for a few generations from blacks. Is there a formal teaching from that period which states that blacks were thought to be unequal as the rest of society held?

Omni: Have you read the journal of discourses? I have trouble understanding why God would deny the blessings of the priesthood to someone based solely on their race, or lineage for that matter. This is especially difficult when considering the history surrounding the ban.

3DOP: I am only familiar with inflammatory parts of the Journal of Discourses. But even the worst of what you might find is still not authoritative as I understand the situation. That we have trouble understanding what God does should not be surprising at this time. We see through a glass darkly. Faith has to proceed with a dim light. Our knowledge here is partial and God deserves our trust. For reasons beyond what we can imagine, the man of faith says that God allowed this to happen. I have to respect that without .There is no reason I know of why I have to assume that this means that either God or the Latter-day Saints despised any particular race. For those reasons, I can't in good conscience use this argument to say that the LDS faith is false.

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).

Elizabethan English is elegant. Joseph's religious thoughts were clothed in that language. It would seem strange if the translation had been otherwise. Prophecies are often unfulfilled for centuries. If the Jews had been so impatient, they would have given up long before Jesus came.

Omni: If you were asked to translate something today would you do it in Elizabethian English because it's more elegant? What's interesting is if you look at Warren Jeffs "prophesies" and those of many of the LDS off shoots they all use this same style of writing not realizing that God probably doesn't speak like that, it's just the language of the period the KJV was written in.

3DOP: I think you missed my point. I was at one time a strict King James Protestant. One like me who was probably less familiar than Joseph with the Scriptures begins to think using thees and thous and some of the rest. We even prayed aloud in that style sometimes. So of course I see why Joseph's translations could tend in that direction. I think it would have been prudent to do it deliberately. The point about elegance is that because it is so, there is no reason to try to use another style. I would suggest that it is important to worship that religious language be elevated in such a way that children and novices can recognize the words of worship as belonging to a different and higher class of communication than everyday talk at home, school, or work. I think it is a grave mistake to diminish the importance of awe and mystery that elevated language can lend to our private readings or public worship. I don't want either in the common vernacular, which will soon enough be obsolete anyway.

4. BoA obvious mistranslations.

Sorry you are wrong. Not obvious. I have seen this debated over and over. You should have said, "It can be argued that the BoA has mistranslations." Worst case scenario...its faulty. So what? Its Catholics who believe in the infallibility of their church. Are you saying that the LDS Church can't make a mistake?

Omni: I'm not aware of any egyptologists (including LDS) who would say the translation is even remotely correct. I'm vaguely aware of the catalyst theory, but than why did Joseph not mention this, why doesn't the church today teach this?

3DOP: All I know is that there have been endless debates here over the years that I have never followed. I had assumed that many Mormons take the position that it is a good translation. It does me no harm to allow that the Book of Abraham is fine. If they do, How could I argue that Egyptologists disprove what Mormons hold by faith when I don't even have any knowledge of Egyptology? How about this? Suppose I believe in Egyptology and that these plates or whatever they are don't translate into what the Book of Abraham says. Is there a reason why it HAS to be a translation? Why could not God let Joseph look at the Egyptian text, Joseph even thinking that what God was revealing was a translation, like with the Book of Mormon, except that it was just a purely new revelation?

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

Brigham Young lived at the time when papal infallibility was formulated at the First Vatican Council in 1870. One of the most misunderstood teachings of the Catholic Church is papal infallibility. That council took care to show how that charism is believed to be very strictly limited. Even popes can possibly teach error most of the time according to Catholics! But LDS reject this Catholic doctrine for their leadership. Why? Because they KNOW that their leaders are susceptible to error. Besides, where do you find this stuff in the Standard Works? The Journal of Discourses is fine as an historical record. It isn't Scripture. Even then, Scripture isn't even infallible, only very reliable. There are advantages and disadvantages to denials of infallibility for Scripture and prophets. This is an undeniable advantage. How does it prove the church wrong to have made a mistake when the same church says that it is susceptible to making a mistake, and you find one or two every 150 years?

Omni: This goes to the whole issue of "what is doctrine."? I'm pretty sure if you asked BY and the saints at the time if it was doctrine they would swear to it. I'm not sure what the Catholic Church and it's infallibility have to do with this.

