Why does Holy Ghost transform lives in many religions if "True Church" authority is required?

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It makes ya wonder the importance of this world then.  If, say, someone who never was Mormon gets exalted, then perhaps others in such a situation will be too.  Chances are, if that is the case, there will be far more exalted people that were never Mormon then there will be that were Mormon.  If so, what benefit was it to be Mormon?  To be found in these last days living amongst the elite? 

I think the next life for those who accept gospel ordinances there will be like it is for those of us who accept it is like (if that makes sense) I think either here or there we'll be tried even as abrham. I don't think it'll be a wholesale accepting of ordinances like parents sending kids back to school just dumping stuff off in a cart, "you need, and this and this and this" I think it'll probably be a lot like it is now. I've never obviously been but i've heard good things

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

What benefit is it to go to university if in the next life all those who desire it will receive the full knowledge of God?  What benefit to eat healthy and exercise if we will all be given perfect bodies in the next life?

Beats me.  We stress quality of life in our modern world, but what does it do for us in eternity?  Are we better off if we live a better easier life in mortality then those who lived in distant lands in difficult times?  If so, why did that happen?  I thought God would not be a respecter of persons.

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think the next life for those who accept gospel ordinances there will be like it is for those of us who accept it is like (if that makes sense) I think either here or there we'll be tried even as abrham. I don't think it'll be a wholesale accepting of ordinances like parents sending kids back to school just dumping stuff off in a cart, "you need, and this and this and this" I think it'll probably be a lot like it is now. I've never obviously been but i've heard good things

Yes you've heard good things from other's who have never been.  We're just working by blind faith here. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes you've heard good things from other's who have never been.  We're just working by blind faith here. 

even a brochure would be nice though right?!

[Meerkat]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Yes you've heard good things from other's who have never been.  We're just working by blind faith here. 

Actually, we have the Holy Ghost, the scriptures, a living prophet, the Commandments and the fruits of our own lives living the Gospel.  Not completely blind faith.  Maybe looking through a glass darkly.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Meerkat

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I read your definition of elevation, and agree that witnessing a perfect performance, or act of particular goodness can and often does elicit a feeling similar to (Or maybe actually is) the influence of the Holy Ghost.

I appreciate the thought you have given how the Holy Ghost may actually operate, and the part we play by interpreting those feelings.  That whole process is also a mystery to me, nevertheless real.  My question also goes to how others outside the Mormon faith deal with the important issue of authority.  

Interesting comment regarding Oliver Cowdery. Regardless of the part he played in the Restoration, the appearance of HF and the Savior to the Prophet Josep Smith indicates to me that Joseph Smith was the one God chose as prophet of the Restoration.  The Holy Ghost testifying  (as I interpret my experience,) to the Book of Mormon also lends credence to Joseph's position.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  These are good questions, what is the HG and how does it work in our lives.  

As for the first vision, the version the church chose to canonize is the most crafted and least authentic sounding version in my opinion, I very much prefer the 1832 account which was more of a personal answer to the prayer of someone seeking a remission of sins.  There were many other people during the 2nd great awakening that had very similar visionary experiences, even Richard Bushman has stated that there are elements of the first vision narrative that were likely borrowed from these other experiences that were happening in the environment Joseph was in.  

I wonder about when Joseph started to consider himself a prophet in the same way that the church considers him a prophet today.  If you look at the earliest revelations, Joseph's gift was supposed to be limited to just translating the BoM, not to anything else, it says that specifically, but just a few years later Joseph changed the wording to the exact opposite meaning, which I think shows the evolution of Joseph's view to a completely different perspective than just a few years earlier.  

