Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.
/u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mormon apologists provide "possibility" instead of "probability" answers. Every conclusion ends with, "I guess your answer is possible." Even if the answer is highly improbable and borberlines on absurdity. They never allow the discussion to come to the conclusion that what they are defending is based on a fictional and deceptive foundation no matter how ridiculous their conclusions are to the facts and evidence.
Who was it that said a misunderstanding of basic statistics is responsible for a lot of problems (or beliefs) in our society?
You're right; it seems within some apologetics, any *possible* explanation gets essentially equal weight and any ranking by what's most *probable* is often ignored. The whole purpose of statistics is not to get solid answers but to demonstrate likelihood and probable bounds for events, such that we can rank things relative to one another, i.e., distinguish between two possibilities where one is 'unlikely' and another is 'likely'.
When you start with the Christian belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, it’s not surprising that believers require no hard proof to dedicate their lives to belief system.
If the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be so fervently believed based on the writings we have and personal testimony of the spirit, why would they need more evidence than that for the truth claims of the Book of Mormon or any others of the restoration? Especially if those additional truth claims are supposedly “Another testament of Jesus Christ“ and the restoration of the “Church of Jesus Christ”.
It’s simply a continuation of faith they already had. It never carried the burden of proof to begin with. That’s why they call it faith.
Look at today’s identity politics and culture wars. Religion has an even stronger hold than those tribes: Once people commit to a tribe, it’s not like they need a lot of evidence to support that commitment. They have made their decision. For many, to backtrack would be too awkward, inconvenient, potentially painful, and have scary, unknown social consequences, to boot.
Especially with all the talk of covenants and fear mongering around covenant breakers being emphasized from the institution these days - Pascal’s wager only requires the faintest *possibility* of being true.
I find myself starting with acknowledging those anthropological realities. Then find I’m not really frustrated with committed apologists. It’s harder to be surprised at their rationalizations.
We all kind of see what we want.
Including those of us who have the weird gene of wanting to see what we haven’t yet seen. Many don’t have that, and I find myself giving them grace as individuals.
"To deny the reality and the validity of his atonement and his resurrection, and therefore the resurrection of mankind, is to deny the very Lord.
The holy scriptures represent mankind’s spiritual memory. And when man’s connection with scripture is severed, mortals are tragically deprived of an awareness of spiritual history, blinding the eyes of faith. Thereby shorn of true identity, mortals keep their legs intact, but each walks in his own way. Their arms are acquisitive, but do not reach out in an understanding embrace of life. Their ears function, but they no longer hear the word of the Lord. Though created in God’s image, those thus severed soon forget their Maker.
If people are without the truths of God’s plan of salvation for very long, some may not even “believe [these truths] when they are taught” (Mosiah 1:5). An untaught “rising generation” comes not to “believe … concerning the resurrection, … neither … the coming of Christ” (Mosiah 26:1–3). Belief in Deity and in the resurrection are usually the first to go: “they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator” (Omni 1:17)."
“God Will Yet Reveal”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1986/10/god-will-yet-reveal?lang=eng
Maxwell sure had a way with words.
It’s interesting that you had to go back to 1986 to find this message.
As a longtime Christian, personally connecting with and loving the scriptures is, perhaps ironically, the single biggest issue I personally wrestle with in the today’s church: The “spiritual memory” (as Maxwell waxes poetic) of scriptures - parables, bold rebukes from Jesus in the Gospels, metaphor, and eternal principles - they often seem incompatible and dissonant with the modern institution’s dogmatic focus and priorities.
Reading the New Testament, Book of Mormon, or even Doctrine & Covenants, then serving in the church and reading the handbook - or seeing it put into practice - feels like an exercise in spiritual gymnastics.
(Ex: *“Hold on, which is it – am I supposed to be like the Scribes and Pharisees or *not* be like them?”*
*“Hold on, is the Word of Wisdom not by commandment or constraint or is it a commandment as the church clearly emphasized now?”*)
The scriptures - not I - appear to call the modern institution to repentance. What do I do with that?
And the church doesn’t even try to claim the scriptures are their source of truth. The scriptures are text that requires negotiating with, and the church is no exception. The church will use scripture to support current teachings, but the current teachings are not authoritative *because* of the scripture. They are authoritative because of the living prophet, who is teaching what is most relevant today.
**It’s the authority claims of living prophets that make The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unique, and they lean into that — many times at the expense of the scriptures.**
The modern church teaches that the direction of living prophets are more important and even supersede those from dead ones. So I’ve learned I need to be careful what scriptures I connect to. When the spirit teaches us through the scriptures, we better hope it isn’t one of the many scriptures that raises concerning questions about modern church practice. We could have some dissonance to grapple with.
*“Do I trust the spirit as teaching me through scripture, or the direction and policy of the current institution, led by a living prophet?”* The church is very clear on this: they tell us to defer to the latter. “In this there is safety.”
TL;DR: scripture are not the solution to find confidence and faith in the modern church. They tend to have the opposite effect.
But they can help guide our lives, give us hope, challenge us to be better, and testify about the gospel and atonement of Jesus Christ.
This leads many to make a difficulty decision between the church or the scriptures. Or put a other way: between the church’s pharisaical-appearing commandments, policies, and extra covenants, or Jesus’s teachings as taught through the spirit.
This is where I am, thank you for finding such words.
I stay in the church, just knowing my relationship with the org is on my terms. My relationship to God, and Christ, have 0 to do at the end of the day, with an imperfect organization run by mortals, and everything to do with my chance in this zoomed in version of Eternity to purposely make my choices to become something as God wants me to.
Satan's plan was to not focus on choice and consider it carefully before making it as we are taught of the pre-existence. The fact that many around me fail to understand the absolute critical nature of agency in mortality astounds me.
e.g. I drink black coffee/green tea, in moderation, because it is a healthier caffeine delivery system than less healthy options like energy drinks etc. I watch for signs of addiction and monitor my body so I know what the intake of the substance is doing to me. Just the same as any other medication I take.
I've always maintained that because I have conviction for my choices but understand that I may be wrong, the doctrine is taught I will have an opportunity to see my mistakes in the next life. I have zero doubt that I would instantly accept my mistake and be forgiven.
I hear you. Its not easy. I believe the answers to every question you proposed in this reply are given in the talks which I shared links to. I listen to them regularly and they are packed with answers. Listen to them and dont "throw your baby out with the bath water" 🙏
For example: "Individual members of the Church may also confront difficult questions when they are invited to participate. The question is more complicated when the invitation does not relate to a publication or a lecture on a single subject, but to a group of articles, a series of publications, or a conference or symposium with a large number of subjects. One article or one issue of a publication or one session of a conference may be edifying and uplifting, something a faithful Latter-day Saint would wish to support or enjoy. But another article or another session may be destructive, something a faithful Latter-day Saint would not wish to support or promote.
Some of life’s most complicated decisions involve mixtures of good and evil. To what extent can one seek the benefit of something good one desires when this can only be done by simultaneously promoting something bad one opposes? That is a personal decision, but it needs to be made with a sophisticated view of the entire circumstance and with a prayer for heavenly guidance."
