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

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, 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.

How do you know?  Sounds like a pretty absolute statement of what you know it means to not be a respecter of persons.  The whole point in this, it seems to me, is that each person does end up with the same deal--God will fairly judge each and in fairness lay out the rewards.  But if people are advantaged or privileged, as my Stake President likes to say, then they are given benefit to reach the best conclusion, than others.  Or living the gospel in this life, having the gift of the Holy Ghost and all that is not quite the blessing we like to tell people it is. 

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Calm said:

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

That almost sounds silly if you consider the lives of the billions of people who have passed in obscurity and darkness, as the BoM puts it, compared to the ease and pomp of your life.  I don't mean to offend.  I'm just saying as matter of practicality.  What you said above doesn't make a lick of sense when you consider the lives of others. 

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Calm said:

 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?

One has to wonder if the works you've done to help others in your life compare to the works someone who died on a remote island circa 290 AD had done is his/her life for others.  If you have done less than such a person, who might have lived 45 years or something, then what do we make of your comment?  I honestly have no idea who you presume to judge how much anyone has actually helped others. 

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Calm said:

Why are benefits in mortality for ourselves and others not a good enough reason to try to do well?

I've never said otherwise.

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Calm said:

 Why must it have eternal significance to matter?

That was my question.  What is the purpose fo this world, if we assume some of what you have assumed? 

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Calm said:

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.

But we have no idea if someone who lived in what we'd consider obscurity and darkness, without the proceeds of the gospel and modern amenities, had not done anything similar to what you're doing.  I'd imagine many have done, and, no offense, with less, have probably done more.  That's no personal condemnation, mind you.  I'm just saying chances are with the billions of people and instances it's impossible for us to know any of what you seem to assume. 

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Calm said:

 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.

And those who had died early because they weren't afforded the ease and comfort of you might be better off than the rest of us.  We simply don't know. 

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Calm said:

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?

I think we should be caring and giving, for sure.  I don't know that doing so is anything more then what's already been done for the existence of this earth, though. 

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Calm said:

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.  

Sure.  No one sits around for 20-80 years doing nothing.  That's a silly dichotomy to make.  Every person who has ever lived has done plenty of things.  And unless physically they had no choice, no one has sat around doing nothing but moaning.  And for those who have no choice--what is the purpose?  We may say we're blessed by God beyond them, but we don't know that. 

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, Calm said:

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.

Nobody said anything about mortal effort was meaningless.  I think you've missed my point, overall. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

Those who have experiences from God are not in the business of suggesting that God lied to others, or of dissuading others from their experiences, nor of calling others liars or accusing them of being deceived. Rather, they invite others to come and see what they have found.

Those who seek after truth with an open mind and a humble heart find themselves building up instead of tearing down. This is why we invite everyone to keep the truth they possess and add what we have to offer.

[california boy]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Those who have experiences from God are not in the business of suggesting that God lied to others, or of dissuading others from their experiences, nor of calling others liars or accusing them of being deceived. Rather, they invite others to come and see what they have found.

 

Those who seek after truth with an open mind and a humble heart find themselves building up instead of tearing down. This is why we invite everyone to keep the truth they possess and add what we have to offer.

 

I agree and hope that my post reflected that.

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

Its an opposite meaning because of how the language was changed to mean something opposite to what it meant before.  The original language was:

Quote

he hath A gift to translate the Book & I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift for I will grant unto him no other gift

This language is pretty strongly worded, that his gift was to translate and nothing else.  God would grant unto him no other gift.  Now, we need some critical thinking here, because the context of the revelation and the timing of this revelation is key to understanding the early Mormon story.  The historical information on the JSP site is amazingly candid about the context of this revelation.  And must be read to be understood.  

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

Martin Harris has been away since the summer of 1828, they say Martin may not have spoken to Joseph since that summer when the 116 pages were lost.  So nine months have gone by since any BoM translation efforts have happened.  And now think about Martin here.  This is the man who supposedly was convinced of the truth of the BoM project already.  He's already visited Charles Anthon the prior summer, and supposedly got a statement from Anthon corroborating the characters on the plates.  Yet Martin is coming to Joseph asking for a view of the plates at this stage?  So he still doesn't believe the plates exist?  But he took characters to scholars that corroborated the characters the summer before.  Where did those characters come from if the plates aren't real?  

Now, back to the revelation.  It says no other gift explicitly.  It's one thing to claim that Joseph's perspective changed and years later he looked at this revelation differently and therefore changed the wording to align with his later thinking.  But its another to claim that the words were inaccurately written in the original, and Joseph was just correcting those errors when he later changed the wording.  I would like evidence for that second claim, if there is any.  

