Skin Color Doesn’t Mean Skin Color

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, juliann said:

We now have enough information to counter any crap that comes up in a SS class, for example. As always, life is lived on the local level in wards. It is up to us to educate dumb racists, or at least shut them up. 

And sincerely, I wonder how that is going for you and others.  Are you well received in your ward when you point this out?

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What would be really interesting is if the church reverted back to its 1960-1990's approach.  I wonder how someone like yourself might react.  I really don't have an issue with changes.  Even if the skin issue is now being taught to mean something else.  In fact I applaud that. I just would love to have LDS authorities say so and be specific. It does seem like a bucket of cold water when an apologist tries to tell those of use who were taught that the skin of darkness meant just that, that it does not anymore.

I can understand that.

Does it help that this change, as far as the general church membership goes, was not taught to members by an apologist but by the church itself in their essays on race?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I plan on coming back to it and I hope we can have a civil exchange.  Just been tied up work wise. 

I am looking forward to this.   

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And sincerely, I wonder how that is going for you and others.  Are you well received in your ward when you point this out?

I haven’t had a chance to do it in class (being in Primary, the library and then being able to only make it to SM) but I have had great responses when sharing one on one and haven’t seen any negative feedback from it.  Generally they speak up and say stuff like they have thought of it that way too or thank me for pointing the alternative out. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And sincerely, I wonder how that is going for you and others.  Are you well received in your ward when you point this out?

I've never seen it done in person.  Either I've missed those lessons or it wasn't discussed in a way where saying it would have made sense.  I remember once being in an adult institute class where someone pulled out the 'Catholicism is the great and abominable church' stuff and the teach shut that down real quick. This was probably in the early 2000s and while I don't remember if the person who said it was male or female, I remember they were in the "older" generation.  So probably grew up on Mormon Doctrine.

A few years back we had a really good GD teacher who was also a professor and taught the BOM for a living. She was also on the more liberal side of things.  I wasn't in the class when it happened (it was all anyone could talk about afterwards) but I guess she thought the best way to approach this subject was to begin by saying that the church was racist.  That was not well received and the class got really awkward following that comment as different immediately people pushed back. 

Interestingly, from what I was told the two who were most outrightly upset by the comment were two latina women who were immigrants to the US and had grown up in Mexico and Venezuela.  One of them actually went to the bishop about the teacher! 

What that experience taught me is that while we need to have these discussions, we have to have them the right way or nothing actually gets discussed.  The teacher wasn't ever able to make the rest of her point (which I'm sure would have been amazing) because she thought the best way to go about it was to, from her point of view, address the elephant in the room. I think she thought that would make room for an open and honest discussion on the topic but it immediately shut the topic down instead.  Her choice of words caused people to instantly become defensive of the church rather than give them room to explore the ways the church has changed in its views of race.

What is an elephant for one person isn't for everyone I guess, and that's where it gets tricky.  Trying to teach this topic and keep everyone open to learning it is not easy thing.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes, like I said I agree. But it's still an interpretation of something that actually exists. 

That is a matter of faith/relativity.  We can't escape the realm of relativity in morality to make credible absolute claims.  

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If something is immoral, it is immoral whether anyone believes it is or not.

You are speaking of higher imperceivable things, I presume.   Another faith based/relative proposition. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

  The idea that we chose what is moral or immoral doesn't work for me. 

Since absolutes are unknowable in any absolute sense, it is the only option you have and seems to be working just fine.  Everything else is hope/faith. 

I am distinguishing the only reality that we can experience in mortality from our faith-based beliefs in something higher.  We have faith that we can someday have the omnipresent perspective and experience of God to know in a holistic perspective and thus absolute sense.  Until then, our morality is relative - that is what we live by.  We can't live by absolutes that we can't even perceive.   Because we can't perceive of it in an absolute and holistic sense, we can't live by it as it is.  What we live by is a relative morality.  That is all we know.    When I say that morality is relative, I am speaking of our actual experience in mortality, and not of things I hope in.  Even in judgment, we will not be held accountable to higher laws that we can't know.  Instead, we are taught that we will be judged by the relative light that we have been given.  Judgement will be different and unique (relative) for all of us based on our relative experience, thank goodness!   So, in life and judgment relative morality is the law we live and will be judged by.  If we can't perceive of it, experience it in life, and will mercifully not be judged by it, then such morals don't really apply to us.  Absolutes are for the Gods, not mortals - we simply aren't evolved to that level of perspective yet.  It is not applicable.  I can only speak to things that I know and experience, and those things are relative. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

We can choose how we feel about it, but that doesn't affect the actual nature of the thing.  It exists outside of our feelings.

