Teancum Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't think I've ever heard someone bear testimony based on physical evidence. A testimony pertains to a spiritual confirmation through the power of the Holy Ghost, not physical evidence. And you have not disproven the historicity of the Book of Mormon in any case (I don't believe you can), so I am as entitled to say that it is historical as you are to say that it isn't. Sigh..... such are the tactics of apologetics. You cannot prove a negative Scott. And the burden of proof for a claim is on those who claim it. So for those who say the BoM is an account of real people, who are a real civilization, etc, etc.... the burden of proof is on you. And for you personally your metaphysical experience is fine. But not for anyone else. There needs to be real evidence. But I suspect you know this and dodge it because it just is not there. So know you are not entitled to say to BoM is historical and that all should accept that unless you provide evidence beyond your own spiritual experience,. Edited August 25, 2016 by Teancum
rockpond Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: But he didn't say one could promote or advocate such a position and still remain so. I hope by now the distinction is clear. Promoting or advocating the non-historical nature of the Book of Mormon would be problematic but I'm not sure what grounds would be used to discipline a member for having done so.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Well, I was thinking of all the times it's been used by apostles and prophets. I once heard Elder Faust talk about an "untroubled faith," and I believe he mentioned something about having a "simple faith." Found it (thank heavens for the Internet): https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/james-e-faust_untroubled-faith/ Here's the part that stood out to me (I was a student at BYU at the time): Obviously, you dislike the usage. Fair enough. I like it. Oh, I readily grant that it is a very frequently used, very stock expression. Has been for a long time. And yes, I've no doubt that it has been used by General Authorities among others. I was clued in to how ambiguous the expression is when I read the book by Elder John H. Groberg, In the Eye of the Storm, later renamed The Other Side of Heaven, after a movie based on his book was released under that title. In the book, Elder Groberg recounts his missionary experiences in Tonga. He said he resists saying that the Tongans' faith is a "simple faith." His reasoning is similar to what I have expressed here.
Jeanne Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: Use. The. Ignore. Feature. I put that guy on ignore faster than I have ever put anyone (I think I only have 5 posters on ignore). Have not regretted it once. I have tried to find it...where is it????
Teancum Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: Then decry all who do it Do you ever wish you had your full testimony back? Yes I do at times. Other times not so much. It is complicated.
jkwilliams Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Oh, I readily grant that it is a very frequently used, very stock expression. Has been for a long time. And yes, I've no doubt that it has been used by General Authorities among others. I was clued in to how ambiguous the expression is when I read the book by Elder John H. Groberg, In the Eye of the Storm, later renamed The Other Side of Heaven, after a movie based on his book was released under that title. In the book, Elder Groberg recounts his missionary experiences in Tonga. He said he resists saying that the Tongans' faith is a "simple faith." His reasoning is similar to what I have expressed here. I think I would call that a "simplistic" faith. I enjoyed that book, BTW, which I read a few years ago, after I finished writing mine. I understand why you don't use that term, but I disagree.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Teancum said: Sigh..... such are the tactics of apologetics. You cannot prove a negative Scott. Of course you can't prove a negative. So don't claim to have proven that Mormonism is false. Quote And the burden of proof for a claim is on those who claim it. So for those who say the BoM is an account of real people, who are a real civilization, etc, etc.... the burden of proof is on you. I don't claim to be able to prove it through physical evidence. My only claim is to have received a spiritual witness of its truthfulness. So I have no such burden as you claim. You, on the other hand, have the burden to prove it if you assert the book is falsifiable by physical evidence. This you have failed to do. Edited August 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
UtahTexan Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, Teancum said: Yes I do at times. Other times not so much. It is complicated. I was like that for 26 years. I wish the best for you
jkwilliams Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I have tried to find it...where is it???? Top right. Click on your user name, and a menu will open. Second to the bottom is "Ignored Users."
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: Promoting or advocating the non-historical nature of the Book of Mormon would be problematic but I'm not sure what grounds would be used to discipline a member for having done so. Oh, I think a case could be made if, after having been corrected by priesthood leaders, the person persisted in such promotion and advocacy.
rockpond Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Oh, I think a case could be made if, after having been corrected by priesthood leaders, the person persisted in such promotion and advocacy. True, I forgot the use of unrighteous dominion.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 54 minutes ago, ALarson said: True, but you weren't even sure if John was referring to that specific talk (and it appears now that he wasn't). How about err on the side of decency when you weren't sure? I disagree that it was indecent to raise the question. Apparently, John doesn't think it was either.
jkwilliams Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I disagree that it was indecent to raise the question. Apparently, John doesn't think it was either. I think the decency depends on the motivation for bringing it up. I accept your statement that you did not mean to somehow catch me in a lie, or something. Again, thanks for mentioning it, as I didn't even know those old posts were still around. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 1 minute ago, rockpond said: True, I forgot the use of unrighteous dominion. That would not be unrighteous dominion. The preaching of false doctrine is not permitted in the Church, and it is not unrighteous dominion to prohibit it.
