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

[Alvino]

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.

The point is that he discussed things with philosophers and reasoned with them which is quite a different picture from the one you painted of an apostle.

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.

There have been more than a few times when I've been confided what some members of the Church thought were deep truths and it didn't take much (except a lot of patience) for them to see what they thought was right really didn't make sense. Folks in general just don't realize how easy it is to be wrong and how fast it can be shown to them that what they saw as the hammer that hit the nail in the head really wasn't. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of such deeper truths from Mormonism. Insight and profundity from the general authorities was what we were talking about. At this point you pretty much seem to accept they at least don't communicate it, if they have it at all.

Yes, that certain propositions are true or false, but also deeper stuff as well.

What do you mean by "deeper truths"? You mean harder to understand propositions? Does the believer, once he receives them from God, have good reason for why they are true or just accepts them as true because God sent them?

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.

What I'm asking you is beyond the scope of those passages. You haven't answered what that deeper truth's nature or content is.

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.

For purposes of intellectual analysis it is.

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.

You seemed to be saying I had to grant God's existence to even start reasoning about whether Mormonism's claims were plausible or not. What's so interesting about receiving it from God when the issue is intellectual analysis? Whether Joe the Plumber or God Incarnate said them it's irrelevant.

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

For what about deeper things? For them to be given? For them to be accepted as true? For them to be made sense of? Please be more precise, Stargazer, you aren't getting the question.

Unless you take a very suspicious vow of secrecy (I don't know why God would demand that, but whatever), these true propositions can be shared with atheists.

Atheists can accept them as true for the sake of discussion and see whether they make sense or not.

Again, what is inaccessible to atheists about these deeper truths? God just doesn't want to share?

Edited January 28, 2013 by Alvino

[omni]

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.

Ha ha, I didn't realize you were Catholic. Much respect!

[cdowis]

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.

What about having children? Teenagers... crying children. What if you get twins.

Clearly having children is not for you.

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.

There are alot of single women who need the protection and association of a man and a family. I realize that would intrude on your own needs, but somehow it worked out for many families. And not for others, just as there are failed marriages.

You just do your best.

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.

Whereas a single man and woman creates an equality. The biggest issue is not the man but the primary wife who is really the dominant person in the household. She is really the one in charge.

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.

There are a hundred reasons to leave the church, and only one reason to stay.

[Damien the Leper]

No disrespect to the OP but I think this is a weird thread to start. Is Mormonism and its theology weird? Yes! Did some church leaders say some really weird stuff? Yes!...But that's part of what I love about Mormonism. In its own way it is against the grain of "traditional orthodoxy" and it has no problem challenging preconceived ideas.

BTW, JS coulda found a better way of translating the Book of Mormon than the head in a hat. He should have been more creative.

[Calm]

I find a partner relationship difficult enough as it is without involving multiple others in the equation.

I would not be surprised if the appeal of polygyny to some women is more about having the possibility of close relationships with other women than having a close relationship with a man.

There are alot of single women who need the protection and association of a man and a family. I realize that would intrude on your own needs, but somehow it worked out for many families. And not for others, just as there are failed marriages.

I agree that for many women, it would be highly desirable to live in a family setting, a sense of being surrounded and supported by family being more important possibly than the couple relationship, the entire family dynamic which includes a father being seen as most important as opposed to a romantic relationship with one's husband. There is the concept that many have that the most important thing for a family is for the husband and wife to put their relationship first and foremost, but not all healthy families work on that dynamic. Edited January 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[omni]

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.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Joseph_Smith_and_the_Kinderhook_Plates

"Pres J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

Would JS creating a history of the person with whom they were found be considered "certifying them as genuine"?

[Glenn101]

On the topic of profundity, I think that is really a non-issue. In fact it seems that God goes out of his way to detour around the "profound" with His callings. Take for instance, look at 1 Corinthians, Chapter 1:

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

When Jesus chose his apostles, there were a few learned men among them. But for His chief apostles, His first First Presidency, if you will, he chose unlettered fishermen, with Peter being in the lead among those unlettered.

God seems to place more of a premium on faith than on profundity.

Of course, that is just my two cent's worth.

