hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 29 minutes ago, Amulek said: 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: You could if the theophany experience was a visitation in a tangible and physical sense. But Joseph only described his experience as a vision. Its trying to move a spiritual personal experience into a historical event that creates the problem. I don't think you really grasp the problem. A tangible experience of a physical being in the sacred grove still doesn't prove that the church is true. My Protestant friends are happy to concede that Joseph had a real, physical experience when he went out to pray...only they believe that encounter wasn't with God but with an "angel of Light" (e.g., Satan). I personally don't think its possible that he had a physical experience, because I don't see any evidence to support the idea that God exists as a physical anthropomorphic being. I'm not interested in proving the church is or isn't true. But I'm interested in how a PhD historian can state that no historical evidence can prove the church is true or untrue, but at the same time assert that the BoM is true. Its the intersection of those two positions that I'm critiquing.
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 14 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I generally agree. Although I think we often as humans have a very difficult time actually assessing what is good for us or what works for us. We really aren't conditioned and trained for objective evaluation and critical thinking, so we often assume the status quo works best for us when there may be better choices out there. Yes, if it isn't broke don't fix it. It's probably harder for us to determine what's best for each other than ourselves though. Actually I think we often can see what is wrong with others better than we can diagnose our own problems. But even stating that "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" is a problem if our own senses are deceiving us. Perhaps it is broke and we just don't know it.
mnn727 Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 9 hours ago, SouthernMo said: If you’re an honest seeker of truth, and want to know of an example of church leaders lying, I encourage you to study the modern history of polygamy. There are a NUMBER of well-cited histories written about this subject - both in the early years of the LDS church, and the lies that church leaders told between the first and second manifestos (and beyond). There are many, many documented instances of general authorities, including the first presidency lying. Too many to list in any thread on this site! You phrases your objection to this fact as “I don’t buy these claims.” I encourage you to educate yourself and read more church history. We cannot debate facts, but we can debate why certain leaders felt it necessary to lie, or if it was appropriate. But it you refuse to research the facts, then you are willingly ignorant, and will not see the truth. But, perhaps you are comfortable in the Garden of Eden. Oh NO! Humans lied, oh my gosh, whatever will we do? /sarcasm Who cares? There were men that did not accept the manifesto -- so what? there were also men that didn't accept polygamy. What difference does what a man or men do that benefits only themselves in the here and now? That will always happen when you have people in the equation. 1
hope_for_things Posted July 25, 2018 Author Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Duncan said: 23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I would put all these things in the category of the mystical and the ineffable. No tangible plates, no physical door. Its all symbolic language about opening our eyes and receiving knowledge of things we are blind to. Its about faith to move mountains (metaphorical mountains.) These are powerful and meaningful life lessons. The problem happens when people take them literally. That is like the child taking the Santa story literally. It doesn't work. Obviously Christ is not a physical door but there were plates, as attested to by witnesses. I think that's the point of lessons though, to put them into action, be ye doers of the word and not hearers only. Children get over the idea that Santa doesn't actually exist but the lessons of Christmas hopefully stay with you for your life By your earlier comments, you can't say "there were plates", you can only say that there are some witness statements claiming the plates existed, and some contradictory statements as well. Other than contradictory witness statements, we have no solid evidence to support that plates existed. Using your logic about Christmas I think we could apply this to exaggerated religious narratives as well. Couldn't those of us who no longer believe in a historical BoM and a divine Jesus, continue to apply the good lessons of Christianity and Mormonism and have these ideals stay with them throughout their lives? That is sincerely what I'm attempting to do at this stage in my journey. Edited July 25, 2018 by hope_for_things 1
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I personally don't think its possible that he had a physical experience, because I don't see any evidence to support the idea that God exists as a physical anthropomorphic being. I'm not interested in proving the church is or isn't true. But I'm interested in how a PhD historian can state that no historical evidence can prove the church is true or untrue, but at the same time assert that the BoM is true. Its the intersection of those two positions that I'm critiquing. I am not quite sure you understand the academic study of history. They don't go searching for did this or that actually happen, when it comes to these foundational events but what did people say happened and documented as such. Remember how I was saying historians are "slaves to evidence". I would invite you to read a book by E.H. Carr called, "What is History"