3DOP: As I understand things, it can't matter what Brigham Young and his followers thought unless perhaps the dogma was elevated to the level of Scripture. Churches get to make mistakes Omni. Especially when they say they might make a mistake. The point in bringing up the Catholic Church is that Mormons deny infallibility. Yet even the Catholic Church can make a mistake and survive because infallibility is so strictly limited. The Catholic Church teaches that in many instances there is the possibility for error. But here you have an institution that repudiates every form of infallibility, the LDS Church, that admits it is susceptible to error. Even the Scriptures might have errors. I come along and say, "Here as an error." So what? How is that an argument to a people who tell me to expect this. LDS doctrine will always have potential for change and adaptation that is lacking to the defined infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

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?

Current doctrine is whatever the Standard Works say, and that is subject to interpretation, most reliably, but not infallibly, by Church Leadership. You can disagree with their interpretation, and even be correct, but that would never speak to whether the Church was true or false.

3DOP: Hey. No comment? Do I get a passing grade on this one? Heh.

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

Get used to it. Everybody is moving in this direction. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have always taught it. But forget about that. St. Peter says that we have been made partakers of the divine nature. How can that happen without starting to resemble God? We are going to partake of God's nature but not become like God? How does that work?

Omni: I'm pretty sure if I asked 100 Catholics right now if their church believed in theosis, 99 would just laugh in my face.

3DOP: Ninety-nine out of a hundred Catholics are not how you arrive at what the Catholic Church teaches. First they don't know what the word means. But if you pull out quotes from Catholics down the ages-Sts. Irenaeus, Thos. Aquinas, John of the Cross, along with the implications of Holy Communion as stated explicitly in the Traditional Mass, followed with quotes from the new catechism, they will not laugh. They will see it is part of Catholic Tradition. Ninety-nine out of hundred Catholics who still go to Mass and have the faith, would with five minutes of explanation see that they believe in that obscure word, theosis.

8. Kinderhook plates

I've heard of them. I don't know what it is/they are. After many years, I know without studying them that every anti-Mormon claim can be reasonably answered.

Omni: After Joseph translated them, complete with a backstory of the civilization, the man who found and gave them to Joseph admitted they were a hoax and explained in detail how he created them.

3DOP: That's it? Yikes. I am surprised I am not more familiar with what seems like a more significant problem. The thing is, I don't need these kinds of argument to remain skeptical of Restoration claims. Ordinarily, I have to admit that I am satisfied with the explanations given by LDS as being at least plausible. My experience just tells me that as soon as I go down this trail some faithful Mormon will offer a plausible explanation either disputing the claim or showing how it is compatible with LDS views of Joseph Smith. Before I ever came to this site in 2004, I had pretty much given up on finding the smoking gun that would bury Mormon claims.

Fun exercise, especially the cons.

Omni: Care to add any yourself?

3DOP: I don't know any legitimate "cons" about LDS claims that don't have to do with my belief in the authority of the Catholic Church. I don't believe any positive LDS teachings or claims are implausible, I am just convinced that my own church is true. As I understand the situation at this time, that is incompatible with LDS claims about Apostasy and Restoration. You would probably have to call that my one and only "con" against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited January 28, 2013 by 3DOP

[Nathair/|\]

3DOP said:

I would suggest that it is important to worship that religious language be elevated in such a way that children and novices can recognize the words of worship as belonging to a different and higher class of communication than everyday talk at home, school, or work. I think it is a grave mistake to diminish the importance of awe and mystery that elevated language can lend to our private readings or public worship. I don't want either in the common vernacular, which will soon enough be obsolete anyway.

I've been thinking along these lines, but I've never been able to put it into coherent language. Thank you.

[bdouglas]

How do you know the GA owns the vacation home? And do you know whether someone gave it to him as a gift, or whether he earned it in deferred compensation he only got when he retired?

"Deferred compensation". I don't think this particular GA had anything like that. I live in the same neighborhood. There is no question who owns the home.

I don't know why we have to perpetuate this fiction that our GAs, especially those in the higher echelons, are paid only a "modest stipend". The fact that these figures are not disclosed by the church hints at dark doings--when in fact there are no dark doings, just GAs who are being paid, and well-paid for their work.