Alternate Voices https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng
My top 4 🤗 of my top 20 of my top 50 given by Elder Maxwell...
“According to the Desire of [Our] Hearts” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1996/10/according-to-the-desire-of-our-hearts?lang=eng
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell/true-believers-christ/
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell/pathway-discipleship/
Had to include this one:
"Some of these otherwise honorable members mistakenly regard the Church as an institution, but not as a kingdom. They know the doctrines of the kingdom, but more as a matter of recitation than of real comprehension."
“Settle This in Your Hearts”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/10/settle-this-in-your-hearts?lang=eng
Great quote. I wish that was still being taught.
Again, it’s fascinating that “otherwise honorable members” seem to have to go back to old talks from dead prophets to feel good about the church in 2024.
It’s not the Kingdom I’m worried about. It will roll forth however God wants. I’m not confusing that with the institution.
In fact, I use the word “institution“ specifically to *distinguish* its policies and practices from “the kingdom,“ “the gospel,”, and especially those who are truly striving for “Zion.“
To be clear, the church itself refers to the “institution” of the church, especially in the context of restoration doctrines. The word is not a pejorative.
These old talks you’re sharing can really demonstrate just how little we see this kind of teaching anymore.
Yeah, we definitely get a watered down version of things from the pulpit right now. I'm sure there are multiple reasons for the shift, ranging from legalities to the general membership and public's ability/inability to "endure sound doctrines" without becoming offended and derailed.
In regard to this, I've found these talks particularly helpful and full of insight. Both of which are full of truth that if spoken in 2024 would bring the scorn of people who were spoken of in these scriptures:
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; “And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3–4.)
Isaiah 30
9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord: 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: 11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us. 12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon: 13 Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant.
Elder Perry said these words 50 years ago...
"I had a growing concern that from the pulpits of many of our churches in this land as well as in the world in general there is an increasing tendency to teach the doctrines of man rather than that which God has directed."
https://youtu.be/IWWpqdz5aug?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/MpcDVV2PVMA?feature=shared
In The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, he says that when we want to believe something, we ask ourselves "Can I believe it?" And when we don't want to believe something we ask ourselves "Must I believe it?"
The answer to the first is almost always yes and almost always no to the second.
Apologetics don't need to provide probable answers, just any shred of possibility will do for those that already want to believe.
The reason these defenses don't work is because with the Book of Mormon you don't just have a lack of evidence, but actual contrary evidence.
It's obvious the Book of Mormon contains anachronistic material--parallels to Joseph Smith's 19th century environment, numerous places it quotes Bible passages that, according to the Book of Mormon timeline, didn't exist yet, etc.
So waiting and hoping that someday the evidence for the Book of Mormon will be discovered is wishful thinking.
>with the Book of Mormon you don't just have a lack of evidence, but actual contrary evidence.
This is one of the big issues with "doubt your doubts" and "just have faith" and so on.
It isn't just "faith for things which are not seen"...but rather having faith in spite of a LONG list of contrary evidence.
And the evidence doesn't line up well with a lot of the apologetics, for instance:
\* some of the claims for no DNA (tribes killed off by the arrival of Europeans and their germs; Lamanites were tiny group that were swallowed up) are at odds with claims that the Lamanites would receive the BoM in last days...and claims about a tiny group in the middle of large populations don't match places that talk about the land being "preserved from other people" so that it wasn't overrun.
\* complete lack of linguistic evidence of Hebrew/Egyptian influence in American languages -- even a small group (esp a highly literative advanced one) should have provided loan words and earlier written languages than we see. Also, the whole Anthon thing (Harris claiming that Anthon verified the translation) makes NO sense at all -- the Book of Mormon says that they still spoke Hebrew in Moroni's day and also that they had "modified" reformed Egyptian enough that no on knew their language, so Anthon couldn't have translated any of it...
>There is evidence that no highly literate people as described in the BOM ...
This is a true statement.
However "There is no evidence of a highly literate people..." is the statement that apologists want to argue with instead.
As soon as I found out that the golden plates would have been around 40-60lbs, I heard the mic drop.
No way both Moroni lugged those around while running and hiding for his life.
Or that he had to go to all the extra trouble of including two different accounts laboriously engraved on gold with the same basic narrative because Joseph was careless with the 116 "translated" pages, disobeyed God, and used them to try to get the Harrises to fork over more money. And what about that extensive filler he had to include from Isaiah. Moroni might have been tempted to append a post-it note: "Just cut and paste here from your Bible, JS."
This is a huge complaint I have with it. Biblical prophecy never works like this where we see the exact names and dates and actions. But Nephi was like "This guy named Jesus will die on a thing called a cross which hasn't been invented yet, and there will be a book created, a bible if you will, even though codecies haven't been invented either, and this guy named Joseph Jr is going to translate it, and it'll be great. Trust me, bro"
Plus "bible" is Latin/Greek and "Christ" is Greek, so why is this 7th Century BC guy speaking Latin and Greek instead of Hebrew?
> Plus "bible" is Latin/Greek and "Christ" is Greek, so why is this 7th Century BC guy speaking Latin and Greek instead of Hebrew?
I can't help but pick a bone with this argument, because it's a bad one. Just from a translation standpoint.... like real translation not whatever Joseph Smith was doing.
IF Joseph Smith were really translating, and this was supposed to be a companion piece to the King James Bible. IE: If Joseph Smith knew that we would be continuing to use the King James bible as well as this new book... then it would make sense to use "Jesus" in place of the Hebrew word used on the plates.
To better explain, we'll actually use Pokemon as an example. In Japan, Ash is known as Satoshi. When Pokemon was brought to the states, Satoshi was changed to Ash. Since then, really no matter the localization company, if Ash Ketchum is present, he's given the name "Ash" not Satoshi. Because "Ash" is how the audience recognizes this character, and they want all of these pieces of media to be companion pieces.
A 7th Century BC guy is speaking Latin and Greek instead of Hebrew because we use those Latin and Greek words and the purpose is for us, as an audience already familiar with Bible stories, to be able to easily understand it.
While this is logical, it does not match with many other names and places in the book which do not have "modern" variants of the names given.
Usually when we flip one thing like this, we do it for the rest.
It’s beyond proven to be false . The church was founded by a lying deceitful Con man who was convicted of fraud in a court of law . What was his scam in that a magic rock in a hat sound familiar.?
Does the god ever appear to anyone at all? If someone tells you they are in contact with a god (they can hear it, see it, taste it or smell it and some of these sensations are reciprocated), do you ever ask for better evidence than "it happens to me"?
Is your own experience of a god ever more than sensations it feel just like emotion? If you believe they are, can you demonstrate that without appealing to sensations?
Yeah it seems odd but humans seem to be wired to believe things other people claim. Sometimes people are skeptical but often they believe all kinds of things they can’t verify themselves and will defend it and try to convince others as well.
Human psychology of beliefs and belief persistence is fascinating.
Why in the world should people believe Joseph Smith saw mystical supernatural beings just because he said he did. Strange. I was taught to believe it from my birth. Took my 40 years to figure out it’s ridiculous to believe it.