mnn727 Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) To me this is a strange conversation. I have never looked to any scripture as a history text or a science text. I have always understood, much of scripture was written with the writers world view. I've also always known much of scripture is symbolic or faith based stories. From the OT & NT through the BOM and even the Pof GP and the D&C. I've never understood the view of those claiming scripture has to be literal and historic or its all false - thats a crazy assumption. Genesis 2:7 proves that false. Man made out of dust? Now for someone 4K-6K years ago, that may have flown, but not today. SO since that is wrong, do you throw the whole Bible away? No good in it at all? Edited July 25, 2018 by mnn727 1
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: By your earlier comments, you can't say "there were plates", you can only say that there are some witness statements claiming the plates existed, and some contradictory statements as well. Other than contradictory witness statements, we have no solid evidence to support that plates existed. Using your logic about Christmas I think we could apply this to exaggerated religious narratives as well. Couldn't those of us who no longer believe in a historical BoM and a divine Jesus, continue to apply the good lessons of Christianity and Mormonism and have these ideals stay with them throughout their lives? That is sincerely what I'm attempting to do at this stage in my journey. but now you have to show that these witnesses were contradicting each other. I can say there were plates because there were witnesses that said as such. You can do whatever you want. Can I ask you a question? what is the word "learning" mean to you? when you learn new things how do you react? 1
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Steven Harper knows a lot about church history. He said that we can learn things about history all day long, but we can't prove the church is true or untrue, he seems to be making contradictory claims from my vantage point. He claims that his experience through prayer is proof of the truth of the BoM. But he's also saying that no amount of historical evidence can prove or disprove Mormonism. So essentially it sounds like he wants to put a fence around the BoM and other fundamental religious propositions and say that these things can be studied and researched all you want, but that will never change the foundational assumption that these things are true. So evidence doesn't matter on these core foundational claims. BoM historicity, Joseph Smith prophet, God is real, Jesus Resurrection. If all these things are fundamentally true and no level of evidence can prove or disprove them, then that seems contradictory to me. Yes, exactly. And yes that is the exact point that you have had trouble understanding in our discussions. That is what I have been saying from the start. Scientific evidence does not prove spiritual things. They are totally independent Realms having nothing to do with each other. He is exactly right. History has nothing to do with the spiritual value of Mormonism as a paradigm for religious values. It is not an " assumptjon" it is a "revelation". Do you assume that murder is wrong? No, you know in your heart that murder is wrong independent of objective evidence that it is. Edited July 25, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 9 minutes ago, mnn727 said: Oh NO! Humans lied, oh my gosh, whatever will we do? /sarcasm Who cares? There were men that did not accept the manifesto -- so what? there were also men that didn't accept polygamy. What difference does what a man or men do that benefits only themselves in the here and now? That will always happen when you have people in the equation. I agree! Just because lies have been told does not mean all is lost, does not mean they weren’t called of god, and does not mean that we shouldn’t sustain them. We can later discuss the “so what” if we can first establish if they have lied or not. What @Duncan and I are discussing is whether or not general authorities have told lies at all. His position is no - they haven’t. My reading and understanding of history shows that those men we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have lied. Let’s discuss why they did.
stemelbow Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Actually I think we often can see what is wrong with others better than we can diagnose our own problems. hm...I disagree. Pretty much the opposite. What you describe feels very much like members telling less active or leavers why they leave. "your problem is, you were too lazy, got offended, and were never far enough in..." I think a problem that occurs all too often is others trying to tell someone what is wrong with him/her and how to fix it. 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: But even stating that "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" is a problem if our own senses are deceiving us. Perhaps it is broke and we just don't know it. Sure. But the problem is it's all broke to some extent or another. No one's running around living a life of perfection. So, if someone's happily living in a religion not seeing or accepting the warts, more power to ya. Because no matter what we're all just living our own life, in our own way, ending up short of doing anything and everything perfectly.
