LDS

[bruto]

And in other news, neither skyrider nor janadele have bothered to speak to my request for enlightenment as to the nature of the answer god never bothered giving me in my sincere supplication for the truth, as the missionaries promised me, 100% guaranteed.

Since the discussion is obsessed with documentation and grammar, I guess the raw soul goes unremarked.

I would think, given your claims, that my experience would be of more relevance to the OP than all this clerical debate.

Why are you disrespecting me, Skyrider? Janadele?

Hello?

I went back through the thread, because I could have sworn that someone had dispensed the boiler-plate answer to your question. That answer is, of course, that your lack of an answer (or lack of a satisfactory one) is post facto proof of your lack of faith. It's a guaranteed answer, of course, that the required faith will see divine in any answer or lack of it, so if you cannot accept that, you obviously lack faith. I can't find that reply now, and don't know whether either Skyrider or Janadele has stooped to that catch-all response, so I hope you get a real answer from one of them. It's possible they just got sidetracked by other subjects.

 

[Janadele]

asydhouse,

My previous posts detail the answers of your questions to me. The quickest way to find them is click on my avatar on show posts.

Only you yourself can know whether you were really open and receptive to receive the answer... but even then, maybe you yourself really could not recognise if you were not.

God commands us to seek answers to our questions (see James 1:5–6) and asks only that we seek “with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ” (Moroni 10:4). When we do so, the truth of all things can be manifested to us “by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Moroni 10:5).

Matthew 16:13-20
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

We are able to "feel" the Lord's words, hear the still small voice... through the power of the Holy Spirit, whose influence has been available to all from the time of Adam. It is through this power that people are led to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and gain witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

The light of belief is within you, waiting to be awakened and intensified by the Spirit of God and the Light of Christ, which you are born with.

Within our mortal body is our Spiritual body. The knowledge of the Universes and other eternal matters is within us according to our progression, and the level of righteousness and intelligence we have achieved in our Pre Mortal Existence. The veil of forgetfulness has been drawn and we see imperfectly in mortality. God has said:

“My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. …

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8–9).

The Scriptures give several names for the Holy Spirit... including the Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of God, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Ghost. There is a difference between the influence of the Holy Spirit, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. One does not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit until baptism by authority, and to retain the inspiration of this companionship one must live worthily.

And in other news, neither skyrider nor janadele have bothered to speak to my request for enlightenment as to the nature of the answer god never bothered giving me in my sincere supplication for the truth, as the missionaries promised me, 100% guaranteed.

Since the discussion is obsessed with documentation and grammar, I guess the raw soul goes unremarked.

I would think, given your claims, that my experience would be of more relevance to the OP than all this clerical debate.

Why are you disrespecting me, Skyrider? Janadele?

Hello?

Janadele, never mind all this paperwork.

Consider this: Mormon missionaries told me that if I prayed sincerely I would definitely receive an answer from God to tell me that the Mormon Church was the true church....

I prayed and informed God that I was leaving the church... unless he would now tell me to stay. I said, if I don't hear from you, I guess I have to take that as a sign that you are not there.

I said my amen etc, as good mormon prayer form requires.... and went easily on my way, untroubled by the Lord.

I reckon I gave your god and your church a totally real and sincere chance with me... and he ignored me.

How do you explain that?

By the way, Janadele, since you are such a keen proselytiser for the LDS, I would love to hear your testimony too. Honestly, please help me understand, if you can.

 

[DragonLady]

For 182 years, critics have tired to prove the BoM was the product of a so-called con artist; they have been unable to do so. In their fervor to find what is wrong with the LDS Church's keystone scripture, critics have overlooked what is right with it. It contains spiritual insights that are without equal, particularly concerning God's relationship with mortals.

Really? I'm interested in learning more.

Does it show God's relationship improving much since the days of Cain and Abel?

While I'm here...I'm gonna disagree a bit with the idea that religious belief is irrational.

As humans, we have two ways of getting things wrong. When we're lying in our beds at night, and hear something clattering around outside, we can:

a) assume it is just the wind, and all is well.
b) assume it is being caused by a concious agent, and we might be in danger.