[Calm]

My experience just tells me that as soon as I go down this trail some faithful Mormon will offer a plausible explanation either disputing the claim or showing how it is compatible with LDS views of Joseph Smith. Before I ever came to this site in 2004, I had pretty much given up on finding the smoking gun that would bury Mormon claims.

And you would be right in this case.

For those curious about how a faithful Mormon might approach what is not as clear cut as presented by omni:

http://www.fairlds.o...nderhook-plates

For those who don't want to read the whole thing, a key point is stated here:

Since no actual translation was ever forthcoming, and since there is no actual evidence for a translation being made, most believing LDS conclude that it is safe to assume that no translation actually occurred.

On Wednesday (3 May) or Thursday (4 May) the Times and Seasons noted: “We are informed however, that he purposes returning them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it” The indication here is that no translation had yet occurred. It seems reasonable to me that what we get in Clayton’s journal is largely the product of the rumor mill; hearsay, and not what actually transpired. (Actually, we know that his description of the plates discovery is entirely erroneous, leaving us to speculate on the issue of translation).

Don Bradley has addressed the statement of translating a portion of the Kinderhook plates in his 2011 FAIR conference presentation. I have not listen to his talk, but IIRC the summary of it is that JS attempted an 'academic' or mundane translation, IOW not attempting to translate those plates in the same fashion (by the power of God) as he had done the BoA, the BoM and had received revelations given in the D&C, etc. If my memory is correct, this would explain why evidence of actual translation is lacking as his attempt was probably very limited and unsuccessful as well as why he intended to pass the K. plates on to actual scholars IIRC.

Edited January 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

[snip]

8. Kinderhook plates

I've heard of them. I don't know what it is/they are. After many years, I know without studying them that every anti-Mormon claim can be reasonably answered.

Omni: After Joseph translated them, complete with a backstory of the civilization, the man who found and gave them to Joseph admitted they were a hoax and explained in detail how he created them.

3DOP: That's it? Yikes. I am surprised I am not more familiar with what seems like a more significant problem. The thing is, I don't need these kinds of argument to remain skeptical of Restoration claims. Ordinarily, I have to admit that I am satisfied with the explanations given by LDS as being at least plausible. My experience just tells me that as soon as I go down this trail some faithful Mormon will offer a plausible explanation either disputing the claim or showing how it is compatible with LDS views of Joseph Smith. Before I ever came to this site in 2004, I had pretty much given up on finding the smoking gun that would bury Mormon claims.

[snip]

3DOP: I don't know any legitimate "cons" about LDS claims that don't have to do with my belief in the authority of the Catholic Church. I don't believe any positive LDS teachings or claims are implausible, I am just convinced that my own church is true. As I understand the situation at this time, that is incompatible with LDS claims about Apostasy and Restoration. You would probably have to call that my one and only "con" against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thank you for your kindness and catholicity.

As to Kinderhook, the plates were published in 1909 in the official History of the Church (edited by B. H. Roberts), V:374-375. Joseph attempted to decipher one character from the plates by using the GAEL (Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language) developed long before. In other words, he used secular means to do the translation, but got nowhere -- although he did discuss the circumstances of the plates and the skeletal remains supposedly found with them.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Alvino]

Read where Christ talks about "new wine in old bottles". It just does not work.

That's broad enough for me to have to ask you to justify this interpretation of the text. I could as well say that the "new wine in old bottles" means the LDS Church fell into apostasy when the GA's started getting quite old (a silly stance to take, of course).

[Robert F. Smith]

"Deferred compensation". I don't think this particular GA had anything like that. I live in the same neighborhood. There is no question who owns the home.

I don't know why we have to perpetuate this fiction that our GAs, especially those in the higher echelons, are paid only a "modest stipend". The fact that these figures are not disclosed by the church hints at dark doings--when in fact there are no dark doings, just GAs who are being paid, and well-paid for their work.

Paranoid speculation. Unless you have access to his personal financial documents, you have no business spreading this sort of fictional nonsense.

[Calm]

Joseph attempted to decipher one character from the plates by using the GAEL (Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language) developed long before.

Just found a short note on this on FAIR that provides the information that Don determined this due to "[t]he “translation” recorded by William Clayton match[ing] the explanation given for the character in the GAEL" so pretty much a slam dunk for Don.