Jeanne Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 17 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Top right. Click on your user name, and a menu will open. Second to the bottom is "Ignored Users." Thank you..!! It is done. Use the PM feature to have personal conversations.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I think I would call that a "simplistic" faith. I enjoyed that book, BTW, which I read a few years ago, after I finished writing mine. I understand why you don't use that term, but I disagree. And I don't think the less of you for doing so. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 17 hours ago, Jeanne said: Thank you..!! It is done. Now you can stop asking him to leave you alone. Some people just aren't interested in civil discussion, and once they show that, it's best to ignore them. As you know, I sometimes slip and read stuff from posters I should ignore, but I'm human. No personal thread derails. 2
Guest Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Pa Pa, please follow the thread through. When Johnnie Cake posted this he was unaware that, back when this issue was raised, there was a Deseret News article clarifying that there are two separate books in the possession of the Church History Department, each with the same page dog-eared, but that the book Elder Holland held up during his talk was indeed the book that Hyrum Smith read prior to the martyrdom. Fair enough...I think that the most important thing is that Joseph knowing he was going to die, looked to and found comfort in a book that many believe to be a fraud. Many believe in the Book of Mormon, but more importantly, Joseph believed in the Book of Mormon. A fact that should lay to rest that its origins and writtings are as he testified and believed, including visions and testimony that he gave. Edited August 25, 2016 by Pa Pa
UtahTexan Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't think I've ever heard someone bear testimony based on physical evidence. A testimony pertains to a spiritual confirmation through the power of the Holy Ghost, not physical evidence. And you have not disproven the historicity of the Book of Mormon in any case (I don't believe you can), so I am as entitled to say that it is historical as you are to say that it isn't. agreed Edited August 25, 2016 by CountryBoy 1
UtahTexan Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 1 minute ago, Pa Pa said: Fair enough...I think that the most important thing is that Joseph knowing he was going to die, looked to and found comfort in a book Thant many believe to be a fraud. Many believe in the Book of Mormon, but more importantly, Joseph believed in the Book of Mormon. A fact that should lay to rest that its origins and writtings are as he testified and believed, including visions and testimony that he gave. Hard to imagine Joseph taking comfort and solace in the Book of Mormon knowing he was likely to die if he knew the Book was a fraud. 2
Jeanne Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 17 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Now you can stop asking him to leave you alone. Some people just aren't interested in civil discussion, and once they show that, it's best to ignore them. As you know, I sometimes slip and read stuff from posters I should ignore, but I'm human. I was afraid to post anything here. He uses my posts to convey messages..I feel like I can breathe again! Use the PM feature to have personal conversations.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 39 minutes ago, Jeanne said: John, I just wanted to let you know that I was touched by the older post I so much identify with the feelings there and wanted to go back in time where I belonged and believed. As for Scott..well using something so personal and honest against John really surprised me. Just want to reiterate here that I was not denigrating John's experience or using it against him. I only raised the question when he indicated he didn't think Elder Holland's "recent" talks were very powerful. I knew for a fact what he had said about the talk given seven years ago, so I raised the question. Quote The fact that John is letting it roll off his back is a credit to his character as a good person. It is also to his credit that he grasps my intent when it seems others refuse to. So let's hear it for John! 3
UtahTexan Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Now you can stop asking him to leave you alone. Some people just aren't interested in civil discussion, and once they show that, it's best to ignore them. As you know, I sometimes slip and read stuff from posters I should ignore, but I'm human. all this demeaning talk could have been handled privately...... 2
Jeanne Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Just want to reiterate here that I was not denigrating John's experience or using it against him. I only raised the question when he indicated he didn't think Elder Holland's "recent" talks were very powerful. I knew for a fact what he had said about the talk given seven years ago, so I raised the question. It is also to his credit that he grasps my intent when it seems others refuse to. So let's hear it for John! Thanks for clarifying. Hugs to both of you!
rockpond Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That would not be unrighteous dominion. The preaching of false doctrine is not permitted in the Church, and it is not unrighteous dominion to prohibit it. Again, what it comes down to is that you and I apparently disagree with the idea of the Book of Mormon as a literal history being doctrine.
Recommended Posts