What exists outside of us and thus can't be known simply don't apply to us and nothing can be said of it.  So why not speak of what our actual experience of morality in life is - it is relative. 

Edited February 27, 2024 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Even with companionship, we still have to interpret everything through our mortal perspectives and filters.  There is no way around it.  As you note, we are still looking through a glass darkly.  Eventually, we may be privy to see as God sees and know as God knows in a holistic and absolute sense, but until then, there is no way around relativism.  Morality will never be an objective thing in mortality that we can get outside of our limited perspective, and all assess in an unbiased way.  That is demonstrably the case, even in our church.  Even with our own prophets, we see how morality evolves and changes with differing perspectives.  If morality is unmistakenly knowable in an absolute sense, then we wouldn't expect to see change in perspectives with morality in relation to racism and other obvious areas of change in our prophets.  What was considered moral, even doctrinal, for Brigham Young and the early saints is not considered moral for Pres. Nelson and most saints today, although there are still some who espouse Brigham's morals today.  That demonstrates relativity - Brigham's truth was not the same as Nelson's truth, which may or may not align with THE TRUTH.  Relativism is inescapable until perfection and an absolute perspective is achieved.           

I still owe you a reply on this general subject.  Hope this helps.

I think you are right about "relativism" generally speaking.   There are no rules objectively- "truth" cannot even be defined- no one has agreed on that one in 2500 years of trying.

But one must be careful about the CONTEXT and the PURPOSE of statements which are "relative" and which might NOT be "relative"

My position is that even given relativism, you need to be aware of the context of what is "relative" and the "rules" of relativism and truth : DOING SOMETHING with the concept.  Without a PURPOSE for the concept as a part of a paradigm truth itself becomes irrelevant.

Suppose  in our time, around 10 thousand years BCE, on the planet Garfunkle in the Whasis system, the battle of Youmar destroyed all life on the planet. IT ACTUALLY Happened!

Who cares?

 

The term Instrumentalism I think provides those limits.  One must look at the OBJECTVE orPURPOSE of the statements which may or may not "work" to achieve a particular goal.

Even within relativism, cooked spaghetti does not make a good material for making a crescent wrench.

The material itself must correspond to the task at hand.  You cannot make water into a cane to help you walk out of water.

Yes a relativist may look at that statement and insist that you can if you are in the arctic, and make it out of ice.  I like to watch a survival oriented show called "Life at 5 Below" where one could go out and argue that freezers are a total waste of money.

YES that's true - because he doesn't need one!

But if you live on the equator, they might be an absolute necessity

That's why I like the concept- derived from Pragmatism- of "Instrumentalism" which encourages us to see propositions as "true" IFF they help us attain some purpose.

Philosophers in this school can be seen as "thought mechanics" who use philosophical tools to make sure that the intellectual tools we use achieve the PURPOSE desired.

So what is the "purpose" of Morals?  Happy lives for all people in some kind of collective.  If you were the only human being on the planet you would need no "morals"- yes that's true.   Maybe you could make rules for yourself or not. Maybe suicide would be the only thing "immoral" for you, maybe not.

But humanity will not allow you to go around killing people for fun.   You will end up in prison.  So relative morals may theoretically be "nice" but totally they don't work any more than trying to use spaghetti as a crescent wrench!

The PURPOSE of the Golden Rule is to provide 1- a rational rule for establishing moral rules which ultimately- 2- bring greater happiness to society as a whole.

So yes theoretically, like "truth" "morals" must be seen in the CONTEXT of "what works to achieve a purpose".  This is Pragmatism and Instrumentalism in one example.