All we really know is that the language was changed to mean something entirely different than the original language.  Evaluating the evidence to try and understand why this language was changed is step two, and one method that I think tells us the most about the reasons for the change, is to look at other changes made in the revelations, and there are plenty of those, to determine why he may have been changing the wording.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Meerkat said:

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."

These examples of telling a different story to different audiences and at different times is a good example, and important to remember that this is human nature.  Another thing that's important to remember is just how our memories work.  We don't have access to the event itself anymore, and because our memories are flawed and we tend to conflate memories more with time, the accuracy of our memories deteriorates with time.  That is why the first recollection is always privileged by historians because that is likely the closest to the way someone originally interpreted an experience.  Remember even this first recollection is still just a snapshot in time for how someone's brain converts sensory data into a narrative explanation, this is still only an approximation of the event, and different witnesses to an event often describe their experiences quite differently.  

So with respect to this revelation, the first version should take precedence when it comes to our access to the closest version of what Joseph was thinking in 1829 when he received this revelation.  Unfortunately, we don't have the original version either, we are working from a version written by Oliver Cowdery a few months after the event, and the original is lost to us.  So there could have been additional changes when Oliver recorded his version.  

These are things to consider.  Now, if you want to talk about what is "true" in a religious sense, rather than what is accurate from a historical sense, I think those are largely two different things.  

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

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.

Thanks for your taking the time to describe your experience.  I want to be very respectful, and tell you that I appreciate your vulnerability in sharing your testimony on a public board.  I had a similar perspective only a few years back, but that perspective has evolved.  I'm grateful for my old perspective, and I'm grateful for my current ones, recognizing that I will continue to learn and grow and change as I get older.  I hope you will take my questioning as an attempt to get better understanding.  

When you say that you don't believe the Holy Ghost would bear witness to a lie, I wonder how you would explain two different things that I'm assuming you're familiar with.  

1.  That millions of religious people around the world have used this same experience to convince them of the truth of their religious teachings.  Why would the Holy Ghost be telling so many different people, different things?  Aren't their experiences just as authentic as yours?  

2.  How would you explain Paul H. Dunn, and those who felt the spirit when he spoke about stories that were lies.  Or how would you explain Elder Uchtdorf's recent story about the missionary from Idaho.  None of those stories were factually accurate.  Why would the Holy Ghost bear witness to those stories if they were fabricated?  

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

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

Are you familiar with Martin Harris's later testimony about James J. Strang after the death of Joseph Smith in 1846, and how he not only believed Strang was the rightful prophetic successor, but that he even served a mission in England for the Strangite church.  Or are you familiar with Harris's statements about the Shaker movement and that "he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon."  Interesting essay on Martin Harris that was originally published in Dialogue.  

https://user.xmission.com/~research/mormonpdf/4martinharris.pdf

There are other concerns unique to David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery.  We don't hear their full stories in our sanitized church history accounts.  I've read enough about the witnesses that I don't find the evidence for them very compelling for me personally.  Now, I don't want this to sound dismissive so I'll attempt to explain how I look at religious experiences now as a Mormon that tends to believe in naturalistic explanations for things.  

I believe religious experience is something powerful, and personal.  It changes lives and is as real for the person experiencing as anything else that is happening in their life.  Whether that experience is something that a 3rd party can corroborate or not isn't very important to me from a religious perspective anymore.  I think that subjective truths are different than objective facts.  If the BoM is true for you, that is different than saying whether or not a human being was a real live person or an event actually happened in the outside empirically measurable and observable universe.  

These kinds of observations are very different and serve different purposes.  I don't think the Holy Ghost is something that can be used to corroborate empirical evidence.  It can be used to measure spiritual convictions.  For example, the Holy Ghost could tell you if what you're experiencing is good and aligns with your values.  But the Holy Ghost can not tell you the answer to a math question, or the origins of a rock, or the factual veracity of an event you read about.  The Holy Ghost is a tool that you can use for very specific purposes, but it has limitations, and I think the problem we get into in these religious discussions is thinking that spiritual witness can be used for things that it really can't be used to accomplish.  

 

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its an opposite meaning because of how the language was changed to mean something opposite to what it meant before.  The original language was:

This language is pretty strongly worded, that his gift was to translate and nothing else.  God would grant unto him no other gift.  Now, we need some critical thinking here, because the context of the revelation and the timing of this revelation is key to understanding the early Mormon story.  The historical information on the JSP site is amazingly candid about the context of this revelation.  And must be read to be understood.  

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

Martin Harris has been away since the summer of 1828, they say Martin may not have spoken to Joseph since that summer when the 116 pages were lost.  So nine months have gone by since any BoM translation efforts have happened.  And now think about Martin here.  This is the man who supposedly was convinced of the truth of the BoM project already.  He's already visited Charles Anthon the prior summer, and supposedly got a statement from Anthon corroborating the characters on the plates.  Yet Martin is coming to Joseph asking for a view of the plates at this stage?  So he still doesn't believe the plates exist?  But he took characters to scholars that corroborated the characters the summer before.  Where did those characters come from if the plates aren't real?  