Jane_Doe Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Thanks for the reply, just a few comments. In the Santa analogy, the truth does change. Santa isn't alive today and doesn't have a sleigh or reindeer. The Santa story is an exaggerated myth built on a foundation of an actual historical figure Saint Nicholas. Now that part seems to work with the religion analogy well. Jesus was a historical figure, but many of the stories about Jesus are exaggerated and or created for particular narrative purposes. I think what you're saying is different with the biology example of a 4th grader learning more simple concepts than a college student. The 4th grader doesn't learn the more complicated concepts, but they aren't being taught fallacious ideas like the myths about Santa. Hence my great dislike of the Santa example, and preference for the biology one instead. Truth doesn't change, our understanding of it does. 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Also, I'm wondering about your "Adult Perception" when you imply that the complexities of biology are evidence of how "God works His wonders". Wouldn't that be similar to someone saying that all the complexities of Christmas are evidence for how Santa works his wonders? Again, I just really dislike the Santa comparison at all and would prefer to steer clear of such a flawed comparison completely. 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: There isn't anything in the science of biology that explicitly points to a theistic God being the source of these mechanisms. The scientific method is a great tool, but cannot address every question, such as "whether or not there is a God". Hence that question cannot be addressed by any science. We do still have other tools in the epistemological tool box though, and it is through those tools I have personally come to the conclusion that there is a God. 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: So of course the authors of biblical texts didn't know about DNA, but they also thought God controlled the weather, and disease and any number of different things that we know today are caused by natural mechanisms. And (for me) understanding those mechanisms better in no way changes the wonder. God's not a magician to pull a bunny out a hat and rely on that 'magic' that all fades if you know the trick. Rather He's a carpenter who can choose to use these tools and mechanisms to accomplish His purposes.
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I would agree that religion is in arena of meaning making. But traditional religions don't have a monopoly on meaning making, and there are many secular avenues in this arena as well. But that is not what I interpret Steven Harper as saying. He seems to be asserting that some core fundamental religious ideas are also historical facts based on his personal spiritual experience. This is curious and I think contradictory to his other statement about not being able to prove the truth of Mormonism through historical inquiry. It seems to me that he's claiming these truths are universally true based on spiritual experience, and that they are also off limits from historical inquiry. Its the combination of both of those propositions that confuses me. There can be factual matters that we believe on faith. For example was the Big Bang a singularity? We look at the data and it's not a slam dunk. Yet fora certain purpose we might want to assume that the Big Bang did come out of the singularity. We kind of take that on faith for the purposes of the discussion. We might take it on faith that the person Jesus of Nazareth actually lived, even supposing that the evidence is scant. I am not saying it is scant I'm just saying that we take it on faith. We take it on faith that the historical event of Joseph's walking into the woods actually happened. Maybe he made it all up, And it rained that day and he never went outside. Based on our feelings we trust people, or we don't. A jury makes a factual decision true or false by preponderance of the evidence. There is no way to decide what a preponderance is it's just the best guess with the evidence we have. We all do that all the time. I have no problem with it.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I think I understand the different between science and faith well and I agree they are different categories of thought. I have a problem with people mixing the two categories together, which I believe is what Dr. Harper did in that interview. I agree that personal testimony can't be evidence in a scholarly sense, but just in a personal subjective sense. I have never seen Harper confuse testimony with science. Trained historians rarely do that. Perhaps you have a specific example of him doing that. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I got the impression from Dr. Harper that he's holding a personal faith position that is out of bounds for being informed by his scholarly explorations. In other words, no matter what he learns through scholarly inquiry, he would still hold a position that the BoM is historical. Now he didn't say this exactly, I'm inferring based on what he did say, but that is the impression I received. I have a problem with this kind of position, I think its not an honest position to take for someone so well read. A great many believers appeal to faith, rather than secular evidence, whenever they are at loggerheads. Faith is a personal matter, and it is not the same as fudging on the facts -- since the debate is not usually about the facts, but rather about interpretation of facts. I think that Harper is asking the same general question that Ryan Dahle asks: Why don't we accept rational and fact-based evidence? Often we just don't want to. Too much bother. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I haven't really read much from McMurrin, but the more I hear about him the more he sounds like someone I would really identify with. I'd like to understand Harper's position better, and I don't want to misinterpret him. I agree that many ex-Mormons fall into the same dogmatic positions as believing Mormons. That is the problem with warring testimonies. One can make little headway with a discussion of "Tis So," "Tis not." Substantive arguments are so much more satisfying. 2
