With all the evidence against the LDS church, why is God still telling people to join?

[gopher]

57 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Evidence against the Church?

As a litigator, I would like to see definitive evidence

My question was sincere, even though that part was written tongue in cheek.

[gopher]

55 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

A related question might be, "With all the evidence for the Church, why is God still telling people to leave?"

Fair question.  The reason I believe  these two sisters was the confirmation I received from the Holy Ghost while they shared their testimonies.  If I had the same  experience listening to someone bear testimony that God told them to leave the church,  I would accept it.

[UtahTexan]

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Instead, I have chosen to ask one simple question.

A question it seems you are determined to dodge.

Not dodging at all.  You tried to be clever and "offer exhibits".  When I responded to the pathetic proffer, you tried again and failed miserably.  Then, faced with your failures, you lash out me and make false accusations.

I am more than willing to answer.  Next time you try to be clever....don't.  You are not very good at it.

[UtahTexan]

10 minutes ago, gopher said:

My question was sincere, even though that part was written tongue in cheek.

I know....but wanted to play.  I kinda thought someone who knew what they were talking about would play along.  Instead, I got ConSig

[theplains]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I believe that all religions teach some eternal truths - living those truths brings happiness.

Can people who knowingly reject Christ's atonement in this life be happy in the next?

Thanks,
Jim

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

Can people who knowingly reject Christ's atonement in this life be happy in the next?

Thanks,
Jim

Jim, I assume that by the term "knowingly" that you mean that someone knows that Jesus is the Christ and yet still rejects him i.e. they have received a personal witness by the Holy Ghost and reject it.  Within LDS theology we don't really believe in a hell, per se, where everyone that somehow failed the test gets to burn for eternity.  What we believe is that they will sent to a kingdom of glory and they will be surrounded by like individuals.  The hell for us is the belief that we would remember and know that we could have done better and could then reside in the presence of our Father in Heaven and we chose a different path.  

It makes me think that they have a degree of happiness - they are in a kingdom of glory after all.  The issue is that it would not be a fullness of joy.  

When we come to the topic of inclusiveness I know of no other theology that believes that all of God's children will have a kingdom of glory.  The only ones that will not are the sons of perdition - those who did not live by faith, but by sure knowledge and still chose to follow after Satan or fought against God's plan.  

Did I adequately answer your question?

[consiglieri]

10 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Next time you try to be clever....don't.  You are not very good at it.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, theplains said:

Can people who knowingly reject Christ's atonement in this life be happy in the next?

Thanks,
Jim

Not if they continue to reject it.

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Good...I am glad you have learned that lesson.  Admitting it is half the problem..you are halfway there.......and still dodging

[consiglieri]

24 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Good...I am glad you have learned that lesson.  Admitting it is half the problem..you are halfway there.......and still dodging

It appears the witness is unable to answer my question, Your Honor.

The prosecution rests.

 

Edited to add: I am out of my allotment of comments for today, so it appears I will not be able to continue to point out Country Boy's desperate attempts to avoid answering the one question I asked.  I will repeat the question here, just in case CB's obfuscation has caused him to forget it:

How do lengthy New Testament passages in King James English manage to appear in the text of the Book of Mormon, a book allegedly written by a group of Israelite expatriates who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and the last of whom perished more than 1,000 years before the King James Bible came off the press?

We are still waiting for your answer . . .

Edited May 3, 2016 by consiglieri

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It appears the witness is unable to answer my question, Your Honor.

The prosecution rests.

lol

Again, you have failed miserably.

1. I was never a witness....I was the attorney.  

2. I asked for a proffer...you failed.

3. I told you that you had the burden and make your point...all you did was ask a question...not a point.  Yet another fail.

My gosh.....all you have done is prove my point that you have no clue and that you cannot make your point properly for me to respond.

Epic failure.  But you are soooo adorable for being willing to fail so publicly

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

A guy selling a product and then reading about what other buyers have experienced is a distinct cup of tea from what typically happens in the Church missionary program.  When the Holy Ghost guides - he is the reference with none better.  There is not person to talk to for a reference to confirm the Holy Spirit.  

Your analogy removes the Godhead from the formula completely.  Who would encourage that type of thinking?  It is not the Holy Ghost.  

I wish the saints were perfect, but they are not.  They are people like you and me and we know how poorly we do things; why discrepancies?  We have only to look in the mirror.

It must be them I guess.  Even those that do get the Holy Spirit confirming something, and they still leave the church later.  Maybe because they feel that the HG may not have confirmed after all.  Something that they found was not what they thought was true or not true.  Too bad I've never had that experience, sort of envy those that convert to the church.  

[Storm Rider]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It must be them I guess.  Even those that do get the Holy Spirit confirming something, and they still leave the church later.  Maybe because they feel that the HG may not have confirmed after all.  Something that they found was not what they thought was true or not true.  Too bad I've never had that experience, sort of envy those that convert to the church.  

If after receiving a witness of the Spirit the only tool that Satan has left is to lead the individual down a path the ends in them denying that the experience was real or that they had to have misunderstood.  If Satan can achieve this then he can lead the individual out of the Church.  