Now, back to the revelation.  It says no other gift explicitly.  It's one thing to claim that Joseph's perspective changed and years later he looked at this revelation differently and therefore changed the wording to align with his later thinking.  But its another to claim that the words were inaccurately written in the original, and Joseph was just correcting those errors when he later changed the wording.  I would like evidence for that second claim, if there is any.  

All we really know is that the language was changed to mean something entirely different than the original language.  Evaluating the evidence to try and understand why this language was changed is step two, and one method that I think tells us the most about the reasons for the change, is to look at other changes made in the revelations, and there are plenty of those, to determine why he may have been changing the wording.  

I still don’t see the “complete opposition”. At the time, the  said he had the one gift. The later, edited version for the Book of Commandments says that also, with the clarification that it is also the first gift. I don't think you're making your case very well.

The Historical Information, both for Section 5 and Revelation Book 1 in general, only observes the changes in terms of “correcting and modifying” and the process of making them, who was involved, and Joseph’s reviewing others’ changes and making his own alterations. The last paragraph in the historical information for Section 5 is especially instructive in how to treat Revelation Book 1, especially for section 5.

Now critical thinking is not the same as mind-reading. Martin could have had other motives for asking to see the plates than his own lack of belief, such as attesting to his wife that they exist. Or maybe told her he saw them and was back-pedaling! A lot can be read between the lines of the historical information.

I’m not saying Joseph made corrections to what became Section 5. As the recipient of the communication he simply rewrote it to place himself as the second person with more personal information for more general membership consumption rather than keeping himself as the third person as he reported it to tailor the message for Martin, which third person in this document was actually penned by Oliver Cowdery, offering another consideration for its third-person narrative.

Edited August 14, 2017 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I still don’t see the “complete opposition”. At the time, the  said he had the one gift. The later, edited version for the Book of Commandments says that also, with the clarification that it is also the first gift. I don't think you're making your case very well.

Its really clear, I'm not sure how you're missing it.  The words say what the gift was, it was the gift to translate the Book of Mormon, and the words also say "no other gift" will be granted to Joseph.  The revised version edits the wording to allow for other gifts later, but the first version specifically says no other gift would granted.  Not allowing for any other gifts at a later date or anything.  Its really clear to me.  I understand that some apologetic responses want to try and harmonize the original version with the later versions, but I haven't seen any compelling arguments that would support that reading.  Please feel free to share if you think there is a compelling explanation, but the wording is so directly specific in this earlier text, that I can't imagine how anyone could interpret it otherwise.  

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now critical thinking is not the same as mind-reading. Martin could have had other motives for asking to see the plates than his own lack of belief, such as attesting to his wife that they exist. Or maybe told her he saw them and was back-pedaling! A lot can be read between the lines of the historical information.

I'm not trying to mind read Harris's intentions.  The first verse of the revelation says that Martin desired "A witness that my Servant Joseph hath got the things which he hath testified that he hath got".  Isaac Hale reported that Harris hoped to gain a "greater witness" of the plates.  I'm just reading this as curious considering the events of 1828 with Anthon and all the stories about Harris tricking Joseph with the seer stone, or finding a needle in a hay stack.  You'd think by this time that Harris would have been completely convinced yet it seems like he's still doubting the veracity.  I'm sure there are other influencing factors like Lucy Harris and the potential lawsuit against Joseph and other things the historical background talks about.  

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not saying Joseph made corrections to what became Section 5. As the recipient of the communication he simply rewrote it to place himself as the second person with more personal information for more general membership consumption rather than keeping himself as the third person as he reported it to tailor the message for Martin, which third person in this document was actually penned by Oliver Cowdery, offering another consideration for its third-person narrative.

We don't know who wrote the original version of the revelation, it could have been Joseph, the original is not extant.  We have the Oliver version which they think was copied around July 1829, but that is all, and the historical background mentioned on JSP site said that Isaac Hale reported seeing Joseph and Martin reviewing two manuscript copies of this revelation shortly after it was dictated.  We don't have the original, but the version we do have is clearly different than the present revised version, and the meaning in the original was changed to mean something entirely different than the original.  I haven't seen any arguments that convincingly dispute this straightforward reading.  

Please feel free to believe that Joseph changed the revelation through inspiration, that is fine, I can't argue against that kind of an interpretation. 

[Meerkat]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

Thanks for the question CB, and your kind words.  Apologies for my stern comments on the Texas properties thread the other day.  I will try to do better in the civility department, as these conversations are actually fun and there is no need for unpleasantness of any sort.  Your comments here are completely respectful and I hope to respond in kind here and in the future.

