Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are doing at least the equivalent of what you appear to think others were doing right now or so it comes across to me.

You know what Calm, you're right.  I apologize.
We may not always agree on gender issues but I appreciate your approach to such topics.  Well reasoned and balanced.

[Calm]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

You know what Calm, you're right.  I apologize.
We may not always agree on gender issues but I appreciate your approach to such topics.  Well reasoned and balanced.

You are generally a very fair poster and it means a lot to me that you were willing to do this.  It can be very hard to see ourselves as others see us at times.  Thanks.

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Imo another interesting verse is the very last one of Section 132, verse 66:

"And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen." [emphasis Eek!'s]

I tried in vain to locate the text of that implied subsequent revelation, finally concluding that my best bet was to look for circumstantial evidence:

I no longer have my modest collection of books, but at one point I plotted out a timeline of Joseph Smith's plural marriages in relation to various other things.  What stood out was that he virtually ceased entering into plural marriages once he had organized the Quorum of the Anointed (only one, and that was to an elderly woman).  So IF that subsequent revelation implied by verse 66 was received, imo it MAY have been the reason for Joseph's apparent shift in focus away from plural marriage and to the Quorum of the Anointed.  But I don't know of any documentation directly supporting this hypothesis. 

If polygyny as a large-scale societal institution is unsustainable, which I think is the case because of the surplus of unmarried young men if for no other reason, then perhaps a course-correction was inevitable regardless of whose idea such correction was to begin with. 

That's not only interesting but encouraging! I've got at least 3 dozen books now and am no closer to understanding what this was all about which leads me to believe JS didn't know how to roll out whatever he was trying to do....and I do not think it was polygamy for polygamy's sake. He died too quickly to work it all out. The biggest clue that polygamy is unsustainable and incoherent,  as far as I am concerned, is the lack of any kind of revealed or even theological reason for it.  It started and stopped with "just do it" and then they made up reasons for it that have fallen by the wayside at every turn as more research is churned out. 

[Eek!]

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

That's not only interesting but encouraging!

Thank you!

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

I've got at least 3 dozen books now and am no closer to understanding what this was all about which leads me to believe JS didn't know how to roll out whatever he was trying to do....and I do not think it was polygamy for polygamy's sake. He died too quickly to work it all out.

Agreed.  If you are open to a non-LDS book that imo may shed light on what "it" might have looked like once it was all "worked out", let me know.  Or if you'd rather just have a brief synopsis, I can give that a shot.

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

The biggest clue that polygamy is unsustainable and incoherent,  as far as I am concerned, is the lack of any kind of revealed or even theological reason for it.  It started and stopped with "just do it" and then they made up reasons for it that have fallen by the wayside at every turn as more research is churned out. 

NONE of the justifications for polygamy (more precisely polygyny) that I came across rang true to me.  And I read every talk on the subject referenced in the index of the Journal of Discourses.  Some of the reasons given were frankly insulting (such as, having plural wives was a way to cut down on men seeking out prostitutes).   I came to the tenuous conclusion that if something is the way things are in the Celestial Kingdom, then it HAS TO to be a "better deal" for EVERYONE involved, and it is not at all obvious to me that polygyny meets this criterion.  So my current thinking is that, either Joseph Smith never "finished that chapter" of the restoration, or if he did, we don't have a record of it. 

Of course I could be completely wrong, 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Eek!

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

No, I’ve conversed with some of them. Some of them right here on this board. But in all fairness, I must say that their definition of what constitutes a prophet is quite ambiguous and vague, not at all in harmony with the official Church criteria for what constitutes a prophet of God. I guess it’s a creative way of being able to believe and not believe at the same time. “Are you a Mormon?” “Yes, I am a practicing Mormon, but I believe only about 1.5 percent of it.”

Nothing wrong about sitting in pews Sunday after Sunday, while believing only 1.5 % of it.......

[Bobbieaware]

4 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Nothing wrong about sitting in pews Sunday after Sunday, while believing only 1.5 % of it.......

LOL! Perhaps 1.5% of the restored gospel is more spiritually powerful and compelling than 100% of what the non-LDS churches are offering. (At first I wrote the above sentence as a joke, but I now see it may actually be true. The basic doctrines and principles of Mormonism might very well be so soul-satisfryng and convincing that even clinging to the faintest shadows of what was once believed is preferable to leaving the Church altogether. Thanks to you I now see that the 1.5% believer phenomenon isn’t altogether a bad thing — no joke.)

