Stone Box

[Stargazer]

This certainly answers all of my questions and issues. I feel better already.

An ancient 1400 year old, stone box artifact that suddenly has no earthly value whatsoever, so much so that no one thinks to hold it in any esteem and then it sloshes down the hill in a mudslide (even thought the hill was covered in trees at the time) and for all intents and purposes it pretty much ......dissolves.

That is very inconvenient........or is it?

What did you have for breakfast? The unfertilized embryos of certain flightless birds, perhaps? Or maybe just eggs. You nicely restated what I said, except that you restated it with words of enhanced cynicism. Does this change things? Really?

Do you make it a habit of insisting that the Lord treat physical artifacts as if He was the Catholic Church? Where's the Ark of the Covenant? It surely existed, but where is it now? And while some believe it is resting in the bowells of some GSA warehouse, I doubt it. How about that manger? Or the wood from the cross that Jesus was crucified on? God has made a habit of disregarding physical evidence of His works since the day of creation.

And you want Him to preserve a makeshift stone box that has no use other than being used in a dispute over its provenance?

Give me a break.

PS, my son says I am being pompous. He may be correct. But so what.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

Sometimes I think you are starting to "get" it, and then you post something like this and it is clear you do not.

Sister Tacenda, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is what saves. The Church has taught this for its entire existence. It is a fact however that we do not believe in "cheap" grace, meaning that we don't believe we're "in" if all we do is say "I believe". The Lord does not apply His grace until "after all we can do". Keeping in mind that ALL we can do isn't even minimally acceptable to obtain forgiveness -- because there is nothing we can do to merit it. But while the works do not save us, true repentance is required to obtain the grace.

As to the other, why on earth would the Lord inspire Joseph to lie about a physical artifact? You might as well describe the tables of the Law that Moses received as a holy fiction, a prop, as well. Moses was a stone mason and built them himself -- but God inspired him to say that he received them miraculously. And Jesus really didn't resurrect, because he really wasn't killed. Peter, James and John paid Pilate a large sum to have his soldiers fake Jesus' crucifixion. So this enabled him to appear to die and then resurrect, so that he could show up three days later in great health. And afterwards, in order to keep the story from unraveling, he traveled to India and lived to a ripe old age and sired many children.

AAARRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!

Brother StarGazer, I'm giving you practice in case you have a mission opportunity with an investigater that isn't always cooperative. No, I feel like since becoming aware of difficult history, I'm either a pre convert or maybe a de convert, just figuring it all out. You seem very stalwart in your testimony. Why do some change and some are immoveable? I guess I'm coming to this as a child does, it's all new ground. I was born in the covenant, and never got the chance to research my religion. Are you a convert? If you are then you were probably alot older and had that opportunity. So I'm exploring the possibilities, since hearing/reading that there have been descrepencies found in church history. I once heard that Joseph had a metal shop near his home, (that could be anti information). What if he felt he needed to have the plates, or treasure to convince the truth? There were a few that had also received visions. Why would he allow only a few to see the plates and not his wife, and even those that were witnesses only saw with visionary eyes or only just hefted and felt them? His wife should have been the first to see them, and why would he say they would be destroyed if someone looked without permission? We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, why weren't they taken back? Why are there over 4,000 corrections made to the BoM if Joseph was to have seen each word on parchment and it would stay until his transcriber wrote it down right. Why shouldn't Joseph receive in his mind, the restoration? Why not that revelatory process? Throughout the bible we read parables in order to teach, why not the BoM stories? Why does the heading in the Book of Abraham now read that it was possibly revealed instead of taken word for word from the Papyrus?

[Questing Beast]

I was also BIC, and now it all feels like "new ground" to me as well. The metaphor I used, when I realized my decision, was, "jumping off the cliff", leaving all the baggage of my inculcated upbringing behind. I am waiting for it all to make sense, as if hearing it for the first time, and it is not convincing. No religion is convincing. But "God" Is convincing. "God Is Existence"....