Glenn

[Stargazer]

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 don't happen to believe that Joseph Smith had memorized whole chapters of Isaiah or other books of the Bible. And when he found that that particular chapter of Isaiah was being quoted, he used his memorized version instead.

I do happen to believe that the words were given to him word-for-word, and he spoke them aloud for his scribe to write. Therefore I happen to believe that it was the Lord that liked the sound of the King James Version, and that's how it was given to Joseph. For all we know, Nephi did not know the ultimate chapterization of Isaiah (nor did Isaiah), so if the KJV chapterization was used, then that's how the Lord wanted it to appear.

[Stargazer]

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.

Actually, I don't think you can know that. If plural marriage had survived to the present, it would have been a more-or-less accepted institution, and you might very well have had little or no problem with it.

Or maybe you still would have. You don't know for sure.

[Calm]

I don't happen to believe that Joseph Smith had memorized whole chapters of Isaiah or other books of the Bible. And when he found that that particular chapter of Isaiah was being quoted, he used his memorized version instead.

I do happen to believe that the words were given to him word-for-word, and he spoke them aloud for his scribe to write. Therefore I happen to believe that it was the Lord that liked the sound of the King James Version, and that's how it was given to Joseph. For all we know, Nephi did not know the ultimate chapterization of Isaiah (nor did Isaiah), so if the KJV chapterization was used, then that's how the Lord wanted it to appear.

There are some interesting variations of Isaiah in the BoM.

Also isn't there some discussion by Skousen that the language of the BoM doesn't parallel the King James version so much, but is more in line with language of a century or two prior to the KJ version's publication? There is no explanation of what that means, though I've heard some speculation and have my own ideas. My brain hurts so I am not sure my google skills are up to it at the moment, but I will look to see if I can find this information online. I have heard it in a couple of firesides by Dan Peterson and a report by Skousen IIRC.

[Calm]

On the topic of profundity, I think that is really a non-issue. In fact it seems that God goes out of his way to detour around the "profound" with His callings. Take for instance, look at 1 Corinthians, Chapter 1:

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

When Jesus chose his apostles, there were a few learned men among them. But for His chief apostles, His first First Presidency, if you will, he chose unlettered fishermen, with Peter being in the lead among those unlettered.

God seems to place more of a premium on faith than on profundity.

Of course, that is just my two cent's worth.

Glenn

I think the problem with claiming profundity for the Bible is whether it is as profound sounding in the original text as it is in later translations. I love the poetry of the KJ version, but I don't confuse that with what the original authors might have said.

[Calm]

Also isn't there some discussion by Skousen that the language of the BoM doesn't parallel the King James version so much, but is more in line with language of a century or two prior to the KJ version's publication? There is no explanation of what that means, though I've heard some speculation and have my own ideas. My brain hurts so I am not sure my google skills are up to it at the moment, but I will look to see if I can find this information online. I have heard it in a couple of firesides by Dan Peterson and a report by Skousen IIRC.

That was easier than I thought it would be:

http://maxwellinstit...um=5&id=436

Over the past two years, I have discovered evidence for a fourth significant conclusion about the original text:

4. The original vocabulary of the Book of Mormon appears to derive from the 1500s and 1600s, not from the 1800s.

This last finding is quite remarkable. Lexical evidence suggests that the original text contained a number of expressions and words with meanings that were lost from the English language by 1700. On the other hand, I have not been able thus far to find word meanings and expressions in the text that are known to have entered the English language after the early 1700s....

In the following sampling, I list some of the clearest examples in the Book of Mormon of this archaic vocabulary from the 1500s and 1600s. (In this discussion, I exclude, of course, archaic words such as besom 'broom' that are found in direct quotations from the King James Bible.) For each word and its meaning, I provide citations from the original text of the Book of Mormon, corresponding citations from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), and a range of dates for citations in the OED with that same meaning (except for citations from the King James Bible, original spellings are provided). In some instances, the word can be found with that meaning in the 1611 King James Bible. But some of these words predate 1611 by a few decades at least. The difficulty of these archaic words has sometimes resulted in accidental changes during the early transmission of the Book of Mormon text. At other times, editors and typesetters have replaced such words with more recognizable alternatives......