[Atheist Mormon]

10 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

LOL! Perhaps 1.5% of the restored gospel is more spiritually powerful and compelling than 100% of what the non-LDS churches are offering. (At first I wrote the above sentence as a joke, but I now see it may actually be true. The basic doctrines and principles of Mormonism might very well be so soul-satisfryng and convincing that even clinging to the faintest shadows of what was once believed is preferable to leaving the Church altogether. Thanks to you I now see that the 1.5% believer phenomenon isn’t altogether a bad thing — no joke.)

Yea, I can give you slew of 1.5% my lists I believe; #1-We didn't land to the moon 2# US government led by aliens, 3#-Our own government started 9-11 4# Roswell alien ship crash...My favorite vaccines kill.....

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yea, I can give you slew of 1.5% my lists I believe; #1-We didn't land to the moon 2# US government led by aliens, 3#-Our own government started 9-11 4# Roswell alien ship crash...My favorite vaccines kill.....

I don’t see any relationship between your post and what I wrote, except that your thoughts appear to reflect the opposite view. If there are LDS Church members who have come to reject the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, the Urim and Thummim, etcetera as historical realities, but then continue to cling to the Church because they find its underlying spiritual philosophy to be so beautiful, logical, just, fair and compelling, that’s exactly the opposite of what you seem to be saying. The 1.5% believers of which I speak have made it a point to specifically reject all the historical claims of the Church, but in spite of this rejection continue to want to be known as Latter-Day Saints. Is this not phenomenon exactly opposite to what you said in your post. But perhaps I’m missing your point?

Edited January 6, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I don’t see any relationship between your post and what I wrote, except that your thoughts appear to reflect the opposite view. If there are LDS Church members who have come to reject the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, the Urim and Thummim, etcetera as historical realities, but then continue to cling to the Church because they find its underlying spiritual philosophy to be so beautiful, logical, just, fair and compelling, that’s exactly the opposite of what you seem to be saying. The 1.5% believers of which I speak have made it a point to specifically reject all the historical claims of the Church, but in spite of this rejection continue to want to be known as Latter-Day Saints. Is this not phenomenon exactly opposite to what you said in your post. But perhaps I’m missing your point?

you wrote  "I am a practicing Mormon, but I believe only about 1.5 percent of it.”

[Bobbieaware]

24 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

you wrote  "I am a practicing Mormon, but I believe only about 1.5 percent of it.”

It looks like we have a failure to communicate. I put the above portion of my post in quotes because I was deliberately SPOOFING the 1.5 percent believers. As a true blue LDS Church believer, I brought up the phenomenon of the 1.5% believers because I find them fascinating. There was a time when I naively believed someone who rejected the historical claims of the Church couldn’t possibly be considered to be a member of the Church in good standing, but I guess I was wrong.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Teancum]

On 1/2/2018 at 5:42 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. If there is a God and he is who I think he is, then the payoff is far better than if I operate on the assumption there is no God. Either way, I choose how to live my live and have nothing to lose, but the first way I have everything to gain. As Sancho Panza said, "Naked I came into the world, and naked I leave it. Therefore, I neither win nor loose." So far, it's worked out pretty well.

I think there is a lot to lose if you live your life under the assumption that there is a God/Man there to inflict punishment or rewards based on what the myriad of religions claim about this God being.  

 

But that is a topic for another thread.

[Teancum]

On 1/2/2018 at 6:00 PM, JLHPROF said:

If you "cannot tell" whether Joseph thought God commanded him or not, I would wager that you also cannot tell if God commanded him or not.
Your insight into God's mind is surely less accurate than your insight into Joseph's, unless you have some hotline the rest of us lack.

Joseph recorded why he practiced polygamy (whether we believe him or not).  God's mind and thought on the matter is most certainly not as easily referenced except through the filter of men like Joseph.

Oh well ok.  

 

God just told me that I am his new prophet. Also that unless anyone has had a direct visitation from God or Jesus they have no right to claim to speak for God.  I have had that now so you need to follow me.  Contribute 20%, a new law of tithe. And give your wife to me.

 

Ready to roll with that?

 

But I have not hotline.  Nor do you. Nor does anybody. You think you do but you really don't.