Lastly, when you say the HG testified about the BoM, what do you interpret that to mean exactly.  Does it mean that the BoM is historical?  Could it mean that something you learned about the BoM is a true principle, rather than the book is historical.  And does this say anything about Joseph's call as a prophet, or does it say more about your relationship with the text of the BoM, and not necessarily a stamp of approval from God on the entire work of the BoM and all the claims that get discussed around its production.  Do you know what I mean here, just asking for some thought about what an experience with the HG is like and how that develops into a narrative interpretation of that experience.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It makes ya wonder the importance of this world then.  If, say, someone who never was Mormon gets exalted, then perhaps others in such a situation will be too.  Chances are, if that is the case, there will be far more exalted people that were never Mormon then there will be that were Mormon.  If so, what benefit was it to be Mormon?  To be found in these last days living amongst the elite? 

The importance of this world, and the benefit to be Mormon, are the same: To help others prepare to receive the Gospel, whether in his world or the next.

Jesus was the first to demonstrate this “somebody has to do it” principle. The importance of this world is to bring spirit and element together (the physical importance) and bring to pass the exaltation of man (the spiritual importance). This involved a Creator and a Savior. As with the Creation, in which He included others, He includes “saviors on Mount Zion” who assist Him in this world, resulting in the kingdom of heaven on earth (a.k.a. Mormons).

The benefit of being a Mormon is fulfilling the measure of our creation, the same as every other child of God in their particular “times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him…” (Acts 17:26-27). Not everyone is going to have a time and habitation involving Mormonism. But: Jesus created all people physically with the creation of mother earth (with the assistance of procreating children of God), and created us all spiritually in that we have our agency through Him. He also saves all people physically through the resurrection and spiritually through His payment for our sins and the resulting covenant requirements (with the assistance of those delegated to hold the keys of His priesthood).

One of these covenant requirements is to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by ordinance.

Edited August 11, 2017 by CV75

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

Right.  Eat healthy, get plenty of exercise, die anyway.  Hardly seems fair, does it.  Unless the purpose is obedience, along the lines "I didn't ask you to move the rock, only push it."

I don't see God asking us to do one purpose self centered things (think lifting weights...builds muscles but nothing else as opposed to lifting sacks of grain onto trucks, builds muscles and contributes to people getting food)...even building muscles of whatever kind, I think he is clever enough that he is efficiently moving the mountain through having people push rocks, even though we cannot see it in the short term view.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I think the next life for those who accept gospel ordinances there will be like it is for those of us who accept it is like (if that makes sense) I think either here or there we'll be tried even as abrham. I don't think it'll be a wholesale accepting of ordinances like parents sending kids back to school just dumping stuff off in a cart, "you need, and this and this and this" I think it'll probably be a lot like it is now. I've never obviously been but i've heard good things

With eternities to work with, there is no need to hurry so he can choose the path with the most long term benefit rather than quick, but smaller over all return.

[Meerkat]

52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

just a few years later Joseph changed the wording to the exact opposite meaning, which I think shows the evolution of Joseph's view to a completely different perspective than just a few years earlier.  

That's a great insight.  Revelations after that young and humble beginning may well have informed him what the Lord had intended of him.

Regarding your comments about the Great Awakening and other visionary experiences, I am satisfied that the fruits of his life were supportive of his calling of prophet, seer and revelator.  The sheer volume of revelations, city planning, financing, architecture, sending missionaries out into the world, building Kirtland, excavating and building the largest city in Illinois on a malarial swamp while responding to the arrests, legal challenges, etc. qualify him in my estimation as the Prophet of the Restoration

Add to that the thousands who left everything in their homelands to come to America, were driven from pillar to post, buried loved ones by the wayside in their trudge to Salt Lake City and laid the foundation of leadership we have today. Those things are pretty impressive to me. There may be other prophets who compare to Joseph Smith, but none readily come to my mind.

Even greater than those fruits is the testimony I have of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, the Prophet.  I understand why people would leave everything for this Gospel.  I understand why they would pull their handcarts west again and again, and remain faithful through it all. They truly believed, as do I, that this is the Lord's Church, the fullness of the Gospel restored in the last days prior to His 2nd coming.  Aside from this testimony that I have, which feels like 2 + 2 = 4 to me, I find evidences everywhere in my life that support this testimony.  The scriptures for example.  Rev. 14:6-8 for example, talking about an angel coming with the everlasting Gospel to be preached to the world prior to the 2nd Coming. Things like that are meaningful to me.  More meaningful, probably, because I believe they relate to my testimony.