These new findings argue that Joseph Smith was not the author of the English-language translation of the Book of Mormon. Not only was the text revealed to him word for word, but the words themselves sometimes had meanings that he and his scribes would not have known, which occasionally led to misinterpretation. The Book of Mormon is not a 19th-century text, nor is it Joseph Smith's. The English-language text was revealed through him, but it was not precisely in his language or ours.

Edited January 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stargazer]

The point is that he discussed things with philosophers and reasoned with them which is quite a different picture from the one you painted of an apostle.

Perhaps you have a different version of scripture than I have. My version of what Paul told the philosophers goes like this:

22 ¶Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, bdwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of bone blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

32 ¶And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

Actually, the men gathered at the Areopagus were not so much philosophers as idlers much taken with discussion about anything and everything:

21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

That's it. Unless the scripture fails to report some profound wisdom that Paul expounded upon. And what does it sound like? Just like a General Conference talk. And how did these men respond? Pretty much like you have responded. Either mocking (and apologizing for it), or asking for more information ("We will hear thee again of this matter."), which meant in effect, go away and come again when you have some deeper things to say. In short, it made no sense to them; it wasn't profound enough.

There have been more than a few times when I've been confided what some members of the Church thought were deep truths and it didn't take much (except a lot of patience) for them to see what they thought was right really didn't make sense. Folks in general just don't realize how easy it is to be wrong and how fast it can be shown to them that what they saw as the hammer that hit the nail in the head really wasn't. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of such deeper truths from Mormonism. Insight and profundity from the general authorities was what we were talking about. At this point you pretty much seem to accept they at least don't communicate it, if they have it at all.

OK, have it your way. The General Authorities have no insight nor profundity. Paul the Apostle just came out and matter-of-factly told the "philosophers" that God created the earth, he doesn't dwell in temples, he isn't in those statues, and the day will come when he will judge everyone according to what they did in the flesh. And Jesus died and rose again on the third day.

The profundity exists in what are claimed to be true, which is:

• The Son of God came to earth as the Messiah, and suffered that the repentant could be forgiven
  
• He was put to a painful death, and on the third day afterwards he rose from the dead as an exalted being
  
• His sacrifice made it possible for all men to achieve the same status, if they would believe and repent of their evil deeds
  
• As evidence of the mission of the Messiah, Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead; he also told his followers (specifically the Apostles) that they would do greater deeds
  
• After His resurrection, the Apostles did do greater deeds, and among them was healing the sick and raising the dead, but they also took the Gospel to much of the known civilized world (or at least the Roman Empire)
  

As to the Latter-day Saints:

• After a long night of apostasy from the truth, God sent a Prophet to prepare the way for Second Coming of the Son of God
  
• This prophet restored precious truths to the world, including an organization similar in structure to that which Christ established originally
  
• As evidence of the mission of this prophet, he brought forth the Book of Mormon, and other scriptures such as the Doctrine and Covenants
  
• As further evidence of the mission of the prophet, he and his followers performed miracles, which included healing the sick and raising the dead.
  

And now some people are complaining because General Conference talks aren't profound enough.

What do you mean by "deeper truths"? You mean harder to understand propositions? Does the believer, once he receives them from God, have good reason for why they are true or just accepts them as true because God sent them?

What I'm asking you is beyond the scope of those passages. You haven't answered what that deeper truth's nature or content is.

You seemed to be saying I had to grant God's existence to even start reasoning about whether Mormonism's claims were plausible or not. What's so interesting about receiving it from God when the issue is intellectual analysis? Whether Joe the Plumber or God Incarnate said them it's irrelevant.

For what about deeper things? For them to be given? For them to be accepted as true? For them to be made sense of? Please be more precise, Stargazer, you aren't getting the question.

Look, Mormonism's claims are no less plausible than any other religion's claims. Intellectual analysis has its uses, but finding God when one is determined that He must not exist isn't one of them. And if alll you want is profundity, or worse, what those useless drones on Mars Hill wanted, namely, to stand around idly discussing random subjects waiting for someone to come up with something clever, then you won't find it. And you'll complain until the day you die that nobody is being deep enough.

You won't find any deeper things until you know that the basic things are true. This is not trigonometry, nor is it calculus. It is quite subjective. If you don't want to know, you won't, it's as simple as that.