So yes, you can believe anything you like about morals and truth-BUT there is not much one can do with relative morals.  It does you no good except for you to get your jollies but that behavior could cause you to end up in prison.

THAT's the problem

Edited February 27, 2024 by mfbukowski

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And sincerely, I wonder how that is going for you and others.  Are you well received in your ward when you point this out?

Yup. I am considered knowledgable because of my graduate study in NT.  As much as no one wants to admit it here. scholarship is a skill. There is a set of tools that have to be used to study ancient texts so scholars can effectively communicate with one another. So when I say "Biblical" scholarship has to be used I had wrongly assumed that people would know what that meant but apparently they think it is a completely different topic. Sort of like thinking that because someone is painting a different subject, they aren't using the same skills and so you aren't allowed to talk about how they produce a finished product. So I don't see much hope of any meaningful conversation here when the only tools that can be used are scoffed at. 

All one has to do in SS is be aware of what has been said, official statements and the like. When something is said, all it takes is a correction. Do you think that is problematic or something? Or that a group of believing Mormons wouldn't accept an official statement? 

I did have one experience decades ago with a fundie teacher who loved the church of the devil stuff. He was preaching it hard. I did go toe to toe on that. I countered him repeatedly. He would say something, so would I. I finally turned around and hissed at the bishop to help... he was sitting there shellshocked. Finally, the teacher got so upset at me that he banged his fist on the blackboard shouting this is my testimony! Well, the fallout from no one else smacking down this guy was that a new member couple who had Catholic family left the church. The next week, the Bishop made the correction with a statement in Sacrament meeting. 

Where I have seen the best results are with gay and women topics in RS. It only takes one comment to open the floodgates after something offensive has been said. Someone has to start it. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've never seen it done in person.  Either I've missed those lessons or it wasn't discussed in a way where saying it would have made sense.  I remember once being in an adult institute class where someone pulled out the 'Catholicism is the great and abominable church' stuff and the teach shut that down real quick. This was probably in the early 2000s and while I don't remember if the person who said it was male or female, I remember they were in the "older" generation.  So probably grew up on Mormon Doctrine.

A few years back we had a really good GD teacher who was also a professor and taught the BOM for a living. She was also on the more liberal side of things.  I wasn't in the class when it happened (it was all anyone could talk about afterwards) but I guess she thought the best way to approach this subject was to begin by saying that the church was racist.  That was not well received and the class got really awkward following that comment as different immediately people pushed back. 

Interestingly, from what I was told the two who were most outrightly upset by the comment were two latina women who were immigrants to the US and had grown up in Mexico and Venezuela.  One of them actually went to the bishop about the teacher! 

What that experience taught me is that while we need to have these discussions, we have to have them the right way or nothing actually gets discussed.  The teacher wasn't ever able to make the rest of her point (which I'm sure would have been amazing) because she thought the best way to go about it was to, from her point of view, address the elephant in the room. I think she thought that would make room for an open and honest discussion on the topic but it immediately shut the topic down instead.  Her choice of words caused people to instantly become defensive of the church rather than give them room to explore the ways the church has changed in its views of race.

What is an elephant for one person isn't for everyone I guess, and that's where it gets tricky.  Trying to teach this topic and keep everyone open to learning it is not easy thing.

One does have to slide into these topics. I would do it by gently pointing out that they were products of their time, etc. I would also point out how JS got into potentionally deadly plan to admit Blacks (yeah, a minister had been killed for it.) I think all that has to be said is that today, we consider blah blah to be racist. It's not that difficult to ease into it. And of course, today I think people are more attuned to it. I think it is critical to get an admission of institutional racism to be able to have any resolution. There is also enough coming out about the inception of the ban that I'm willing to bring up that it was not inspired. I'm sure that will shock, but that is how you have to begin to open up other opportunities. 

[juliann]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Name-calling is against the board rules. 

What is wrong with me sharing my overall impression of these types of apologetics? That's my genuine feeling and I elaborated on it and explored it further. I did not engage in name-calling or attack anyone personally.