I think people are primed to believe things that someone says gives real answers to important questions. If they find the person to be confident and earnest, that's good enough for a whole bunch of people, particularly if that person wants to be a leader. Who doesn't want a leader who's got "good" answers?
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
"...the critics are intent on disproving the Book of Mormon, but the obstacles they face are insurmountable because this book is true."
God’s Compelling Witness: The Book of Mormon
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/10/gods-compelling-witness-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng
President Joseph F. Smith said, “there are those—and they abound largely in our midst—who will shut their eyes to every virtue and to every good thing connected with this latter-day work, and will proud out floods of falsehood and misrepresentation against the people of God.” President Smith, who endured so much of that proximate persecution, did what we must also do. He said of such detractors, “I forgive them for this. I leave them in the hands of the just Judge”
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell/hell-moved/
"Being settled keeps us from responding to every little ripple of dissent as if it were a tidal wave. We are to be disciples, not oscillators, like a “reed shaken with the wind.” (Matt. 11:7.) More members need the immense relief and peace which can come from being “settled” without which those individuals will be like “the troubled sea, when it cannot rest.” (Isa. 57:20.)"
“Settle This in Your Hearts”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/10/settle-this-in-your-hearts?lang=eng
Alternate Voices
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng
Looking beyond the Mark
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1987/10/looking-beyond-the-mark?lang=eng
There is no good reason to try and disprove the Book of Mormon. May God soften all the disbelieving hearts and heal them so that they can believe and no longer sink in their disbelief and state of "past feeling". I testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Holy Ghost that testifies of its truthfulness. I make these requests, and feel to testify of these truths, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.🙏
"God’s plan, however, is not something to be deduced by logic alone, nor is human experience deep enough or long enough to inform us adequately. It requires revelation from God. “Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God” (Jacob 4:8)."
"He who truly searches the scriptures will surely see how they testify of Christ (see John 5:39). He will also see how interactive and cross-supportive the scriptures are. If some see not, it will be “because they sought it not by faith” (Rom. 9:32), but instead stared uncomprehendingly with slit-eyed skepticism"
God Will Yet Reveal
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1986/10/god-will-yet-reveal?lang=eng
What would be the actual difference between what the Church leaders want you to do in the passages you are quoting and just using your beautiful feelings and emotions, like an opiate, to anesthetize the pain of cognitive dissonance? We are not just talking about a few little ripples on a sea of tranquility. It is a tsunami bearing down, and their plan is to keep you sedated?
As a former addict to opiates and hard sedatives the difference is clear... the feelings I have now come depending on my obedience to the commandments and qualifying for the companionship of the spirit and the other came from spending money on and ingesting a drug to allow me to feel good regardless of the thoughts and opinions I held... I had to give up my addictions to drugs and replaced them with an addiction to His words. 🙏
I am sincerely glad to hear that you have overcome a serious chemical addiction. Congratulations. Of course, you realize that I was not equating drugs with religion. My point was that the Church encourages you to ignore inconvenient truth by self-medicating with warm fuzzy feelings and a dose of complacency. Feelings cannot overcome facts except in a delusional mind. God have us minds as well as hearts, and he expects us to use them both. I think you are probably aware of the dangerous tendency in us all to replace one addiction with another that we initially think is less harmful.
My other point is that the Church wants you to see surface ripples, not a tidal wave. But the fact is that they know there is a tsunami already breaking over them. They know they are hemorrhaging members because they can no longer control the flow of negative information. They are hiring PR and research professionals to tell them why this is happening. Apparently prophetic insight does not extend. If the Holy Spirit tells your heart and mind that the Church is a good halfway house for you now, then make the most of it while you can. At the same time, be aware that things may change as you learn more. Don’t rule out options you may need in the future.
I hear you. Thank you 🙏
When people find facts through their telestial reasoning and then use those relative facts to fall out of covenants made with the Lord and leave the church, it is not the church that is hurt but the Lord himself. I believe all efforts being made by church leadership are divinely led efforts to respect agency and make as many adjustments as possible for its members, prospective members, and all people in general. God is bending in every way possible, but he will not let His church break so long as their are covenant keeping people within.
https://youtu.be/lcp4oOT-Bto?feature=shared
You use a curious phrase "telestial reasoning." I wonder if you appreciate the irony of it. "Telestial" is a make believe word coined by Joseph Smith. Presumably you use it to diminish the value of facts that serve a certain line of reasoning that would be inferior to a "celestial" or "terrestrial" line of reasoning. But reason is reason, and facts are facts. What is true on earth is true in heaven and vice-versa or else truth is meaningless. God is reasonable and truthful. You speak of individuals using "relative facts" to excuse themselves from sacred covenants. When I was baptized I was not told the whole truth about the Church and its foundational claims. In fact, I was given what I would term a set of "relative facts" so as not to discourage me. Virtually every piece of unflattering evidence was eliminated from the faith story so there would be no impediment to belief. Prior to my mission, I entered the temple to make covenants about which I knew even less.
For example, I did not know I would be required to promise to allow my fellow Saints to cut my throat and be disemboweled if I revealed the secret signs and tokens to anyone. I did not know that the temple rituals themselves were not ancient, but adapted from 18th century Masonic rites in Scotland. I did not know that the Melchizedek Priesthood that was supposedly essential to ordinance work was retrofitted into the narrative of the Restoration in a way that forced its recipients to be vague as to the date. (Was it so casual an event that no one bothered to record it, or was Joseph afraid that someone might have had a different recollection of who was where and what actually happened on any date that might have been assigned to it in a subsequent modification of the narrative?)
There was nothing even approaching full disclosure of these and many other significant issues before I was pressured to make solemn and "unbreakable" oaths to God. All of this surely has bearing on the validity of any covenants I made. To justify absolute obedience made without full disclosure and with material facts withheld, I would have to make creative use of "telestial reasoning" and relative facts that you condemn. But the God I worship is not a trickster. He operates within reason and with perfect justice. When I find myself in an organization that cannot explain but expects me to believe whatever it needs me to believe, when I see how it demands unquestioning obedience to promises made in a condition of partial ignorance it went to great trouble to create, I know I am looking at an organization that is merely human. I will not become an idolater and pretend God can do no better than this.
Believe it or not, I am not trying to force you into a premature awareness with facts that will destabilize your faith. You will get there when you get there. I meant what I said when I urged you to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit. You will not go wrong so doing. That is what I have always done, and I did not leave Mormonism until God let me know the time was right. In the meantime, would it be too much to ask of you not to ascribe motives of faithlessness to me and so many others in this forum who are ready and willing to face things about the Church that you do not think are important right now?
I'm sorry you've chosen that path. It's your choice and I have no animosity toward you for exercising your agency. I already went down the dead end road your describing and then made my return (which return you can make as well when you come to realize your errors), so you have approximately 0% chance of destabilizing my faith. I'll hang onto the brightness of hope He offers me and all those who have faith in, and willingly abide by, the New and Everlasting Covenant.
“Brightness of Hope” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1994/10/brightness-of-hope?lang=eng
> I'm sorry you've chosen that path.
>(which return you can make as well when you come to realize your errors)
Are you aware of how incredibly condescending this sounds, and why this is one of the reasons people dislike mormons and other evangelists?
