In retrospect, the thing that bothered me most

[_MormonMendacity]

I see the root of the problem. It comes from a misconception of how the Holy Ghost functions. This is a common and easily understandable problem. I don't mean to say this in a smart-alec or condecending way, this is really a common misunderstanding.

Rule #1 The Holy Ghost is always accompanied by knowledge. The Holy Ghost has the title of comforter, and he does cause good feelings, but those feeling will be accompanied by pure intelligence flowing into you.

Rule #2 The revelations received are edifying (D&C 50:23) What you will find is that the Holy Ghost creates links to the knowledge you previously possesed. This ties into the concept that the Holy Ghost will "bring all things to your remembrance".

Hope this helps

Gaz

Yet we see so many examples of how the HG fails the leaders of the Church in the Kinderhook, Book of Abraham, Mountain Meadows and Hoffman affairs. Those things should have been high on the list of using the HG to get knowledge.

Joseph didn't get knowdge in the Kinderhook and Book of Abraham instances.
Brigham didn't get it in advance of MMM.
Gordon didn't get it, apparently, in regards to Hoffman's forgeries.

Those would have been excellent times -- and proofs -- that the Holy Ghost is a reliable sources of knowledge. Heck, the Tanners had more inspiration about Hoffman than Hinckley did.

[_Guardiands]

And that's just applying it to LDS leaders. Apply it to a personal level and you get a LOT of evidence for the holy ghost not working.

"Pure Intelligence" how do you define that? By pure do you mean that this intelligence falls in line with what authoritarian church leaders say? Or do you mean that it is inherently true? If the latter, how do we know it is true? Seems to lead to circular logic, either way you look at it.

I have no doubt that I can explain away the majority of anti Mormon claims. I feel I have a very good knowledge of the gospel.

I also understand that all religion expects you to believe in supernatural claims. They expect you to do so from a subjective, not objective, standpoint. Those of us who deem subjective experiences not a good enough reason to change and define one's entire life find ourselfs questioning religion.


It was quite the assumption to think we didn't know how the Holy Ghost worked. We know how it worked. We don't trust the results. That's all.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Joseph didn't get knowdge in the Kinderhook and Book of Abraham instances.
Brigham didn't get it in advance of MMM.
Gordon didn't get it, apparently, in regards to Hoffman's forgeries.

Those would have been excellent times -- and proofs -- that the Holy Ghost is a reliable sources of knowledge. Heck, the Tanners had more inspiration about Hoffman than Hinckley did.

Hinck's Discern-o-meter, was in the shop at that time, and the Discern-o-meter technicians happeded to be on a week long marathon necro endowment jaunt.

I poised a similar question about Hinck and Hoffman several years ago on yonder Fboards. I was told that the two people who died where placed on the earth to help crack the case, essentially by being killed.

Again, the number one rule of defending Mormonism is don't mess with the right side of the equation. Find something that threatens the never-to-be-changed sum of all things Mormon? BEND IT, TWIST IT, POUND IT, deny it if need be, just do not let it throw the divinity of TSCC into question.

[_Jason Bourne]

I see the root of the problem. It comes from a misconception of how the Holy Ghost functions. This is a common and easily understandable problem. I don't mean to say this in a smart-alec or condecending way, this is really a common misunderstanding.

Rule #1 The Holy Ghost is always accompanied by knowledge. The Holy Ghost has the title of comforter, and he does cause good feelings, but those feeling will be accompanied by pure intelligence flowing into you.

Rule #2 The revelations received are edifying (D&C 50:23) What you will find is that the Holy Ghost creates links to the knowledge you previously possesed. This ties into the concept that the Holy Ghost will "bring all things to your remembrance".