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 35 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: I agree! Just because lies have been told does not mean all is lost, does not mean they weren’t called of god, and does not mean that we shouldn’t sustain them. We can later discuss the “so what” if we can first establish if they have lied or not. What @Duncan and I are discussing is whether or not general authorities have told lies at all. His position is no - they haven’t. My reading and understanding of history shows that those men we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have lied. Let’s discuss why they did. I was under the impression we were talking about one subject, and not some over arching program of lying from leaders down to teachers 1
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: How is listening to a church leader any different than listening to a fortune teller? They are both claiming prophetic abilities and that seems very similar to me. As for how we verify feelings in our heart religiously, how is this not just confirmation bias at work? What we feel about something does not tell us anything about that THING at all, it just tells us what we FEEL. Yep. So we are supposed to ignore what we feel when we are talking about what gives us purpose in life? Do you ignore what you feel when you pick a spouse? Do you ignore what you feel when you vote for a Republican or Democrat? Did you ignore what you feel when you pick your occupation? When you decide how to raise our kids? Do you ignore what you feel when you decide to vote in favor of abortion? Do you ignore what you feel when you decide ANYTHING that is important in your life? That's the whole deal. Religion is about the important questions in your life not the factual ones. It gives you guidance about your feelings. It is not about facts and never was. Yes it is always biased because what it is about is figuring out what your biases are. It is an examination of your biases and feelings what is right and what is wrong etcetera. It helps you make decisions about what IS what is right and wrong and IMPORTANT. And yes it does the same thing for secular people as well. What is the most important issue facing Mankind and what should I do about it? Secular people make decisions like that all the time but they don't understand that what they are doing is following their gut or the spirit inside them to decide what is right or wrong. Theists just believe they have help in doing that. Atheists don't think they have help in doing that. That's the only difference. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have never seen Harper confuse testimony with science. Trained historians rarely do that. Perhaps you have a specific example of him doing that. A great many believers appeal to faith, rather than secular evidence, whenever they are at loggerheads. Faith is a personal matter, and it is not the same as fudging on the facts -- since the debate is not usually about the facts, but rather about interpretation of facts. I think that Harper is asking the same general question that Ryan Dahle asks: Why don't we accept rational and fact-based evidence? Often we just don't want to. Too much bother. That is the problem with warring testimonies. One can make little headway with a discussion of "Tis So," "Tis not." Substantive arguments are so much more satisfying. Agreed. My way of handling that incidentally is saying that I believe that the Book of Mormon is historical truth but I take the verification of that historical truth and base it on faith. Many believe that the Book of Mormon must be historically true for the church to be true. I believe that my position is a good logical compromise. On the other side I don't happen to believe that it has to be historically true to be perfect scripture, nevertheless I do take historicity on faith. I think it can never be proven in "principle" either way as part of taking the church itself on faith. I see the evidence and see it as substantial, but I do not believe that God wants it to be" provable" one way or the other. I'm just saying that because some have put me in one camp or the other. I am in neither and both, depending on the context of the discussion. Edited July 25, 2018 by mfbukowski 2
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 12 minutes ago, Duncan said: I was under the impression we were talking about one subject, and not some over arching program of lying from leaders down to teachers I may be wrong, but it seems like you are backing off your statement earlier: “I don't buy these claims the Church lied, as if the teachers knew the truth and withheld it.” This seems like an over arching statement that no one in church leadership has ever lied. To clarity my position, I don’t know if any “program of lying from the leaders down to teachers.” I’ve never claimed that. My only claim is that general authorizes have lied to each other, to members, and to governments. Perhaps I am very confused. What is your position on honesty from general authorities? In your statement that I take issue with, you express disbelief that “the church” lied. I assumed you meant church leadership (most often, when Mormons say “the church”, we mean church leadership). So I went and assumed you meant general authorities as a way to frame the discussion. I know, lots of assumptions, but you were vague in your statement. If you want to reframe your position, or clarify my misunderstanding, please do!