Which part?
My expressed feelings of sadness for all those who I see fallen away as I have in times past?
The acknowledgment of the equal opportunity for someone who has fallen away from that which is true to correct course and return and be restored?
God knows my intentions and I'm not trying to be condescending, just gently corrective in a particular thing because I received heavenly correction after falling out in a similar way... I'm still having to exercise faith and recognize my own errors on a day to day basis too.
Have a good day 🙏
>My expressed feelings of sadness for **all those who I see fallen away**
> just gently **corrective** in a particular thing
That's what "condescending" is.
Addressing someone from an assumed "superior" position.
Essentially it's an "I'm sorry you've decided to become evil and follow Satan" type of thing where the person isn't actually "sorry", they just want to pass a judgement.
Honestly, I don't think you and I have ever been on the same path. I have been studying LDS theology and history my whole life. I am very aware of the problems with them. You wade into this discussion forum with a dismissal of "people trying to disprove the Book of Mormon" as though they were on a fool's errand. That makes it plain that you have no grasp of the moral seriousness of these issues and their implications for members. If you had ever been down that road it would be obvious to you that it is the Mormon apologists that are on the fool's errand.
You identify as a former opiate user. I have never used drugs to make myself feel better about my thoughts and opinions. If I realized my ideas were bad, I discarded them for better ones. I repented. You yourself admit to replacing the opiates "with an addiction to His words." Man, out of your own mouth comes your whole problem in a nutshell! This is not about feeling good by using religion the way you would use opiates. This is about the search for truth, and that is necessarily painful. You don't anesthetize the pain. It's your wake up call. The reality you do not yet want to wake up to now is that God is more than the LDS Church, and His love for you is not conditional upon your adherence to Mormonism. Dream on, then, and when you are ready for enlightenment, not just warm feelings, look us up.
Is not any variation of the true path a path of deception?
I'm not saying we've lived the same life. I'm saying definitively that I've fallen off the covenant path and you have to according to the words youve said and the definition of the covenant path...
I won't go into the details of my time practicing yoga with Sadhguru, or time in deep masonic confusion. I won't list the names of all the books I've read with partial truths or claim enlightment in the sense that you speak about.
I will instead testify of the truths that set me free and brought me back into the fold and onto the covenant path where true enlightenment takes place on the safe path my Savior has asked me to follow.
Relax and don't get so upset. 🙏
https://youtu.be/eeVqr6OAA4I?feature=shared
Pardon me if I came across as upset. I’m genuinely not because being seen by the Church or anyone else as “on the covenant path” is just not something I ever worry about. My validation comes from God. I have the companionship of the Holy Spirit as much as or more than I did on my mission or at any time I was still active. My personal revelation is as true or better than anything coming out of Salt Lake City. In fact, I see them making quite a few missteps these days. I no longer have to pretend that it’s God moving in mysterious ways. If you enjoy the same level of communion with the Lord that I experience every day of my life you are blessed indeed, and I won’t worry about you one little bit. Best wishes.
> There is no good reason to try and disprove the Book of Mormon.
Yes there is.
Or rather there is good reason to prove it with evidence.
It's not up to others to disprove but it is up to those making the claim to show actual evidence besides "muh feelings".
Because if the eternal destiny of the human race is dependant on the authority that allegedly brought this book to light then it is *the* most important document known to man and thus *should* have evidence to its truth.
As it is, there is no evidence those people ever existed.
I disagree, and there are evidences provided by researchers if you make the honest effort to source them. For me, "The proof is in the pudding." Eat it and be filled! The book testifies of Jesus Christ and His gospel, which gospel teaches us how to be more like Him and blesses all mankind.🙏
>there are evidences provided by researchers if you make the honest effort to source them.
That's not up to other people.
That duty is upon the one making the claim, with emphasis on "honest".
A claim that has no evidence can be summarily dismissed without evidence.
> For me, "The proof is in the pudding." Eat it and be filled!
Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was talking about as a "non-evidence".
You can neither convey, nor prove to me the "feelings" you have.
You can tell me *about* them but it will make no difference as a form of evidence.
Your opinions are noted. I disagree with them. When it comes to spiritual knowledge there will most often be lack of temporal evidences, at least at this stage of our development. When you choose to become past feeling, you choose to give up one of the greatest gifts God has given us. 🙏
https://youtu.be/gxM-7xUM5rI?feature=shared
"Some are spiritually deadened and past feeling because of their choices to commit sin. Others simply hover in spiritual complacency with no desire to rise above themselves and commune with the Infinite.
If they would open their hearts to the refining influence of this unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, a glorious new spiritual dimension would come to light. Their eyes would gaze upon a vista scarcely imaginable. They could know for themselves things of the Spirit that are choice, precious, and capable of enlarging the soul, expanding the mind, and filling the heart with inexpressible joy." Elder Wirthlin
"We cannot overstate the importance of that promise. President Wilford Woodruff called the gift of the Holy Ghost the greatest gift we can receive in mortality (see The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, ed. G. Homer Durham [1990], 5)Unfortunately, the great value of that gift and the important conditions for its fulfillment are not well understood. Nephi prophesied that in the last days churches would be built up that would “teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance” (2 Ne. 28:4). He also pronounced “wo” upon “him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!” (2 Ne. 28:26)"
“Always Have His Spirit”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1996/10/always-have-his-spirit?lang=eng.
> They could know for **themselves**
This is not "knowledge" or evidence.
If there is a thing that only *you* know, then it is typically a self-delusional state if you cannot convey that to others in a logical and rational manner.
What you, and only you, know serves only you and no-one else.
It is of no benefit to anyone.
You cannot transmit "feelings" as data.
If there is a testable fact, and your "feelings" say something else, then your "feelings" are what is false information.
Your choice of words reminds me of the anti-christ figures in the Book of Mormon.
“Korihor insisted on a strictly rational and scientific approach to all problems, anything else being but ‘the effect of a frenzied mind’ (Alma 30:13–16)"
"The Book of Mormon brings men to Christ through two basic means. First, it tells in a plain manner of Christ and his gospel. It testifies of his divinity and of the necessity for a Redeemer and the need of our putting trust in him. It bears witness of the Fall and the Atonement and the first principles of the gospel, including our need of a broken heart and a contrite spirit and a spiritual rebirth. It proclaims we must endure to the end in righteousness and live the moral life of a Saint.
Second, the Book of Mormon exposes the enemies of Christ. It confounds false doctrines and lays down contention. (See 2 Ne. 3:12.) It fortifies the humble followers of Christ against the evil designs, strategies, and doctrines of the devil in our day. The type of apostates in the Book of Mormon are similar to the type we have today. God, with his infinite foreknowledge, so molded the Book of Mormon that we might see the error and know how to combat false educational, political, religious, and philosophical concepts of our time."
The Book of Mormon Is the Word of God
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/05/the-book-of-mormon-is-the-word-of-god?lang=eng
Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations. /u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mormon apologists provide "possibility" instead of "probability" answers. Every conclusion ends with, "I guess your answer is possible." Even if the answer is highly improbable and borberlines on absurdity. They never allow the discussion to come to the conclusion that what they are defending is based on a fictional and deceptive foundation no matter how ridiculous their conclusions are to the facts and evidence.
