Confirmation through the spirit or feelings?

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, snowflake said:

Absolutely, I pray for wisdom when studying the Bible, as James 1 says. I trust the Bible much more than I trust my feelings. 

As for feelings, I have feelings about many things.  When I hear the Star Spangled Banner, when I hear Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing, and when I view certain scenes in certain films I get an emotional response that is very pleasing, and even uplifting.  I can be brought to tears about these in many cases.  But I recognize that this kind of feeling originates from inside me in response to stimuli, and even though one might call it a "spiritual" feeling, it is in reality "emotional" -- and I do not confuse emotion with the Spirit of the Lord.  In my experience, the testimony of the Spirit is distinctly different.

Not that I think it's going to make any difference to you, though I hope that it is at least explanatory, I refer you to Luke 24:13-32.  I'm sure you've read it before, the story of how Cleopas and another brother were walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus discussing the sad events of the crucifixion, when they were joined on their way by a stranger who inquired as to what they had been discussing.  Upon hearing the matter, this person began to expound to them how the things that they were discouraged about were not discouraging at all, and were in fact exactly what the prophecies had foretold.  When they reached their destination, they invited him for supper, and in the act of breaking bread they recognized him as Jesus, whereupon he vanished from their sight.  They discussed this miraculous event:

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

The burning described here is not an emotional response, or at least I don't take it as such, and has nothing to do with temperature.  This is the only occurrence in the Bible of this "burning of the heart", by the way.  My emotional responses occasionally lead me to shed tears, but not to feel any kind of "burning" sensation.  I only bring this up because I am trying to show the difference between one and the other.  

Now, I'm well aware that many Christian writers, attempting to explain what this verse means, downgrade the meaning to something along the lines of "Those Scriptures which speak of Christ, will warm the hearts of his true disciples."  (see HERE, emphasis added). Although, in the page referenced, the various English renderings of the verse still maintain the concept of burning in the heart (except for a couple, one that says it dulled their hearts, oddly enough, and the other one had the idea that they were excited to hear the scriptures explained).  I think that the scripture means exactly what it says. 

And also, along the same line as burning within the heart, I should like to bring up the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).  On that day, when the Holy Ghost testified so strongly that "they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls", who were these new Christians?  Answer: they were "Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians" (Acts 2:9-11).  In short, these were people who probably hadn't heard one word about Jesus Christ until that day, and how impressed do you think they were by the words of Peter that they would immediately leap to join this new and controversial sect of Judaism (for that is what it was considered in the beginning)?  Well, it wasn't the words of Peter that convinced them, nor his erudition and skills of oratory (we're talking about a fisherman here).  It was the Holy Ghost that testified to them, in their hearts (if you will) that that what they heard was true and convincing.  Was it burning within the heart?  It doesn't say.  But whatever it was, it was obviously something well beyond mere emotional appeal and salesmanship.  And something that had nothing to do with archaeological evidence, or any kind of secular evidence.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Stargazer

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Mars said:

i agree with Gray.

i am confident in my spiritual experiences.  i "know" it's true, so to speak.  but i can't transfer that knowledge.  i can only invite others to try it and let them decide for themselves.  in that sense, no one can know for sure.  you can't know without subscribing to it.  in normal non-religious talk, that means i can't know for sure.  i can't know without commitment and sacrifice and investment.  which is what a lot of people want...  why invest in something you might be wrong about?  and yet, if any man do the Father's will, he will know of the doctrine.

maybe i misunderstood the both of you.  my apologies if so!

 

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Even if God actually speaks, the experience of revelation is subjective.

 

If the veil is parted and a messenger actually is present (not in the mind or spirit, i.e. A visitation, not a vision) I don't see how that can be subject to interpretation.  And that does happen.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, snowflake said:

When I compare the BOM with the Bible there is no comparison.  The BOM reads like a cheap knock off of the Bible, Uninspired, undocumented and the LDS church to this day won't even tell us where it supposedly took place! Studying the bible is actually very convincing of it's divine origin.  

NOTE: I posted this before I read your response to pogi, in which you wrote:

Quote

When I was praying for wisdom regarding the BOM it was impressed upon my conscience that it was a work of fiction, a counterfeit. There was no audible voice but an overwhelming impression that the Bible was God's word alone and not to trust the BOM. 

In light of this, fair enough.  Nevertheless, I still think your answer (quoted at the top of the post) deserves a response, so here it is. 

I think this is the heart of your problem.  It is your opinion of its literary merit, and it says a great deal about your approach to the Book of Mormon.  

On the Title Page of the Book of Mormon -- the text of which was found on the plates and not added in at the time of the book's publication -- it says concerning the contents of the book:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

When you claim that it "reads like a cheap knock off of the Bible," I suppose you are referring to the King James English of the book.  Would you have preferred it in 19th century English?  Would that have made a difference?  