I'd like to think about your question about the Holy Ghost, the Book of Mormon, etc. to consider what my answer might be.  I enjoy your comments very much and want to be accurate in my responses.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Meerkat

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Beats me.  We stress quality of life in our modern world, but what does it do for us in eternity?  Are we better off if we live a better easier life in mortality then those who lived in distant lands in difficult times?  If so, why did that happen?  I thought God would not be a respecter of persons.

'Not a respecter of persons' doesn't mean he ensures everyone gets the identical deal anymore than it means someone calls everyone the same name.

Better isn't always easier.  Usually better actually means harder.  Easier usually means mediocre...if not in one's environment, in one's self.

 We generally can help more people the more resources and education we have, though some are able to do much more with little...chances are though if they had more, they would have accomplished and helped more.  But just helping the person next to you...how can that not have absolute value in your eyes?

Why are benefits in mortality for ourselves and others not a good enough reason to try to do well?  Why must it have eternal significance to matter?

If I take care of myself, I am better able to care for my mom and daughter who need my care plus help others who don't need it, but have better lives with my help.  Educating myself in health areas might have saved my daughter's life, it is definitely keeping Mom independentish and not stuck in hell on earth for her assisted living.

So what if it doesn't do squat for them as soon as they die,  In the here and now it helps, should I let them suffer now just because they won't be in 100 years on the other side of the wall?

Actively working on improving one's life to the best of one' ability even if that is extremely low is better than sitting around for 20-80 years moaning about the purposeless of life.  Anyone who really believed that mortal effort was meaningless because of no or little eternal impact would stop trying completely to support themselves and die of starvation.  But the belly feels better full than empty and sometimes that is all we need to get us to get up and move.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Calm

[USU78]

A thought on this topic.  To enter into full fellowship, including Temple fellowship, with the Saints is to become a "savior on Mount Zion," as that is what we strive to become.  How do we do it?  We strive through exercising priestly functions, both within the Temples and outside them, where we stand as the conduits through whom G-d's blessings are meted out.  We are lower case "s" saviors, as we have no power in ourselves to do anything:  we are mere functionaries.  We do the baptizing, we lay hands on heads for various reasons, we bless homes, graves and families, we administer the sacrament, and we perform all of those functions, both men and women, that are the highpriestly functions that impart even greater blessings.

The reason we do missionary work is only partly in order to ensure each individual whom we can reach receives baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, etc:  the rest of the reason is that we are recruiting other potential "saviors on Mount Zion" to aid us in doing His work.

Our greatest calling in life is to ape G-d and the Master, to the extent of our very limited abilities, in their great work:  creation and bringing souls back to G-d.  Most of the creating we do as individuals, only some of which we create as part of the body corporate.  The work of bringing souls back to G-d so that He accomplishes His "work and [His] glory," we do and must do and can only do as part of the body corporate.

Thus it makes perfect sense that G-d's blessings would come to all of his children, but not all of His blessings.  Those blessings that come as a result of membership and exercising the priestly and highpriestly functions require membership.  Ergo, the Spirit works in all hearts and touches all lives  ...  as He should.

Edited August 11, 2017 by USU78

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

'Not a respecter of persons' doesn't mean he ensures everyone gets the identical deal anymore than it means someone calls everyone the same name.

Better isn't always easier.  Usually better actually means harder.  Easier usually means mediocre...if not in one's environment, in one's self.

 We generally can help more people the more resources and education we have, though some are able to do much more with little...chances are though if they had more, they would have accomplished and helped more.  But just helping the person next to you...how can that not have absolute value in your eyes?

Why are benefits in mortality for ourselves and others not a good enough reason to try to do well?  Why must it have eternal significance to matter?