Sorry to burst your bubble but my guess is you will stay in it.

The odds that JS was really a prophet of God are lower than you are I winning the recent powerball lottery.

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

It looks like we have a failure to communicate. I put the above portion of my post in quotes because I was deliberately SPOOFING the 1.5 percent believers. As a true blue LDS Church believer, I brought up the phenomenon of the 1.5% believers because I find them fascinating. There was a time when I naively believed someone who rejected the historical claims of the Church couldn’t possibly be considered to be a member of the Church in good standing, but I guess I was wrong.

My bad, sorry...I agree with you.......

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

It looks like we have a failure to communicate. I put the above portion of my post in quotes because I was deliberately SPOOFING the 1.5 percent believers. As a true blue LDS Church believer, I brought up the phenomenon of the 1.5% believers because I find them fascinating. There was a time when I naively believed someone who rejected the historical claims of the Church couldn’t possibly be considered to be a member of the Church in good standing, but I guess I was wrong.

There is also a difference between "outright rejecting" and seeing it as a possibility that they are "true" some "true" or not "true" at all, and bracketing the whole question of historicity as unimportant to being and active fully practicing and believing Mormon.

That is where I put myself.   Yes it is important to believe in, say, the historicity of the atonement but knowing all along that such a thing cannot be "proven" because it was a spiritual as well as historical event and understanding that the question of historicity itself is a matter of faith.

I believe for example that Zarahemla was a real place, on faith, but recognize that if it was not, it is my belief in what spiritual beliefs that are taught in the Book of Mormon that have changed my life if they happened historically or not.

If one has to accept the history on faith, the bottom line that most people do not understand is that it is ALL based on faith and the Holy Spirit anyway.   Period.

Even what happens in the newspaper is either taken on faith or not!!   Especially in these wacky days, who knows what is "real", what is "really happening" and what is not.

Regardless of what is "really happening" I know in my heart what I believe "should" be happening and what I must do to become a better human being and don't need  scientific evidence to know what is right or wrong or what beliefs are productive in my life and "yield good fruit", and I KNOW my belief in the church does that

That is quite enough for me.  The rest is gravy if it is true!

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Oh well ok.  

 

God just told me that I am his new prophet. Also that unless anyone has had a direct visitation from God or Jesus they have no right to claim to speak for God.  I have had that now so you need to follow me.  Contribute 20%, a new law of tithe. And give your wife to me.

 

Ready to roll with that?

 

But I have not hotline.  Nor do you. Nor does anybody. You think you do but you really don't.

Sorry to burst your bubble but my guess is you will stay in it.

The odds that JS was really a prophet of God are lower than you are I winning the recent powerball lottery.

The problem is that last sentence is unfalsifiable itself and presumes the existence of God, that there actually ARE objective "odds" which are calculable.

In fact it is a circular argument.  Show me evidence for your odds.   To have them you would have to have an objective standard for "true prophets".

You don't.  So your estimation of the odds is just as good as mine which say that the odds are very good and it doesn't matter anyway.  It's even stupid to discuss such things which are unknowable.   We might as well be estimating the odds on a correct explanation of the history of the planet Xerdoo.

You have more faith than I do that such odds actually exist and are measurable.

All I know is that believing it gives me a happy life and that is fine with me, and you cannot disprove it so your position is just as religious as mine. 

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think there is a lot to lose if you live your life under the assumption that there is a God/Man there to inflict punishment or rewards based on what the myriad of religions claim about this God being.  

 

But that is a topic for another thread.

Based on your upbringing in rewards and punishments.

Blame your parents.

I suppose that means you are only moral because you might get caught and punished right?

You have no internal sense of what is right or wrong?   That is essentially what you are saying.

Your life would be miserable thinking you would be punished for doing wrong things, therefore you would have a lot to lose by living as if you would be punished right?

That is what you have just said if you know that or not

I find my life to be rewarding just believing in morality for its own sake and do not believe God will punish me for my sins.

I think they are forgiven if I do my very best to be moral, and I am, so I am ok.

Tell me what precisely I am missing by being moral??

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

God just told me that I am his new prophet. Also that unless anyone has had a direct visitation from God or Jesus they have no right to claim to speak for God.  I have had that now so you need to follow me.  Contribute 20%, a new law of tithe. And give your wife to me.