[3DOP]

Thank you for your kindness and catholicity.

As to Kinderhook, the plates were published in 1909 in the official History of the Church (edited by B. H. Roberts), V:374-375. Joseph attempted to decipher one character from the plates by using the GAEL (Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language) developed long before. In other words, he used secular means to do the translation, but got nowhere -- although he did discuss the circumstances of the plates and the skeletal remains supposedly found with them.

Hah. That's more than plausible. Slam dunk. You're all in the clear on this one. Only a prophet when acting as prophet.

[Alvino]

A decent definition of the word "profound" is:

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

What Alvino is looking for is deepness, not plainness. Since GAs tend to be very plain and stick to the basics, of course he does not consider their words profound.

If you mean what you just said then not only do I consider their words not profound but they actually are not (according to what you said here).

He is simply shopping in the wrong store.

Right. So you admit they aren't.

I have no problem with that, per se, but this has no bearing on whether the church is true or not.

It does not determine whether the Church is true or not, but it certainly leads some support. The power of God is intelligence after all.

Truth, often enough, is not profound, but very plain -- sometimes truth just smacks you in the face with plainness. On the other hand, there is much fairy tale which is quite profound. Fun, perhaps, but irrelevant in a discussion involving the question "What is true?"

I, once again, wish I'm not offending anyone but I have never met a knowledgeable person who thought truth was often plain and simple. Give me a subject. Most of Psychology, most of medicine, most of mathematics, most of philosophy, are plain and simple for you? It is also because life and people aren't simple that one would expect more insight from God's mouthpiece.

See my response to his search for profundity HERE.

I'll check it out and respond.

[Alvino]

then you would have to give examples otherwise you are arguing from silence. I do not quite understand why a church leader has to have unique literary skills to create brilliant prose. They are not here to create poetry, they are here to teach the simple beauty of the restored gospel. Is a doctor less of a doctor is he cannot write medical text books? The two skills are not related.

Who talked about expecting brilliant prose? I certainly said no such thing and I hope this was a mistake from you because otherwise it would mean you tend to confuse profundity with good prose, something that's rather dangerous.

[why me]

Hah. That's more than plausible. Slam dunk. You're all in the clear on this one. Only a prophet when acting as prophet.

I think that it is more than that. The critics attempt to paint Joseph translating the Kinderhook plates, certifying them as genuine. This did not happen. But the critics still mislead people with their claims. Thus, we have a problem. As Robert explained it was far from what the critics say.

[Stargazer]

"Deferred compensation". I don't think this particular GA had anything like that. I live in the same neighborhood. There is no question who owns the home.

I don't know why we have to perpetuate this fiction that our GAs, especially those in the higher echelons, are paid only a "modest stipend". The fact that these figures are not disclosed by the church hints at dark doings--when in fact there are no dark doings, just GAs who are being paid, and well-paid for their work.

Can you give me the street address? I can look up the ownership information. PM it.

On the other hand, my understanding is that those GAs who did not have independent means receive their income from work they do as directors of for-profit church corporations. This may be old news, or incorrect. I think it used to be the case that they did in fact serve on boards of directors.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Stargazer

[Hamba Tuhan]

Pros:

• revelations
  
• visions
  
• angelic visitations
  
• healings
  
• tongues
  
• prophecy
  

[volgadon]

That's broad enough for me to have to ask you to justify this interpretation of the text. I could as well say that the "new wine in old bottles" means the LDS Church fell into apostasy when the GA's started getting quite old (a silly stance to take, of course).

You are obviously wrong, as President Hinckley clearly denounced that heresy.

[Alvino]

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.

If you were thinking that then you didn't really address my concern.

A decent definition of the word "profound" is:

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".

No, it is insight, which the general authorities seldom give.

You bypass with impatience such basics as the question of the existence of God,

But you don't know me, do you? Plus, it is obvious that not even these "basics" are addressed with insight and profundity by your general authorities.

and leap avidly after that which is "beyond anyone's capacity to comprehend".

Again, I'm not after mysteries.

Since the GAs do not offer such things, you are disappointed and consider this failure to be evidence that the Church isn't true.