If I take care of myself, I am better able to care for my mom and daughter who need my care plus help others who don't need it, but have better lives with my help.  Educating myself in health areas might have saved my daughter's life, it is definitely keeping Mom independentish and not stuck in hell on earth for her assisted living.

So what if it doesn't do squat for them as soon as they die,  In the here and now it helps, should I let them suffer now just because they won't be in 100 years on the other side of the wall?

Actively working on improving one's life to the best of one' ability even if that is extremely low is better than sitting around for 20-80 years moaning about the purposeless of life.  Anyone who really believed that mortal effort was meaningless because of no or little eternal impact would stop trying completely to support themselves and die of starvation.  But the belly feels better full than empty and sometimes that is all we need to get us to get up and move.

I agree with this.  There is a joy in keeping the 2 Great Commandments that comes in no other way.  Not wealth.  Not fame. Not status.  Why, of all things God could have asked of us in the Baptismal Covenant, are we to mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort?  The great thing about it is this "key" to a happy life is available to nearly everyone regardless of where they live in the world. For those who don't have this opportunity, I believe God provides His compensation so that no honest effort comes to loss.  If our focus is money or comfort or things then, yes, there is a risk we will miss the boat.  But if our ultimate focus is Joy, I believe it is available to all whether we live in the jungle or paradise.  And for that, I believe God is no respector of persons. From my perspective this truly is, or can be for most people, a wonderful life.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Meerkat

[hope_for_things]

57 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

That's a great insight.  Revelations after that young and humble beginning may well have informed him what the Lord had intended of him.

Regarding your comments about the Great Awakening and other visionary experiences, I am satisfied that the fruits of his life were supportive of his calling of prophet, seer and revelator.  The sheer volume of revelations, city planning, financing, architecture, sending missionaries out into the world, building Kirtland, excavating and building the largest city in Illinois on a malarial swamp while responding to the arrests, legal challenges, etc. qualify him in my estimation as the Prophet of the Restoration

Add to that the thousands who left everything in their homelands to come to America, were driven from pillar to post, buried loved ones by the wayside in their trudge to Salt Lake City and laid the foundation of leadership we have today. Those things are pretty impressive to me. There may be other prophets who compare to Joseph Smith, but none readily come to my mind.

Even greater than those fruits is the testimony I have of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, the Prophet.  I understand why people would leave everything for this Gospel.  I understand why they would pull their handcarts west again and again, and remain faithful through it all. They truly believed, as do I, that this is the Lord's Church, the fullness of the Gospel restored in the last days prior to His 2nd coming.  Aside from this testimony that I have, which feels like 2 + 2 = 4 to me, I find evidences everywhere in my life that support this testimony.  The scriptures for example.  Rev. 14:6-8 for example, talking about an angel coming with the everlasting Gospel to be preached to the world prior to the 2nd Coming. Things like that are meaningful to me.  More meaningful, probably, because I believe they relate to my testimony.

I'd like to think about your question about the Holy Ghost, the Book of Mormon, etc. to consider what my answer might be.  I enjoy your comments very much and want to be accurate in my responses.

Thanks Meerkat.  You have my respect for the way you're interacting.  Really appreciate your sincerity, it comes across and that can be rare on message boards on such charged topics.  I appreciate my Mormonism, and the evolution of ideas that have brought me to my unorthodox perspectives, but I also appreciate sincere faith and respect it.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 If you look at the earliest revelations, Joseph's gift was supposed to be limited to just translating the BoM, not to anything else, it says that specifically, but just a few years later Joseph changed the wording to the exact opposite meaning, which I think shows the evolution of Joseph's view to a completely different perspective than just a few years earlier. 

Are you comparing D&C 5:4, where the Lord explains that translating the plates "is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished." with D&C 107:92, "Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church."?

In 1829, there was no Church; by 1835 there had been one for 5 years. In 1829 he received the first gift, and subsequently received other gifts (note that Oliver had two, according to Section 8 , the spirit of revelation and of Aaron), for example, that of revelation (6:8-11; 43:4).