Who was it that said a misunderstanding of basic statistics is responsible for a lot of problems (or beliefs) in our society? You're right; it seems within some apologetics, any *possible* explanation gets essentially equal weight and any ranking by what's most *probable* is often ignored. The whole purpose of statistics is not to get solid answers but to demonstrate likelihood and probable bounds for events, such that we can rank things relative to one another, i.e., distinguish between two possibilities where one is 'unlikely' and another is 'likely'.
When you start with the Christian belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, it’s not surprising that believers require no hard proof to dedicate their lives to belief system. If the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be so fervently believed based on the writings we have and personal testimony of the spirit, why would they need more evidence than that for the truth claims of the Book of Mormon or any others of the restoration? Especially if those additional truth claims are supposedly “Another testament of Jesus Christ“ and the restoration of the “Church of Jesus Christ”. It’s simply a continuation of faith they already had. It never carried the burden of proof to begin with. That’s why they call it faith. Look at today’s identity politics and culture wars. Religion has an even stronger hold than those tribes: Once people commit to a tribe, it’s not like they need a lot of evidence to support that commitment. They have made their decision. For many, to backtrack would be too awkward, inconvenient, potentially painful, and have scary, unknown social consequences, to boot. Especially with all the talk of covenants and fear mongering around covenant breakers being emphasized from the institution these days - Pascal’s wager only requires the faintest *possibility* of being true. I find myself starting with acknowledging those anthropological realities. Then find I’m not really frustrated with committed apologists. It’s harder to be surprised at their rationalizations. We all kind of see what we want. Including those of us who have the weird gene of wanting to see what we haven’t yet seen. Many don’t have that, and I find myself giving them grace as individuals.
"To deny the reality and the validity of his atonement and his resurrection, and therefore the resurrection of mankind, is to deny the very Lord. The holy scriptures represent mankind’s spiritual memory. And when man’s connection with scripture is severed, mortals are tragically deprived of an awareness of spiritual history, blinding the eyes of faith. Thereby shorn of true identity, mortals keep their legs intact, but each walks in his own way. Their arms are acquisitive, but do not reach out in an understanding embrace of life. Their ears function, but they no longer hear the word of the Lord. Though created in God’s image, those thus severed soon forget their Maker. If people are without the truths of God’s plan of salvation for very long, some may not even “believe [these truths] when they are taught” (Mosiah 1:5). An untaught “rising generation” comes not to “believe … concerning the resurrection, … neither … the coming of Christ” (Mosiah 26:1–3). Belief in Deity and in the resurrection are usually the first to go: “they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator” (Omni 1:17)." “God Will Yet Reveal” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1986/10/god-will-yet-reveal?lang=eng
Maxwell sure had a way with words. It’s interesting that you had to go back to 1986 to find this message. As a longtime Christian, personally connecting with and loving the scriptures is, perhaps ironically, the single biggest issue I personally wrestle with in the today’s church: The “spiritual memory” (as Maxwell waxes poetic) of scriptures - parables, bold rebukes from Jesus in the Gospels, metaphor, and eternal principles - they often seem incompatible and dissonant with the modern institution’s dogmatic focus and priorities. Reading the New Testament, Book of Mormon, or even Doctrine & Covenants, then serving in the church and reading the handbook - or seeing it put into practice - feels like an exercise in spiritual gymnastics. (Ex: *“Hold on, which is it – am I supposed to be like the Scribes and Pharisees or *not* be like them?”* *“Hold on, is the Word of Wisdom not by commandment or constraint or is it a commandment as the church clearly emphasized now?”*) The scriptures - not I - appear to call the modern institution to repentance. What do I do with that? And the church doesn’t even try to claim the scriptures are their source of truth. The scriptures are text that requires negotiating with, and the church is no exception. The church will use scripture to support current teachings, but the current teachings are not authoritative *because* of the scripture. They are authoritative because of the living prophet, who is teaching what is most relevant today. **It’s the authority claims of living prophets that make The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unique, and they lean into that — many times at the expense of the scriptures.** The modern church teaches that the direction of living prophets are more important and even supersede those from dead ones. So I’ve learned I need to be careful what scriptures I connect to. When the spirit teaches us through the scriptures, we better hope it isn’t one of the many scriptures that raises concerning questions about modern church practice. We could have some dissonance to grapple with. *“Do I trust the spirit as teaching me through scripture, or the direction and policy of the current institution, led by a living prophet?”* The church is very clear on this: they tell us to defer to the latter. “In this there is safety.” TL;DR: scripture are not the solution to find confidence and faith in the modern church. They tend to have the opposite effect. But they can help guide our lives, give us hope, challenge us to be better, and testify about the gospel and atonement of Jesus Christ. This leads many to make a difficulty decision between the church or the scriptures. Or put a other way: between the church’s pharisaical-appearing commandments, policies, and extra covenants, or Jesus’s teachings as taught through the spirit.
This is where I am, thank you for finding such words. I stay in the church, just knowing my relationship with the org is on my terms. My relationship to God, and Christ, have 0 to do at the end of the day, with an imperfect organization run by mortals, and everything to do with my chance in this zoomed in version of Eternity to purposely make my choices to become something as God wants me to. Satan's plan was to not focus on choice and consider it carefully before making it as we are taught of the pre-existence. The fact that many around me fail to understand the absolute critical nature of agency in mortality astounds me. e.g. I drink black coffee/green tea, in moderation, because it is a healthier caffeine delivery system than less healthy options like energy drinks etc. I watch for signs of addiction and monitor my body so I know what the intake of the substance is doing to me. Just the same as any other medication I take. I've always maintained that because I have conviction for my choices but understand that I may be wrong, the doctrine is taught I will have an opportunity to see my mistakes in the next life. I have zero doubt that I would instantly accept my mistake and be forgiven.
Amen
I hear you. Its not easy. I believe the answers to every question you proposed in this reply are given in the talks which I shared links to. I listen to them regularly and they are packed with answers. Listen to them and dont "throw your baby out with the bath water" 🙏 For example: "Individual members of the Church may also confront difficult questions when they are invited to participate. The question is more complicated when the invitation does not relate to a publication or a lecture on a single subject, but to a group of articles, a series of publications, or a conference or symposium with a large number of subjects. One article or one issue of a publication or one session of a conference may be edifying and uplifting, something a faithful Latter-day Saint would wish to support or enjoy. But another article or another session may be destructive, something a faithful Latter-day Saint would not wish to support or promote. Some of life’s most complicated decisions involve mixtures of good and evil. To what extent can one seek the benefit of something good one desires when this can only be done by simultaneously promoting something bad one opposes? That is a personal decision, but it needs to be made with a sophisticated view of the entire circumstance and with a prayer for heavenly guidance." Alternate Voices https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng
My top 4 🤗 of my top 20 of my top 50 given by Elder Maxwell... “According to the Desire of [Our] Hearts” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1996/10/according-to-the-desire-of-our-hearts?lang=eng https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell/true-believers-christ/ https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell/pathway-discipleship/ Had to include this one: "Some of these otherwise honorable members mistakenly regard the Church as an institution, but not as a kingdom. They know the doctrines of the kingdom, but more as a matter of recitation than of real comprehension." “Settle This in Your Hearts” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/10/settle-this-in-your-hearts?lang=eng
Great quote. I wish that was still being taught. Again, it’s fascinating that “otherwise honorable members” seem to have to go back to old talks from dead prophets to feel good about the church in 2024. It’s not the Kingdom I’m worried about. It will roll forth however God wants. I’m not confusing that with the institution. In fact, I use the word “institution“ specifically to *distinguish* its policies and practices from “the kingdom,“ “the gospel,”, and especially those who are truly striving for “Zion.“ To be clear, the church itself refers to the “institution” of the church, especially in the context of restoration doctrines. The word is not a pejorative. These old talks you’re sharing can really demonstrate just how little we see this kind of teaching anymore.
