Moroni's Promise

[Maidservant]

On 9/1/2017 at 8:10 PM, hagoth7 said:

Sufi

Absolutely.   I have a Pakistani friend who calls me a Sufi Mormon.

Thanks for sharing your answer, too.

I wanted to add to what I wrote earlier, because there really is a bit of a story with the fact of me putting God to the test on it, but then I realized it would be a thread derail.  So another day, thread, or time.

 

[Marginal Gains]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

When Paul Dunn tells a story of morals and miracles, people are moved.  It has nothing to do with an objective observation of true principles in the world- teaching moral principles is not observing furniture.

As a Mormon, when one hears an important parable or story, regardless of if it is about something "real" one can "feel the spirit" genuinely and know that the principle taught is "true" even if the story is not literally true

Have you ever noticed that Jesus taught in parables?

So why did they remove Paul H Dunn from office, when all he was doing was, like Jesus, telling important parables containing true principles which moved people with the spirit? 

Why did Elder Holland retract the Hells Angel story if the principle of what he taught was true, even though the story was materially false?

[Marginal Gains]

18 hours ago, SteveO said:

My sister in law claimed she spoke with God and was convinced that she received an answer to stay with her boyfriend.  The same boyfriend with no education, no job, and no real future prospects.  Her family, including myself, warned her that it wasn't the right decision.  But she was certain the spirit confirmed her decision.  Later on he got her to loosen her standards and it went downhill from there.

Point is I don't put a whole lot of stock in people's feelings.  I felt good during Al Pacino's speech at the end of, "Scent of a Woman" this past week (amazing movie, watch it), but I don't really attach any divinity to the sentiment.  Elder Holland's story was a feel good story, as any good story is--fictional or not.  So are Paul Dunn's stories.  I like Joseph Smith's description of the spirit as being "pure intelligence".  Studying it out in our minds, and then applying the principles in our own lives, and following Alma's counsel on whether the fruit is good, AND THEN asking whether these things are true, probably will get you further than having warm fuzzies after an engaging and interesting story.

Thanks for sharing that. If it’s not inappropriate to ask, how is your sister in law doing now?

17 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I did not get the same feeling. My experiences with the Book of Mormon, i.e. with gaining a testimony of such transcend the feelings that I get from listening to inspirational talks by orders of magnitude. It is impossible to really describe, but I know the difference because I have experienced both.

Glenn

Why do some people conflate the two experiences - could it be that they haven’t really felt the spirit?

Edited September 3, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

19 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I don't recall the impact of hearing Paul Dunn's stories. Must not have been considerable, since his departure didn't phase me.

 

As to Elder Holland's account, it was sufficiently true *to ring true.*

Because *any* missionary/messenger sent to find/aid others *is* a sibling. And that very detail flashed through my mind when I first heard the story.

 

The minor details that some are wanting to make mountains out of are insubstantial in the broader scope of things.

 

Broader question. Why do some feel the need to expand a thread about scripture and the Spirit of God into something apparently intended to be derogatory about the workings of God?

 

I suggest/invite such to tread lightly, for we stand on sacred ground here.

In what specific way(s) was Elder Hollands story ‘sufficiently true’?

[Avatar4321]

I never had to. When the Spirit testified to me that the Book of Mormon was true He also testified to me that the Bible is true. I received a witness for the Doctrine and Covenants at the same time.

I have asked for the Lord to strengthen my testimony of the scriptures.

I see no reason not to ask the Lord if you don't know

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why do some people conflate the two experiences - could it be that they haven’t really felt the spirit?

I cannot answer that question for those others. I can only speak from my own experiences.

Glenn

[Avatar4321]

On 9/1/2017 at 2:46 PM, snowflake said:

You are correct that our KJV Isaiah is almost identical to the "great Isaiah scroll", evidence that the Jews were phenomenal scribes and incredibly accurate. 