When I started this thread, I hoped to get a response from some of the Catholics and those of other faiths on this forum to address your very question.  I do have my thoughts, and I will express them to you.

From an LDS point of view, there was the Protestant Reformation where several people were inspired to leave the dominant church at the time due to doctrinal issues.  I believe they were inspired by God, beginning the foundation for the Restoration of the Gospel.  That said, Joseph Smith was complimentary to the Catholic Church.  In Terryl Givens "The Crucible of Doubt," he stated: "Dozens of books were at that time quoting Protestant authorities to the effect that Catholics were "not only filthy but also poisoned and venomed beasts," and worse.  While Smith's language was typical of the era, the "abominations" he alluded to were not, contrary to general assumption, in reference to the Catholic creeds.  Indeed, Smith felt it was the Protestant creeds that were the root of Christianity's most lamentable errors.  The creedal formulation most attacked by early Mormon writers, and defended by their antagonists, had nothing to do with the Athanasian or Nicene controversies.  It was the Protestant wording of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles (1563), largely incorporated into the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), that Mormons criticized consistently." (That had to do with the one true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions...) which was the basis for formulations of Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Methodists.

I believe that overall, it is the creeds that separate us.  The important factor in all these good religions is that they preach faith, repentance and a transformed life.  "Love one another as I have loved you."  In my opinion, the creeds don't carry much weight, compared to the way we live.  The Lord said in D&C 82:10, "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say.  But when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."  D&C 130:20 and 21 state: "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." I believe that inasmuch as any group or individual intentionally or unintentionally follow the teachings of Christ and keep the Commandments, they are blessed and may see no reason to change.  They, justifiably, may feel they are on the right path.  

I hear no testimonies coming from other faiths that theirs is the only true church, other than the Catholics, Mormons and some sects of Islam.  Most Christians, I believe, are ecumenical in their faiths and have a profound lack of curiosity about whether God is a God of order or confusion.  Theirs is a religion of "Love God" and "Love thy neighbor," "Live and let live."  And that seems reasonable to me.  It's not necessarily a bad way to live, since Rev. 20:12 states: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."  Good works, obedience to the Commandments brings peace of mind and blessings.  

For all those who live that way, unaware of the Restored Gospel, yet living according to the Plan of Happiness, they will receive their Celestial reward, I believe.  That is why we have Temples, to perform required sacred ordinances vicariously, having authority from God, for them.  For those who know the plan, and choose not to live it, I believe a loving and merciful God has prepared kingdoms for them where they will enjoy the life they have lived for.  In fact the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only religion, to my knowledge, that reconciles all the confusion in the world of religions, and provides a path to the highest possible eternal reward for all of God's children.

When one of our sons was living with his family in Dubai, Elder Holland attended their branch and told them that Islam is a preparatory religion.  That makes sense to me.  It seems reasonable to me that all the religions you allude to are also preparatory.  As Kenngo 1969 said early on in this thread " ....while  there is only one path which will lead a person all the way back to God, there are many paths which will lead him most of the way there."  The thing that stops them is the ordinances. What opens the door for them to progress is opportunity to hear the Good News of the Restored Church, pray to know if it is true, accept that testimony from the Holy Ghost and receive the ordinances found in the Temples of the Lord's Restored Church.

There is another aspect to the Restoration as well, and that is the establishment of America with a constitution that allows for freedom of worship, and also encouraged free trade which generated the wealth to take the Gospel into all the world.  But that is the subject for another time.

That is my belief. And I believe there will be billions of God's children who never heard of Christ in this life, who will qualify to spend eternity in the Celestial Kingdom because of God's mercy providing this wonderful plan.  They, as we, can experiment on the principles of the Gospel and prove them for themselves.  That is what I have done, and that is why I choose to embrace the Restored Church as the framework for my life.

Thanks for the question, CB.  I enjoyed thinking about it and sharing my thoughts with you.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Meerkat

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

For example, the Holy Ghost could tell you if what you're experiencing is good and aligns with your values.  But the Holy Ghost can not tell you the answer to a math question, or the origins of a rock, or the factual veracity of an event you read about.  The Holy Ghost is a tool that you can use for very specific purposes, but it has limitations, and I think the problem we get into in these religious discussions is thinking that spiritual witness can be used for things that it really can't be used to accomplish.  