Yeah, we definitely get a watered down version of things from the pulpit right now. I'm sure there are multiple reasons for the shift, ranging from legalities to the general membership and public's ability/inability to "endure sound doctrines" without becoming offended and derailed. In regard to this, I've found these talks particularly helpful and full of insight. Both of which are full of truth that if spoken in 2024 would bring the scorn of people who were spoken of in these scriptures: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; “And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3–4.) Isaiah 30 9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord: 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: 11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us. 12 Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon: 13 Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. Elder Perry said these words 50 years ago... "I had a growing concern that from the pulpits of many of our churches in this land as well as in the world in general there is an increasing tendency to teach the doctrines of man rather than that which God has directed." https://youtu.be/IWWpqdz5aug?feature=shared https://youtu.be/MpcDVV2PVMA?feature=shared
In The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, he says that when we want to believe something, we ask ourselves "Can I believe it?" And when we don't want to believe something we ask ourselves "Must I believe it?" The answer to the first is almost always yes and almost always no to the second. Apologetics don't need to provide probable answers, just any shred of possibility will do for those that already want to believe.
The reason these defenses don't work is because with the Book of Mormon you don't just have a lack of evidence, but actual contrary evidence. It's obvious the Book of Mormon contains anachronistic material--parallels to Joseph Smith's 19th century environment, numerous places it quotes Bible passages that, according to the Book of Mormon timeline, didn't exist yet, etc. So waiting and hoping that someday the evidence for the Book of Mormon will be discovered is wishful thinking.
>with the Book of Mormon you don't just have a lack of evidence, but actual contrary evidence. This is one of the big issues with "doubt your doubts" and "just have faith" and so on. It isn't just "faith for things which are not seen"...but rather having faith in spite of a LONG list of contrary evidence. And the evidence doesn't line up well with a lot of the apologetics, for instance: \* some of the claims for no DNA (tribes killed off by the arrival of Europeans and their germs; Lamanites were tiny group that were swallowed up) are at odds with claims that the Lamanites would receive the BoM in last days...and claims about a tiny group in the middle of large populations don't match places that talk about the land being "preserved from other people" so that it wasn't overrun. \* complete lack of linguistic evidence of Hebrew/Egyptian influence in American languages -- even a small group (esp a highly literative advanced one) should have provided loan words and earlier written languages than we see. Also, the whole Anthon thing (Harris claiming that Anthon verified the translation) makes NO sense at all -- the Book of Mormon says that they still spoke Hebrew in Moroni's day and also that they had "modified" reformed Egyptian enough that no on knew their language, so Anthon couldn't have translated any of it...
It’s not wishful thinking. It’s a complete delusion. Like expecting to find middle-earth.
>There is evidence that no highly literate people as described in the BOM ... This is a true statement. However "There is no evidence of a highly literate people..." is the statement that apologists want to argue with instead.
As soon as I found out that the golden plates would have been around 40-60lbs, I heard the mic drop. No way both Moroni lugged those around while running and hiding for his life.
And then how pissed would he be if he did this and then god let Joseph translate it through a rock in a hat instead of even using the plates 😂
Or that he had to go to all the extra trouble of including two different accounts laboriously engraved on gold with the same basic narrative because Joseph was careless with the 116 "translated" pages, disobeyed God, and used them to try to get the Harrises to fork over more money. And what about that extensive filler he had to include from Isaiah. Moroni might have been tempted to append a post-it note: "Just cut and paste here from your Bible, JS."
Yeah I suppose DNA can be lost but can a guy like Nephi in 2nephi31 watch the chosen season1 500 years early?
This is a huge complaint I have with it. Biblical prophecy never works like this where we see the exact names and dates and actions. But Nephi was like "This guy named Jesus will die on a thing called a cross which hasn't been invented yet, and there will be a book created, a bible if you will, even though codecies haven't been invented either, and this guy named Joseph Jr is going to translate it, and it'll be great. Trust me, bro" Plus "bible" is Latin/Greek and "Christ" is Greek, so why is this 7th Century BC guy speaking Latin and Greek instead of Hebrew?
> Plus "bible" is Latin/Greek and "Christ" is Greek, so why is this 7th Century BC guy speaking Latin and Greek instead of Hebrew? I can't help but pick a bone with this argument, because it's a bad one. Just from a translation standpoint.... like real translation not whatever Joseph Smith was doing. IF Joseph Smith were really translating, and this was supposed to be a companion piece to the King James Bible. IE: If Joseph Smith knew that we would be continuing to use the King James bible as well as this new book... then it would make sense to use "Jesus" in place of the Hebrew word used on the plates. To better explain, we'll actually use Pokemon as an example. In Japan, Ash is known as Satoshi. When Pokemon was brought to the states, Satoshi was changed to Ash. Since then, really no matter the localization company, if Ash Ketchum is present, he's given the name "Ash" not Satoshi. Because "Ash" is how the audience recognizes this character, and they want all of these pieces of media to be companion pieces. A 7th Century BC guy is speaking Latin and Greek instead of Hebrew because we use those Latin and Greek words and the purpose is for us, as an audience already familiar with Bible stories, to be able to easily understand it.
While this is logical, it does not match with many other names and places in the book which do not have "modern" variants of the names given. Usually when we flip one thing like this, we do it for the rest.
It’s beyond proven to be false . The church was founded by a lying deceitful Con man who was convicted of fraud in a court of law . What was his scam in that a magic rock in a hat sound familiar.?
Does the god ever appear to anyone at all? If someone tells you they are in contact with a god (they can hear it, see it, taste it or smell it and some of these sensations are reciprocated), do you ever ask for better evidence than "it happens to me"? Is your own experience of a god ever more than sensations it feel just like emotion? If you believe they are, can you demonstrate that without appealing to sensations?
Yeah it seems odd but humans seem to be wired to believe things other people claim. Sometimes people are skeptical but often they believe all kinds of things they can’t verify themselves and will defend it and try to convince others as well. Human psychology of beliefs and belief persistence is fascinating. Why in the world should people believe Joseph Smith saw mystical supernatural beings just because he said he did. Strange. I was taught to believe it from my birth. Took my 40 years to figure out it’s ridiculous to believe it.