It is prudent -and entirely rational- to climb out of bed and find out what is happening.

If we find a hard wind blowing a garbage can around, we can go back to bed and sleep in peace.

If we find an animal clawing through the trash, we can shoot it and go back to bed.

But if we find no obvious source whatsover for the noise, it is only *human* to attribute it to something we cannot explain or have no knowledge of. And we're right back to the same two choices: either it's a concious agent, or not.

If it's not, we are powerless. Aside from fleeing, there's nothing we can do. Humans don't handle "powerless" very well. We don't readily accept situations in which we have no control. Be it a sick child, an impending foreclosure, or a doomsday noise in the dark, we reach for any possible solution. We will grasp at every straw we can reach.

So...as long as the possibility remains that our terrifying noise is being caused by a concious agent, we will grasp at the idea that we might be able to appease said agent. If it's being caused by someone's God, we might be able to reason or bargain. We might be able to offer a sacrifice or promise to be better people. And that gives us some sense of power over a situation that we are otherwise unable to change or even divert.

Taking the power to make what we will of our own lives and our own fates is, IMO, entirely rational.

 

[tyr_13]

The elder what?

Seneca chief.

 

[Myriad]

I'm partly NA, and I know my grandmother despised it. She would say that NA's were doing just fine long before white men "discovered" them, and that the reworking of their legends, myths and stories to suit white ears was a crying shame.

I should say: white men in general. I don't know if she ever even knew the LDS church existed. So I don't know if she had any idea anyone was claiming NA's have Hebrew ancestry.

Being not far from Palmyra New York, interested in native history and in religious traditions especially local ones, it kind of surprises me that this never came up before. I'll have to ask the elder next time I see him to see if he knows anything on the subject.

I really appreciate these perspectives, and I'd regard it as an undeserved honor to hear the elder's thoughts on the subject.

I must admit that to my own white ears, the original narratives of the native peoples of the Americas are almost completely opaque, with layers of meaning inaccessible to me. (As I broaden my experience of other mystical and spiritual traditions, the possibility of eventually comprehending a little bit of those native narratives might be appearing as a glimmer on the horizon, but I have far to go.) I can understand the desire to rework them into comprehensibility, though that desire is foolish; and I can recognize immediately that the resulting reworked versions are empty husks.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Nay_Sayer]

asydhouse,

My previous posts detail the answers of your questions to me. The quickest way to find them is click on my avatar on show posts.

Only you yourself can know whether you were really open and receptive to receive the answer... but even then, maybe you yourself really could not recognise if you were not.

God commands us to seek answers to our questions (see James 1:5–6) and asks only that we seek “with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ” (Moroni 10:4). When we do so, the truth of all things can be manifested to us “by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Moroni 10:5).

Matthew 16:13-20
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

We are able to "feel" the Lord's words, hear the still small voice... through the power of the Holy Spirit, whose influence has been available to all from the time of Adam. It is through this power that people are led to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and gain witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

The light of belief is within you, waiting to be awakened and intensified by the Spirit of God and the Light of Christ, which you are born with.

Within our mortal body is our Spiritual body. The knowledge of the Universes and other eternal matters is within us according to our progression, and the level of righteousness and intelligence we have achieved in our Pre Mortal Existence. The veil of forgetfulness has been drawn and we see imperfectly in mortality. God has said:

“My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. …

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8–9).

The Scriptures give several names for the Holy Spirit... including the Spirit, the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of God, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Ghost. There is a difference between the influence of the Holy Spirit, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. One does not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit until baptism by authority, and to retain the inspiration of this companionship one must live worthily.

I'm sure it's been mentioned and I mean no disrespect by it, But you are aware most here do not take any of that scripture as evidence for anything.

 

[tyr_13]

Well many of them change with each tribe, each clan, and each teller. It's very European, for lack of a better term, to try to set down the true version of the story that wasn't shaped for the specific listener by the specific speaker. Only the most well known and popular of the tales will have many elements that match. If anything think of it like the different competing bible books, only without the being written down part.