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Agreed. My way of handling that incidentally is saying that I believe that the Book of Mormon is historical truth but I take the verification of that historical truth and base it on faith. Many believe that the Book of Mormon must be historically true for the church to be true. I believe that my position is a good logical compromise. On the other side I don't happen to believe that it has to be historically true to be perfect scripture, nevertheless I do take historicity on faith. I think it can never be proven in "principle" either way as part of taking the church itself on faith. I see the evidence and see it as substantial, but I do not believe that God wants it to be" provable" one way or the other. I'm just saying that because some have put me in one camp or the other. I am in neither and both, depending on the context of the discussion. One of the challenges I see is that our colloquial American English lacks solid differentiating language between one’s acceptance of a scientific or physical statement and the acceptance of a religious statement. I am rubbed the wrong way when LDS state that they “know” something is true when they have accepted it on faith and feeling. I’m bothered because we can say “I know Florida is south of Georgia” and use the same word know. Most would accept that knowing Jesus loves me is has a different standard and pattern for learning than a geographic fact. For a few years now, I’ve been careful to use the word believe in faith settings (rath than know) because there is a different standard of communal acceptance between the verbs. I'm giving you one warning before banning you from threads. Do not accuse other posters of being uneducated or untruthful because they don't share your opinions.
Bernard Gui Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) On 7/24/2018 at 1:54 PM, hope_for_things said: I was thinking similar thoughts about this idea of asking God if a book or collection of books is true. Should we ask God if Harry Potter is true? I just read John Turner's biography on Brigham Young, could I ask God if that book is true? Or what about cnn.com, should I ask if that's true? Or a book of poetry, or a movie, or a podcast I listened to. Can I ask God if these things are true, and if I get a good feeling what does that tell me about these various things? Why not? As the famous scripture says... Quote 4 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. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. But, why would we want or need to ask God if Harry Potter, The Good the Bad, and the Ugly, or Jabberwocky are true? Edited July 25, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
Calm Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) Quote What @Duncan and I are discussing is whether or not general authorities have told lies at all. His position is no - they haven’t. My reading and understanding of history shows that those men we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have lied. Let’sdiscuss why they did. I really don't think you understood what Duncan was saying at all, especially now you are saying another comment is reframing or backing off. Rather than assuming that, why not assume you misunderstood and ask him "what do you mean by "the Church"" without all the additional commentary and argument which is meaningless unless you actually understand his position. Edited July 25, 2018 by Calm
mnn727 Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: I am rubbed the wrong way when LDS state that they “know” something is true when they have accepted it on faith and feeling. I’m bothered because we can say “I know Florida is south of Georgia” and use the same word know. I agree with you there. It rubs me the wrong way also when I hear "I Know" something that is not really possible to know. John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
mfbukowski Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: One of the challenges I see is that our colloquial American English lacks solid differentiating language between one’s acceptance of a scientific or physical statement and the acceptance of a religious statement. I am rubbed the wrong way when LDS state that they “know” something is true when they have accepted it on faith and feeling. I’m bothered because we can say “I know Florida is south of Georgia” and use the same word know. Most would accept that knowing Jesus loves me is has a different standard and pattern for learning than a geographic fact. For a few years now, I’ve been careful to use the word believe in faith settings (rath than know) because there is a different standard of communal acceptance between the verbs. I'm giving you one warning before banning you from threads. Do not accuse other posters of being uneducated or untruthful because they don't share your opinions. Well we could get into the difference between truth and knowledge but that's a long one. It's still debated after 2000 years of Western philosophy. But for me and for the school of philosophy I come from "knowledge" is a psychological state of certainty, nothing more nothing less. I have no problem with people who say I know the church is true and I say it myself all the time because it is true. I am in a state of psychological certainty that the teachings of the church have worked extensively in my life to make it better. The truth of science change all the time. Is Pluto still a planet this week? Is it good to eat eggs or not? Is string theory true? Is light a particle or a wave? That's okay with me because spiritual truths also change all the time. Hopefully I don't need to post examples of that, because we see it all the time around here. Truth typically rotates around certain paradigms that we believe for a while as long as they work and then abandon after they no longer work. So I don't belong to the school if people who believe that the word knowledge means absolute unchangeable truth. I suggest you study up on it and starting with this article. I think I can safely say that this is the way most philosophers view it today https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ 2