Ready to roll with that?

I'm happy to roll with that ... right after God tells me the same things. I'll get back to you as soon as He does so!

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There is also a difference between "outright rejecting" and seeing it as a possibility that they are "true" some "true" or not "true" at all, and bracketing the whole question of historicity as unimportant to being and active fully practicing and believing Mormon.

That is where I put myself.   Yes it is important to believe in, say, the historicity of the atonement but knowing all along that such a thing cannot be "proven" because it was a spiritual as well as historical event and understanding that the question of historicity itself is a matter of faith.

I believe for example that Zarahemla was a real place, on faith, but recognize that if it was not, it is my belief in what spiritual beliefs that are taught in the Book of Mormon that have changed my life if they happened historically or not.

If one has to accept the history on faith, the bottom line that most people do not understand is that it is ALL based on faith and the Holy Spirit anyway.   Period.

Even what happens in the newspaper is either taken on faith or not!!   Especially in these wacky days, who knows what is "real", what is "really happening" and what is not.

Regardless of what is "really happening" I know in my heart what I believe "should" be happening and what I must do to become a better human being and don't need  scientific evidence to know what is right or wrong or what beliefs are productive in my life and "yield good fruit", and I KNOW my belief in the church does that

That is quite enough for me.  The rest is gravy if it is true!

I understand where you’re coming from, but I must add the following: If in the end it turns out that God is a liar, and all the LDS prophets have all also been liars, I will likely experience the mother of all faith crises. And knowing how I think, even while experiencing that great crisis of faith I will be thinking God is testing me to see if I will eventually loose my resolve and succumb to the false idea that he is a liar. At the point of my greatest extremity I might even cry out in supreme agony, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” And then the God of truth will come out of his hiding place and say to me, “Well done though good and faithful servant. I only allowed Satan to use all the spiritual weapons he had at his disposal to try your heart to see if you would surrender to the idea that I am a liar, but you never gave up on me. And so it is with great joy I declare you passed the test and lost not your trust and faith in me. Enter thou into the joy of your Lord.”

 

Edited January 7, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I understand where you’re coming from, but I must add the following: If in the end it turns out that God is a liar, and all the LDS prophets have all also been liars, I will likely experience the mother of all faith crises. And knowing how I think, even while experiencing that great crisis of faith I will be thinking God is testing me to see if I will eventually loose my resolve and succumb to the false idea that he is a liar. At the point of my greatest extremity I might even cry out in supreme agony, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” And then the God of truth will come out of his hiding place and say to me, “Well done though good and faithful servant. I only allowed Satan to use all the spiritual weapons he had at his disposal to try your heart to see if you would surrender to the idea that I am a liar, but you never gave up on me. And so it is with great joy I declare you passed the test and lost not your trust and faith in me. Enter thou into the joy of your Lord.”

 

 

We agree!  But in my opinion you are not thinking it through.  Don't worry about it!!

Your question assumes that you can KNOW whether or not "God is a liar" while in mortality in some objective, provable way that you can show to others and cause them to be "converted" OTHER THAN personal testimony.

You cannot. 

No one can do that despite the Evangelical belief that even looking at the stars somehow testifies that Jesus was the Christ and that ancient peoples etc somehow can acknowledge Christ by merely believing in "something".   That belief that there is no chance to learn anything on the other side parallels your fear that somehow you could wake up dead and find that God is a liar, or would not tell you what is right without believing humans.

If we are expected to  believe humans only, then the sola scriptura folks are right but also  then there are millions of gurus and charlatans claiming to know God's true path.  How do you pick??  That's why sola anything makes no sense whatsoever.  It is based on someone else's testimony so why believe them??

If God gave you all those impressions that the "church is true" and you find out later that it is "not" then indeed God IS a liar and what are you going to do about it?? 

Shake your fist at him and tell him that wasn't very nice??     Seriously!   If God is Satan we are all in a bit of a mess and nothing matters anyway!!

How else could God communicate to YOU personally without giving you impressions and feelings that we call the "Holy Ghost"?   Believe some other human like the Bible writers who claim to be "prophets"??   Why trust them?

On that assumption they are just men, but their words still have to be shown to be God's words and how is that going to happen without something like testimony?