'So you want me to tell you the real versions of the myths?' I can't remember who said something like that, but it fits.

EDIT: When I think about it, Smith might have lifted some of the elements of the Haudenosaunee Huron Peacemaker story.

 

[jsfisher]

I'm sure it's been mentioned and I mean no disrespect by it, But you are aware most here do not take any of that scripture as evidence for anything.

Her answer is responsive, at least in a sense. She starts with the simple, "It's your fault." I believe that to be her real answer.

As for the scripture stuff, well, I'm not seeing the full relevance to the original question. Given her history of transliterating questions to align the LDS repertoire of stock answers, this should be no surprise.

 

[Pup]

So...as long as the possibility remains that our terrifying noise is being caused by a concious agent, we will grasp at the idea that we might be able to appease said agent. If it's being caused by someone's God, we might be able to reason or bargain. We might be able to offer a sacrifice or promise to be better people. And that gives us some sense of power over a situation that we are otherwise unable to change or even divert.

Taking the power to make what we will of our own lives and our own fates is, IMO, entirely rational.

I think that's a beautiful summary of where supernatural beliefs come from, and it explains why believing such things is human, or natural, or self-rewarding.

But I'm still not sure I'd describe it as rational, in the sense of based on reason or logic. If an unknown sound is possibly caused by a conscious agent, I don't think it's rational to assume it is, unless there's some evidence that that's the most likely explanation. Otherwise, the most rational conclusion would be "we don't know," or if there's more evidence to the contrary, "it's probably not a conscious agent."

The emotional reward of believing it to be a conscious agent is what makes that choice the one that people will be biased toward, even when the evidence doesn't point that direction.

 

[jsfisher]

There may be two meanings of 'rational' at work here. Religious beliefs are rational in the sense their are driving forces that lead people to adopt those beliefs. On the other hand the reasoning by a person that gets them to those beliefs is itself irrational.

 

[Pixel42]

I agree with the first and last part, but I'm not so sure about the middle part. Considering he was a relatively young man in a poor family, at a time when books on obscure topics cost close to the daily pay of a laborer and large free lending libraries weren't in every small city, I don't think that more information was readily accessible. It was more of a case of the blind leading the blind.

Fair enough, maybe I'm being a bit too hard on him, and on those who originally bought into his fantasies. I still see no excuse for anyone who does so today.

 

[Pup]

There may be two meanings of 'rational' at work hear. Religious beliefs are rational in the sense their are driving forces that lead people to adopt those beliefs. On the other hand the reasoning by a person that gets them to those beliefs is itself irrational.

^ Makes sense.

 

[ria_rokz]

In my experience with First Nations people (Canadian term for Native American), I have done a decent amount of studying and listening.

From what I understand about the tribes up here, their creation story says that they were created in North America and have lived here their whole lives. Many traditional people are seriously offended by any suggestion that they migrated here in any way. They see it as another white man's attempt to destroy their culture. Remember that in Canada, for a time all First Nations children were placed in residential schools, where they were deprived of their language, culture, and family.

Anyway, I would imagine that Native American tribes would feel something similar. As I understand it, many of their creation stories are similar in the sense that they have always existed here. I would not be surprised if they were offended by JSmith's explanation of their origins.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Her answer is responsive, at least in a sense. She starts with the simple, "It's your fault." I believe that to be her real answer.

As for the scripture stuff, well, I'm not seeing the full relevance to the original question. Given her history of transliterating questions to align the LDS repertoire of stock answers, this should be no surprise.

Which brings me to another question, How much does one have to be open to get an answer?

I'll share a personal story, My mother once told me while she watched her mother slowly die of cancer, for god to give her a sign any sign at all he was there, otherwise she was done. Sadly cancer took her mother and she never received a sign. My mother was very very religious when she was younger, went to church, took confirmation, said her prayers etc.

She's led a happy godless life since that moment and managed to raise two knuckleheaded children.

So I ask again, How much more could my mother heart have been open to get an answer from god?