I agree with you regarding these comments.  Your thought regarding the Holy Ghost telling you if what you are experiencing is good and aligns with your values may also pertain to Paul H. Dunn's stories, and Elder Uchtdorf's talk.  I believe they also fall into the same category as the spiritual feeling I receive hearing beautiful music perfectly performed, or a fictional story such as Les Miserables.  Where the Book of Mormon is concerned, I responded in another place why I believe the Holy Ghost bears witness to that, and why I believe it is an historical record.  We can certainly disagree on many things, and lack understanding many others.  You may be right.  I may be wrong.  I believe the important thing is living according to the highest good that has been revealed to us.  If we do our best to do that, I am confident we will one day sit across the table in the Celestial Kingdom and enjoy a good discussion about the great thoughts we wrestled with in the days gone by.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its really clear, I'm not sure how you're missing it.  The words say what the gift was, it was the gift to translate the Book of Mormon, and the words also say "no other gift" will be granted to Joseph.  The revised version edits the wording to allow for other gifts later, but the first version specifically says no other gift would granted.  Not allowing for any other gifts at a later date or anything.  Its really clear to me.  I understand that some apologetic responses want to try and harmonize the original version with the later versions, but I haven't seen any compelling arguments that would support that reading.  Please feel free to share if you think there is a compelling explanation, but the wording is so directly specific in this earlier text, that I can't imagine how anyone could interpret it otherwise.  

I'm not trying to mind read Harris's intentions.  The first verse of the revelation says that Martin desired "A witness that my Servant Joseph hath got the things which he hath testified that he hath got".  Isaac Hale reported that Harris hoped to gain a "greater witness" of the plates.  I'm just reading this as curious considering the events of 1828 with Anthon and all the stories about Harris tricking Joseph with the seer stone, or finding a needle in a hay stack.  You'd think by this time that Harris would have been completely convinced yet it seems like he's still doubting the veracity.  I'm sure there are other influencing factors like Lucy Harris and the potential lawsuit against Joseph and other things the historical background talks about.  

We don't know who wrote the original version of the revelation, it could have been Joseph, the original is not extant.  We have the Oliver version which they think was copied around July 1829, but that is all, and the historical background mentioned on JSP site said that Isaac Hale reported seeing Joseph and Martin reviewing two manuscript copies of this revelation shortly after it was dictated.  We don't have the original, but the version we do have is clearly different than the present revised version, and the meaning in the original was changed to mean something entirely different than the original.  I haven't seen any arguments that convincingly dispute this straightforward reading.  

Please feel free to believe that Joseph changed the revelation through inspiration, that is fine, I can't argue against that kind of an interpretation. 

The first version specifically says, “I will grant unto him no other gift,” but it doesn’t say “ever.” Now that is simple and straightforward. Since the attention on the manuscript is focused on the translation project, while another non-translation gift (using the Urim and Thummim) was used for Section 6, which was also about the translation project (but also for Section 7 which was a “translation” of a parchment seen in vision; and for Section 11 and 14 which weren’t about any kind of translation), it doesn’t appear that the Lord was decreeing that He was limiting Joseph’s to the gift of translation alone. Priesthood ordination and even viewing the plates also seem to be considered and referred to as “gifts” in these earlier, pre-1830 sections (Oliver and Hyrum’s mentioned earlier, and 18:32), which Joseph possessed also.

But you seem to be mind-reading Joseph’s intentions. Yet no one’s intentions in bridging experience with publication are possibly that straightforward.

I didn’t say that Joseph changed this revelation through inspiration, though he clearly had that prerogative and even that assignment per the historical introduction. I think the changes reflect his actual conversation with the Lord which is pertinent to a broader audience that were not necessary in handwritten copies addressing Martin’s narrower interest.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

 I believe the important thing is living according to the highest good that has been revealed to us.  If we do our best to do that, I am confident we will one day sit across the table in the Celestial Kingdom and enjoy a good discussion about the great thoughts we wrestled with in the days gone by.

I like it, thanks again for the interesting and respectful discussion.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The first version specifically says, “I will grant unto him no other gift,” but it doesn’t say “ever.” Now that is simple and straightforward.

You're right, it is straight forward, the word "will" is a future tense word.  I WILL grant unto him no other gift, means in the future God won't grant any other gift.  Also, consider the context of the prior statement "I have caused him that he should enter into A covenant with me that he should not show them except I Command him & he hath no power over them except I grant it unto him & he hath A gift to translate the Book & I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift for I will grant unto him no other gift"

The entire section talks about commandments and limitations and expectations.  The gift is "A gift" and "he shall(future tense again) pretend to no other gift".  How is it that you're not seeing the very specific language in this revelation.  Please feel free to explain that the original version was incorrectly recorded, thats fine, but don't tell me it doesn't say what it says.  It really does say that Joseph is limited to this one gift of translation of the BoM.  Whether or not you want to admit it, its clear and I can't think of very many places in recorded revelations that are this clear about a particular issue.  This is quite the exception to the standard rule where multiple interpretations can be somewhat plausible.  