Now Joseph copied 13 consecutive chapters from Isaiah into 2 Nephi with several minor word changes. If Nephi had access to Isaiah why would he copy it word for word onto the Golden plates? Why not simply reference them? Also several translation errors in the KJV can be found in the BOM.

Also, Joseph did have a King James bible.....maybe he did put it in his hat....or on the table next to him.

http://www.mormonismdisproved.org/plagiarism.html

Nephi stated the reason for adding Isaiah to 2 Nephi. To establish the law of witnesses for his children who read it. Nephi saw the Savior. Jacob saw the Savior. Isaiah saw the Savior. He was establishing their testimony of Jesus Christ so all who read would know that He is the author of our salvation

[Avatar4321]

On 9/2/2017 at 9:27 AM, FormerLDS said:

Could you imagine applying Moroni's promise to Jeremiah 17:9?  Makes me wonder how things would have turned out has Joseph Smith been reading 2 Corinthians 11:14 when he knelt in the field to pray.  Moroni's promise is completely self-defeating and circular.  For example, how does an investigator know Moroni's promise is true?  By believing Moroni's promise is God's test of truth, the investigator unwittingly accepts LDS theology as truth before even apply the test!

Nowhere in the Bible does God equate a feeling in the heart with a test for truth!  

Funny. Luke 24 and acts 2 state differently.

The disciples should have know it was Christ because their hearts burned.

The people at Pentecost received the truth because their hearts were pricked.

Gal 5 speaks of the fruits of the spirit which include peace, love, joy as well as other feelings in the heart.

But to simply the Spirit as a mere feeling does not do Him justice. Nor does it seem prudent to deny the Holy Spirit

[Avatar4321]

On 9/2/2017 at 9:32 AM, FormerLDS said:

I actually really like this!  Interestingly, the BoM is mostly Bible-flavored prose and doesn't really have anything unique to LDS theology.  Part of the design of the deception.  

Those who believe and are used to the Bible would feel right at home with the BoM.  You don't even get "exposed" to the really good stuff until you've been in the Church for quite a while...

The Book of Mormon has quite a bit of uniquely LDS theology:

Ongoing revelation

Pre earth life

Nature and need for priesthood authority

The Doctrine of Christ

Apostasy and Restoration

Gathering of Israel in the last days

The importance of America in God's plan for the last days

Pride cycle

 

Etc

[Avatar4321]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

So why did they remove Paul H Dunn from office, when all he was doing was, like Jesus, telling important parables containing true principles which moved people with the spirit? 

Why did Elder Holland retract the Hells Angel story if the principle of what he taught was true, even though the story was materially false?

Elder Holland retracted the story because he mistakenly represented it as fact and later learned it wasn't.

That has no bearing on whether there were true principles taught in the story

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/1/2017 at 8:32 AM, Marginal Gains said:

Bernie Madoff claimed that his investment scheme was legitimate. Would you simply take his word for it because you felt moved to?

The bigger the claim, the bigger the supporting evidence needs to be. I’d want something a little more than a good feeling before I’d stake my eternity on it.

Describing the witness of the Holy Spirit as a good feeling is like saying Charm Thai Restaurant's mango mousse tastes good.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/2/2017 at 4:49 AM, Bobbieaware said:

Oh.  All the best to my favorite MD&DB poster on this Labor Day weekend.

 

Thank you. 

And thanks for your fearless defense of the faith. 

[hagoth7]

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

In what specific way(s) was Elder Hollands story ‘sufficiently true’?

My brief statement that begins, "Because any..."

[hagoth7]

15 hours ago, Maidservant said:

Thanks for sharing your answer, too.

I wanted to add to what I wrote earlier...

You're quite welcome.

I look forward to hearing when you're ready to share.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

So why did they remove Paul H Dunn from office, when all he was doing was, like Jesus, telling important parables containing true principles which moved people with the spirit? 