[ERayR]

No, I still think he may have been inspired to start the church. No, I haven't been on anti sites. Realistically, I don't see how he needed the plates if he never used them except for the first 116 pages, which we don't have. You must haved missed it, but in my post I mentioned that he might have been spiritually driven to restore the church.

I didn't miss it. That explanation falls into the pious fraud explanation. If that were the case then nothing is real and atheism is the only possible answer. Fortunately I have been able to acquire the witness of the Holy Ghost promised by Nephi.

I accept he was spiritual driven but not in the way you are intimating.

[Tacenda]

I didn't miss it. That explanation falls into the pious fraud explanation. If that were the case then nothing is real and atheism is the only possible answer. Fortunately I have been able to acquire the witness of the Holy Ghost promised by Nephi.

I accept he was spiritual driven but not in the way you are intimating.

Clearly, to me, something is holding me to the church. I'm either real dense or hoodwinked, but can't come to a conclusion. You are a lucky fellow to have had that witness. But please don't think (not that you have) I haven't tried to get a witness of the truthfulness, because I've tried. Now I guess, I've been hardened by the experience, and have resorted to facts mostly. And I believe faith should be supplied with some facts, or we could believe in some pretty crazy stuff. I think you and several on this board are very blessed, to have not strayed when you have several facts, either for or against.

[ERayR]

Brother StarGazer, I'm giving you practice in case you have a mission opportunity with an investigater that isn't always cooperative. No, I feel like since becoming aware of difficult history, I'm either a pre convert or maybe a de convert, just figuring it all out. You seem very stalwart in your testimony. Why do some change and some are immoveable? I guess I'm coming to this as a child does, it's all new ground. I was born in the covenant, and never got the chance to research my religion. Are you a convert? If you are then you were probably alot older and had that opportunity. So I'm exploring the possibilities, since hearing/reading that there have been descrepencies found in church history. I once heard that Joseph had a metal shop near his home, (that could be anti information). What if he felt he needed to have the plates, or treasure to convince the truth? There were a few that had also received visions. Why would he allow only a few to see the plates and not his wife, and even those that were witnesses only saw with visionary eyes or only just hefted and felt them? His wife should have been the first to see them, and why would he say they would be destroyed if someone looked without permission? We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, why weren't they taken back? Why are there over 4,000 corrections made to the BoM if Joseph was to have seen each word on parchment and it would stay until his transcriber wrote it down right. Why shouldn't Joseph receive in his mind, the restoration? Why not that revelatory process? Throughout the bible we read parables in order to teach, why not the BoM stories? Why does the heading in the Book of Abraham now read that it was possibly revealed instead of taken word for word from the Papyrus?

A couple of issues, both have the same answer: First difficult history. There is no difficult history. There is only issues you choose to make difficult. Whether ones testimony falters or remains immutable is your choice. Whether you listen to the whisperings of the Holy Ghost or the hissing of the doubters is your choice.

[Tacenda]

I didn't miss it. That explanation falls into the pious fraud explanation. If that were the case then nothing is real and atheism is the only possible answer. Fortunately I have been able to acquire the witness of the Holy Ghost promised by Nephi.

I accept he was spiritual driven but not in the way you are intimating.

And this is where I don't even want to venture.

[ERayR]

Clearly, to me, something is holding me to the church. I'm either real dense or hoodwinked, but can't come to a conclusion. You are a lucky fellow to have had that witness. But please don't think (not that you have) I haven't tried to get a witness of the truthfulness, because I've tried. Now I guess, I've been hardened by the experience, and have resorted to facts mostly. And I believe faith should be supplied with some facts, or we could believe in some pretty crazy stuff. I think you and several on this board are very blessed, to have not strayed when you have several facts, either for or against.

What are you expecting that witness to be like? Are you expecting a Paul or an Alma experience? Possible but not likely to happen. If you will accept the still small voice experience then all you need do is choose to believe and you will see that it has been there all along but you have been rejecting it. At least that has been my experience.

[ERayR]

And this is where I don't even want to venture.