I think I addressed the "undocumentedness" of the book in my earlier post, so will leave that.

As for the uninspiredness, I am puzzled.  I find the Book of Mormon quite inspired, and quite inspiring.  You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I don't think that passages such as this are uninspired or uninspiring (1 Nephi 13:38-40):

38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, 
and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth 
of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed 
of my brethren.

39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came 
forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the 
convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and 
also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the 
records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.

40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast 
seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of 
the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious 
things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds,
tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and 
the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be 
saved.

Nephi is here telling of a vision he received, in which he is shown the coming forth of the Bible from the Europeans to the native Americans, and the coming forth of other books (by which I presume is meant the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), which come forth to confirm to all people the truthfulness of the Bible.  And finally it flatly states that all men must come unto the Lord Jesus Christ or there will be no salvation for them.  Can you deny that there is no salvation without Jesus Christ, as it says in verse 40?  I don't think that you can.  And so, perhaps I can get you to admit that the Book of Mormon does contain some truth in it?  Even if you think that the rest is a cheap knock-off of the Bible?

I myself find these verses extremely inspired, and inspiring.  It is through such passages that I have obtained a testimony that Jesus is the Christ and the Redeemer of Mankind.  When I read them my heart sings "This is truth."

I said in another post that I didn't have a spiritual conviction about Jesus Christ until I obtained my testimony of the Book of Mormon.  This was mostly true, but not entirely.  I think it would have been closer to the truth to have said that I had no sure conviction of the divinity of Jesus Christ.  I did have reverence for Him, and a feeling that he was God's Son, but nothing I could have nailed down.  If the LDS Church had come across as Christ-denying, or if the Book of Mormon had ignored Jesus Christ, then I think I would have rejected it out of hand.  But the Book of Mormon testifies mightily of Christ, and I find that to be its greatest selling point.

When I wrote above about the heart of your problem, I was referring to how you went about disproving the Book of Mormon to yourself.  Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that you dismissed it from the very beginning.  You weren't seeking to find out if the Book of Mormon were true; you had already convinced yourself that it was false, and were looking only for evidence that would confirm your conviction.  Was there any part of your process of investigation where you might have seriously allowed for the possibility that it was true, and of divine origin?  And then approached it from that angle?  I would guess that you did not.

It appears to me that your conviction of the Bible comes from secular and archaeological evidence -- from all that you have written, anyway.  You seem to have no "feeling," no spiritual conviction obtained through the Holy Ghost, that the Bible is true.  And so you have rejected the Book of Mormon because it doesn't have secular and archaeological evidence.  You ignore the evidence of Cleopas; you disregard the evidence of the Pentecost; and like the Pharisees and Sadducees your faith is in the traditions of men, mingled with scripture.

I'd like to suggest that you try again, and this time trust in God, not leaning upon your own understanding. Your call.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

On 4/1/2017 at 1:47 PM, Mars said:

ouagadougouu, we can't know for sure if you're "to blame" or not.  we can only go off what you describe and point out what appear to us to be discrepancies in how the system works.  no one's faith is 'higher' or purer or mo bettah or anything.  when God's children pursue him in any avenue they see fit, in and outside of mormonism, He will count it as righteousness and all will be right in the end.

if your point is that you're the counter example for the moroni 10 system of mormon testimony and therefore it does not work, maybe you should start off with that as a sort of truth in advertising disclaimer.  if you're frustrated that you've tried and tried for years with real intent and you've gotten nothing and that angers you, then you have my sympathies.  that must feel like torture. i kinda wrestled with it in the beginning, but only for a few moments before i had my own little 'a ha!' moment.

there's not much else that can come from a conversation of this topic.  it's either a "feel and validate my pain" or it's a "your system is flawed and the rest of you must be doing something kooky because it doesn't work for me."  i'll let you figure out which one is a more fruitful conversation!

if i've misunderstood you, i apologize.

If it weren't for Moroni 10 I would still be an agnostic.

It works.  It worked for me in spades

[mfbukowski]

On 4/2/2017 at 0:43 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Where have I ever attacked you personally?  I might disagree with doctrine and opinions, but I don't attack others personally, which is something you can't say for yourself, because you have attacked me numerous times in other posts.  Here is just one example:

"If you actually knew something about the subject of Egyptology, your opinion might be worth something.  As it is, I recommend that you restrain yourself to summarizing the learned opinions of Egyptologists (and other ancient Near Easter experts).  You embarrass yourself by continually pontificating on this subject as though your apriori opinions have any gravitas.  They simply don't.  No fairminded person is going to make wild and silly claims about what a hundred Egyptologists might say.  One needs to engage what real Egyptologists have said about the subject.  Of course, if anti-Mormon agitation and propaganda is your only real objective, then you need not do anything according to Hoyle.