Duncan Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: I may be wrong, but it seems like you are backing off your statement earlier: “I don't buy these claims the Church lied, as if the teachers knew the truth and withheld it.” This seems like an over arching statement that no one in church leadership has ever lied. To clarity my position, I don’t know if any “program of lying from the leaders down to teachers.” I’ve never claimed that. My only claim is that general authorizes have lied to each other, to members, and to governments. Perhaps I am very confused. What is your position on honesty from general authorities? In your statement that I take issue with, you express disbelief that “the church” lied. I assumed you meant church leadership (most often, when Mormons say “the church”, we mean church leadership). So I went and assumed you meant general authorities as a way to frame the discussion. I know, lots of assumptions, but you were vague in your statement. If you want to reframe your position, or clarify my misunderstanding, please do! This has been my position from the start, "I don't buy these claims the Church lied, as if the teachers knew the truth and withheld it. If the Church is lying who told the teachers/leaders, a) to lie, b) what secret documents are out there that has the "real" history and where do these teachers and leaders go to find it out? Did the pioneers to Utah actually come via airplane? and we are all being lied to they walked, wagon, handcart etc.? gimme a break !" when I wrote that, please note that I said "teachers/leaders" plural. I don't buy into the idea that all these leaders, all these teachers are deceptive and actually know everything but aren't willing to share it or outright lie to people. I don't buy into the idea that there is some grand conspiracy going on in the Church to mislead people, because if there is, are there secret documents out there with what actually happened and where do people go to find out the actual history history of the Church and I gave an example of that. The term "the Church" is so broad. 2
Bernard Gui Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 (edited) On 7/24/2018 at 1:17 PM, hope_for_things said: On Oct. 17, 1957, my dad, Mark, experienced a miraculous conversion to the LDS Church. Previously he was kind of a benign friend of the Church, but when my mom invited missionaries for dinner, he always told them, “You can eat my food, but you can’t cram your religion down my throat!” He came to a few activities and had some friends in the branch. On that day, Elders Mark Peterson and Delbert Stanley visited our branch in Los Alamos, New Mexico, to call a bishop and make it into a ward. My mom arranged special music and my dad agreed to come to see what happened. After the meeting, we all went up to shake hands with the apostles. When my dad introduced himself to Elder Peterson, the apostle put his arm around dad’s shoulder and said, “Pleased to meet you. My name is Mark, too.” At that moment my dad said he felt an electric shock move through his body and the Spirit told him he was in the presence of a true apostle of Jesus Christ. When we went home after the meeting my dad threw away his cigarettes, coffee, and beer. Susequently he was baptized. His entire personality was transformed and when he passed away decades later, in his wallet were the missionary cards of Elders Stewart and Hirschi who baptized him. Of course others, even non-LDS, have life-changing experiences. I believe God loves and reveals himself to his children. Something changed him, though. Other than the witness of those who saw what happened to dad, Is there anyway to accurately determine if he experienced a spirituallife-changing conversion from a factual or historical perspective? How would a historian writing in the future verify our story? Edited July 25, 2018 by Bernard Gui 3
SouthernMo Posted July 25, 2018 Posted July 25, 2018 35 minutes ago, Duncan said: This has been my position from the start, "I don't buy these claims the Church lied, as if the teachers knew the truth and withheld it. If the Church is lying who told the teachers/leaders, a) to lie, b) what secret documents are out there that has the "real" history and where do these teachers and leaders go to find it out? Did the pioneers to Utah actually come via airplane? and we are all being lied to they walked, wagon, handcart etc.? gimme a break !" when I wrote that, please note that I said "teachers/leaders" plural. I don't buy into the idea that all these leaders, all these teachers are deceptive and actually know everything but aren't willing to share it or outright lie to people. I don't buy into the idea that there is some grand conspiracy going on in the Church to mislead people, because if there is, are there secret documents out there with what actually happened and where do people go to find out the actual history history of the Church and I gave an example of that. The term "the Church" is so broad. I think it’s clearer now. But to clarify, do you believe that general authorized have (ever) told lies to each other, or the laiety, or to the US government?
Recommended Posts