Good its not a pleasant place. At least not for me.

[Palerider]

What did you have for breakfast? The unfertilized embryos of certain flightless birds, perhaps? Or maybe just eggs. You nicely restated what I said, except that you restated it with words of enhanced cynicism. Does this change things? Really?

Do you make it a habit of insisting that the Lord treat physical artifacts as if He was the Catholic Church? Where's the Ark of the Covenant? It surely existed, but where is it now? And while some believe it is resting in the bowells of some GSA warehouse, I doubt it. How about that manger? Or the wood from the cross that Jesus was crucified on? God has made a habit of disregarding physical evidence of His works since the day of creation.

And you want Him to preserve a makeshift stone box that has no use other than being used in a dispute over its provenance?

Give me a break.

PS, my son says I am being pompous. He may be correct. But so what.

Stargazer,

Don't sweat the "pompous" thing. You can't hold a candle to someone who used to post here, but I haven't (and hope not to) seen him lately.

Now there was "pompous" and "arrogance" honed to perfection. You seem to be a very sincere and well intentioned person by comparison.

[Palerider]

I was also BIC, and now it all feels like "new ground" to me as well. The metaphor I used, when I realized my decision, was, "jumping off the cliff", leaving all the baggage of my inculcated upbringing behind. I am waiting for it all to make sense, as if hearing it for the first time, and it is not convincing. No religion is convincing. But "God" Is convincing. "God Is Existence"....

Have you ever read a recent book called: " Proof of Heaven " ? I would highly recommend it.

[ERayR]

as if hearing it for the first time, and it is not convincing. No religion is convincing. But "God" Is convincing. "God Is Existence"....

Do you actually think it can be "as if hearing it for the first time"? You have already made your decision to reject and it is in your mind. Once it is heard there is never another first time.

[Palerider]

I didn't miss it. That explanation falls into the pious fraud explanation. If that were the case then nothing is real and atheism is the only possible answer. Fortunately I have been able to acquire the witness of the Holy Ghost promised by Nephi.

I accept he was spiritual driven but not in the way you are intimating.

There are many millions of Christians out there with testimonies of Christ who do quite well without Joseph and the plates. Having been on both sides of this fence I wouldn't be so quick to throw away your testimony of the Savior. I have the feeling you're bigger and stronger than that.

I would highly recommend you take some time to listen to Ravi Zacharias (don't let the name scare you off, I've learned more from him than almost any general authority I've ever listened to)

He's the only other evangelical I know of besides Dale Moody who was ever invited by the Mormons to speak at the LDS Tabernacle.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Palerider

[ERayR]

There are many millions of Chistians out there with testimonies of Christ who do quite well without Joseph and the plates. Having been on both sides of this fence I wouldn't be so quick to throw away your testimony of the Savior. I have the feeling you're bigger and stronger than that.

I would highly recommend you take some time to listen to Ravi Zacharias (don't let the name scare you off, I've learned more from him than almost any general authority I've ever listened to)

He's the only other evangelical I know of besides Dale Moody who was ever invited by the Mormons to speak at the LDS Tabernacle.

Fortunately I have received my witness. I am not a believer in one size fits all and neither is the LDS Church. Articles of Faith #11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Also see D & C 76.

Why would I be afraid of the name Ravi Zacharias? Is he a hit man for the Mafia or something.

Edited May 18, 2013 by ERayR

[Palerider]

Fortunately I have received my witness. I am not a believer in one size fits all and neither is the LDS Church. Articles of Faith #11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Also see D & C 76.

Why would I be afraid of the name Ravi Zacharias? Is he a hit man for the Mafia or something.

I'm afraid your church disagrees with you:

"I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ." - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are... [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true." -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289-91

So, if I am a Christian who does not believe in Joseph Smith then the culture and teachings of the LDS faith are, that I am anti-christ.

You say put your faith in Christ but it is only as it is filtered through Joseph.