As a general rule I'm not disappointed when I don't get what I'm not looking for.

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.

I know! That Paul and his reasoning with philosophers... what a heathen!

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!

You should be more careful to see what kind of knowledge it is that you are talking about when you talk of the fundamentals and the advanced stuff. You mentioned that one of these fundamentals is knowing God exists. I don't get how not accepting God's existence blocks one to reason about the spiritual or somehow impedes one's ability to understand propositions regarding the spiritual. All an atheist has to do is say, "Let's assume that God exists..." How does not accepting God's existence prevent me from thinking whether God's nature as described by someone makes sense or not?

I want you to clarify that for me, please. What does the believer really know that allows her to receive the advanced stuff? Just that certain propositions are true or false? When I say knowledge I'm talking about propositional knowledge but you don't seem to be talking about that. Is that knowledge just feeling very very strongly that God exists?

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.

Again, I'm not looking for that. You are misunderstanding what I'm talking about here.

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:

Man, you must really take me for a fool! You seem to think I reason as follows:

Alvino: "Hey, you, believer! Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?"

Believer: Well, because --"

Alvino: "WRONG! God doesn't exist."

lol I can grant God's existence or several other aspects of God's nature or of the Church or the world just to see where the reasoning goes.

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:

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 won't answer to this because you didn't get what I was saying so this is irrelevant.

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

I'll check it out.

[Alvino]

You are obviously wrong, as President Hinckley clearly denounced that heresy.

lol Rep point!

[3DOP]

I think that it is more than that. The critics attempt to paint Joseph translating the Kinderhook plates, certifying them as genuine. This did not happen. But the critics still mislead people with their claims. Thus, we have a problem. As Robert explained it was far from what the critics say.

Hi why me.

Hmmm. I may not have explained myself clearly. I had already admitted how I didn't know anything about Kinderhook but that my experience led me to believe that there would probably be a plausible answer to what was being charged against Joseph Smith. Mere plausibility in an answer satisfies me. When I said "slam dunk", I was referring to basketball jargon. When a player "slam dunks", that is when they put the ball in the basket with great power and sometimes athletic flair. If someone slam dunks, it is difficult to argue that it is good for the side against whom it happens. Also, when I said his answer was "more than plausible", I was trying to say that it seemed completely satisfactory in a way that extended beyond mere plausibility, which in itself is already good enough. Having agreed virtually 100% with his explanation, I don't know what more I can give. I have only the slightest reservation.

Like I said, I had heard of this "problem" but I knew nothing about it. Because of my past experience and the reasonableness of the reply, I am at least 99% sure I can trust Robert's analysis. I am certain that I would never use this argument to propose that the LDS Church is false. You might even say I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt. I can't say if I would sentence someone to death on such certainty, but I would think pretty hard about it.

Edited January 28, 2013 by 3DOP

[Kevin Christensen]

Before asking for evidence that the church is true, I think it worthwhile to step back and ask what do you mean by church and by true. I've noticed that it makes a huge difference in what a person notices and how a person values what they notice, depending on if they are asking whether Joseph Smith's revelations are real versus whether measure up to a personal sense of what would be ideal or fit a person's desires, or whether the revelations measure of to a person's conception of what is perfect.

I take "church" to mean the assembly of people as such, not necessarily a static body of doctrines, or a Big Book of What to Think, and certainly not any particularly building, and not just the institutional hierarchy. And since "truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come," I see "true" as meaning conforms to what is real. I don't expect reality to conform to my sense of what is ideal or perfect, and I have serious doubts about the validity of my desires and preconceptions anyway. I expect the members of the church to behave like real people, not like plastic saints. I expect the institution to demonstrate characteristic institutional behavior. I think a better question than "Is the church true?" is "Are the revelations to Joseph Smith and his successors real?" Not "are they perfect?" uncritically assuming that I am knowledgeable enough to exercise perfect judgement via my beam and mote-free eyes. Not "do Mormons behave and think the way I would ideally want them to behave and think?" Measured against the notion of perfection, only imperfection answers the question, and any perceived imperfection will do. And not, does Mormonism serve my personal desires, and secure me against any social criticism? These ways of framing the question makes imperfection, and only that, decisive. Measured against subjective ideals, anything that I find personally frustrating, either in another's thoughts or behaviors, can be decisive.

