HappyJackWagon Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I am not sure about you. For me, I think I was truly ready. Because I had been and then left, I think God needed to be totally sure I was ready. So, God kept the pull in my heart...but did not give all the answers I needed. Till now. Or maybe, I had not humbled myself enough. I just know that our time is not His time. He did not give up on me...and those praying for me never gave up....and everytime I gave up, He gave me a little pushI'm glad you're finding what you had been missing.
UtahTexan Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I'm glad you're finding what you had been missing. And if I can....everyone can..... I went from LDS to very anti...back to LDS...... 4
Duncan Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 So what happens when the promised witness doesn't come? What happens when the heavens seem to be closed? Couldn't silence be reasonably interpreted as an answer to reject the claim? Not to talk dumb to you or anything but silence is silence not a no answer, getting a "No" is no answer. I think if it's silence then you just don't know and you can't say it's true yet you can't say it isn't true either
HappyJackWagon Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Not to talk dumb to you or anything but silence is silence not a no answer, getting a "No" is no answer. I think if it's silence then you just don't know and you can't say it's true yet you can't say it isn't true eitherI don't know about that. If I'm promised that I will have a witness that something is true, but I receive no witness, that would indicate it is false. No?
UtahTexan Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) I don't know about that. If I'm promised that I will have a witness that something is true, but I receive no witness, that would indicate it is false. No? Apparently not. Again....I used to think like you do...and I have been proven wrong. Sometimes, the reason we do not get an answer is not God's fault..... Edited March 19, 2015 by CountryBoy
HappyJackWagon Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Apparently not. Again....I used to think like you do...and I have been proven wrong. Sometimes, the reason we do not get an answer is not God's fault.....Maybe. But communication requires the efforts of at least 2 individuals. If one of those speaks too quietly or in a way that confuses the other, whose fault is it if there is a misunderstanding? It would seem they need to work together to come to an understanding. And just because an individual communicates well with one individual doesn't mean he will indicate well with another or all other individuals. If the communication is not clear then both sides likely bear some responsibility. Or think of it this way. If a deaf person attempts to communicate with someone using sign language or maybe writing everything down, but the other individual will only speak audibly, should we blame the deaf person for being deaf and therefore not hear what may be an attempted communication? Or should the individual try to communicate in a way that the deaf person can understand.
Duncan Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Maybe. But communication requires the efforts of at least 2 individuals. If one of those speaks too quietly or in a way that confuses the other, whose fault is it if there is a misunderstanding? It would seem they need to work together to come to an understanding. And just because an individual communicates well with one individual doesn't mean he will indicate well with another or all other individuals. If the communication is not clear then both sides likely bear some responsibility. Or think of it this way. If a deaf person attempts to communicate with someone using sign language or maybe writing everything down, but the other individual will only speak audibly, should we blame the deaf person for being deaf and therefore not hear what may be an attempted communication? Or should the individual try to communicate in a way that the deaf person can understand. do you mind if I ask you what your background is in the Church?
Popular Post UtahTexan Posted March 19, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Maybe. But communication requires the efforts of at least 2 individuals. If one of those speaks too quietly or in a way that confuses the other, whose fault is it if there is a misunderstanding? It would seem they need to work together to come to an understanding. And just because an individual communicates well with one individual doesn't mean he will indicate well with another or all other individuals. If the communication is not clear then both sides likely bear some responsibility. Or think of it this way. If a deaf person attempts to communicate with someone using sign language or maybe writing everything down, but the other individual will only speak audibly, should we blame the deaf person for being deaf and therefore not hear what may be an attempted communication? Or should the individual try to communicate in a way that the deaf person can understand. The problem is, God WILL speak to us in THE way we can understand.....I left the LDS Church in 1989. Don;t you think I got discouraged? I started feeling a pull several years ago. I would study...pray...try...and nothing. I would stop trying. I would feel the pull and the cycle would start all over again. And now....here I am. Why did it take so long and so much effort? I do not know. Maybe I was not ready. Maybe I needed more time. Maybe I was not humble enough. God had His reasons..... But...I can look back and see God gently guiding me. And in those times of non-answers, I can see God gently telling me, "not yet, my Child....not yet. Soon....." And people prayed. And I studied...prayed, gave up...rinse...wash repeat..... Then.....one day...after 25 years, God said...."Now....Here are your answers....and here....again...is your testimony. I have kept it safe and warm...and it is yours again. This time, guard it a little better." Edited March 19, 2015 by CountryBoy 10
pogi Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Maybe. But communication requires the efforts of at least 2 individuals. If one of those speaks too quietly or in a way that confuses the other, whose fault is it if there is a misunderstanding? Is one of those people God? If yes, then I think you know the answer to that question.