What wording are you saying was changed?

[Gillebre]

I haven't taken the time to read all the replies, but I would like to later this weekend. I wanted to share some of my thoughts though. This is an excellent question!

There is a point or two that I think is critical to the understanding of this question's answer. The principle could essentially be boiled down, in my opinion, to this: how you live your life, the way you treat others, the way you treat yourself, the way you treat God, is of far more lasting value in determining the kind of person you've become by the end of your life than anything else. I don't want to imply in any way that saving ordinances and Priesthood power aren't a part of what God expects us to do, because His house is one of order, not chaos. There are certain things that He has explained, through His servants, must be done, chiefly baptism and the other ordinances including those of the Temple.

Having said that I think it important to note that whether or not someone has been through the Temple will make no difference at all if they don't live with charity. This life, and who we become, is all about how we treat our brothers and sisters, and how we show that love for them and for our Heavenly Father, His Son, and the Gospel They've sent us. It also hinges upon what kind of opportunities have been presented in life for one thing or another.

Anyone's life can be transformed by the Holy Ghost, little by little, as they live faithfully to whatever true principles they have been given. Does their heart contain goodness, sincerity, and honor? They don't have to fit in with a specific stereotype or mold, but there are certain Christlike traits, plenty actually, that could be had by anyone of virtually any belief system. If they are faithful to what they have, and work through life to improve themselves and leave the world, and the people they influenced, better in general, it might be safely assumed that they are being transformed by the Holy Ghost. That process is very private and without God's perspective we have no frame of reference to make any kind of true judgment about a person. In that spirit it's important to try and be empty of contention and judgmental ideas about other people. It's very difficult, but not impossible to accomplish as we take baby steps. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/11/2017 at 10:49 AM, Meerkat said:

😈😱

You have to get to know The Nehor. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/11/2017 at 9:30 AM, stemelbow said:

Sure there is.  That's the whole point of temple work. That is everyone who never heard of Jesus still has a chance, just as well as those who have heard of Jesus.  Everyone who has not joined the Church still has a chance.  That's how you get around the notion that everyone on earth must accept Jesus and His Church.  They don't have to on this earth. 

I must have misunderstood your statement that...

Quote

The LDS Church may have authority from God.  I dont' know.  But if it does, it certainly doesnt' mean there is no other way to God.  I think there is. 

The scriptures I quoted affirm that the only way to salvation in the Kingdom of God is through Jesus Christ, which, by my reckoning is through His Church. 

Edited August 13, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[hope_for_things]

On 8/11/2017 at 4:26 PM, CV75 said:

Are you comparing D&C 5:4, where the Lord explains that translating the plates "is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished." with D&C 107:92, "Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church."?

In 1829, there was no Church; by 1835 there had been one for 5 years. In 1829 he received the first gift, and subsequently received other gifts (note that Oliver had two, according to Section 8 , the spirit of revelation and of Aaron), for example, that of revelation (6:8-11; 43:4).

What wording are you saying was changed?

The earliest wording was not as you quoted above.  There was no mention of first gift, that was a later revision.  

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-march-1829-dc-5/1

on my phone so it's hard to quote, but you can see the original wording at the above link.  

[CV75]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The earliest wording was not as you quoted above.  There was no mention of first gift, that was a later revision.  

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-march-1829-dc-5/1

on my phone so it's hard to quote, but you can see the original wording at the above link.  

Thank you -- yes, I see where many things were redacted from the Revelation Book 1 in preparation for the Book of Commandments publication. Section 5 clearly removes the illeisms and frames it more in terms of how Joseph heard it directly rather than how he originally reported it.

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you -- yes, I see where many things were redacted from the Revelation Book 1 in preparation for the Book of Commandments publication. Section 5 clearly removes the illeisms and frames it more in terms of how Joseph heard it directly rather than how he originally reported it.