Asking what is real is something else. Imperfection and incompleteness, frustration with other people's behavior, or in my personal desires counts for far less. When I read something like Stephen Fales' Confessions of a Mormon Boy in Sunstone a few years back, for instance, about his painful and frustrating experiences as a gay growing up happily, but sexually frustrated in LDS culture, I can't help but notice that when he describes how his wife asks whether he as acted out with men during their marriage, and he admits to doing so dozens of times, that if he had said he'd done so with even a few women (let alone dozens), sexual addiction would be an obvious diagnosis, and 12 step recovery an obvious treatment. And that would not be to change his orientation, but to deal with the compulsiveness that an addicted person feels as equivalent to survival, an inner first and great commandment that is "cunning, baffling, and powerful." Access to technology for brain scans shows that addiction involves changes in the brain, and twelve step recovery actually heals the damage. Addiction research shows that addiction is a real disease, involving damage to an organ, in this case, the brain. Acting out is a symptom of the damage, and healing the damage removes the symptoms. The gay and lesbian community is socially committed to insisting that there is nothing wrong with us. Criticizing orientation and behavior is off limits, and when it occurs, demonstrates the disease of homophobia. So Fales, in his Sunstone play, instead of exploring the potential diagnosis of addiction and then the treatment and cure offered by 12 step recovery, he tells the usual horror stories about failed reparative therapy, which, strikes me as dealing with obvious addictions by trying to point them in a socially acceptable direction. An attempt to rearrange surfaces while ignoring the root causes and real problem. In the end Fales asks for an enabling culture in which any attempt at suggesting addiction and 12 step treatment is counter-diagnosed as a manifestation of disease.

So for me, does Joseph Smith and Mormonism, and Mormon culture present me with evidence being connected to real revelation. Oh yes. Joseph Smith passes the 28 Biblical tests for true and false prophets. The Book of Mormon takes me into pre-exilic Israelite thinking. It accurately describes the lands and culture from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful. It describes peoples and cultures and locations that fit a unique location and time frame in the New World. Alma shows characteristics of an NDE experience, including details of the experience, and the authentic after effects. Mormon and Moroni show characteristics that Terrence Des Pres identified among survivors of Soviet and Nazi death camps. The authors of the books show distinctive word prints, use poetic forms, and literary devices like type scenes and allusion in profound ways. The prophecies in 1 Nephi 13 regarding the transmission of the Hebrew texts and the loss of plain and precious things has been fulfilled in terms of textual discoveries made after the translation and publication of the Book of Mormon. The existence of trivial "errors" in the translation's dependence on the King James Bible is balanced by the existence of textual and contextual restorations that make significant differences. (See John Welch's work on Illuminating the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon at the Temple.) Alma 32 contains an epistomology that later turns up in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Larry Poulson shows how the textual description of the Sidon fits only one river in the entire Western Hemisphere, and that starting geographical correlation leads to many interdependent convergences with details in the text and the emerging picture of life and civilization in Mesoamerica. Reading the Book of Mormon as an authentic history against the cultures and times it claims for itself undercuts the claims for racism in the text. And Colleen Harrison shows in He Did Deliver Me From Bondage that the Book of Mormon describes in detail the 12 steps of addiction recovery.

And while there are open questions on various issues like metals and horses, there are viable potentials for reconciliation not depending on ad hoc rationalizations, but in standard approaches to history and archeology. And the trends over time show a movement towards reconciliation. (See John Clark, for one.) And with regards to the Book of Abraham, I'm aware of the questions, but am also impressed by the exciting insights and correlations.

My personal spiritual experiences count for me, but they have led me to encounter many intellectual discoveries, and further spiritual experiences. All I need to do is keep my eyes open, give things time, and re-examine my assumptions now and then. The alternative to that practice is to presume I know all I need to know right now, insist on answers right now, and never re-examine my own preconceptions.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pitsburgh, PA

[Stargazer]

If you were thinking that then you didn't really address my concern.

No, it is insight, which the general authorities seldom give.

But you don't know me, do you? Plus, it is obvious that not even these "basics" are addressed with insight and profundity by your general authorities.

Again, I'm not after mysteries.