My God has to be smart enough and care about me enough to be able to manifest to me his reality in one way or another without believing humans about what is right or he's not the Supreme Loving Father who knows and cares about me.  Surely God must have that attribute of being able to communicate individually with his children!  How are we supposed to know him then??

If he is not like that all bets are off anyway.  Some guy says to follow him and we do?   Why should we??

If God is a liar I don't want anything to do with him anyway, so what am I losing by not believing ?   He is not "god" if he is a liar or wants me to follow some other person without a way of showing me what is true.   And semi-legendary writings don't cut the mustard.  Every religion has those and they all conflict.

All that works if God is good is to have a way of personally knowing Him and that he has the ability to lead you to the right path and for it all to make sense, line upon line and principle upon principle

And that is why I am Mormon.  Moroni 10 4-5.  Alma 32.  James 1:5 and others.

But mostly because God has told me those scriptures are true.

Edited January 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm happy to roll with that ... right after God tells me the same things. I'll get back to you as soon as He does so!

So you see what God it telling me, you or anyone is incredibly contradictory, conflicting, without commonality in the message and so on.

 

Thus the problem.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So you see what God it telling me, you or anyone is incredibly contradictory, conflicting, without commonality in the message and so on.

 

Thus the problem.

I think the "contradiction" in God's answers is played up by skeptics and critics.

God only gives one answer - truth.  If we get contradictory answers the flaw is within.  And any honest truth seeker would be wise to look for commonality and consistency of external response.

It's not foolproof of course - we are still mortal.  But God is not the author of confusion, we are.  So we need to work on setting self aside as much as humanly possible to get pure answers.

[Hamba Tuhan]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So you see what God it telling me, you or anyone is incredibly contradictory, conflicting, without commonality in the message and so on.

My apologies, but I genuinely have no clue what you mean by any of the above. Happy to respond if you wish to clarify!

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the "contradiction" in God's answers is played up by skeptics and critics.

"What you think" and "what the reality" are two different things. Skeptics like me cannot see beyond humans penning the scriptures because no entity has manifested himself/herself besides mortal humans. While respecting your faith in scriptures, especially Bible, has changed hundreds of times on purpose or by mistakes....(I guess I am allowing myself a willing tool of satan, it's fine I don't think he exists either)

[Bobbieaware]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

We agree!  But in my opinion you are not thinking it through.  Don't worry about it!!

Your question assumes that you can KNOW whether or not "God is a liar" while in mortality in some objective, provable way that you can show to others and cause them to be "converted" OTHER THAN personal testimony.

You cannot. 

No one can do that despite the Evangelical belief that even looking at the stars somehow testifies that Jesus was the Christ and that ancient peoples etc somehow can acknowledge Christ by merely believing in "something".   That belief that there is no chance to learn anything on the other side parallels your fear that somehow you could wake up dead and find that God is a liar, or would not tell you what is right without believing humans.

If we are expected to  believe humans only, then the sola scriptura folks are right but also  then there are millions of gurus and charlatans claiming to know God's true path.  How do you pick??  That's why sola anything makes no sense whatsoever.  It is based on someone else's testimony so why believe them??

If God gave you all those impressions that the "church is true" and you find out later that it is "not" then indeed God IS a liar and what are you going to do about it?? 

Shake your fist at him and tell him that wasn't very nice??     Seriously!   If God is Satan we are all in a bit of a mess and nothing matters anyway!!

How else could God communicate to YOU personally without giving you impressions and feelings that we call the "Holy Ghost"?   Believe some other human like the Bible writers who claim to be "prophets"??   Why trust them?

On that assumption they are just men, but their words still have to be shown to be God's words and how is that going to happen without something like testimony?

My God has to be smart enough and care about me enough to be able to manifest to me his reality in one way or another without believing humans about what is right or he's not the Supreme Loving Father who knows and cares about me.  Surely God must have that attribute of being able to communicate individually with his children!  How are we supposed to know him then??

If he is not like that all bets are off anyway.  Some guy says to follow him and we do?   Why should we??

If God is a liar I don't want anything to do with him anyway, so what am I losing by not believing ?   He is not "god" if he is a liar or wants me to follow some other person without a way of showing me what is true.   And semi-legendary writings don't cut the mustard.  Every religion has those and they all conflict.

All that works if God is good is to have a way of personally knowing Him and that he has the ability to lead you to the right path and for it all to make sense, line upon line and principle upon principle

And that is why I am Mormon.  Moroni 10 4-5.  Alma 32.  James 1:5 and others.