A perfect example of your deliberate effort to obfuscate is your implied claim here that the Bible is a fraud simply because it used the word "pharaoh" as a name in a period when that was not done -- just as you do for the BofA -- since both were transmitted down through time by the Jews. It is clearly not your purpose to make a real-world assessment, but only to engage in polemic attacks."

Your attacks/words are a great example of "negativity" IMO.  

 

 

 

If you actually read Robert's comment, he never said anything about personal attacks, yet clearly you personally attacked him.   In fact in the post you quoted, the word "personal" is not even used a single time.

And clearly you have no understanding of the faith of others nor any sensitivity whatsoever.

Edited April 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If it weren't for Moroni 10 I would still be an agnostic.

It works.  It worked for me in spades

The funny thing about this is that I actually got annoyed with Heavenly Father for ignoring me when I knelt down after my "official" read-through of the Book of Mormon, and asked for my "official" testimony.  I had reasoned that I needed to read the book all the way cover-to-cover before I served my mission.  Up to that point and after 5 years of membership I had never read it cover-to-cover, though I had read extensively within it, but now I thought that I needed to get my "official" spiritual experience that it was true.  But when I had read the last page, and knelt down to pray, I got nothing.  I tried it again on succeeding nights after work, but still nothing.  I was actually quite annoyed!  Then suddenly I realized what the problem was!  I already knew it was true.  I reflected upon the several instances during my reading where I knew that what I was reading had actually happened.  In the most dramatic experience, it was in Alma 14, when the persecutors of Alma and Amulek take the wives and children of those who had believed in their preaching and force them to watch as they were cast into the fire.  Amulek urges Alma to use the power of God to save them from the flames, but Alma says No.

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming 
in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness 
this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise 
the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch 
forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; 
and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this 
thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments 
which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of 
the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily 
against them at the last day.

When I had read this I was overcome with grief, and also with the love of God.  I knew that this horrifying thing had actually happened, and that things were indeed as Alma had said, and that God's purposes frequently transcend what our puny minds can comprehend, and that in the end His justice and glory will prevail.  And there were a number of other experiences I had had to that point, both in reading the Book of Mormon and in other things, in which the Spirit of the Lord had blessed me with comfort and knowledge.  And expanded my mind.  It also taught me that the Lord doesn't care to repeat Himself when it isn't called for.  He's not Jeeves, who comes when you ring the bell, just because you rang it.

While I was on my mission I had a very interesting insight into the Book of Mormon, in connection with the Bible.

It happened during my daily scripture study, and I was reading the New Testament.  This was for the first time cover to cover (although I had read extensively in the NT, I hadn't read it all the way through like that).  I had gotten through the Gospels, and Acts, and then I plowed into Romans.  And hit a brick wall.  I had finished chapter one when I realized that I hadn't actually understood a single thing I had read.  A little startled, I went back to the beginning of the chapter and tried again.  I got past a number of verses in chapter one again, but to my puzzlement realized that it had been completely meaningless!  I think I tried a total of three times before I put a pause on, and thought about what was going on.  I concluded that since Paul wrote Romans, and the language had completely flipped from the clear verbiage of the Gospels and Acts, I thought Paul might be the problem.  And since most of the rest of the Epistles were written by Paul, I thought that perhaps I might be heading into a bad place trying to comprehend what he had written.  So I called a break and went back to the Book of Mormon.  A week or so later, I had re-read 1 & 2 Nephi, and one thing I noticed was that Jacob's quotations in 2 Nephi from several chapters of Isaiah had become meaningful to me -- I recall having been unaffected by them in previous reads.  And now, for some reason, I was prompted to pick up again in Romans.  And as I read chapter one, I found that I did understand what was written -- it was now clear!  And I went on throughout the rest of Paul's epistles and found a great deal of value in them.  The lesson I got out of this was as follows: the Bible's message is enhanced by the Book of Mormon.  And the reverse is true, as well.

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, snowflake said:

Absolutely, I pray for wisdom when studying the Bible, as James 1 says. I trust the Bible much more than I trust my feelings. People, places, dates, cities, cultures, kingdoms, mountains, rivers,  tens of thousands of manuscripts support the text in multiple varying languages, not to mention the prophicies. In studying these pieces of evidence it gives me confidence in the Book and the book's accuracy and the claims that it makes. If you want to throw all the evidence out as unconvincing that is up to you. You obviously are an educated and eloquent person. Be intellectually honest with yourself and compare evidence for the two books against each other.  I submit to you that the book of Daniel alone has more historically documented people, places and objects than the entirety of the BOM. Where is the BOM museum? Where is the evidence for the cultures described. Is there a single manuscript pre 1830 to support the text?   When I compare the BOM with the Bible there is no comparison.  The BOM reads like a cheap knock off of the Bible, Uninspired, undocumented and the LDS church to this day won't even tell us where it supposedly took place! Studying the bible is actually very convincing of it's divine origin.