Juliann's behaviour has imo disrupted the thread and remarkably so. I don't understand why she isn't auto banned from race in the BOM posts, this is not the first time she's done this.

Mormonism unfortunately is a double edged sword: it can be a dear comfort and it can be a great hurt and respectively so for people who love each other very much. I value this board because I discuss both sides of it without bothering people who don't want to. But I don't want to do that in an abusive environment.

 

Yeah, I call this the shooting gallery approach you have. We are supposed to line up like good ducks while you ping shots at us. Sorry to disappoint you, I won't. You guys are no different than the ministering evangelicals we used to run into. You refuse to deal with scholarship...because it levels the field (and it's a lot of work.) You rely on board nannying rather than engaging with the topic while you sling out insult after insult. 

Sweetheart, you are in a forum FOR Mormons. I know cause I started and ran it for a very long time. It's not for you to invade so you can vent your spleen at our expense while demanding the utmost respect and reverential responses from those you demean. 

Do you want to exchange data and information? Hey, I'm here for you. But you don't and you haven't. I have put up more documentation and responses to accusations than any of you but all you can muster is board nanny post. 

[juliann]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

 

My question was never about past teachings about the black curse.  It was about current official Church understanding of Book of Mormon scripture.  Not current official understanding of Biblical scripture.  You know, like what this thread is suppose to be about before you started telling everyone they were race baiting and ignoring the actual questions.

My interaction with you has been very unpleasant.  It is apparent you are not interested in answering what I actually am asking.  I have repeated the question enough times to come to the conclusion that clarifying Church teachings is not why you are posting.  Since insulting seems to be your main goal, I am bowing out.  Continue to insult and misrepresent me if you wish.  I will no longer respond.  

One more time. You cannot discuss an ancient text without appealing to other ancient texts. It's called textual criticism. There are procedures. There are boxes that have to be ticked. So it is critical to know what the cultural norms were if BOM people came from Biblical times. Later, the MesoAmerican studies become helpful. 

I don't know what to do for you when you will not accept the only tools for understanding the use of black that are available (and universally accepted, BTW). There is nothing I can do when you refuse to engage with what is available and considered valid by every scholar I have encountered. I'm not willing to just argue about what you think when you offer no  basis for it other than your biases and merely reject scholarship out of hand. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

That is a matter of faith/relativity.  We can't escape the realm of relativity in morality to make credible absolute claims.  

You are speaking of higher imperceivable things, I presume.   Another faith based/relative proposition. 

Since absolutes are unknowable in any absolute sense, it is the only option you have and seems to be working just fine.  Everything else is hope/faith. 

I am distinguishing the only reality that we can experience in mortality from our faith-based beliefs in something higher.  We have faith that we can someday have the omnipresent perspective and experience of God to know in a holistic perspective and thus absolute sense.  Until then, our morality is relative - that is what we live by.  We can't live by absolutes that we can't even perceive.   Because we can't perceive of it in an absolute and holistic sense, we can't live by it as it is.  What we live by is a relative morality.  That is all we know.    When I say that morality is relative, I am speaking of our actual experience in mortality, and not of things I hope in.  Even in judgment, we will not be held accountable to higher laws that we can't know.  Instead, we are taught that we will be judged by the relative light that we have been given.  Judgement will be different and unique (relative) for all of us based on our relative experience, thank goodness!   So, in life and judgment relative morality is the law we live and will be judged by.  If we can't perceive of it, experience it in life, and will mercifully not be judged by it, then such morals don't really apply to us.  Absolutes are for the Gods, not mortals - we simply aren't evolved to that level of perspective yet.  It is not applicable.  I can only speak to things that I know and experience, and those things are relative. 

What exists outside of us and thus can't be known simply don't apply to us and nothing can be said of it.  So why not speak of what our actual experience of morality in life is - it is relative. 

Maybe where we differ the most in our opinions is that I do believe that God is knowable, that truth is knowable through Him, and that's why it applies to us.  It appears that you don't believe the same from your last statement.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

All one has to do in SS is be aware of what has been said, official statements and the like. When something is said, all it takes is a correction. Do you think that is problematic or something? Or that a group of believing Mormons wouldn't accept an official statement? 