But mostly because God has told me those scriptures are true.

I never intimated that my testimony of the LDS Church and restored gospel is based on anything other that a spiritual witness through the revelations of the Spirit, which has nothing whatsoever to do empirical or scientific evidence. Accordingly, I never suggested that the truth of the LDS Church can somehow be “proven” to a non-believer by relying on empirical or scientific evidence. Such a  notion is absurd on the face of it and totally is contrary to how the scriptures tell us how we actually can come to know the truth of the things of God.

But here’s the thing: for someone to assert he has a testimony while simultaneously claiming he doesn’t really KNOW for a surety flies in the face of all the scriptures teach us concerning a testimonies of the restored gospel, for in th word of God we are taught that just because what we know has been communicated to us through the revelations of the Spirit doesn’t mean that don’t really KNOW. In fact, the Apostle James warns us if we are going to fully please our God, and if are going to fully realize our full potential for spiritual growth offered to us through the gospel, we need to trust and believe him with “nothing wavering.” For if we do waver, our possibilities for dynamic spiritual growth will be unavoidably hampered.

So here’s what I believe is the bottom line: Anyone who has received a true spiritual witness by the power of the Holy Ghost that the LDS Church and restored gospel are true should, at very least, be able to most truthfully and forthrightly powerfully testify that although his testimony is not based on empirical and/or scientific evidence he’s supremely confident that one day it will be plainly proven to all the world that the Nephite Prophets actually lived on planet earth and that a compilation of a significant portion of their sacred writings has been transmitted to us in these latter-days in the form of the Book of Mormon. Anything less than this is not the kind of faith that enables one to live in harmony with the celestial law. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I never intimated that my testimony of the LDS Church and restored gospel is based on anything other that a spiritual witness through the revelations of the Spirit, which has nothing whatsoever to do empirical or scientific evidence. Accordingly, I never suggested that the truth of the LDS Church can somehow be “proven” to a non-believer by relying on empirical or scientific evidence. Such a  notion is absurd on the face of it and totally is contrary to how the scriptures tell us how we actually can come to know the truth of the things of God.

But here’s the thing: for someone to assert he has a testimony while simultaneously claiming he doesn’t really KNOW for a surety flies in the face of all the scriptures teach us concerning a testimonies of the restored gospel, for in th word of God we are taught that just because what we know has been communicated to us through the revelations of the Spirit doesn’t mean that don’t really KNOW. In fact, the Apostle James warns us if we are going to fully please our God, and if are going to fully realize our full potential for spiritual growth offered to us through the gospel, we need to trust and believe him with “nothing wavering.” For if we do waver, our possibilities for dynamic spiritual growth will be unavoidably hampered.

So here’s what I believe is the bottom line: Anyone who has received a true spiritual witness by the power of the Holy Ghost that the LDS Church and restored gospel are true should, at very least, be able to most truthfully and forthrightly powerfully testify that although his testimony is not based on empirical and/or scientific evidence he’s supremely confident that one day it will be plainly proven to all the world that the Nephite Prophets actually lived on planet earth and that a compilation of a significant portion of their sacred writings has been transmitted to us in these latter-days in the form of the Book of Mormon. Anything less than this is not the kind of faith that enables one to live in harmony with the celestial law. 

Of course I agree.

I was talking about objective knowledge you can communicate to someone else who does not have a testimony.

The reason I was talking about it that way is because your typical atheist would not understand how you can "know" what is only "feelings in your heart" BECAUSE others may supposedly do what you do and have different results- therefore YOUR alleged "knowledge" is inferior to the athiests "sure knowledge" because he knows in a scientific way which is of course superior (or so they woould want you to think)

So it all comes down, as usual, to words and the definition of "knowledge" which because of this above distinction never use carelessly in writing.

I totally agree- when God has spoken to me,  I know for myself absolutely and without question.  But that ain't gonna convince anyone else but me.

Or on the other hand maybe I cannot live the celestial law.   Whatever, God knows it is by grace alone that I am saved after all that I can do.  Thinking about these things is the purpose of my life and I know that what I know is absolutely certainly what God wants ME to know.  Ain't no hooman beans gonna take that away.    As the idiom goes, your mileage may vary.     That's hokay wit me!