People pray about the BOM to know it's truth, I prayed and have been told that it is fiction.  

I find it amazing and contradictory that you follow the bible more than your feelings.  There are many historical books which make no claims about spirituality- how could you possibly trust your salvation to historical evidence when there are so many blatant contradictions in biblical interpretation?  How can history tell you that a man crucified 2000 years ago took upon himself YOUR sins?  It seems very naive and gullible to me.   These are issues that only God himself can teach you about- not the alleged history written by men.  How could you even know that it is "God breathed" without knowing the voice of God?

How could one possibly know the bible is "true" with that attitude?   Because it says it is true?  How can you know anything is true on your own without others telling you ?  

You seem to be accepting the word of others without any independent thought at all, tossed about by any wind of doctrine anyone throws at you.

Sorry, but I don't get that at all, nor do I think it is a view I would want to emulate.  I do not see that as an effective missionary position from your point of view.

You must know God's voice and be taught by Him directly- there is no reason to trust the words of men if you cannot tell they are from God by knowing his voice in your heart.

Knowing that voice trumps history- once you know it, history is irrelevant.   He speaks to you directly.  How men SAW the history is irrelevant.  If you don't know Jesus is the savior in your own heart, believing a book of legends about people who died 2000 years ago seems like a confused approach to me.

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I find it amazing and contradictory that you follow the bible more than your feelings.  There are many historical books which make no claims about spirituality- how could you possibly trust your salvation to historical evidence when there are so many blatant contradictions in biblical interpretation?  How can history tell you that a man crucified 2000 years ago took upon himself YOUR sins?  It seems very naive and gullible to me.   These are issues that only God himself can teach you about- not the alleged history written by men.  How could you even know that it is "God breathed" without knowing the voice of God?

How could one possibly know the bible is "true" with that attitude?   Because it says it is true?  How can you know anything is true on your own without others telling you ?  

You seem to be accepting the word of others without any independent thought at all, tossed about by any wind of doctrine anyone throws at you.

Sorry, but I don't get that at all, nor do I think it is a view I would want to emulate.  I do not see that as an effective missionary position from your point of view.

You must know God's voice and be taught by Him directly- there is no reason to trust the words of men if you cannot tell they are from God by knowing his voice in your heart.

Knowing that voice trumps history- once you know it, history is irrelevant.   He speaks to you directly.  How men SAW the history is irrelevant.  If you don't know Jesus is the savior in your own heart, believing a book of legends about people who died 2000 years ago seems like a confused approach to me.

In fairness, in a response to pogi, he did report having prayed about it, and he said this:

When I was praying for wisdom regarding the BOM it was impressed upon my 
conscience that it was a work of fiction, a counterfeit. There was no 
audible voice but an overwhelming impression that the Bible was God's 
word alone and not to trust the BOM. 

I took him to task the same way you just did and felt like I had to backtrack a bit on it.  Which I did.

But the question still remains, from whom did he get his answer from?  And that's entirely his responsibility.  My concern is that he got it from the wrong source, but I can't do his work for him.  If I try to argue about his answer, what stops him from arguing about mine? Or yours?  

There comes a point where one just has to accept the result and move on.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Even after concluding that it reads "like a cheap knock off of the Bible", you actually knelt before God with real intent and a sincere/open heart and mind to ask if it is true??  I would be impressed!  Did you actually hear his voice telling you that it is "fiction", or what happened exactly to make you believe that you received revelation from God who told you that the BoM is "fiction"?

 

Exactly

How could he believe he received a revelation if he does not believe in the principle OF personal revelation?  There's a  central contradiction there.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, snowflake said:

We have extra biblical accounts of Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakhim king of Judah, Belshazzar, Darius the Median, Cyrus the Persian, and the Caldeans. We know these cultures existed, when and where they existed.  Is there anything extra-BOM other than a "warm fuzzy feeling" that we could examine to support the BOM??? This would be support for Daniel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_Inscription

And we obviously have other historical accounts of the beliefs of these cultures.  You verify the existence of these right here.

Why not believe in the religions of those other historical accounts??  Why accept the bible above the faiths of these other historical cultures if history is what is all-important?

Edited April 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, snowflake said:

I love the circular reasoning with the LDS Moroni chanllenge, I either 1. didn't pray with real intent, 2. had a hidden sin in my life or 3. repeat process until you get the response that the BOM is true. If I don't get that answer, then all the blame is on me correct?

And yes the BOM plagiarizes the Bible throughout. http://www.mormonismdisproved.org/plagiarism.html

Circular reasoning?