Calm Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Then.....one day...after 25 years, God said...."Now....Here are your answers....and here....again...is your testimony. I have kept it safe and warm...and it is yours again. This time, guard it a little better."This is Truth. 2
Dgal Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Thanks for that perspective CountryBoy. I'm curious though, why God would be so insistent on masking his existence to his children who are seeking him. Why would he make his answers so difficult to recognize and discern? Does that sound like any positive relationship you've ever had?I think the question you are asking is, does a loving Heavenly Father play mind games with His children? Legitmate question to ponder and consider. As a mother, I am very clear in my communication with my children. There is no guessing, no reading between the lines, none of them has to try and read my mind. I tell them, and I tell them clearly in language that they can understand. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 do you mind if I ask you what your background is in the Church?I have plenty of background in the church. My mormon credit score would be about a 90. Why do you ask?
Duncan Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I have plenty of background in the church. My mormon credit score would be about a 90. Why do you ask? I am just asking if you had prayed and gotten a response of any kind
Calm Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I think the question you are asking is, does a loving Heavenly Father play mind games with His children? Legitmate question to ponder and consider. As a mother, I am very clear in my communication with my children. There is no guessing, no reading between the lines, none of them has to try and read my mind. I tell them, and I tell them clearly in language that they can understand.At least you try. Decades later you might find out they misunderstood something. Kids can come up with some strange ideas and if they don't have a chance to correct them, no reason to talk about them, they may never get corrected.
williamsmith Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Has anybody ever tried writing a harmony of the FV accounts? Yes, great evidence for the First vision.... http://www.eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/byu-religious-education-student-symposium-2009/restoration-and-history-church/harmony-first 1
Dgal Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) At least you try. Decades later you might find out they misunderstood something. Kids can come up with some strange ideas and if they don't have a chance to correct them, no reason to talk about them, they may never get corrected.Adults can also have this problem. So, again, the question is posed, does Heavenly Father play mind games with His children, whether they are young or adults, here on Earth? Do we, as Mormons, believe He plays mind games? If not, how do we explain the inconsistancies that are starting to show up with the historical narrative of our faith?Has our leadership known about these inconsistancies? If so, why have they allowed them to continue? Is all of this new to them as well? I admit, I want answers. I want mature, well-thought out and reasoned answers. Edited March 20, 2015 by Dgal
cinepro Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 In the recent episode of Elementary, Holmes has interviewed a potential murder suspect and listens to a different recorded interview where the suspect gives the exact same account.Holmes: "There's virtually no variance in each of his accounts. His story never changes. Ergo, lying."Watson: "Well, if he was telling the truth, then why would you expect it to change?"Holmes: "Our meeting today brought to mind this recent study by a group of psychologists. They found that counting the number of unique words used by witnesses was an exceptional lie detection technique. Liars stick to streamlined stories. They don't deviate from the linguistic avenues they've already mapped out in their original telling. They use fewer words and particularly ones that evoke sense memory."Watson: "Because they're not drawing from memory."Holmes: "Tallying singular words may be the best way to root out liars..."I've always felt that JS absolutely believed what he experienced, that there is a sincerity about his accounts, and that the differences in FV accounts may have made them more confusing to know for sure exactly what happened, sure, but also make them more believable that *something* of that nature happened. Another example being how Moroni came to visit him four times that night, recounting the same thing each time. A peculiar detail to include if it was made up.So is there a FAIR apologist on the Elementary writing staff? I'd' be curious to see an analysis of the FV accounts through that method (tallying singular words), but certainly they have several different details and don't have much in the way of sense memory description beyond the general feeling of dread expressed in the main account before the light descends. While the principle described in the Sherlock episode is interesting, it doesn't mean that someone who tells different versions of a story is therefore more likely to be telling the truth.