Are you saying that the later version represents how Joseph heard it originally?   If so can you provide any evidence to support that claim?  

The straightforward evidence shows the original meaning was just altered to have a completely opposite meaning later.  The implications are that Joseph saw himself exclusively as a translator for the BoM at first and later when this changed he went back and changed the revelation to align with his changed perspective.  

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you saying that the later version represents how Joseph heard it originally?   If so can you provide any evidence to support that claim?  

The straightforward evidence shows the original meaning was just altered to have a completely opposite meaning later.  The implications are that Joseph saw himself exclusively as a translator for the BoM at first and later when this changed he went back and changed the revelation to align with his changed perspective.  

No, I'm just describing what I see in the edited and published version. The change in the point of view contributes to reframing the message from a summary report of salient information given to Martin to a record including information that was personally significant to Joseph as well, but which he did not deem necessary to share with Martin at the earlier time. This does not make the manuscript and the published versions completely opposite. Obviously you feel very strongly about your conclusion about Joseph's later self-perception, but perhaps the change in point of view was precisely to allow an acknowledgment of and insight into his earlier, revealed self-perception. Also, "first" may simply refer to the priority assignment (the assignment and gift of translation being intrinsically connected) and not to other activities, which if he would have pursued them, would qualify as pretenses in that the only commandment he was given was to translate. See how many straightforward ways this can be viewed?

Edited August 14, 2017 by CV75

[Meerkat]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you saying that the later version represents how Joseph heard it originally?   If so can you provide any evidence to support that claim?  

The straightforward evidence shows the original meaning was just altered to have a completely opposite meaning later.  The implications are that Joseph saw himself exclusively as a translator for the BoM at first and later when this changed he went back and changed the revelation to align with his changed perspective.  

I tell three or more versions of a story of how I was converted to the Gospel.  One involves three Mormon boys who invited me to a Church dance in Junior High school.  I had a first discussion at one of their homes.  I think I know which one. Other times I'm not so sure. I have shared one of their names in one version.  Then another when telling the same story, all the while believing I was being accurate.

Another version has to do with my sister-in-law's roommate telling me the Joseph Smith story while she was cleaning my teeth. (She was a dental hygiene student.)

Still another has to do with my wife and my honeymoon in Mexico, coming home through SLC and visiting Temple Square, going home to Bellingham and meeting with the Missionaries. All are true.  My perspective has changed over time.  The first one has become somewhat cloudy because I was only 14 years old when it occurred.

Why we expect anyone to use the exact same words describing events of years gone by is beyond me.  These things I know:  The Book of Mormon is a true book.  Joseph Smith was not Superman, but he was the Lord's prophet.  I know because the same Spirit that testifies to me of Christ testifies to me the Book of Mormon is true when I read it.  The fruits of my own life are also a testimony to me.  One statement from the Title Page of the Book of Mormon also applies here, I believe: "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."

Edited August 14, 2017 by Meerkat

[Meerkat]

On 8/11/2017 at 1:19 PM, hope_for_things said:

Lastly, when you say the HG testified about the BoM, what do you interpret that to mean exactly.  Does it mean that the BoM is historical?  Could it mean that something you learned about the BoM is a true principle, rather than the book is historical.  And does this say anything about Joseph's call as a prophet, or does it say more about your relationship with the text of the BoM, and not necessarily a stamp of approval from God on the entire work of the BoM and all the claims that get discussed around its production.  Do you know what I mean here, just asking for some thought about what an experience with the HG is like and how that develops into a narrative interpretation of that experience.  

Okay Hope, here is my attempt to answer your questions. I can only speak for myself, and my rationale for my beliefs.  

I believe it was historical because my prayer was answered per Moroni's promise "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.  And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."  

I don't believe the Holy Ghost would bear witness to a lie.  It goes against the character of God.  That promise was made just prior to Moroni burying the gold plates in the ground to be recovered by the young man, Joseph Smith, in 1827.  I read the Book.  I prayed with faith in Christ, and the expectation I would get an answer, which I did receive.