Did you listen to the Boyd K. Packer talk that I referred you to? Did you read Alma 12:9? God wants to give you knowledge, but He isn't going to hand it over when you're not really seriious about it.

Unless you take a very suspicious vow of secrecy (I don't know why God would demand that, but whatever), these true propositions can be shared with atheists.

Of course I have taken a vow of secrecy! Otherwise I would just splat it all over you! And having done so, you would just dismiss it. If I were to tell you of certain experiences that I have had, and what I have learned from them, you would first of all doubt the experience was real, and second you would dismiss what I learned. All because they happened to me.

Well, I have not actually taken a vow of secrecy, I was just being dramatic. But this reticence in revealing profound truths (and I am sure you wouldn't find them profound at all), comes from what we have been taught by Jesus in the New Testament, when he told his Apostles not to tell certain things; it was taught in the Book of Mormon (remember Alma 12:9?), and it was taught in Boyd K. Packer's talk "The Spirit Beareth Record".

And because you keep asking for it, I must surmise that you haven't read any of these things, even though I am pretty sure I provided the text and links to all of them.

The profound things are the commonplace ones of the Resurrection and the Atonement and the Restoration. You want something deeper? Well, you won't find it, because THERE ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE DEEPER OR MORE PROFOUND THAN THESE THINGS.

Atheists can accept them as true for the sake of discussion and see whether they make sense or not.

Again, what is inaccessible to atheists about these deeper truths? God just doesn't want to share?

I was never an atheist, but there are plenty of LDS on this board who were, and they could tell you perhaps better than I. Perhaps one of them will share his or her thoughts on this.

But this "see whether they make sense or not" is going to get you exactly nothing. And you're right, God doesn't want to share unless you're serious about it. And how can God share anything with someone who thinks that God is a fiction?

Assuming you are male, and are married, I expect that you love your wife very much. It is an emotion that is very deep within you. Because of this, when I tell you that I love my wife very much and long to be with her when we are apart, and enjoy the sight of her when I come home from work, you can understand it perfectly -- because you have experienced something similar. But if I were to tell you of a certain experience I am thinking of right now, one that I had with the Spirit of the Lord in which was revealed to me a particular path I should take in life, you could not relate to it. I can practically guarantee you that you would first of all look for some other explanation for what I reported about the experience; and you would prefer that explanation over anything I had to say. If I told you about subsequent events that flowed from my following the path that was revealed to me, which confirmed the validity of the original experience, I can tell you now that you would explain this away, too, and you would prefer to believe that it was I myself who had engineereed the final outcome subconciously, in order to bring them about.

You don't believe. You don't want to believe. And you won't believe. I think you are here principally because you want to find confirmation for your disbelief, in that no-one will be able to meet any of the requirements you have set -- which requirements are pretty much all intellectual. But it is this insistence upon the intellectual which was the same insistence that the men on Mars Hill had, by the way, which will cause you to remain unmoved.

Read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover, with an open mind, willing to accept that it is true if it should prove to be true, and without relying upon your intellectuality, grant God the option of softening your heart, and ask Him with real intent if the book is His work or not. And if He tells you it is His work, then be willing to act accordingly.

I don't know what else I can tell you. I cannot get any profounder than this.

[Freedom]

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.

Since you refuse to provide any definitions or examples, I am left to draw my own conclusions. Enough posturing, show me the money.

[bcuzbcuz]

Actually, I don't think you can know that. If plural marriage had survived to the present, it would have been a more-or-less accepted institution, and you might very well have had little or no problem with it.

Or maybe you still would have. You don't know for sure.

Valid point. I was raised in the church. If polygamy had been an accepted practice at that time I probably would have grown up with those parameters.

I baptized my first wife when she was 21. She grew up in a Lutheran society and polygamy has never been accepted there. I doubt she would have felt comfortable with polygamy, she said so, countless times. Before she died she even wanted me to promise to not to re-marry. She blamed that opinion on her own jealousy. Know thyself. She knew herself well.

Were I still active I would not accept polygamy no matter how it was re-introduced. It amazes me that so many speak favourably of polygamy that they know very, very little about. Is that merely wishful thinking?