Hope this helps

Gaz

Gaz,

Why are problems with how the Holy Ghost functions so common in the church? Why can some get a "burning in the bosom" and others who honestly try to gain this type of witness never do...and often as active LDS feel like failures? Why do church leaders so routinely focus on feelings these days as the witnesss for the Holy Ghost? Do you not think such a subjective standard for gaining a testimony rather risky and fleeting? What is pure intelligence? In my work I often solve comples problems. I can tell you that there have been times that I have worked long and hard to figure something out and when I hit on it the feelings both emotionally and intellectually have not been unlike those I have had with some religous experiences I have had. How does one distinguish the difference.

Jason

[_Jason Bourne]

Joseph didn't get knowdge in the Kinderhook and Book of Abraham instances.
Brigham didn't get it in advance of MMM.
Gordon didn't get it, apparently, in regards to Hoffman's forgeries.

Those would have been excellent times -- and proofs -- that the Holy Ghost is a reliable sources of knowledge. Heck, the Tanners had more inspiration about Hoffman than Hinckley did.

Hinck's Discern-o-meter, was in the shop at that time, and the Discern-o-meter technicians happeded to be on a week long marathon necro endowment jaunt.

I poised a similar question about Hinck and Hoffman several years ago on yonder Fboards. I was told that the two people who died where placed on the earth to help crack the case, essentially by being killed.

Again, the number one rule of defending Mormonism is don't mess with the right side of the equation. Find something that threatens the never-to-be-changed sum of all things Mormon? BEND IT, TWIST IT, POUND IT, deny it if need be, just do not let it throw the divinity of TSCC into question.

The simple answer it God juse does not intervene in every thing and we do not know why. Biblically speaking at least, if one believes the Bible, there is no precedence for God intervening in all cases. Course if one does not believe the Bible then this means nothing either.

Jason

[_leeirons]

Kind of like Muhammed and the Quran?
Jason

Sorry. What is like Muhammed and the Quran? Is one a prop for the other? Which one is for which?

Ya lost me.

You said if he just said and angel came and gave him the Book of Mormon and he sort of dictated it as the angel gave it, or if it was a revelation. Muhammed claimed to receive the Quran in this manner, from and angel.

Jason

Aha! Yes. Thanks. That clears it up. Sorry for not getting your point.

I do think that it is easier to focus on Joseph's message if I was not trying to distinguish between the allegations of facts that are constantly being assailed and the desire the Church has to direct people to Moroni 10:4&5.

Good point. Thanks.

You know, one could argue that by linking the Book of Mormon to plates, angels and other witnesses it makes it more authentic and believable. How easy it would have been to just say "Hey everyone!! Over the last four years and angel has been coming to me and giving me new scripture and why here is is!" It would have been a lot easier in many ways to defend, rather then having plates, a device to translate with, witnesses, scribes, lost manuscripts and so forth. Why weave such a difficult story to defend and perpetuate? Did it make it more believable?

Jason

Jason

Someone, please remind me how we substantiate the Bible?

Don't get me wrong. I believe in the Bible. However, you cannot use an argument against the Book of Mormon, and use the same argument in favor of the Bible. In both cases, "props" are the basis of the claim of translation. In both cases, "the original" source documents are no longer available to anyone. And, in both cases, even if the original source documents were available and authentic, you could always refute the truthfulness of the ancient author.

...

I posted this before I read the remainder of the discussions on this thread. If the entire basis is in question of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God, the resurrection, and eternal salvation, my response is obviously moot.

[_MormonMendacity]

Kind of like Muhammed and the Quran?
Jason

Sorry. What is like Muhammed and the Quran? Is one a prop for the other? Which one is for which?

Ya lost me.

You said if he just said and angel came and gave him the Book of Mormon and he sort of dictated it as the angel gave it, or if it was a revelation. Muhammed claimed to receive the Quran in this manner, from and angel.

Jason

Aha! Yes. Thanks. That clears it up. Sorry for not getting your point.

I do think that it is easier to focus on Joseph's message if I was not trying to distinguish between the allegations of facts that are constantly being assailed and the desire the Church has to direct people to Moroni 10:4&5.

Good point. Thanks.