No I do not think it problematic. I was just curious to understand what your experience has been.

[MiserereNobis]

53 minutes ago, juliann said:

Sweetheart, you are in a forum FOR Mormons.

Actually, the board guidelines say:

Quote

THE PURPOSE OF MORMON DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSION: People of all faiths are welcome to engage in substantive and civil discussion about topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormonism in general.

I don't think this forum is FOR Mormons, but for people of all faiths.

Perhaps they updated the guidelines after you stopped running things.

(and honey, bless your heart, calling someone you disagree with "sweetheart" is pretty dang condescending)

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

don't think this forum is FOR Mormons, but for people of all faiths.

Perhaps it is best described as a forum intended to have discussions WITH Mormons.  It would not exist without the LDS side of participation.  For one thing Saints started it and a Saint currently owns and runs it for the purpose of discussing all things Mormon along with some side topics for fun in Social and interesting derails.

Edited February 27, 2024 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps it is best described as a forum intended to have discussions WITH Mormons.  It would not exist without the LDS side of participation.  For one thing Saints started it and a Saint currently owns and runs it for the purpose of discussing all things Mormon along with some side topics for fun in Social and interesting details.

What you say here is how I understand it. FOR (capitalized) switches the purpose from what the guidelines say to something different.

[MustardSeed]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

and honey, bless your heart, calling someone you disagree with "sweetheart" is pretty dang condescending)

I’ll agree on this point.  
in my grad program, the department chair subbed for a class once and he called me “sweetheart” in the same tone.  His two cents was met my my five.  He and I never spoke again and I’m ok with that, particularly because I have proven myself in my field and never needed his approval.  But nobody puts baby in a corner lol- 

Other than this point I think there are valid points in both sides of this discussion. 

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, the board guidelines say:

I don't think this forum is FOR Mormons, but for people of all faiths.

Perhaps they updated the guidelines after you stopped running things.

(and honey, bless your heart, calling someone you disagree with "sweetheart" is pretty dang condescending)

So is board nannying. So just call it gaslighting. She says I do that, you know. That's not an insult if she says it, BTW.  

I know what this forum is. I ran it for many years. We all migrated from another board where haters were allowed to do whatever they wanted. It was vicious enough that they would dox you. I had one contact one of my professors. They also tried to get someone fired. I invited Mormons here with the promise of protection from them and the board began to fill up when Dan Peterson made the switch. Of course, the antagonizers quickly followed. So this was made into our board. Not theirs. And like the nastier critics here, they seemed to think they had a right to take over a privately owned board. When Nemesis took over, he had a mass banning and they finally started their own board which was used to gripe about our posts here. I don't know if it is still active. 

So this board indeed caters to Mormons, with others being very welcome if they approach Mormon beliefs with respect along with their criticism. That is why I take using our religion for race baiting rather than discourse very seriously. 

[MustardSeed]

Just now, juliann said:

So is board nannying. So just call it gaslighting. She says I do that, you know. That's not an insult if she says it, BTW.  

I know what this forum is. I ran it for many years. We all migrated from another board where haters were allowed to do whatever they wanted. It was vicious enough that they would dox you. I had one contact one of my professors. They also tried to get someone fired. I invited Mormons here with the promise of protection from them and the board began to fill up when Dan Peterson made the switch. Of course, the antagonizers quickly followed. So this was made into our board. Not theirs. And like the nastier critics here, they seemed to think they had a right to take over a privately owned board. When Nemesis took over, he had a mass banning and they finally started their own board which was used to gripe about our posts here. I don't know if it is still active. 

So this board indeed caters to Mormons, with others being very welcome if they approach Mormon beliefs with respect along with their criticism. That is why I take using our religion for race baiting rather than discourse very seriously. 

I’m glad you started this board,  it’s been helpful to me in many ways. 

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’ll agree on this point.  
in my grad program, the department chair subbed for a class once and he called me “sweetheart” in the same tone.  His two cents was met my my five.  He and I never spoke again and I’m ok with that, particularly because I have proven myself in my field and never needed his approval.  But nobody puts baby in a corner lol- 

Other than this point I think there are valid points in both sides of this discussion. 