Popular Post oremites Posted March 20, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 20, 2015 How do we explain the inconsistancies that are starting to show up with the historical narrative of our faith? I don't know exactly what you mean by "inconsistancies" so I'll just tell my experience with Mormon history. It seems to me that people think of history like a jigsaw puzzle. Historians are given a 1000-piece puzzle and, working together, they piece it all together, congratulate each other on a job well done then go out for a celebratory beer. In reality, it's more like a 1000-piece puzzle where you only have 82 pieces, a handful of pieces from other puzzles thrown in and only a vague description of what the finished product is supposed to look like. The historians around the table are constantly getting into loud arguments over what piece is supposed to fit where while trying to rearrange the pieces into something that makes sense. If you think LDS history is messy and full of inconsistencies, you should check out history in general. I've always loved reading history and I came to realize that there is often not one generally agreed upon interpretation of a historical event or person. Even when there is a consensus about how to interpret the historical data, that consensus will change over time. I remember reading a quote once that went something like: "History is like a merry-go-round. If you wait long enough, your view of a historical event will come back into fashion." When I started getting more into LDS history, I was a bit mystified over all the heartburn I saw about historical issues that seemed to me to just the normal messiness that comes with studying history. It also seems to me that people have a hard time with the fact that the people back then were imperfect. Just like us, they stumbled around sometimes doing the best they could and sometimes not. I have absolutely no problem with the church concentrating on the good they did rather than the mistakes they made. I remember when it first really hit me how flawed Joseph Smith was. I was reading the D&C for seminary and it struck me how often Joseph was criticized by God either directly or indirectly. It really made me develop a lot of sympathy and respect for him. He was making his way through uncharted territory with a lot of weight on his shoulders. The older I get, the more amazed I am at how much he achieved in 38 short years. I could spend my time being troubled by his sins or mistakes, but I prefer to spend it learning from his accomplishments. You have many people fitting the pieces of LDS history into different pictures. Each person can make a good case for why their interpretation is the best. I prefer to go with the more "faithful" picture. I base this on the "by their fruit you shall know them" principle. I've found the fruit of the gospel to be exceedingly sweet and delicious. That leads me to believe the seeds must have been good. 6
Tacenda Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 I don't know exactly what you mean by "inconsistancies" so I'll just tell my experience with Mormon history.It seems to me that people think of history like a jigsaw puzzle. Historians are given a 1000-piece puzzle and, working together, they piece it all together, congratulate each other on a job well done then go out for a celebratory beer. In reality, it's more like a 1000-piece puzzle where you only have 82 pieces, a handful of pieces from other puzzles thrown in and only a vague description of what the finished product is supposed to look like. The historians around the table are constantly getting into loud arguments over what piece is supposed to fit where while trying to rearrange the pieces into something that makes sense.If you think LDS history is messy and full of inconsistencies, you should check out history in general. I've always loved reading history and I came to realize that there is often not one generally agreed upon interpretation of a historical event or person. Even when there is a consensus about how to interpret the historical data, that consensus will change over time. I remember reading a quote once that went something like: "History is like a merry-go-round. If you wait long enough, your view of a historical event will come back into fashion." When I started getting more into LDS history, I was a bit mystified over all the heartburn I saw about historical issues that seemed to me to just the normal messiness that comes with studying history. It also seems to me that people have a hard time with the fact that the people back then were imperfect. Just like us, they stumbled around sometimes doing the best they could and sometimes not. I have absolutely no problem with the church concentrating on the good they did rather than the mistakes they made. I remember when it first really hit me how flawed Joseph Smith was. I was reading the D&C for seminary and it struck me how often Joseph was criticized by God either directly or indirectly. It really made me develop a lot of sympathy and respect for him. He was making his way through uncharted territory with a lot of weight on his shoulders. The older I get, the more amazed I am at how much he achieved in 38 short years. I could spend my time being troubled by his sins or mistakes, but I prefer to spend it learning from his accomplishments.You have many people fitting the pieces of LDS history into different pictures. Each person can make a good case for why their interpretation is the best. I prefer to go with the more "faithful" picture. I base this on the "by their fruit you shall know them" principle. I've found the fruit of the gospel to be exceedingly sweet and delicious. That leads me to believe the seeds must have been good.As long as you believe as you do it can be wonderful, the minute you start doubting, it can be a nightmare. Or there are some that believe wholeheartedly but are really hard on themselves to become perfect that it's also not good. They contantly beat themselves up, they weren't taught properly, God's Grace.