You undoubtedly have had some spiritual experiences our you would not recognize the same feeling you stated you have around the missionaries.  God is real, the Holy Ghost is real, and Satan is real.  The war between them is real.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

lol

Again, you have failed miserably.

1. I was never a witness....I was the attorney.  

2. I asked for a proffer...you failed.

3. I told you that you had the burden and make your point...all you did was ask a question...not a point.  Yet another fail.

My gosh.....all you have done is prove my point that you have no clue and that you cannot make your point properly for me to respond.

Epic failure.  But you are soooo adorable for being willing to fail so publicly

I have become addicted to watching "L.A. Law" reruns on YouTube. Gotta say this is nearly as entertaining. 

[UtahTexan]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have become addicted to watching "L.A. Law" reruns on YouTube. Gotta say this is nearly as entertaining. 

lol.....that show started when I was in law school....loved watching it

[Okrahomer]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My good experiences have mainly been, reading letters from missionaries like my son, my neighbors kids or my nieces and nephews on both my husband's and my side of the family.  My one on one as a potential convert, they didn't know we were members, was on two separate vacations to Nauvoo and Palmyra.  It was amazing!  

But there have been a few times the missionaries let me down and that is when feeding them in my home or on my doorstep.  But those were rare.  

 

My wife and I served a Church service mission a few years ago.  We served as hosts at the Conference Center.  Since our shift was on Sunday, we could not attend our home ward.  So we began attending Sacrament meetings with the sisters and Senior missionaries in the Salt Lake Temple Square Mission.  It was wonderful--both rubbing shoulders with the missionaries, as well as hosting people who wanted to see the Conference Center.  We had some really great experiences with the folks who came to the Conference Center...seeking.  These experiences revived our spirits and deepened our testimonies.

We also discovered that there are hidden treasures all around Temple Square.  Have you ever noticed that huge Ceders of Lebanon tree just inside the east gate?  Beautiful tree!

Edited May 4, 2016 by Okrahomer

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

A related question might be, "With all the evidence for the Church, why is God still telling people to leave?"

I just had to "up" this one. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It must be them I guess.  Even those that do get the Holy Spirit confirming something, and they still leave the church later.  Maybe because they feel that the HG may not have confirmed after all.  Something that they found was not what they thought was true or not true.  Too bad I've never had that experience, sort of envy those that convert to the church.  

i will never ...ever..deny the feelings that I had when I reactivated back into the church and studied, prayed and felt that spirit.

And this intensity is what made my discoveries hurt so much.  That being said, i can never deny those experiences since and now identify those feelings with a spiritual need and supplication to the Lord outside the walls of any church.  I feel edified in what music I can still hear, nature, the love of literature of all kinds..and prayer.  The HG as described in mormonism lives inside anyone that seeks a guiding light.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Jeanne

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

4 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

Evidence against the Church?

As a litigator, I would like to see definitive evidence

 

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Exhibit A--NT KJV in BOM.

 

4 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

lol...that is your evidence?

Ok....since you are acting like an attorney....lay your foundation.  

 

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Let me ask you one question, then:

How do lengthy New Testament passages in King James English manage to appear in the text of the Book of Mormon, a book allegedly written by a group of Israelite expatriates who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and the last of whom perished more than 1,000 years before the King James Bible came off the press?

And since you acting like an attorney, I will expect your response to approximate reasonableness.

OK, so CountryBoy asks for evidence against the Church.

Consig says there's New Testament King James Version verbiage in the Book of Mormon, using legal terminology ("Exhibit")

CountryBoy laughs at this "evidence" and asks for the foundation to be laid for the evidence.  

Instead of a foundation, or actual evidence, Consig just adds detail to his question.  Then claims CountryBoy is dodging the question -- when Consig had been asked for evidence and instead provides a question.  Note that Evidence =/= Questions.

Since Consig isn't actually an attorney, perhaps he needs to know what "Foundation for Evidence" is at trial.  Here's what is meant:

Quote

What is a “foundation” for evidence?

A “foundation” is the minimum amount of facts needed to demonstrate that a particular piece of evidence is authentic enough and relevant enough that it can be admitted at trial.  In a way, the foundation of a piece of evidence is like the first paragraph of a news story.  It provides the basic “who, what, and why” of the evidence, so that the jury and other people in the courtroom can understand why that evidence is being presented and what the party offering it is trying to prove by presenting it.

It should be very clear that when evidence is asked for, the proper response is not to ask a question.  Or even to make a simple assertion.  Consig's original remark was not a question, it was an assertion, and what's more, it is an assertion that states facts that virtually everyone in the forum know to be true.  Yes, there ARE King James Version New Testament verbiage in the Book of Mormon.  

That is not evidence.  To provide evidence, it would first be necessary to provide a foundation for the relevance of the proffered information so folks can see why it's important.  

Just trying to help you, Consiglieri.  Now that you understand what CB is asking, please continue.  

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by Stargazer

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm glad these ladies found something that will bring increased joy, peace, and belonging into their lives. The church provides great good in the lives of many people. Suggesting that "good" equals absolute truth is a stretch though.