I believe the scripture when it says: There is only one mediator between man and God and that is Jesus Christ.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Palerider

[Questing Beast]

Do you actually think it can be "as if hearing it for the first time"? You have already made your decision to reject and it is in your mind. Once it is heard there is never another first time.

True. But to pull back and take a long, hard look at everything you've been trying to believe for decades, is making an attempt to view everything in a new way, or for the first time in a different way. For those BIC it is the closest thing to "hearing it for the first time" that I know of.

I really don't see how I can ignore or deny what I see now. There is no going back to something when a shift in perspective makes everything different. That isn't the same thing as rejecting. Rejecting dogma does not excuse the promises to self, spouse and God to live by principles known through experience to be true. I just hold that those principles are in effect for everyone, i.e. that the blessings come by living life in accordance to the principles. That is why I remain active in the Church. I see no reason why what I have always known as true principles should suddenly change simply because the religious world view I once held changed....

[ERayR]

I'm afraid your church disagrees with you:

"I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ." - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are... [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true." -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289-91

So, if I am a Christian who does not believe in Joseph Smith then the culture and teachings of the LDS faith are, that I am anti-christ.

You say put your faith in Christ but it is only as it is filtered through Joseph.

I believe the scripture when it says: There is only one mediator between man and God and that is Jesus Christ.

Note: I did say the Church did not teach a one size fits all. That you are either in or out. I suggested that you read D&C Section 76. It outlines three major divisions of acceptance of Gods word. Even the least of these was described as a glory greater than we can imagine.

I'm afraid my church does not disagree with me. The only disagreement is with your bad understanding and straw man depictions of what my church actually teaches. But then you knew that because you have been told before. So now I think that leaves you without excuse for your willful misrepresentations.

Edited May 19, 2013 by ERayR

[ERayR]

True. But to pull back and take a long, hard look at everything you've been trying to believe for decades, is making an attempt to view everything in a new way, or for the first time in a different way. For those BIC it is the closest thing to "hearing it for the first time" that I know of.

I really don't see how I can ignore or deny what I see now. There is no going back to something when a shift in perspective makes everything different. That isn't the same thing as rejecting. Rejecting dogma does not excuse the promises to self, spouse and God to live by principles known through experience to be true. I just hold that those principles are in effect for everyone, i.e. that the blessings come by living life in accordance to the principles. That is why I remain active in the Church. I see no reason why what I have always known as true principles should suddenly change simply because the religious world view I once held changed....

Some of the above we disagree on. I think you have chosen to believe error in some areas. However, I agree that when principles are lived one receives the blessings attached to those principles. D & C 130:20-21.

20 There is a ^alaw, irrevocably decreed in ^bheaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all ^cblessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any ^ablessing from God, it is by ^bobedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

[Palerider]

Note: I did say the Church did not teach a one size fits all. That you are either in or out. I suggested that you read D&C Section 76. It outlines three major divisions of acceptance of Gods word. Even the least of these was described as a glory greater than we can imagine.

I'm afraid my church does not disagree with me. The only disagreement is with your bad understanding and straw man depictions of what my church actually teaches. But then you knew that because you have been told before. So now I think that leaves you without excuse for your willful misrepresentations.

I think you are mis-representing what the church teaches. Even "salvation" in a lower kingdom is considered a form of damnation in the LDS faith. In order to "acheive" full "exaltation/salvation" in the highest degree, one will have to conform to the teachings of Joseph Smith and accept him as a prophet. That is a "one size fits all" requirement for complete salvation and to say otherwise is to parse words and play with the truth.

But if it helps you sleep at night to call it "willful misrepresentation", then by all means go ahead.

[Palerider]

Some of the above we disagree on. I think you have chosen to believe error in some areas. However, I agree that when principles are lived one receives the blessings attached to those principles. D & C 130:20-21.

20 There is a ^alaw, irrevocably decreed in ^bheaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all ^cblessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any ^ablessing from God, it is by ^bobedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

This is a patently false teaching.

See Ezra 9:13

"And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this;"

Also Matt. 5:45

"That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

It is obvious that Heavanly Father blesses us at times when we do not obey the law and treats us with great patience at times when we do not deserve it.