There is nothing more condescending than a board nanny. So at least be fair with the label. 

I think a man calling a woman sweetheart is very different and more akin to sexual harrassment. Woman to woman, it's usually meant to be condescending. Like board nannying.

[MustardSeed]

Just now, juliann said:

There is nothing more condescending than a board nanny. So at least be fair with the label. 

I think a man calling a woman sweetheart is very different and more akin to sexual harrassment. Woman to woman, it's usually meant to be condescending. Like board nannying.

In the 90s there wasn’t much being discussed around sexual harassment, so only heard the condescension at the time from him.  I hated his essence for more reasons than that though.  What a completely arrogant piece of work he was. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Maybe where we differ the most in our opinions is that I do believe that God is knowable, that truth is knowable through Him, and that's why it applies to us.  It appears that you don't believe the same from your last statement.

Knowable in a relative sense only, like the blind men palpating the elephant.  To know God AS HE IS, is to be God.  "For this is life eternal, to know God and Jesus Christ..."  We don't have life eternal...yet. 

We can't claim to know God as HE IS in any absolute and holistic sense, but only as we perceive Him, which is VASTLY limited.  Our perceptions of God are relative, that should be obvious from all the vastly different interpretations and perspectives of him.   

As the parable goes, 

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong.
Though each was partly in the right,
They all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen

Edited February 27, 2024 by pogi

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

Knowable in a relative sense only, like the blind men palpating the elephant.  To know God AS HE IS, is to be God.  "For this is life eternal, to know God and Jesus Christ..."  We don't have life eternal...yet. 

We can't claim to know God as HE IS in any absolute and holistic sense, but only as we perceive Him, which is VASTLY limited.  Our perceptions of God are relative, that should be obvious from all the vastly different interpretations and perspectives of him.   

As the parable goes, 

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong.
Though each was partly in the right,
They all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen

While I don't disagree with any of that, it sounds like semantics to me when applied to this specific discussion.

None of us can really know another person.  My children can only know me in a relative sense, for example, and I only know my parents in the same way.  But we still consider that to be 'knowing' someone.  That knowledge continues to grow as we continue to interact with them, but it does not have to be complete before we can claim that we have it.

(and I don't interpret that verse in John to be saying that knowing God and Jesus Christ is something that comes after exaltation.  That wouldn't make any sense.  We need to know them as we journey toward eternal life through our covenants, not once we get there).

I like this talk from April 2017 GC by Elder Grow-

Quote

 

I speak to you, the rising generation—youth and young adults, single or married—you who are the future leaders of this, the Lord’s Church. With all the wickedness, chaos, fear, and confusion in the world today, I speak to you with clarity about the majesty and blessing of coming to know God.

Jesus Christ taught many truths that explain Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness and your place in it. I’ll focus on two of these to help you understand your identity as a child of God and know your purpose in life.

First: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”1

Second: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”2

Please keep these truths in mind—they teach why—as I seek to describe how you and all of us can come to know God.

Know Him through Prayer

My young friends, we can begin to know God through prayer.

On April 7, 1829, 22-year-old Oliver Cowdery began his labors as scribe for 23-year-old Joseph Smith. They were young—just like you. Oliver asked for a confirmation from God regarding the Restoration and his work in it. In response, he received the following revelation:

“Behold, thou knowest that thou hast inquired of me and I did enlighten thy mind. …

“Yea, I tell thee, that thou mayest know that there is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart. …

“… If you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart. …

“Did I not speak peace to your mind … ? What greater witness can you have than from God?”3

When you pray with faith, you will feel God’s love as His Spirit speaks to your soul. No matter how alone or uncertain you may feel at times, you are not alone in this world. God knows you, personally. As you pray, you will come to know Him.

Know Him through Scripture Study

As you study the scriptures, you not only learn about the Savior, but you can actually come to know the Savior.

In April 1985, Elder Bruce R. McConkie spoke in general conference—just 13 days before he died. He concluded with this testimony:

“I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.