UtahTexan Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 It is not the doubting that is bad. It is trusting your doubts more than trusting your faith. Embrace the doubts as the other side of the faith coin. Let them work together. And pray. 4
cinepro Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) It is not the doubting that is bad. It is trusting your doubts more than trusting your faith. Embrace the doubts as the other side of the faith coin. Let them work together. And pray. That's what my Jehovah's Witness friends keep telling me. When I explain to them that I have prayed, they tell me to stop doubting them and keep praying until I get the right answer... Edited March 20, 2015 by cinepro 2
Okrahomer Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 My JW friends do not "sound" much like yours. Prayer is not something they are inclined to teach when it comes to finding truth--depending instead almost entirely upon what they consider to be a "correct" understanding of the scriptures.
mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) This is interesting and I think you’re on to something when it comes to this being some validation for Joseph telling a truthful story that he did experience a vision of some kind. What this doesn’t explain for us, is what did Joseph actually experience?· Was it a vision he experienced in a dream like state, or was it a literal visitation of a tangible nature? · Did he experience a forgiveness of sins, or did he receive a strong answer that all church’s were evil and that he should establish a new church?· How many heavenly beings showed up, one or two or a multitude? The big problem we have in my opinion, is not whether Joseph actually had a vision of some nature that was profoundly influential to him. But that we are trying to draw clear doctrinal proofs from this experience.· FV = God is distinct and separate from Jesus. · FV = All other churches are fallen, and authority has been lost.· FV = Joseph was called to lead the modern restoration of all things All of these proofs come later 20th century emphasis on the 1838 account. This emphasis tells us that the FV is the founding event of the restoration, but none of this was in the earliest account or were a part of the early narrative. Why should we accept these are the true version of the what the FV means? I think the 1832 account by all standards is probably the most accurate and shouldn’t we get away from the later doctrinal evolution around what the FV means and get back to the original experience as being the most pure? Oh gosh. We have been over this a number of times. ALL of this is unknowable, period, end of story. It is a complete epistemological dead end. Pick the version you like and ask the spirit- it is all to be taken on faith anyway. If you saw a pink elephant how could you possibly know if there were more than one or if it/they were "real" visitations of pink elephants or "dreams" or "hallucinations"? More importantly if someone told you THEY saw such a thing, would you believe them? And actually wonder if they were "real" or a "hallucination"? Rationally none of it makes sense. Spiritually if God tells you personally it happened, it makes all the difference in the world "What Joseph experienced" was a religious experience. End of story. Believe it or not, at least evaluate it as a religious experience and not an epistemological problem which cannot possibly be solved Edited March 25, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I wonder if angels have memory.The serious question is how many of them can dance on a head of a pin
mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Oh gosh. We have been over this a number of times. ALL of this is unknowable, period, end of story. It is a complete epistemological dead end. Pick the version you like and ask the spirit- it is all to be taken on faith anyway. If you saw a pink elephant how could you possibly know if there were more than one or if it/they were "real" visitations of pink elephants or "dreams" or "hallucinations"? More importantly if someone told you THEY saw such a thing, would you believe them? And actually wonder if they were "real" or a "hallucination"? Rationally none of it makes sense. Spiritually if God tells you personally it happened, it makes all the difference in the world "What Joseph experienced" was a religious experience. End of story. Believe it or not, at least evaluate it as a religious experience and not an epistemological problem which cannot possibly be solvedDidn't mean to be so abrupt This is a great thread!
Recommended Posts