Many people worldwide have spiritual experiences that lead them to various religions, whether Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. Is each person who bears witness of divine experience/prompting to join those religions wrong? Are they misunderstanding promptings? Are they confusing emotion for spiritual witness? I don't know. But just because people join doesn't mean those religions are The True Church.  People join religions for many reasons, including spiritual promptings but I feel it is a mistake to equate personal decisions of individuals as some kind of proof of truthful legitimacy.

I prefer to think of it as people who are seeking a connection with God and find a "good" way to worship and interact, independent of absolute truth. 

That is all well and good, HappyJack, but does it really tell us anything?  We can equivocate over every decision that we and others make, and call into question every conceivable theory of knowledge.  But where does that leave us?  Are we to be left with no possibility of knowing anything, and therefore should we wallow in that existential dilemma of lack of certainty about everything?  Or are you recommending some other approach to getting through our daily tasks without complete and meaningless cynicism?  Do you care enough to respect the personal, subjective decisions of others?

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

........................................................................

Since Consig isn't actually an attorney,..........................

........................................................................

consiglieri is actually an attorney.  Why do you think that he is not?

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

OK, so CountryBoy asks for evidence against the Church.

Consig says there's New Testament King James Version verbiage in the Book of Mormon, using legal terminology ("Exhibit")

CountryBoy laughs at this "evidence" and asks for the foundation to be laid for the evidence.  

Instead of a foundation, or actual evidence, Consig just adds detail to his question.  Then claims CountryBoy is dodging the question -- when Consig had been asked for evidence and instead provides a question.  Note that Evidence =/= Questions.

Since Consig isn't actually an attorney, perhaps he needs to know what "Foundation for Evidence" is at trial.  Here's what is meant:

It should be very clear that when evidence is asked for, the proper response is not to ask a question.  Or even to make a simple assertion.  Consig's original remark was not a question, it was an assertion, and what's more, it is an assertion that states facts that virtually everyone in the forum know to be true.  Yes, there ARE King James Version New Testament verbiage in the Book of Mormon.  

That is not evidence.  To provide evidence, it would first be necessary to provide a foundation for the relevance of the proffered information so folks can see why it's important.  

Just trying to help you, Consiglieri.  Now that you understand what CB is asking, please continue.  

 

I thought consig claimed to be an attorney. In fact, he got testy one day when I said, "I understand you are some kind of lawyer." (He objected to the words "some kind of" for some reason

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

consiglieri is actually an attorney.  Why do you think that he is not?

 

Wasn't aware he was, actually.  Is he?  He doesn't seem like one, to me at least.  I am willing to stand corrected if I'm wrong on this.  That wasn't the point of my post, though.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Stargazer

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

.....................................................................

How do lengthy New Testament passages in King James English manage to appear in the text of the Book of Mormon, a book allegedly written by a group of Israelite expatriates who left Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and the last of whom perished more than 1,000 years before the King James Bible came off the press?

........................................................... .

The phraseology in many cases comes not only from the KJV, but also from earlier English bibles, a language which also dominates the Anglican Church's Book of Common Prayer.  Three facts must be fully understood before one can deal adequately with this issue:

1)  The Book of Mormon was composed in ancient Egyptian, not KJV English.  However, it naturally included many quotations from ancient biblical texts, translated into an Egyptian form (Brass Plates).  This is known as intertextuality, and it follows certain distinctive rules.

2)  The NT Greek has long passages which are identical to the LXX Greek phrasing of the OT, which is further based upon the Hebrew text of the OT.  During translation, the separate KJV committees doing the translating/adapting of old translations did not communicate, and so used separate English phrasing for certain passages -- thus leading those not understanding the Greek & Hebrew to erroneously think that the base text of the OT and NT are utterly different and unrelated.

3)  A modern translator may use familiar phrasing wherever he wishes to do so.  Right on into the 20th century, non-Mormon scholars continued to translate ancient Near Eastern texts using KJV style English -- without recriminations.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The phraseology in many cases comes not only from the KJV, but also from earlier English bibles, a language which also dominates the Anglican Church's Book of Common Prayer.  Three facts must be fully understood before one can deal adequately with this issue:

1)  The Book of Mormon was composed in ancient Egyptian, not KJV English.  However, it naturally included many quotations from ancient biblical texts, translated into an Egyptian form (Brass Plates).  This is known as intertextuality, and it follows certain distinctive rules.

2)  The NT Greek has long passages which are identical to the LXX Greek phrasing of the OT, which is further based upon the Hebrew text of the OT.  During translation, the separate KJV committees doing the translating/adapting of old translations did not communicate, and so used separate English phrasing for certain passages -- thus leading those not understanding the Greek & Hebrew to erroneously think that the base text of the OT and NT are utterly different and unrelated.

3)  A modern translator may use familiar phrasing wherever he wishes to do so.  Right on into the 20th century, non-Mormon scholars continued to translate ancient Near Eastern texts using KJV style English -- without recriminations.

I don't have Robert's expertise, but I knew number 3 above intuitively. That is why fussing over KJV quotations and phrasing in the Book of Mormon has always struck me as much ado about nothing.