The bible is true because it says so?  Without any way of verifying that?

People who live in glass houses.....

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

And this is the problem with trying to use revelation to definitively answer these kinds of questions. It's like a clock face with no numbers. Interpret the time however you wish. 

"These kind of questions"?  What kind of questions do you THINK they are??

These questions are nothing like finding out the time of day- NOTHING

The problem is that nothing OTHER THAN subjective revelation can help you with subjective issues on how to live your life.  The problem is thinking these are NOT subjective issues in the first place and that subjective beliefs can be justified through any other means than subjective feelings.

One does not perform scientific experiments to find a spouse or figure out what one finds to be immoral or for whom to vote.  One does not find the meaning and purpose of one's life in a test tube or by reading an oscilloscope or by studying history.

Edited April 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

There is no way for you to be certain that you've become better at telling the difference, because there is nothing external to your internal experience for comparison. 

What is your evidence that evidence is relevant to internal experience?

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, snowflake said:

Praying to know truth is not a valid test! Why do you think there are so many LDS sects out there that all claim to have the truth?

LOL

Are there maybe a few "Christian" denominations?  Like one on every street corner?  Fire breathed Holiness Associations to Catholics and a thousand in between?

Holy cow- quit while you are behind

The hole keeps getting deeper

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

Sure, but someone could get a revelation that the Catholic church is the only true church, and get good results that way too. So revelation can't tell you what the only universally true church is. Revelation isn't nearly that precise. 

Uh

There are many ways to teach math, some work better than others for individuals.   This is not an objective question- how could a worshiper of "existence" NOT understand that?

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

Sure, and he'll tell someone else something totally different. Like I said, it's a clock face with no numbers. 

I'm not sure why people think they can take a totally subjective experience like personal revelation and think it applies to non-subjective questions. Revelation will tell you how you feel about something. It's like meditation. If you could get universal answers from it no one would ever need to study for math exams.

HUH?

I agree but this contradicts all you have been saying looking for objective verification of subjective experience.

How can I get evidence of what you actually dreamed last night?  You can only tell me subjectively what your subjective experience was.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, snowflake said:

Did Jesus even really exist? (historically speaking?)

Unknowable- and that is precisely the problem with your "historical" approach

Without God verifying it, all we have are stories- yes from extra-biblical sources but that does not make any of them any more true than any other ancient legend.  The stories might just as well be about Apollo or Mithras.   We have a lot of historical sources for those stories as well.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Erika Henderson said:

Hi Everyone,  I am new here and found this thread very interesting.  Here is a short version of my story and experience and would like to see what you think.

1. I was raised in the lds church by convert parents who joined the church in Germany. I basically trusted and believed their testimony and accepted it as true. I loved the idea of a modern day prophet to guide us in these latter days and in continuing revelation. I liked the idea of the pursuit of excellence, and the plan of salvation that man could become 'gods',  Alot of things made sense in the lds church to me and things that bothered me, I just put on a shelf for later understanding.

2. At 21, I served a two year mission in Austria. Europe is a difficult mission for baptizing and I hated tracting 60-80 hours a week.  This is when I began questioning my faith.  People threw alot of questions at me about spiritual things and this is when I really decided I better get my own testimony as I did not want to be doing this if the church was not true. I became more and more confused and had pretty much lost my faith in God and the church by the time I got home.  I had asked God if Joseph Smith was his prophet and this was his restored church but got no spiritual witness or feeling.

3.  After my mission, I still wanted to believe in God and the church, so I took some institute classes on the campus of UNLV.  I met my future husband in a Book of Mormon class.  He was not a member, agnostic, but searching for spiritual truths. He thought the lds church had a rational theology and decided to join. We got married civilly and had alot of interesting gospel discussions. He was a very honest, sincere man. He finally decided to test Moroni's promise and wanted that spiritual witness everyone talked about.  He believed that a spiritual witness would be like the one "Peter, had in the Bible when Jesus told him that flesh and blood had not reveled that to him, but the Holy Spirit."  My husband just wanted that complete assurance where he no longer doubted but felt sure.  He fasted many days and prayed for an answer in regards to the Book of Mormon. None came, and it frustrated him. He loved Paul Dunn and decided to rely on his testimony. When he found out about the fabrication stories, it really upset him. He told me that if a good man like Paul Dunn could fabricate his spiritual experiences, then maybe JS did too. From that day on he stopped going to church.