We know Joseph's part of the story was a truly historic event. How? Three prominent men in the community, one a school teacher, one a successful farmer, and one a businessman, signed a statement that they never denied even after leaving or being excommunicated from the Church.  Their remarkable statement said "we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record..."  "we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true."  "And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things."  Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris

That is a fantastic statement, would you agree?  Would you, Hope, sign a statement like that for friends and others in your community and the world to see, that "an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true."?  

Such a statement Would be easy to ridicule because it is incredible on it's face.  Would you stand up for that statement if it were false?  Many people in their community believed it because (I believe) the three withesses were men of known integrity.  People in the British Isles and elsewhere also believed, and left everything to be with the Latter-day Saints.  

And those three men are not the only witnesses. There were eight others who signed a statement that said "Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken."

Those statements, of themselves, are convincing evidence that Joseph Smith having the gold plates that Moroni buried centuries earlier, was an historic event.  I believe those witnesses.  If it were a conspiracy, those witnesses had ample opportunity up to a death bed confession, to deny what they saw, heard, felt and hefted.  I believe Moroni.  But more than that, I am my own witness.  I know what I know because I have put the promise to the test, as I have many promises from the scriptures over the years. The Book is true.  

My evidence is even more unimpeachable than those eleven witnesses, for my purposes.  I have my own testimony that these things are true. I have the undeniable fruits of my own life.  And nothing any well meaning person says, or lays before my eyes can change what I know.  

That would be like the elders when Jesus was crucified in Matthew 28.  This is what they did: "And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.  And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.  So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."

Do you believe those stories had any impact upon His converts? I say they did not and do not because the evidence I have through the Holy Ghost is superior to the lies of those ancient elders.  So Hope, to me, it is definitely an historical book.  But more than that, the "true principles" you refer to I have gained there have more value and impact to me than the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  This, from Alma 5, perfectly describes my experience:

11 " Behold, I can tell you—did not my father Alma believe in the words which were delivered by the mouth of Abinadi? And was he not a holy prophet? Did he not speak the words of God, and my father Alma believe them?
            12 And according to his faith there was a mighty change wrought in his heart. Behold I say unto you that this is all true.
            13 And behold, he preached the word unto your fathers, and a mighty change was also wrought in their hearts, and they humbled themselves and put their trust in the true and living God. And behold, they were faithful until the end; therefore they were saved.
            14 And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?
            15 Do ye exercise faith in the redemption of him who created you? Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body?"

That mighty change has been wrought in my heart by the Holy Ghost.  The Book of Mormon is full of great and true statements like these, and other principles that are, in my opinion, far beyond the wisdom of a twenty two year old young man to conjure up.   I hope this answers your questions.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Meerkat

[california boy]

Very powerful testimony.  And I hope that what I write does not in the least distract from that testimony.  Certainly my intent is not to question your own personal testimony.  But I would like to present another view.

There are others of different religions that have equally testified and never denied heavenly messengers coming to them and declaring to them their truth that they lived with the rest of their lives, never denying or recanting what they saw.  Was God lying to them?  This is where conflicts in what is true about religion reach an impasse.

The strongest part of your words are your own experience and the Holy Ghost witnessing to you the truth of what you read.  It is what anchors you to the Mormon Church.  But others have prayed and received answers that are different than yours.  For them, that personal witness is what anchors them to their faith.  So who is right?  Who is being deceived and who is basing their belief on the witness from God.  Who is sincere and who is insincere.  This is what the question of this thread is asking.  You have a sure answer for yourself.  What is your answer to those of other faiths?  Could they dissuade you from your testimony?  Could you dissuade them from their testimony?

The only possible answer one could come up with without calling everyone else liars or accusing them of being deceived is that there is more than one way back to God.  Unless you have another idea.

I hope I am being completely respectful of what you have written.  I am just trying to find the answers that seem reasonable for more than just that one person.