It's called GRACE............

But some would have us believe that we are like monkeys pushing the right button and getting the little biscuit that roles down the chute.

It leaves people (especially Mormon women) worrying at night if they lived all of the laws that day and why sometimes good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. It creates a spiritual tension between man and God that shouldn't exist.

Whether it is created intentionally, ignorantly or not, It is false doctrine.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Palerider

[Storm Rider]

I'm afraid your church disagrees with you:

"I have taught for thirty years, and still teach, that he that believeth in his heart and confesseth with his mouth that Jesus is the Christ and that Joseph Smith is his Prophet to this generation, is of God; and he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fulness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ." - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are... [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true." -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289-91

So, if I am a Christian who does not believe in Joseph Smith then the culture and teachings of the LDS faith are, that I am anti-christ.

You say put your faith in Christ but it is only as it is filtered through Joseph.

I believe the scripture when it says: There is only one mediator between man and God and that is Jesus Christ.

I think that is Brigham's opinion; it certainly is not the Church's position. Why would you think it would be? If someone believes in Christ as the Son of God and seeks to follow him as their Savior and Redeemer, then they are as Christian as anyone can be. Let me be clear, there is one Savior and there is no intermediary between him and an individual ever. No prophet, no teacher, no apostle, not another single human is a filter or intermediary for the Savior. Others may teach us, but nothing they say will have any significant impact on an individual's life without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. No teacher provides us a complete understanding of Jesus; that only comes by being a disciple that constantly seeks all truth. You have to be just as careful about a narrow perception of a LDS as you project on others their narrow view of other followers of truth.

[Tacenda]

This is a patently false teaching.

See Ezra 9:13

"And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this;"

Also Matt. 5:45

"That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

It is obvious that Heavanly Father blesses us at times when we do not obey the law and treats us with great patience at times when we do not deserve it.

It's called GRACE............

But some would have us believe that we are like monkeys pushing the right button and getting the little biscuit that roles down the chute.

It leaves people (especially Mormon women) worrying at night if they lived all of the laws that day and why sometimes good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. It creates a spiritual tension between man and God that shouldn't exist.

Whether it is created intentionally, ignorantly or not, It is false doctrine.

I never liked those scriptures about doing things first in order to get the blessings, I want to do them because it's the right thing to do. And God is not beholden to us ever, he's in charge, Edited May 19, 2013 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

I never liked those scriptures about doing things first in order to get the blessings, I want to do them because it's the right thing to do. And God is not beholden to us ever, he's in charge,

God is never beholden to us but if you think anybody lives the teachings of their church without the thought of a reward in the back of their mind you are mistaken. How many people would attend a church service(of any denomination) without the thought of heaven in their mind? I would guess that without a concept of heaven and its rewards you yourself would not be worried about religion.

[ERayR]

This is a patently false teaching.

See Ezra 9:13

"And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this;"

Also Matt. 5:45

"That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."

It is obvious that Heavanly Father blesses us at times when we do not obey the law and treats us with great patience at times when we do not deserve it.

It's called GRACE............

But some would have us believe that we are like monkeys pushing the right button and getting the little biscuit that roles down the chute.

It leaves people (especially Mormon women) worrying at night if they lived all of the laws that day and why sometimes good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. It creates a spiritual tension between man and God that shouldn't exist.

Whether it is created intentionally, ignorantly or not, It is false doctrine.

And you are not participating in your religious practices for the reward of ending up in heaven (whatever your concept is)? The difference between you and LDS is you believe you can get there in your sins and LDS believe in trying to rid myself of theirs.

[Tacenda]

God is never beholden to us but if you think anybody lives the teachings of their church without the thought of a reward in the back of their mind you are mistaken. How many people would attend a church service(of any denomination) without the thought of heaven in their mind? I would guess that without a concept of heaven and its rewards you yourself would not be worried about religion.

That's exactly the difference between non LDS Christian and LDS Christian, works and no works. You hit the nail on the head.