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

What about having children? Teenagers... crying children. What if you get twins.

Clearly having children is not for you.

Now you're just being silly. If the question had been about raising children I would have addressed that issue. But the question was about multiple wives. Whether or not I am or was a good parent isn't something decided on this board but by my 6 own children, their partners and my 12 grandchildren or the 3 foster children I raised, in my custody for between 4 to 15 years, and the three step children I have from my second marriage.

I do not think I would have been a better father with even more children and even more wives. But again, that isn't decided here on this board.

[Alvino]

Perhaps you have a different version of scripture than I have. My version of what Paul told the philosophers goes like this:

Acts 17:

16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols. ¹⁷ So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. ¹⁸ And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him.

Actually, the men gathered at the Areopagus were not so much philosophers as idlers much taken with discussion about anything and everything:

18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him.

That's it. Unless the scripture fails to report some profound wisdom that Paul expounded upon. And what does it sound like? Just like a General Conference talk. And how did these men respond? Pretty much like you have responded. Either mocking (and apologizing for it), or asking for more information ("We will hear thee again of this matter."), which meant in effect, go away and come again when you have some deeper things to say. In short, it made no sense to them; it wasn't profound enough.

I never tried to show by that passage that Paul was giving profound teachings but only that the picture you showed of just a repetitive "simple and plain" teaching from the apostles didn't fit this account.

Look, Mormonism's claims are no less plausible than any other religion's claims. Intellectual analysis has its uses, but finding God when one is determined that He must not exist isn't one of them. And if alll you want is profundity, or worse, what those useless drones on Mars Hill wanted, namely, to stand around idly discussing random subjects waiting for someone to come up with something clever, then you won't find it. And you'll complain until the day you die that nobody is being deep enough.

Because I say nobody is profound, right?

You won't find any deeper things until you know that the basic things are true. This is not trigonometry, nor is it calculus. It is quite subjective. If you don't want to know, you won't, it's as simple as that.

Did you listen to the Boyd K. Packer talk that I referred you to? Did you read Alma 12:9? God wants to give you knowledge, but He isn't going to hand it over when you're not really seriious about it.

Right... I'm not serious about understanding things. Sure.

Of course I have taken a vow of secrecy! Otherwise I would just splat it all over you! And having done so, you would just dismiss it. If I were to tell you of certain experiences that I have had, and what I have learned from them, you would first of all doubt the experience was real, and second you would dismiss what I learned. All because they happened to me.

I actually wouldn't be so dismissive as you portray me but I still don't get how that's relevant. Let's say in those unmentioned experiences God was somehow involved. What of that? What propositions did you learn were true from those experiences?

Well, I have not actually taken a vow of secrecy, I was just being dramatic. But this reticence in revealing profound truths (and I am sure you wouldn't find them profound at all), comes from what we have been taught by Jesus in the New Testament, when he told his Apostles not to tell certain things; it was taught in the Book of Mormon (remember Alma 12:9?), and it was taught in Boyd K. Packer's talk "The Spirit Beareth Record".

If I were to not find them profound, and they didn't really make sense, I assure you I could make you see it. But we'll never know, will we?

"My precious! I have the answer but I won't tell ya.... my precious precious answers!"

And because you keep asking for it, I must surmise that you haven't read any of these things, even though I am pretty sure I provided the text and links to all of them.

The profound things are the commonplace ones of the Resurrection and the Atonement and the Restoration. You want something deeper? Well, you won't find it, because THERE ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE DEEPER OR MORE PROFOUND THAN THESE THINGS.

?? Then, what were you hiding?

I was never an atheist, but there are plenty of LDS on this board who were, and they could tell you perhaps better than I. Perhaps one of them will share his or her thoughts on this.

fingers crossed.

But this "see whether they make sense or not" is going to get you exactly nothing.

Here's where, if I were a Mormon, I would jump in and tell you how wrong you were in dismissing such a huge and powerful aspect of our humanity as is our exercising our powers of understanding.

And you're right, God doesn't want to share unless you're serious about it. And how can God share anything with someone who thinks that God is a fiction?