4. I continued going to church and loved my callings but was very depressed that my husband had left the church. In a fast and testimony meeting one Sunday, where many men were bearing their testimonies, I began crying so hard, wondering why God had not given my husband a spiritual witness. Out of the blue, a thought went through my head at that moment, :Why don't you go visit that 7th Day Adventist Church down the street?  I wondered where that thought had come from out of the blue? 3 more times that thought went through my head. So, when I got home, I told my husband about my experience.  He said, "Well, let's follow that premonition and see where it leads."  So, we did and met this amazing pastor who really helped us come to Christ. I prayed about the 7th Day Adventist church and the lds church and the thoughts that came to me were: "I work through all churches and through all sincere people who are seeking me."  I lead different people to different churches, depending what they need at that time.  All I wanted to know was God's will for my family. I learned that the Savior did not come to save me from my problems, but from my sins.

5. Long story short, God has led our family to several other churches since then.  We were in a Nazarene church for two years and have been in a United Church of Christ for the past 4 years.  We have met amazing people who have the Holy Spirit so strong with them and learned that the lds church does not have a monopoly on the Holy Ghost. We have a gay son who almost killed himself from thinking he was going to hell by his lds Sunday school teachers. He left the lds church and lost his faith in God and Jesus. The pastor in our United Church of Christ is gay and married to his partner.  He took our son under his wings and prayed with him many times. Today, my gay son has faith in Christ again.

So, after reading most of the posts here, it is my conclusion that God works with us very individually and if you are sincere, he will guide you in a path that is best for your and your family. 

Exactly.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

If the veil is parted and a messenger actually is present (not in the mind or spirit, i.e. A visitation, not a vision) I don't see how that can be subject to interpretation.  And that does happen.

How would one tell the difference between a visitation and a vision??

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

The funny thing about this is that I actually got annoyed with Heavenly Father for ignoring me when I knelt down after my "official" read-through of the Book of Mormon, and asked for my "official" testimony.  I had reasoned that I needed to read the book all the way cover-to-cover before I served my mission.  Up to that point and after 5 years of membership I had never read it cover-to-cover, though I had read extensively within it, but now I thought that I needed to get my "official" spiritual experience that it was true.  But when I had read the last page, and knelt down to pray, I got nothing.  I tried it again on succeeding nights after work, but still nothing.  I was actually quite annoyed!  Then suddenly I realized what the problem was!  I already knew it was true.  I reflected upon the several instances during my reading where I knew that what I was reading had actually happened.  In the most dramatic experience, it was in Alma 14, when the persecutors of Alma and Amulek take the wives and children of those who had believed in their preaching and force them to watch as they were cast into the fire.  Amulek urges Alma to use the power of God to save them from the flames, but Alma says No.

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming 
in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness 
this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise 
the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch 
forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; 
and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this 
thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments 
which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of 
the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily 
against them at the last day.

When I had read this I was overcome with grief, and also with the love of God.  I knew that this horrifying thing had actually happened, and that things were indeed as Alma had said, and that God's purposes frequently transcend what our puny minds can comprehend, and that in the end His justice and glory will prevail.  And there were a number of other experiences I had had to that point, both in reading the Book of Mormon and in other things, in which the Spirit of the Lord had blessed me with comfort and knowledge.  And expanded my mind.  It also taught me that the Lord doesn't care to repeat Himself when it isn't called for.  He's not Jeeves, who comes when you ring the bell, just because you rang it.

While I was on my mission I had a very interesting insight into the Book of Mormon, in connection with the Bible.

It happened during my daily scripture study, and I was reading the New Testament.  This was for the first time cover to cover (although I had read extensively in the NT, I hadn't read it all the way through like that).  I had gotten through the Gospels, and Acts, and then I plowed into Romans.  And hit a brick wall.  I had finished chapter one when I realized that I hadn't actually understood a single thing I had read.  A little startled, I went back to the beginning of the chapter and tried again.  I got past a number of verses in chapter one again, but to my puzzlement realized that it had been completely meaningless!  I think I tried a total of three times before I put a pause on, and thought about what was going on.  I concluded that since Paul wrote Romans, and the language had completely flipped from the clear verbiage of the Gospels and Acts, I thought Paul might be the problem.  And since most of the rest of the Epistles were written by Paul, I thought that perhaps I might be heading into a bad place trying to comprehend what he had written.  So I called a break and went back to the Book of Mormon.  A week or so later, I had re-read 1 & 2 Nephi, and one thing I noticed was that Jacob's quotations in 2 Nephi from several chapters of Isaiah had become meaningful to me -- I recall having been unaffected by them in previous reads.  And now, for some reason, I was prompted to pick up again in Romans.  And as I read chapter one, I found that I did understand what was written -- it was now clear!  And I went on throughout the rest of Paul's epistles and found a great deal of value in them.  The lesson I got out of this was as follows: the Bible's message is enhanced by the Book of Mormon.  And the reverse is true, as well.

Thanks, great story!

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, snowflake said:

I love the circular reasoning with the LDS Moroni chanllenge, I either 1. didn't pray with real intent, 2. had a hidden sin in my life or 3. repeat process until you get the response that the BOM is true. If I don't get that answer, then all the blame is on me correct?