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Since the attention on the manuscript is focused on the translation project, while another non-translation gift (using the Urim and Thummim) was used for Section 6, which was also about the translation project (but also for Section 7 which was a “translation” of a parchment seen in vision; and for Section 11 and 14 which weren’t about any kind of translation), it doesn’t appear that the Lord was decreeing that He was limiting Joseph’s to the gift of translation alone. Priesthood ordination and even viewing the plates also seem to be considered and referred to as “gifts” in these earlier, pre-1830 sections (Oliver and Hyrum’s mentioned earlier, and 18:32), which Joseph possessed also.

These are good thoughts, and I think we have to look at the timeline of the events to better understand what is happening here.  Section 5 was dated to March 1829, I think it represents Joseph's perspective from that moment in time, but I think his perspective changes over the next few months as Oliver gets involved.  Oliver had designs to form a church (more on this when Christopher C. Smith publishes his paper about Oliver influencing Joseph on the beginning of establishing a formal church.)  I think you can read an evolution in Joseph's project from originally being about translating the BoM, to later becoming a prophet and establishing a formal organization (church).  Section 6 (April 1829), Section 11 (May 1829) and Section 14 (June 1829) all represent a development of thinking for Joseph.  The priesthood revelation we don't have any extant evidence that this happened in 1829, it was post hoc backdated to that time period.   

One other interesting scripture to consider is 2 Nephi 3: 6:20 but especially verse 8 sounds quite similar to section 5.  "And I will give unto him a commandment that he shall do none other work, save the work which I shall command him. And I will make him great in mine eyes; for he shall do my work."  

Considering Mosian priority for the BoM translation 2 Nephi was probably translated in June of 1829 so this chapter also represents an evolution of thought about what Joseph was to accomplish by this time, and you can see that its a little more nuanced than section 5 with respect to "save the work which I shall command him", which can be more broadly interpreted, than a specific gift only to translate the BoM and "no other gift".  

I think its important to try and understand the history and the intentions of Joseph during this time period, but I don't claim to have any extra insight into his psyche.  We have evidence and it should be evaluated.  With respect to D&C section 5, I think the language is very clear on this particular point.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You're right, it is straight forward, the word "will" is a future tense word.  I WILL grant unto him no other gift, means in the future God won't grant any other gift.  Also, consider the context of the prior statement "I have caused him that he should enter into A covenant with me that he should not show them except I Command him & he hath no power over them except I grant it unto him & he hath A gift to translate the Book & I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift for I will grant unto him no other gift"

The entire section talks about commandments and limitations and expectations.  The gift is "A gift" and "he shall(future tense again) pretend to no other gift".  How is it that you're not seeing the very specific language in this revelation.  Please feel free to explain that the original version was incorrectly recorded, thats fine, but don't tell me it doesn't say what it says.  It really does say that Joseph is limited to this one gift of translation of the BoM.  Whether or not you want to admit it, its clear and I can't think of very many places in recorded revelations that are this clear about a particular issue.  This is quite the exception to the standard rule where multiple interpretations can be somewhat plausible.  

These are good thoughts, and I think we have to look at the timeline of the events to better understand what is happening here.  Section 5 was dated to March 1829, I think it represents Joseph's perspective from that moment in time, but I think his perspective changes over the next few months as Oliver gets involved.  Oliver had designs to form a church (more on this when Christopher C. Smith publishes his paper about Oliver influencing Joseph on the beginning of establishing a formal church.)  I think you can read an evolution in Joseph's project from originally being about translating the BoM, to later becoming a prophet and establishing a formal organization (church).  Section 6 (April 1829), Section 11 (May 1829) and Section 14 (June 1829) all represent a development of thinking for Joseph.  The priesthood revelation we don't have any extant evidence that this happened in 1829, it was post hoc backdated to that time period.   

One other interesting scripture to consider is 2 Nephi 3: 6:20 but especially verse 8 sounds quite similar to section 5.  "And I will give unto him a commandment that he shall do none other work, save the work which I shall command him. And I will make him great in mine eyes; for he shall do my work."  

Considering Mosian priority for the BoM translation 2 Nephi was probably translated in June of 1829 so this chapter also represents an evolution of thought about what Joseph was to accomplish by this time, and you can see that its a little more nuanced than section 5 with respect to "save the work which I shall command him", which can be more broadly interpreted, than a specific gift only to translate the BoM and "no other gift".  

I think its important to try and understand the history and the intentions of Joseph during this time period, but I don't claim to have any extra insight into his psyche.  We have evidence and it should be evaluated.  With respect to D&C section 5, I think the language is very clear on this particular point.

 

Here’s how I see the two words being used: will, what one is willing to do; shall: expressing a command. Not so much in reference to futurity, rendering any limitations only temporary ("I will grant unto him no other gift [yet]…”). So the clarity seems to run counter to the conclusion you’ve come to.