“But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.”4

Those of us who heard Elder McConkie speak that day have never forgotten how we felt. As he began his talk, he revealed why his witness was so powerful. He said:

“In speaking of these wondrous things I shall use my own words, though you may think they are the words of scripture. …

“True it is they were first proclaimed by others, but they are now mine, for the Holy Spirit of God has borne witness to me that they are true, and it is now as though the Lord had revealed them to me in the first instance. I have thereby heard his voice and know his word.”5

As you study and ponder the scriptures, you too will hear God’s voice, know His words, and come to know Him. God will reveal His eternal truths to you, personally. These doctrines and principles will become part of who you are and will emanate from your very soul.

In addition to individual study, studying the scriptures as a family is important.

In our home we wanted our children to learn to recognize the voice of the Spirit. We believe that happened as we studied the Book of Mormon each day as a family. Our testimonies were strengthened as we talked about sacred truths.

Scripture study becomes the channel for the Spirit to give each of us a customized tutorial. As you study the scriptures each day, alone, and with your family, you will learn to recognize the voice of the Spirit and will come to know God.

Know Him by Doing His Will

In addition to our praying and studying the scriptures, we need to do God’s will.

The Savior is our perfect example. He said, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”6

When the resurrected Savior appeared to the Nephites, He said, “Behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.”7

You and I do the will of the Father by honoring our covenants, keeping the commandments, and serving God and our fellowmen.

My wife, Rhonda, and I have parents who are just regular people—probably a lot like your parents. But one thing I love about our parents is that they dedicated their lives to serving God, and they taught us to do the same.

When Rhonda’s parents had been married for just a couple of years, her 23-year-old dad was called to serve a full-time mission. He left behind his young wife and their 2-year-old daughter. Then his wife was called to serve with him during the last seven months of his mission—leaving their daughter in the care of relatives.

A few years later, now with four children, they moved to Missoula, Montana, so her dad could attend the university. However, they had been there only a few months when President Spencer W. Kimball and Elder Mark E. Petersen extended a call to my father-in-law to be the first president of the newly created Missoula stake. He was only 34. Thoughts of the university were left behind as he sought to do the Lord’s will—not his own.

My parents have served in the temple for more than 30 years—Dad as a sealer, Mom as an ordinance worker. They also served five full-time missions together—in Riverside, California; Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia; Nairobi, Kenya; the Nauvoo Illinois Temple; and the Monterrey Mexico Temple. In Mexico they worked hard to learn a new language, which wasn’t easy at 80 years of age. But they sought to do the will of the Lord rather than to pursue their own desires in life.

To them, and to all such dedicated Latter-day Saints throughout the world, I echo the words spoken by the Lord to the prophet Nephi, the son of Helaman: “Blessed art thou, … for those things which thou hast done … with unwearyingness … , [for thou] hast not sought thine own life, but hast sought my will, and to keep my commandments.”8

As we seek to do God’s will by faithfully serving Him and our fellowmen, we feel His approval and truly come to know Him.

Know Him by Becoming like Him

The Savior tells us that the very best way to know God is to become like Him. He taught: “Therefore, what manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.”9

Worthiness is essential to becoming like Him. He commanded, “Sanctify yourselves; yea, purify your hearts, and cleanse your hands … that I may make you clean.”10 Starting on the road to becoming like Him, we repent and receive His forgiveness, and He cleanses our souls.

To help us as we progress toward the Father, the Lord gave us this promise: “Every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am.”11

Through our faith in His atoning sacrifice, the Savior cleanses us, heals us, and enables us to know Him by helping us become like Him. Mormon taught, “Pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, … that ye may become the sons [and daughters] of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him.”12 As we strive to become like God, He can make of us more than we could ever make of ourselves.

Know Him by Following Mentors

To help us in our striving, God has given us role models and mentors. I want to share my feelings about one of mine, Elder Neal A. Maxwell. He constantly sought to submit his will to the will of the Father in his effort to become like God.