Let's put it this way. If someone told you that I, an apparently evil human being, was in fact good, what would you say? You would think you could be wrong, of course, but that certainly doesn't seem plausible to you. You would ask for evidence. You would probably think as follows: "Ilet's say he is good; then, why did he do such-and-such? That doesn't seem to be an action a non-evil person would do. What improbable reason was there for him to do it?" And then someone could explain to you or not.

That's just about all what I'm doing, Star.

Assuming you are male, and are married, I expect that you love your wife very much. It is an emotion that is very deep within you. Because of this, when I tell you that I love my wife very much and long to be with her when we are apart, and enjoy the sight of her when I come home from work, you can understand it perfectly -- because you have experienced something similar. But if I were to tell you of a certain experience I am thinking of right now, one that I had with the Spirit of the Lord in which was revealed to me a particular path I should take in life, you could not relate to it. I can practically guarantee you that you would first of all look for some other explanation for what I reported about the experience; and you would prefer that explanation over anything I had to say. If I told you about subsequent events that flowed from my following the path that was revealed to me, which confirmed the validity of the original experience, I can tell you now that you would explain this away, too, and you would prefer to believe that it was I myself who had engineereed the final outcome subconciously, in order to bring them about.

See, that's tricky because you would tell the story in such a way that I honestly couldn't hope to untangle the situation. It wouldn't be just you, that's how we tell very personally significant stories.

You don't believe. You don't want to believe. And you won't believe. I think you are here principally because you want to find confirmation for your disbelief, in that no-one will be able to meet any of the requirements you have set -- which requirements are pretty much all intellectual. But it is this insistence upon the intellectual which was the same insistence that the men on Mars Hill had, by the way, which will cause you to remain unmoved.

We then have very different views of the 'intellect'. Honestly, there are few things that I find as interesting as finding new ways of thought, make sense of what previously didn't. It is like an ever moving work of art to which we can have access and I feel privileged to be human for that.

Read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover, with an open mind, willing to accept that it is true if it should prove to be true, and without relying upon your intellectuality, grant God the option of softening your heart, and ask Him with real intent if the book is His work or not. And if He tells you it is His work, then be willing to act accordingly.

That time is over now. I read it many times and prayed more and I honestly believed. It just became impossible for me to sustain belief when there was so much nonsense, pride, and cruelty in your doctrines or in what sprang from your doctrines. It became impossible when I realized the monopoly I thought Mormons had over their reactions to religious art (i.e. the Spirit) was accessible by paths that conflicted with Mormonism, even in some actions you call sins. I've never felt more the Spirit than as an atheist. You are asking me to be dishonest to myself in wanting to believe something I believe to be false but I'm willing to be shown wrong. It's even a little rude (though I take it as fun) to ask someone to make themselves want to really believe something they discovered after years of at times painful meditation, study, and thought to be false.

I don't know what else I can tell you. I cannot get any profounder than this.

No worries, Star, thanks for taking the time. had a good ride.

[altersteve]

I don't happen to believe that Joseph Smith had memorized whole chapters of Isaiah or other books of the Bible. And when he found that that particular chapter of Isaiah was being quoted, he used his memorized version instead.

I do happen to believe that the words were given to him word-for-word, and he spoke them aloud for his scribe to write. Therefore I happen to believe that it was the Lord that liked the sound of the King James Version, and that's how it was given to Joseph. For all we know, Nephi did not know the ultimate chapterization of Isaiah (nor did Isaiah), so if the KJV chapterization was used, then that's how the Lord wanted it to appear.

I'm just talking about the KJV-style language and how Joseph Smith probably thought that's how scripture is supposed to sound, not the parts that appear to be word-for-word with the KJV Bible. I agree with you on that aspect.

[altersteve]

http://en.fairmormon...nderhook_Plates

"Pres J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."

Would JS creating a history of the person with whom they were found be considered "certifying them as genuine"?

If you read the entire article you linked to, perhaps you would understand the issue a little better.

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

God's ways are most defintely not my ways. But then I don't go around claiming the things I say are God's words.

However, were I king of the world, you could expect some changes. The first thing I would do is rewrite my autobiography and make all things I did wrong, instantly right as rain. Much like the prophets of old. We're only left with their "revised and edited" versions of the story, Abraham and Jakob and especially David. I would love to hear God's actual thoughts about David and Bethsheba.