 

[DragonLady]

But I'm still not sure I'd describe it as rational, in the sense of based on reason or logic. If an unknown sound is possibly caused by a conscious agent, I don't think it's rational to assume it is, unless there's some evidence that that's the most likely explanation. Otherwise, the most rational conclusion would be "we don't know," or if there's more evidence to the contrary, "it's probably not a conscious agent."

There may be two meanings of 'rational' at work hear. Religious beliefs are rational in the sense their are driving forces that lead people to adopt those beliefs. On the other hand the reasoning by a person that gets them to those beliefs is itself irrational.

Yeah; I'll concede those points.

 

[Pup]

Fair enough, maybe I'm being a bit too hard on him, and on those who originally bought into his fantasies. I still see no excuse for anyone who does so today.

I agree. After I made the previous post, it occurred to me that I could have summed it up much shorter by saying Joseph Smith seems to me more like a less-violent John Brown than a more-religious P. T. Barnum. Or, for a more obscure reference closer to the same time, place and circumstances, William Miller.

 

[eight bits]

Thank you, Pup, for the pointer to the Anthon material.

It's a little confusing to sort out what the story is supposed to be. What is clear, however, is that the idea of copying his source did occur to Smith, or to those around him. Funny that he hand copied the small sample, when a rubbing swatch would have served just as well, presumably could have been made more easily, and would have been such a small part of so obviously worthy a project for preserving one of the most important artifacts in all of human history.

Oh well.

 

[Cainkane1]

Thank you, Pup, for the pointer to the Anthon material.

It's a little confusing to sort out what the story is supposed to be. What is clear, however, is that the idea of copying his source did occur to Smith, or to those around him. Funny that he hand copied the small sample, when a rubbing swatch would have served just as well, presumably could have been made more easily, and would have been such a small part of so obviously worthy a project for preserving one of the most important artifacts in all of human history.

Oh well.

It is very convenient that the golden plates were sent back to Heaven after the translation. Did the misspelled words and poor punctuation in the original BOM suggest that god is a semi illeterate when it comes to the written english language? Much of what the BOM says is poppycock.

I stress however that the BOM is no worse than any other holy book when it comes to scientific inaccuracies.

 

[kerikiwi]

In my experience with First Nations people (Canadian term for Native American), I have done a decent amount of studying and listening.

From what I understand about the tribes up here, their creation story says that they were created in North America and have lived here their whole lives. Many traditional people are seriously offended by any suggestion that they migrated here in any way. They see it as another white man's attempt to destroy their culture. Remember that in Canada, for a time all First Nations children were placed in residential schools, where they were deprived of their language, culture, and family.

Anyway, I would imagine that Native American tribes would feel something similar. As I understand it, many of their creation stories are similar in the sense that they have always existed here. I would not be surprised if they were offended by JSmith's explanation of their origins.

They may well be offended, but they are just as wrong as Smith.

 

[skyrider44]

I went back through the thread, because I could have sworn that someone had dispensed the boiler-plate answer to your question. That answer is, of course, that your lack of an answer (or lack of a satisfactory one) is post facto proof of your lack of faith. It's a guaranteed answer, of course, that the required faith will see divine in any answer or lack of it, so if you cannot accept that, you obviously lack faith. I can't find that reply now, and don't know whether either Skyrider or Janadele has stooped to that catch-all response, so I hope you get a real answer from one of them. It's possible they just got sidetracked by other subjects.

Perhaps I should "stoop" to give asydhouse a response (although I think I know why he keeps raising the "issue"). In Doctrine & Covenants 46: 11-14 (abridged): For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God. To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby. To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the son of God. . . . To others it is given to believe on their words, that they might also have eternal life if they continue to be faithful. [This theme continues for several more passages.]

It may come as a surprise to you, bruto, but faith is the first principle of the gospel, as stated in the 4th Article of Faith.

I make this post with some reluctance, because I suspect it will be mocked, derided, labeled as discriminatory, and otherwise trashed. I take comfort, however, in the fact that I have not returned the "favor" with respect to non-believers. Thus, in the 11th Article of Faith, we read: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may [emphasis added].