And yes the BOM plagiarizes the Bible throughout. http://www.mormonismdisproved.org/plagiarism.html

Circular reasoning aside, what is this about plagiarism?  

ROFL!!  

Plagiarism: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

This was simply fascinating!  MormonismDisproved has really nailed it, right? Give me a break.

Almost every single one of these instances of the Book of Mormon quoting Isaiah are preceded by the attribution that these things were written by Isaiah!  You might remember that after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, by direction of the Lord, Lehi sent his sons back to Jerusalem to get a copy of the scriptures so they could take them with them to their promised land.  Because God didn't want them to be without His word.  So they had the book of Isaiah with them.  

Plagiarism might be a plausible accusation if those Isaiah chapters had been reproduced as if they were original to the Book of Mormon.  But the accusation does not hold water at all if the quotations attribute the original source and author!

It gets worse!  In 3 Nephi the risen Lord Jesus Christ appears among the Nephites and -- horrors -- repeats the words he gave to the people in the Sermon on the Mount!  Imagine that!  Jesus plagiarized Jesus!

Maybe I can almost understand the umbrage taken when, in Mosiah, 1 Corinthians is quoted -- centuries before Paul wrote the epistle.  Except, let's consider the venue.  Were Paul's writings inspired of God or were they not?  Did God know in advance that Paul was going to write what he wrote, or was it a surprise?  Let's assume that He knew what Paul was going to write.  Was that which Paul wrote something of value to all peoples of all times?  Of course!  So why shouldn't or wouldn't God reveal to someone out of Paul's own timeline something that Paul would write, if it would benefit the people of that other timeline?  Or maybe Paul was plagiarizing King Benjamin (unknowingly, since he didn't have a copy of the Book of Mosiah, I'm pretty sure)?  Or maybe God thought that what King Benjamin said to the Nephites was worthy to be repeated to the Corinthians!  Imagine that!

Except it was only partial plagiarism (this is 1 Cor 15:58 vs Mosiah 5:15):

Paul: Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

King Benjamin: Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen.

I think that we can sum up this entire tempest in a teapot with a quotation from the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 29:8-10):

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that 
the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one 
nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto 
another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations 
shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and 
forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because 
that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my 
work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that 
time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all 
my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

In other words, the quotations from the Bible contained in the Book of Mormon confirm the testimony and the truthfulness of the Bible.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

In fairness, in a response to pogi, he did report having prayed about it, and he said this:

When I was praying for wisdom regarding the BOM it was impressed upon my 
conscience that it was a work of fiction, a counterfeit. There was no 
audible voice but an overwhelming impression that the Bible was God's 
word alone and not to trust the BOM. 

I took him to task the same way you just did and felt like I had to backtrack a bit on it.  Which I did.

But the question still remains, from whom did he get his answer from?  And that's entirely his responsibility.  My concern is that he got it from the wrong source, but I can't do his work for him.  If I try to argue about his answer, what stops him from arguing about mine? Or yours?  

There comes a point where one just has to accept the result and move on.

Oh I accept it- I was simply commenting on his lack of consistency that on one hand he does not accept revelation except if it is against the BOM.   If it is positive about the BOM he does not accept it

And all this after saying he does not believe in following his feelings at all- just what the bible says.  All these statements are not consistent

My belief that God leads us personally the best path back to Him, IS consistent with all this, I believe.  For some it might be the bible only, for some, no BOM and for others, both.

He leads and directs us to the path which is best for us

BUT I also believe that in the final analysis the LDS view of continuing revelation and dispensationalism covers that belief.  Milk before meat and all that.  Some are not ready for "things as they are" and the direct experience of God and so they have to lean on the Bible say, or discount the Book of Abraham because accepting it might cause them to become complete atheists if they tried to accept it.

I hate to put it this way but they are not yet ready for the ambiguity of the idea that God's truth can vary according to time periods and circumstances- yet our open canon and displensationalism can handle these concepts.  Historically, no one had as much of the entire gospel as we have today and we will have more in the future.  That we receive line upon line and precept by precept is known to us, so we can expect that others have not received all we have because they are not ready.

But if you believe everything was given in the bible without error once for all times, one cannot handle the idea that it comes line upon line.  So we can accept ambiguity where others cannot- and theirs is the less complete perspective.

So "all roads lead to Rome" - or to the Restored gospel, in my belief system.  Yes God teaches others line upon line, and us as well, but our view is more complete and more "advanced" from the beginning and takes us farther in understanding than any other view.