I quote Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the king!"

[Maidservant]

Again, what is inaccessible to [[atheists]] about these [[deeper truths]]? God just doesn't want to share?

It's not informational. It's experiential.

I put 'atheists' in brackets because this has nothing to do with that self-identification only. I put 'deeper truths' in brackets because again, what I'm about to say can apply

to any frame or given situation one is concerned with.

You already have the information. It is completely accessible to you. As a specific example: you can read the same passage of Book of Mormon I can. We both have the same information.

But our experiences are unique to ourselves. Your experience of that passage may be different than my experience of that passage.

No one else can provide an experience to you. You are responsible for many of your experiences, and for other experiences that come just by living and can't be accounted for, you are responsible for the frame and response you give those experiences.

God is not informational. God is experiential.

All people are free to google all kinds of information about roller coasters. They can understand all the engineering aspects. They can read about anatomical consequences of roller coasters (raised heart rates, screaming, etc). There can be roller coaster forum boards. There can be The Church of the Roller Coaster.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with actually getting on the roller coaster and going for a ride! And until we do, nobody can ever provide a sufficient explanation. And funny thing, you don't have to be a roller coaster engineer to have complete knowledge of what the ride is! You just get on! Being an engineer can neither add to nor subtract from the experience (maybe, maybe it would).

AFTER you have been on the roller coaster, you can say, I loved that! I'll do it again! or "NEVER AGAIN!"

Incidentally, in my understanding this is the meaning of the parable of the ten virgins. I most often hear this parable explained in terms of actions, ordinances that bar us from 'heaven'. But I don't think that is what it is saying. It is saying that there some things that can not be given from one to another. We all have to have our own oil, our own experience. And it the very experience or living of this oil that opens the door. That's what the temple teaches as well. It is not something given; it is something lived.

If you are satisfied with your living, then what is the reason to ask for more? If you want more, then ask, ask, ask and live, live, live!

Edited January 30, 2013 by Maidservant

[cdowis]

Very nice. "God is not about giving information but about personal experience." (Alma 32)

Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden to learn, from their own experience, good from evil.

[Maidservant]

I also wanted to add to my post above that an engineer who never rode the roller coaster who is stopping a non-engineer as he gets off the ride, and tries to convince the rider "You really didn't have any fun!" or something; the rider would look at him crazy. It's up to the rider's own judgment.

Of course, the roller coaster we are all on is life, so we can approach it how we like and what makes the most sense to us; and again, no one else not in our shoes can really tell us anything. This goes both ways.

[Alvino]

It's not informational. It's experiential.

And this is just a dogma on the part of believers. Never have I felt the 'Spirit' more deeply and strongly than as an atheist, and, trust me on this, I was the most spiritual person I have come across to date. The only thing that pushes believers to believe they have a monopoly on religious experiences is that they want it, or need it, to be so.

I put 'atheists' in brackets because this has nothing to do with that self-identification only.

To be clear, I just used "atheists" to get a group we would agree isn't looking for revelations from God.

I put 'deeper truths' in brackets because again, what I'm about to say can apply

to any frame or given situation one is concerned with.

You already have the information. It is completely accessible to you. As a specific example: you can read the same passage of Book of Mormon I can. We both have the same information.

But our experiences are unique to ourselves. Your experience of that passage may be different than my experience of that passage.

No one else can provide an experience to you. You are responsible for many of your experiences, and for other experiences that come just by living and can't be accounted for, you are responsible for the frame and response you give those experiences.

God is not informational. God is experiential.

The major problem I have with this view of yours is that it is totally disconnected from actual Church practice, teaching, and history which is what I was asking about. Are you going to tell me now that D&C is a collection of non-information God gave to Joseph? BoM? Ten Commandments?

[Alvino]

Very nice. "God is not about giving information but about personal experience." (Alma 32)

Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden to learn, from their own experience, good from evil.

God told Adam and Eve a bunch of information:

Not to eat from the tree.

If they eat from the tree they'll die.

That from now on they would have to work.

That the woman would hurt when having a baby.

Etc.

This is the kind of information that I was talking about.