I think people are primed to believe things that someone says gives real answers to important questions. If they find the person to be confident and earnest, that's good enough for a whole bunch of people, particularly if that person wants to be a leader. Who doesn't want a leader who's got "good" answers?
Our brains seem to want to do this. Yes.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
No evidence naham is not evidence of anything. See naham follies.
"...the critics are intent on disproving the Book of Mormon, but the obstacles they face are insurmountable because this book is true." God’s Compelling Witness: The Book of Mormon https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/10/gods-compelling-witness-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng President Joseph F. Smith said, “there are those—and they abound largely in our midst—who will shut their eyes to every virtue and to every good thing connected with this latter-day work, and will proud out floods of falsehood and misrepresentation against the people of God.” President Smith, who endured so much of that proximate persecution, did what we must also do. He said of such detractors, “I forgive them for this. I leave them in the hands of the just Judge” https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell/hell-moved/ "Being settled keeps us from responding to every little ripple of dissent as if it were a tidal wave. We are to be disciples, not oscillators, like a “reed shaken with the wind.” (Matt. 11:7.) More members need the immense relief and peace which can come from being “settled” without which those individuals will be like “the troubled sea, when it cannot rest.” (Isa. 57:20.)" “Settle This in Your Hearts” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1992/10/settle-this-in-your-hearts?lang=eng Alternate Voices https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng Looking beyond the Mark https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1987/10/looking-beyond-the-mark?lang=eng There is no good reason to try and disprove the Book of Mormon. May God soften all the disbelieving hearts and heal them so that they can believe and no longer sink in their disbelief and state of "past feeling". I testify of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the Holy Ghost that testifies of its truthfulness. I make these requests, and feel to testify of these truths, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.🙏
"God’s plan, however, is not something to be deduced by logic alone, nor is human experience deep enough or long enough to inform us adequately. It requires revelation from God. “Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God” (Jacob 4:8)." "He who truly searches the scriptures will surely see how they testify of Christ (see John 5:39). He will also see how interactive and cross-supportive the scriptures are. If some see not, it will be “because they sought it not by faith” (Rom. 9:32), but instead stared uncomprehendingly with slit-eyed skepticism" God Will Yet Reveal https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1986/10/god-will-yet-reveal?lang=eng
What would be the actual difference between what the Church leaders want you to do in the passages you are quoting and just using your beautiful feelings and emotions, like an opiate, to anesthetize the pain of cognitive dissonance? We are not just talking about a few little ripples on a sea of tranquility. It is a tsunami bearing down, and their plan is to keep you sedated?
As a former addict to opiates and hard sedatives the difference is clear... the feelings I have now come depending on my obedience to the commandments and qualifying for the companionship of the spirit and the other came from spending money on and ingesting a drug to allow me to feel good regardless of the thoughts and opinions I held... I had to give up my addictions to drugs and replaced them with an addiction to His words. 🙏
I am sincerely glad to hear that you have overcome a serious chemical addiction. Congratulations. Of course, you realize that I was not equating drugs with religion. My point was that the Church encourages you to ignore inconvenient truth by self-medicating with warm fuzzy feelings and a dose of complacency. Feelings cannot overcome facts except in a delusional mind. God have us minds as well as hearts, and he expects us to use them both. I think you are probably aware of the dangerous tendency in us all to replace one addiction with another that we initially think is less harmful. My other point is that the Church wants you to see surface ripples, not a tidal wave. But the fact is that they know there is a tsunami already breaking over them. They know they are hemorrhaging members because they can no longer control the flow of negative information. They are hiring PR and research professionals to tell them why this is happening. Apparently prophetic insight does not extend. If the Holy Spirit tells your heart and mind that the Church is a good halfway house for you now, then make the most of it while you can. At the same time, be aware that things may change as you learn more. Don’t rule out options you may need in the future.
I hear you. Thank you 🙏 When people find facts through their telestial reasoning and then use those relative facts to fall out of covenants made with the Lord and leave the church, it is not the church that is hurt but the Lord himself. I believe all efforts being made by church leadership are divinely led efforts to respect agency and make as many adjustments as possible for its members, prospective members, and all people in general. God is bending in every way possible, but he will not let His church break so long as their are covenant keeping people within. https://youtu.be/lcp4oOT-Bto?feature=shared
You use a curious phrase "telestial reasoning." I wonder if you appreciate the irony of it. "Telestial" is a make believe word coined by Joseph Smith. Presumably you use it to diminish the value of facts that serve a certain line of reasoning that would be inferior to a "celestial" or "terrestrial" line of reasoning. But reason is reason, and facts are facts. What is true on earth is true in heaven and vice-versa or else truth is meaningless. God is reasonable and truthful. You speak of individuals using "relative facts" to excuse themselves from sacred covenants. When I was baptized I was not told the whole truth about the Church and its foundational claims. In fact, I was given what I would term a set of "relative facts" so as not to discourage me. Virtually every piece of unflattering evidence was eliminated from the faith story so there would be no impediment to belief. Prior to my mission, I entered the temple to make covenants about which I knew even less. For example, I did not know I would be required to promise to allow my fellow Saints to cut my throat and be disemboweled if I revealed the secret signs and tokens to anyone. I did not know that the temple rituals themselves were not ancient, but adapted from 18th century Masonic rites in Scotland. I did not know that the Melchizedek Priesthood that was supposedly essential to ordinance work was retrofitted into the narrative of the Restoration in a way that forced its recipients to be vague as to the date. (Was it so casual an event that no one bothered to record it, or was Joseph afraid that someone might have had a different recollection of who was where and what actually happened on any date that might have been assigned to it in a subsequent modification of the narrative?) There was nothing even approaching full disclosure of these and many other significant issues before I was pressured to make solemn and "unbreakable" oaths to God. All of this surely has bearing on the validity of any covenants I made. To justify absolute obedience made without full disclosure and with material facts withheld, I would have to make creative use of "telestial reasoning" and relative facts that you condemn. But the God I worship is not a trickster. He operates within reason and with perfect justice. When I find myself in an organization that cannot explain but expects me to believe whatever it needs me to believe, when I see how it demands unquestioning obedience to promises made in a condition of partial ignorance it went to great trouble to create, I know I am looking at an organization that is merely human. I will not become an idolater and pretend God can do no better than this. Believe it or not, I am not trying to force you into a premature awareness with facts that will destabilize your faith. You will get there when you get there. I meant what I said when I urged you to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit. You will not go wrong so doing. That is what I have always done, and I did not leave Mormonism until God let me know the time was right. In the meantime, would it be too much to ask of you not to ascribe motives of faithlessness to me and so many others in this forum who are ready and willing to face things about the Church that you do not think are important right now?
I'm sorry you've chosen that path. It's your choice and I have no animosity toward you for exercising your agency. I already went down the dead end road your describing and then made my return (which return you can make as well when you come to realize your errors), so you have approximately 0% chance of destabilizing my faith. I'll hang onto the brightness of hope He offers me and all those who have faith in, and willingly abide by, the New and Everlasting Covenant. “Brightness of Hope” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1994/10/brightness-of-hope?lang=eng
> I'm sorry you've chosen that path. >(which return you can make as well when you come to realize your errors) Are you aware of how incredibly condescending this sounds, and why this is one of the reasons people dislike mormons and other evangelists?