Why did Elder Holland retract the Hells Angel story if the principle of what he taught was true, even though the story was materially false?

You really can't figure this out??

People felt the spirit from the parable, in all three cases because the parables taught TRUE PRINCIPLES .

JESUS DID NOT LIE.  Can you see the difference?  In the other cases, lies were told, and in one case, the story was retracted when it was found to have never happened.

Paul H Dunn knowingly lied while teaching the true principles, making himself look like a hero, and Elder Holland accidentally told a false story, which was still an inspiring parable,  but was retracted.

No comparison.  But surely you could have figured that out?

 

[brightpath]

Moroni's promise was specifically written to the Lamanite's! Read verse 1. Moroni goes on to speak to them from this verse until verse 23. Verse 24 he starts to speak to the rest of the world (You guys).

[Marginal Gains]

On 03/09/2017 at 9:45 PM, mfbukowski said:

You really can't figure this out??

People felt the spirit from the parable, in all three cases because the parables taught TRUE PRINCIPLES .

JESUS DID NOT LIE.  Can you see the difference?  In the other cases, lies were told, and in one case, the story was retracted when it was found to have never happened.

Paul H Dunn knowingly lied while teaching the true principles, making himself look like a hero, and Elder Holland accidentally told a false story, which was still an inspiring parable,  but was retracted.

No comparison.  But surely you could have figured that out?

 

(Forgive me for playing the stooge in the interests of generating discussion)

So, the Book Of Mormon could all be parable, but because it teaches true principles the spirit would still provide a testimony of it being ‘true’?

[hagoth7]

2 hours ago, brightpath said:

Moroni's promise was specifically written to the Lamanite's! Read verse 1. Moroni goes on to speak to them from this verse until verse 23. Verse 24 he starts to speak to the rest of the world (You guys).

D&C 93: "What I say unto one I say unto all."

Regardless of heritage, we are all to liken scripture unto ourselves...that it might be for our profit and learning.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by hagoth7

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

(Forgive me for playing the stooge in the interests of generating discussion)

So, the Book Of Mormon could all be parable, but because it teaches true principles the spirit would still provide a testimony of it being ‘true’?

"Could be" yes, of course. I have never seen it otherwise because of philosophical hermeneutics.

Edited September 5, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

D&C 93: "What I say unto one I say unto all."

Regardless of heritage, we are all to liken scripture unto ourselves...that it might be for our profit and learning.

 

 

That is what scripture is. All if it is for us individually, it is not necessary to take it any other way, except as religious truth to be proven by it's worth in our lives.

[bluebell]

On 9/2/2017 at 8:32 AM, FormerLDS said:

I actually really like this!  Interestingly, the BoM is mostly Bible-flavored prose and doesn't really have anything unique to LDS theology.  Part of the design of the deception.  

Those who believe and are used to the Bible would feel right at home with the BoM.  You don't even get "exposed" to the really good stuff until you've been in the Church for quite a while...

Yes, it was all a part of our evil plan....  :rolleyes:

[T-Shirt]

On 9/2/2017 at 7:27 AM, FormerLDS said:

Could you imagine applying Moroni's promise to Jeremiah 17:9? 

Good to see you are still proof texting.  Ironic that the meaning you attach to this verse is quite different from the meaning conveyed by the chapter in which it is found.

Quote

Makes me wonder how things would have turned out has Joseph Smith been reading 2 Corinthians 11:14 when he knelt in the field to pray.

Joseph didn't pray in a field and he didn't see an angel.

Quote

Moroni's promise is completely self-defeating and circular.  For example, how does an investigator know Moroni's promise is true?

He knows by the Holy Ghost.  I think, even, you believe in the Holy Ghost

What is truly circular is believing that the KJV of the Bible is the whole and complete word of God, simply because you think the book, itself, tells you so.

Quote

 By believing Moroni's promise is God's test of truth, the investigator unwittingly accepts LDS theology as truth before even apply the test!