I think it reasonable that Joseph did not anticipate all the specific gifts the Lord had in store for him while translating the Book of Mormon, but it is also reasonable that he was given a notion of what was coming (he had since 1820 and then after 1829 until 1833 to conceptualize all this for the record). The evolution of his assignments and roles and attendant gifts do not necessarily explain his two presentations of the same revelation; the respective audiences seem to have more to do with that. Three months is too short for an evolution, and 9 years is too long for him not to use care in how much detail to record about his answer to Martin’s request.

Edited August 14, 2017 by CV75

[USU78]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You're right, it is straight forward, the word "will" is a future tense word.  I WILL grant unto him no other gift, means in the future God won't grant any other gift.

"Will" may not mean what you think it means.  "Will" is an indicator of intention in Britain (as opposed to "shall," which indicates futurity) and in XIXth Century America.  "I will = I want to."  Not that it always meant that, mainly because of shifts still happening.

Beware absolutes.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Here’s how I see the two words being used: will, what one is willing to do; shall: expressing a command. Not so much in reference to futurity, rendering any limitations only temporary ("I will grant unto him no other gift [yet]…”). So the clarity seems to run counter to the conclusion you’ve come to.

I think it reasonable that Joseph did not anticipate all the specific gifts the Lord had in store for him while translating the Book of Mormon, but it is also reasonable that he was given a notion of what was coming (he had since 1820 and then after 1829 until 1833 to conceptualize all this for the record). The evolution of his assignments and roles and attendant gifts do not necessarily explain his two presentations of the same revelation; the respective audiences seem to have more to do with that. Three months is too short for an evolution, and 9 years is too long for him not to use care in how much detail to record about his answer to Martin’s request.

I suggest you look at additional changes made in the revelations and also how quickly historical evolution happens in church history especially the earliest days.  You evaluation of this evidence I don't agree with or understand how you could conclude the interpretations you do.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

"Will" may not mean what you think it means.  "Will" is an indicator of intention in Britain (as opposed to "shall," which indicates futurity) and in XIXth Century America.  "I will = I want to."  Not that it always meant that, mainly because of shifts still happening.

Beware absolutes.

I'm thinking this advice about absolutes is good advice for you to consider.  

[CV75]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I suggest you look at additional changes made in the revelations and also how quickly historical evolution happens in church history especially the earliest days.  You evaluation of this evidence I don't agree with or understand how you could conclude the interpretations you do.  

I'm thinking this advice about looking at the whole picture of changes and evolution (not all changes reflect one purpose or intent; sometimes evolution is quick, and sometimes not--depends) is good advice for you to consider.

Also, it is good not to conflate: while one might influence or drive another, historical evolution is not necessarily the same as, or track with, the evolution of one's personal understanding and self-perception. And yes, I consider my own advice.

[california boy]

What can clearly be seen is that scriptures can mean anything that you want them to.  One person needs the scripture to read one way.  The other person needs the scripture to mean something else.  Everyone and every religion reads scriptures they way they want to.  I seriously doubt you could find a single scripture in the Bible that all people could agree on what it means.  

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm thinking this advice about looking at the whole picture of changes and evolution (not all changes reflect one purpose or intent; sometimes evolution is quick, and sometimes not--depends) is good advice for you to consider.

Also, it is good not to conflate: while one might influence or drive another, historical evolution is not necessarily the same as, or track with, the evolution of one's personal understanding and self-perception. And yes, I consider my own advice.

It is good advice.  The difference is I'm trying to follow the evidence without a specific outcome needed, where as apologetic approaches require that only certain conclusions can be drawn from the evidence for it to be acceptable.  I'm open to pretty much any conclusion.  If the evidence suggested that the earlier version was just being clarified in a later version, if there were ambiguity about the language and the later versions clarified that, I would be fine with that conclusion, there are other examples of revelations that fit that explanation just fine.  

But this example does not fit and unfortunately this upsets the apologist world view, so there is a need to try and twist the data to fit, and thats what I see happening here.  All outcomes have to be faith promoting, there is no room for error.  

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It is good advice.  The difference is I'm trying to follow the evidence without a specific outcome needed, where as apologetic approaches require that only certain conclusions can be drawn from the evidence for it to be acceptable.  I'm open to pretty much any conclusion.  If the evidence suggested that the earlier version was just being clarified in a later version, if there were ambiguity about the language and the later versions clarified that, I would be fine with that conclusion, there are other examples of revelations that fit that explanation just fine.  

But this example does not fit and unfortunately this upsets the apologist world view, so there is a need to try and twist the data to fit, and thats what I see happening here.  All outcomes have to be faith promoting, there is no room for error.  

I don’t find your conclusion adequate, not because it isn’t apologetic, but because it doesn’t incorporate all the additional facts such as definitions of “will” and “shall” and the years of history and context surrounding the three months between the creation of the two documents. I don’t see so much a twisting of evidence in your approach to this conversation so much as a refusal to take proper notice of it, and an insistence that the only acceptable purpose for Joseph's editing this section was to retrofit it to a new and contradictory understanding that popped into his mind 3 months later.