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh I accept it- I was simply commenting on his lack of consistency that on one hand he does not accept revelation except if it is against the BOM.   If it is positive about the BOM he does not accept it

And all this after saying he does not believe in following his feelings at all- just what the bible says.  All these statements are not consistent

My belief that God leads us personally the best path back to Him, IS consistent with all this, I believe.  For some it might be the bible only, for some, no BOM and for others, both.

He leads and directs us to the path which is best for us

BUT I also believe that in the final analysis the LDS view of continuing revelation and dispensationalism covers that belief.  Milk before meat and all that.  Some are not ready for "things as they are" and the direct experience of God and so they have to lean on the Bible say, or discount the Book of Abraham because accepting it might cause them to become complete atheists if they tried to accept it.

I hate to put it this way but they are not yet ready for the ambiguity of the idea that God's truth can vary according to time periods and circumstances- yet our open canon and displensationalism can handle these concepts.  Historically, no one had as much of the entire gospel as we have today and we will have more in the future.  That we receive line upon line and precept by precept is known to us, so we can expect that others have not received all we have because they are not ready.

But if you believe everything was given in the bible without error once for all times, one cannot handle the idea that it comes line upon line.  So we can accept ambiguity where others cannot- and theirs is the less complete perspective.

So "all roads lead to Rome" - or to the Restored gospel, in my belief system.  Yes God teaches others line upon line, and us as well, but our view is more complete and more "advanced" from the beginning and takes us farther in understanding than any other view.

Extremely well said!

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Circular reasoning aside, what is this about plagiarism?  

ROFL!!  

Plagiarism: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

This was simply fascinating!  MormonismDisproved has really nailed it, right? Give me a break.

Almost every single one of these instances of the Book of Mormon quoting Isaiah are preceded by the attribution that these things were written by Isaiah!  You might remember that after Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, by direction of the Lord, Lehi sent his sons back to Jerusalem to get a copy of the scriptures so they could take them with them to their promised land.  Because God didn't want them to be without His word.  So they had the book of Isaiah with them.  

Plagiarism might be a plausible accusation if those Isaiah chapters had been reproduced as if they were original to the Book of Mormon.  But the accusation does not hold water at all if the quotations attribute the original source and author!

It gets worse!  In 3 Nephi the risen Lord Jesus Christ appears among the Nephites and -- horrors -- repeats the words he gave to the people in the Sermon on the Mount!  Imagine that!  Jesus plagiarized Jesus!

Maybe I can almost understand the umbrage taken when, in Mosiah, 1 Corinthians is quoted -- centuries before Paul wrote the epistle.  Except, let's consider the venue.  Were Paul's writings inspired of God or were they not?  Did God know in advance that Paul was going to write what he wrote, or was it a surprise?  Let's assume that He knew what Paul was going to write.  Was that which Paul wrote something of value to all peoples of all times?  Of course!  So why shouldn't or wouldn't God reveal to someone out of Paul's own timeline something that Paul would write, if it would benefit the people of that other timeline?  Or maybe Paul was plagiarizing King Benjamin (unknowingly, since he didn't have a copy of the Book of Mosiah, I'm pretty sure)?  Or maybe God thought that what King Benjamin said to the Nephites was worthy to be repeated to the Corinthians!  Imagine that!

Except it was only partial plagiarism (this is 1 Cor 15:58 vs Mosiah 5:15):

Paul: Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

King Benjamin: Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen.

I think that we can sum up this entire tempest in a teapot with a quotation from the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 29:8-10):

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that 
the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one 
nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto 
another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations 
shall run together also.

9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and 
forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because 
that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my 
work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that 
time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all 
my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

In other words, the quotations from the Bible contained in the Book of Mormon confirm the testimony and the truthfulness of the Bible.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

 

Another point is that Joseph probably read not much more than the King James Bible and even the speech of the culture in which he lived was fully impregnated by King James English

That language was their cultural vernacular so it was perfectly natural to speak that way

And if the text was making the same point that his memorized text was making, of course he would use that vernacular

I used the phrase "line upon line, precept upon precept" in the last post- it was not "plagerism" - I chose that phrase precisly because LDS folks are so familiar with that phrase and it is part of our cultural vocabulary and the phrase communicated exactly what I wanted to say- to an LDS audience within and LDS context.

Same for Joseph with the King James Version

Remember from the time children started to read, their main text for learning to spell and read was the KJV.   It was the only book everyone had- it was the source for their common language, and everyone read it probably dozens of times, heard it preached in church and heard its cadences in daily discourse.

No magazines, no TV, just the KJV for learning English.

Of course they spoke that way.

[Mars]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

If the veil is parted and a messenger actually is present (not in the mind or spirit, i.e. A visitation, not a vision) I don't see how that can be subject to interpretation.  And that does happen.

absolutely it does.  and it makes sure knowledge.  but still can't be transferred.  and that's what gray means when he says "no one can know for sure."  insofar as that what he means, i agree with him.