Well, all I can say is that this is what it sounded like. If not, fine.

As a general rule I'm not disappointed when I don't get what I'm not looking for.

LOL. Aren't we all.

I know! That Paul and his reasoning with philosophers... what a heathen!

Paul's reasoning didn't seem particularly profound to me, actually. It seemed he was taking them at their supposed word about the Unknown God, only to find that they didn't really care. Or didn't care for Paul calling them on it.

You should be more careful to see what kind of knowledge it is that you are talking about when you talk of the fundamentals and the advanced stuff. You mentioned that one of these fundamentals is knowing God exists. I don't get how not accepting God's existence blocks one to reason about the spiritual or somehow impedes one's ability to understand propositions regarding the spiritual. All an atheist has to do is say, "Let's assume that God exists..." How does not accepting God's existence prevent me from thinking whether God's nature as described by someone makes sense or not?

It doesn't, of course. But in my life I have run into people whose sense of "making sense" was wholly inadequate for a given situation. I recall my father trying to convince me that he was correct about a particular "story problem" I had in school homework. He told me that "common sense" told him that two shapes with the same volume of course had to have the same surface area. Of course he was wrong, but it took some doing convincing him -- he was not stupid by any means, but his "common sense" blocked him from the truth.

In short, whether something makes sense to you does not necessarily correlate with the truth of a given thing. You and I both would prefer that it would, but are we so infallible? No, we are not.

I want you to clarify that for me, please. What does the believer really know that allows her to receive the advanced stuff? Just that certain propositions are true or false? When I say knowledge I'm talking about propositional knowledge but you don't seem to be talking about that. Is that knowledge just feeling very very strongly that God exists?

Yes, that certain propositions are true or false, but also deeper stuff as well. The quotes from D&C 76 and Alma 12 that I have given are very clear in saying that if the believer trusts in God, proves him or herself by obedience and constancy (and that is what Boyd Packer says as well), then one can receive knowledge directly from God.

But I wouldn't say that feeling very very strongly that God exists is all that downplayable. One acquires this by way of all the rest, anyway.

Again, I'm not looking for that. You are misunderstanding what I'm talking about here.

Man, you must really take me for a fool! You seem to think I reason as follows:

Alvino: "Hey, you, believer! Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?"

Believer: Well, because --"

Alvino: "WRONG! God doesn't exist."

I don't think that is what I was trying to say. I think I was trying to say that believing in God's existence was the first step in receiving knowledge FROM God.

lol I can grant God's existence or several other aspects of God's nature or of the Church or the world just to see where the reasoning goes.

Granting God's existence suffices for argument, but not for the deeper things.

[altersteve]

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?

True, but King James English was probably what Joseph Smith thought scripture should sound like. It would be strange if he DIDN'T use this style of language.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

True, but King James English was probably what Joseph Smith thought scripture should sound like. It would be strange if he DIDN'T use this style of language.

I so agree, why not use the form of language that the most used Versiom of the Bible in America, or why would God not use a familiar spirit. Edited January 29, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

I was a single father for fifteen years raising my six kids plus a severely handicapped foster child. I can assure you at no point did I think my life would be better through polygamy or polyandry.....nor did I get any offers. I'm assuming you think that whole situation would have been different if I was a woman??

[go_utes01]

I was a single father for fifteen years raising my six kids plus a severely handicapped foster child. I can assure you at no point did I think my life would be better through polygamy or polyandry.....nor did I get any offers. I'm assuming you think that whole situation would have been different if I was a woman??

He said he knows single women who would be open to the idea - your anecdotal experience does not change his anecdotal experience.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

Moral reason? No, perhaps not even ethical, but practical. I find a partner relationship difficult enough as it is without involving multiple others in the equation. I don't doubt many wives could share the work load but a real working relationship doesn't evolve when the man is sharing his attention and affection, money and time between more than one woman. Ask any woman who has been cheated on whether they think they got their fair share of time and affection. Anyone here who has more than two kids knows how difficult it is to share time with growing kids, to say nothing of trying to keep up with teenagers. I just think the logistics of plural marriage foster a male dominance and female subservience.

Had polygamy been practiced when I reached maturity it would have been a deal breaker for both my wife and myself. We would have turned away from active membership.