More than 20 years ago, he shared his feelings with me after he had just been diagnosed with cancer. He told me, “I want to be on the team, on this side [of the veil] or that side. I don’t want to sit on the sidelines. I want to play in the game.”13

Over the next few weeks, he was reluctant to ask God to heal him; he just wanted to do God’s will. His wife, Colleen, pointed out that Jesus’s first cry in the Garden of Gethsemane was “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” Only then did the Savior say, “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”14 She encouraged Elder Maxwell to follow the Savior’s example, to ask for relief and then submit his will to God’s will, which he did.15

After suffering through extensive, debilitating treatments for nearly a year, he was totally and completely back “in the game.” He served for seven more years.

I had several assignments with him during those subsequent years. I felt his kindness, compassion, and love. I witnessed his increased spiritual refinement through his ongoing suffering and his continued service as he strove to become like the Savior.

The ultimate role model and mentor, available to all of us, is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”16 “Come and follow me.”17

My young brothers and sisters, knowing God is the quest of a lifetime. “And this is life eternal, that [we] might know … the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [the Father] hast sent.”18

“Shall we not go on in so great a cause? … Courage, [my young friends]; and on, on to the victory!”19

God knows you and invites you to know Him. Pray to the Father, study the scriptures, seek to do God’s will, strive to become like the Savior, and follow righteous mentors. As you do, you will come to know God and Jesus Christ, and you will inherit eternal life. This is my invitation to you as an ordained special witness of Them. They live. They love you. I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

 

I bolded the specific ways that he talks about us being able to know God.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

So is board nannying. So just call it gaslighting. She says I do that, you know. That's not an insult if she says it, BTW.  

I know what this forum is. I ran it for many years. We all migrated from another board where haters were allowed to do whatever they wanted. It was vicious enough that they would dox you. I had one contact one of my professors. They also tried to get someone fired. I invited Mormons here with the promise of protection from them and the board began to fill up when Dan Peterson made the switch. Of course, the antagonizers quickly followed. So this was made into our board. Not theirs. And like the nastier critics here, they seemed to think they had a right to take over a privately owned board. When Nemesis took over, he had a mass banning and they finally started their own board which was used to gripe about our posts here. I don't know if it is still active. 

So this board indeed caters to Mormons, with others being very welcome if they approach Mormon beliefs with respect along with their criticism. That is why I take using our religion for race baiting rather than discourse very seriously. 

Juliann, I don't know you well enough to say this, because you may have had some run ins that cause you to react the way you do, but I'm slightly or not slightly afraid when you've commented things to me. But would like to think there's good reason for it. 

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

So is board nannying. So just call it gaslighting. She says I do that, you know. That's not an insult if she says it, BTW.  

Ok. I'm not opining about that.

5 hours ago, juliann said:

I know what this forum is.

Ok.

5 hours ago, juliann said:

I ran it for many years. We all migrated from another board where haters were allowed to do whatever they wanted. It was vicious enough that they would dox you. I had one contact one of my professors. They also tried to get someone fired. I invited Mormons here with the promise of protection from them and the board began to fill up when Dan Peterson made the switch. Of course, the antagonizers quickly followed. So this was made into our board. Not theirs. And like the nastier critics here, they seemed to think they had a right to take over a privately owned board. When Nemesis took over, he had a mass banning and they finally started their own board which was used to gripe about our posts here. I don't know if it is still active. 

This means that you know what this forum was, right? Not what it is, like you say above. I joined in 2012 and all this drama you talk about was already over. And (unless I'm mistaken -- please let me know) you weren't running the board when I joined in 2012. So you're reacting using something that's over a decade old. I'm using the current board guidelines. I do want to reiterate that: what you say happened over a decade ago.

5 hours ago, juliann said:

So this board indeed caters to Mormons, with others being very welcome if they approach Mormon beliefs with respect along with their criticism.

Of course it does. But your forgoing reasons why don't apply. And honestly it's a little bit annoying to have someone pull out the "I was here first so I'm right" card. The current guidelines say all are welcome to talk about Mormonism -- this board isn't FOR (your emphasis) Mormons only with the others of us just second class citizens.

5 hours ago, juliann said:

That is why I take using our religion for race baiting rather than discourse very seriously. 

Just to be clear, I'm not taking a position one way or another on this. I'm only commenting on your approach to the issue.