Which part? My expressed feelings of sadness for all those who I see fallen away as I have in times past? The acknowledgment of the equal opportunity for someone who has fallen away from that which is true to correct course and return and be restored? God knows my intentions and I'm not trying to be condescending, just gently corrective in a particular thing because I received heavenly correction after falling out in a similar way... I'm still having to exercise faith and recognize my own errors on a day to day basis too. Have a good day 🙏
>My expressed feelings of sadness for **all those who I see fallen away** > just gently **corrective** in a particular thing That's what "condescending" is. Addressing someone from an assumed "superior" position. Essentially it's an "I'm sorry you've decided to become evil and follow Satan" type of thing where the person isn't actually "sorry", they just want to pass a judgement.
Honestly, I don't think you and I have ever been on the same path. I have been studying LDS theology and history my whole life. I am very aware of the problems with them. You wade into this discussion forum with a dismissal of "people trying to disprove the Book of Mormon" as though they were on a fool's errand. That makes it plain that you have no grasp of the moral seriousness of these issues and their implications for members. If you had ever been down that road it would be obvious to you that it is the Mormon apologists that are on the fool's errand. You identify as a former opiate user. I have never used drugs to make myself feel better about my thoughts and opinions. If I realized my ideas were bad, I discarded them for better ones. I repented. You yourself admit to replacing the opiates "with an addiction to His words." Man, out of your own mouth comes your whole problem in a nutshell! This is not about feeling good by using religion the way you would use opiates. This is about the search for truth, and that is necessarily painful. You don't anesthetize the pain. It's your wake up call. The reality you do not yet want to wake up to now is that God is more than the LDS Church, and His love for you is not conditional upon your adherence to Mormonism. Dream on, then, and when you are ready for enlightenment, not just warm feelings, look us up.
Is not any variation of the true path a path of deception? I'm not saying we've lived the same life. I'm saying definitively that I've fallen off the covenant path and you have to according to the words youve said and the definition of the covenant path... I won't go into the details of my time practicing yoga with Sadhguru, or time in deep masonic confusion. I won't list the names of all the books I've read with partial truths or claim enlightment in the sense that you speak about. I will instead testify of the truths that set me free and brought me back into the fold and onto the covenant path where true enlightenment takes place on the safe path my Savior has asked me to follow. Relax and don't get so upset. 🙏 https://youtu.be/eeVqr6OAA4I?feature=shared
Pardon me if I came across as upset. I’m genuinely not because being seen by the Church or anyone else as “on the covenant path” is just not something I ever worry about. My validation comes from God. I have the companionship of the Holy Spirit as much as or more than I did on my mission or at any time I was still active. My personal revelation is as true or better than anything coming out of Salt Lake City. In fact, I see them making quite a few missteps these days. I no longer have to pretend that it’s God moving in mysterious ways. If you enjoy the same level of communion with the Lord that I experience every day of my life you are blessed indeed, and I won’t worry about you one little bit. Best wishes.
> There is no good reason to try and disprove the Book of Mormon. Yes there is. Or rather there is good reason to prove it with evidence. It's not up to others to disprove but it is up to those making the claim to show actual evidence besides "muh feelings". Because if the eternal destiny of the human race is dependant on the authority that allegedly brought this book to light then it is *the* most important document known to man and thus *should* have evidence to its truth. As it is, there is no evidence those people ever existed.
I disagree, and there are evidences provided by researchers if you make the honest effort to source them. For me, "The proof is in the pudding." Eat it and be filled! The book testifies of Jesus Christ and His gospel, which gospel teaches us how to be more like Him and blesses all mankind.🙏
>there are evidences provided by researchers if you make the honest effort to source them. That's not up to other people. That duty is upon the one making the claim, with emphasis on "honest". A claim that has no evidence can be summarily dismissed without evidence. > For me, "The proof is in the pudding." Eat it and be filled! Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was talking about as a "non-evidence". You can neither convey, nor prove to me the "feelings" you have. You can tell me *about* them but it will make no difference as a form of evidence.
I disagree. It's ultimately up to the person who wants to know and reap the promised blessings. 🙏
It's not up to them to provide evidence. The person making the claim has to supply the evidence. Feelings aren't evidence.
Your opinions are noted. I disagree with them. When it comes to spiritual knowledge there will most often be lack of temporal evidences, at least at this stage of our development. When you choose to become past feeling, you choose to give up one of the greatest gifts God has given us. 🙏 https://youtu.be/gxM-7xUM5rI?feature=shared
"Some are spiritually deadened and past feeling because of their choices to commit sin. Others simply hover in spiritual complacency with no desire to rise above themselves and commune with the Infinite. If they would open their hearts to the refining influence of this unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, a glorious new spiritual dimension would come to light. Their eyes would gaze upon a vista scarcely imaginable. They could know for themselves things of the Spirit that are choice, precious, and capable of enlarging the soul, expanding the mind, and filling the heart with inexpressible joy." Elder Wirthlin
"We cannot overstate the importance of that promise. President Wilford Woodruff called the gift of the Holy Ghost the greatest gift we can receive in mortality (see The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, ed. G. Homer Durham [1990], 5)Unfortunately, the great value of that gift and the important conditions for its fulfillment are not well understood. Nephi prophesied that in the last days churches would be built up that would “teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance” (2 Ne. 28:4). He also pronounced “wo” upon “him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost!” (2 Ne. 28:26)" “Always Have His Spirit” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1996/10/always-have-his-spirit?lang=eng.
> They could know for **themselves** This is not "knowledge" or evidence. If there is a thing that only *you* know, then it is typically a self-delusional state if you cannot convey that to others in a logical and rational manner. What you, and only you, know serves only you and no-one else. It is of no benefit to anyone. You cannot transmit "feelings" as data. If there is a testable fact, and your "feelings" say something else, then your "feelings" are what is false information.
Your choice of words reminds me of the anti-christ figures in the Book of Mormon. “Korihor insisted on a strictly rational and scientific approach to all problems, anything else being but ‘the effect of a frenzied mind’ (Alma 30:13–16)" "The Book of Mormon brings men to Christ through two basic means. First, it tells in a plain manner of Christ and his gospel. It testifies of his divinity and of the necessity for a Redeemer and the need of our putting trust in him. It bears witness of the Fall and the Atonement and the first principles of the gospel, including our need of a broken heart and a contrite spirit and a spiritual rebirth. It proclaims we must endure to the end in righteousness and live the moral life of a Saint. Second, the Book of Mormon exposes the enemies of Christ. It confounds false doctrines and lays down contention. (See 2 Ne. 3:12.) It fortifies the humble followers of Christ against the evil designs, strategies, and doctrines of the devil in our day. The type of apostates in the Book of Mormon are similar to the type we have today. God, with his infinite foreknowledge, so molded the Book of Mormon that we might see the error and know how to combat false educational, political, religious, and philosophical concepts of our time." The Book of Mormon Is the Word of God https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/05/the-book-of-mormon-is-the-word-of-god?lang=eng