The prerequisite is having faith in Christ and real intent.  It says nothing about believing Moroni or the Book of Mormon before the test.

Quote

Nowhere in the Bible does God equate a feeling in the heart with a test for truth!  

Of course, Moroni doesn't mention anything about a feeling in the heart. 

Let me ask you a question.  When the Holy Ghost teaches you something, how do you know?

Edited September 6, 2017 by T-Shirt

[Marginal Gains]

19 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

(Forgive me for playing the stooge in the interests of generating discussion)

So, the Book Of Mormon could all be parable, but because it teaches true principles the spirit would still provide a testimony of it being ‘true’?

 

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Could be" yes, of course. I have never seen it otherwise because of philosophical hermeneutics.

The other thing that strikes me as interesting on this topic, is that members conflate the spirit testifying of the true principles within the Book of Mormon with both the book being true (to mean historically accurate) and also the Church being true. Neither of which necessarily follows from the spiritual witness in relation to Moroni’s promise.

In other words, neither the book nor the Church needs to be what they claim to be for a reader of the Book of Mormon to gain a spiritual witness about it.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

The other thing that strikes me as interesting on this topic, is that members conflate the spirit testifying of the true principles within the Book of Mormon with both the book being true (to mean historically accurate) and also the Church being true. Neither of which necessarily follows from the spiritual witness in relation to Moroni’s promise.

In other words, neither the book nor the Church needs to be what they claim to be for a reader of the Book of Mormon to gain a spiritual witness about it.

That is exactly where you are wrong, because what matters is what the individual makes of the Book of Mormon.   In religious and many other matters, it is about creating a world view which is as strong as yours, about what is "real" or not.

You are missing the fact that as "gods in embryo" we are in a sense creating our own worlds right now from the matter unorganized of world views available to humanity.  And you do not understand the nature of philosophical truth as it is largely now presently defined.  If you think you have a better definition of truth, go ahead and read this

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Truth is undefinable.  That is pretty much the view of most philosophers today.  So that is what your argument is up against.  There is no agreed upon standard of what the word means.

In essence, your definition of truth produces a circular argument.  If truth is correspondence to the world, or to science, then how can one prove that correspondence?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/#Obj2Cor

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

The other thing that strikes me as interesting on this topic, is that members conflate the spirit testifying of the true principles within the Book of Mormon with both the book being true (to mean historically accurate) and also the Church being true. Neither of which necessarily follows from the spiritual witness in relation to Moroni’s promise.

In other words, neither the book nor the Church needs to be what they claim to be for a reader of the Book of Mormon to gain a spiritual witness about it.

 

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is exactly where you are wrong, because what matters is what the individual makes of the Book of Mormon.   In religious and many other matters, it is about creating a world view which is as strong as yours, about what is "real" or not.

You are missing the fact that as "gods in embryo" we are in a sense creating our own worlds right now from the matter unorganized of world views available to humanity.  And you do not understand the nature of philosophical truth as it is largely now presently defined.  If you think you have a better definition of truth, go ahead and read this

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

Truth is undefinable.  That is pretty much the view of most philosophers today.  So that is what your argument is up against.  There is no agreed upon standard of what the word means.

In essence, your definition of truth produces a circular argument.  If truth is correspondence to the world, or to science, then how can one prove that correspondence?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/#Obj2Cor

 

 

So let’s explore that a little.

We have agreed that the spirit will testify of true principles regardless of the legitimacy of the vehicle for delivery - be it a deliberate lie, a parable, or mistakenly repeating a story that isn’t accurate. So the Book of Mormon could be a deliberate lie, a parable or an inaccurate story and the Spirit would still testify to the reader the truth of the principles being taught.

So, is the Church being true inextricably attached to the Spirit testifying the Book of Mormon is ‘true’? Or can the book be ‘true’ and the Church not be?

Edited September 6, 2017 by Marginal Gains