And as I've mentioned, I don't see the changes as having been made for clarification.

Edited August 15, 2017 by CV75

[Navidad]

As a never-was-Mormon who goes to sacrament meetings, Sunday school, and priesthood meetings, I often hear D&C 1:30A quoted. I say 1:30A because I never hear the rest of the verse quoted. It is always quoted as if it ends at the word "earth" or the word "pleased." I find that interesting because the end of the verse seems very significant. Here is the verse in its entirety:   

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.

God clearly says He is speaking to the "church collectively and not individually." So, what composes the "collective church" in LDS doctrine? Might He not be saying He is "speaking unto all Christians who collectively form His Church - the church of the redeemed in Jesus Christ through the Atonement of His shed blood - all the children of the Heavenly Father and not to the Church individually, that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Is this interpretation of the passage blasphemy to a Mormon? If the only true and living church is indeed the collective body of those who are redeemed by the shed blood of the Lamb of God, wouldn't it only make sense that they (we) all have access to the Holy Spirit in its fullness, gifts and all?  I find it curious that God inspired the authors to write about a distinction between an individual and a collective Church. Who do Mormons believe make up the individual church and who make up the collective church?  Thanks.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

As a never-was-Mormon who goes to sacrament meetings, Sunday school, and priesthood meetings, I often hear D&C 1:30A quoted. I say 1:30A because I never hear the rest of the verse quoted. It is always quoted as if it ends at the word "earth" or the word "pleased." I find that interesting because the end of the verse seems very significant. Here is the verse in its entirety:   

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.

God clearly says He is speaking to the "church collectively and not individually." So, what composes the "collective church" in LDS doctrine? Might He not be saying He is "speaking unto all Christians who collectively form His Church - the church of the redeemed in Jesus Christ through the Atonement of His shed blood - all the children of the Heavenly Father and not to the Church individually, that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Is this interpretation of the passage blasphemy to a Mormon? If the only true and living church is indeed the collective body of those who are redeemed by the shed blood of the Lamb of God, wouldn't it only make sense that they (we) all have access to the Holy Spirit in its fullness, gifts and all?  I find it curious that God inspired the authors to write about a distinction between an individual and a collective Church. Who do Mormons believe make up the individual church and who make up the collective church?  Thanks.

I always interpreted that passage to mean that Christ is pleased with the church as a whole, but not necessarily pleased with each of the individual members. 

[Navidad]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

I always interpreted that passage to mean that Christ is pleased with the church as a whole, but not necessarily pleased with each of the individual members. 

Thanks. I guess I have always read the words collectively and individually as adverbs modifying the word Church. I haven't found LDS concordances or commentaries that do verse by verse exposition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Maybe they exist and I just don't know that. It makes sense grammatically at least to see the two words as modifiers.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

As a never-was-Mormon who goes to sacrament meetings, Sunday school, and priesthood meetings, I often hear D&C 1:30A quoted. I say 1:30A because I never hear the rest of the verse quoted. It is always quoted as if it ends at the word "earth" or the word "pleased." I find that interesting because the end of the verse seems very significant. Here is the verse in its entirety:   

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually.

God clearly says He is speaking to the "church collectively and not individually." So, what composes the "collective church" in LDS doctrine? Might He not be saying He is "speaking unto all Christians who collectively form His Church - the church of the redeemed in Jesus Christ through the Atonement of His shed blood - all the children of the Heavenly Father and not to the Church individually, that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Is this interpretation of the passage blasphemy to a Mormon? If the only true and living church is indeed the collective body of those who are redeemed by the shed blood of the Lamb of God, wouldn't it only make sense that they (we) all have access to the Holy Spirit in its fullness, gifts and all?  I find it curious that God inspired the authors to write about a distinction between an individual and a collective Church. Who do Mormons believe make up the individual church and who make up the collective church?  Thanks.

Yes, I've thought this as well.  Especially if you look at this definition of church in Joseph Smith's earliest writings, I think the BoM and the 1828 - 1830 writings, the concept of church seems to be more of a collective Christian effort definition, which is consistent with the language of the day, not a specific denomination at first.  Later as the institution was formed in April 1830 and some challenges to authority arose, I think you find Joseph's idea of church evolving to be more institutional, and of course as you layer in the priesthood authority narrative that evolved after this time, then you have appeals to authority.  But I agree with your early reading of this verse, I think its likely speaking of "church" in a broader sense and not to Mormonism specifically.  

Christopher C. Smith gave a really interesting presentation on this idea at Sunstone in July where he talked about Oliver Cowdery as the catalyst for the formation of a church.  He's going to write it up in essay form later this fall I'm told.  At any rate, really interesting if you consider Joseph's universalist background with the influence of his father in particular.