You know, one could argue that by linking the Book of Mormon to plates, angels and other witnesses it makes it more authentic and believable. How easy it would have been to just say "Hey everyone!! Over the last four years and angel has been coming to me and giving me new scripture and why here is is!" It would have been a lot easier in many ways to defend, rather then having plates, a device to translate with, witnesses, scribes, lost manuscripts and so forth. Why weave such a difficult story to defend and perpetuate? Did it make it more believable?

Jason

Jason

Someone, please remind me how we substantiate the Bible?

Don't get me wrong. I believe in the Bible. However, you cannot use an argument against the Book of Mormon, and use the same argument in favor of the Bible. In both cases, "props" are the basis of the claim of translation. In both cases, "the original" source documents are no longer available to anyone. And, in both cases, even if the original source documents were available and authentic, you could always refute the truthfulness of the ancient author.

I think it's different for the Bible than the Book of Mormon. The claims for the authenticity of the biblical records is not a set of records that are translated by God's Oracle. The accuracy of the biblical history is unsubstantiated...but it only claims to be inspired writings.

The Ten Commandments would be a better comparison with the Book of Mormon, in my opinion. Moses went up into the mountain to converse with God. He was there for over a month and then returned with tablets that he claims were written by the finger of God.

I don't know, but given a month I think I could etch the ten commandments into some rocks I found on the hill...so I would doubt the whole "finger of God" allegation, even with the testimony of the No Witnesses.

[_leeirons]

What faith do you have? You believe in nothing?

Of course I believe in many things but I do not think faith is a useful thing.

Can you give me a reason to have faith and a practical application of it that I can agree with?

As to the question on the use of faith, faith allows you to take the next step in your life. Everyone uses faith every day, especially intellectuals (e.g. scientists, historians, engineers, etc.). You have to have faith to spend research dollars provided by your bread-and-butter financial sources on that next step in your research, hoping you will be fruitful and not disappoint the people with the deep pockets. When does anyone ever know that they have all of the truth on any given subject at any given time. On a more common level, didn't it take faith to get married to that person, or is this a pandora's box that I should not open? ;-)

In terms of christianity, "faith," by itself, is not enough. "Faith in Jesus Christ" is what is required. Whether or not there is an afterlife, faith in Jesus Christ empowers the individual to build a life modeled on ideal human attributes. If your desire is to have such attributes, then there should be no disappointment at the moment of death when you feel you have achieved this. Sinically, this can be considered to be the ultimate way of lying to yourself; but if you die happy, who cares. Maybe the answer to your question on the usefulness of faith in Jesus Christ is that it can help you lead a happy life.

On this note, I do believe that many (both those who are still members and those who are not) have lost their way AND ARE NOT HAPPY. There is some thinking that has crept into Church discussion through our layspeakership in sacrament meetings that faith, as a fruit of the Spirit, is demonstrated by worldly success, spiritual experiences, or position in the Church. It is not. This is a false teaching. I believe the first step to loss of belief is the loss/lack of a sense of joy. The causes of such loss/lack could be many. On this note, the message I am hearing from the conferences is not "How do you feel?" but "How do you feel when you serve?" I know I am happiest when I am doing something for someone else with altruistic intent. One could argue that he who dies with a long list of good deeds and many friends wins. If God exists, you are resurrected, and gain eternal life, that is just icing on the cake of a well-lived life.

Beyond this "guidance" from the leadership (i.e. find joy in service), everything else just makes sense (e.g. stay out of debt, live within your means, get a good education). Even people who pay tithe (or donate to a charity) have been shown statistically to become financially better-off as life proceeds.

[Most High]

I think it's different for the Bible than the Book of Mormon. The claims for the authenticity of the biblical records is not a set of records that are translated by God's Oracle. The accuracy of the biblical history is unsubstantiated...but it only claims to be inspired writings.

On the contrary... the claims of authenticity of the biblical records is a set of records that were copied/translated by people (unknown) who supposedly had God's authority to do so, using originals that were written by God's Oracles (Peter, Paul, etc., who maybe were real people and maybe were not). The Book of Mormon is a set of records that was copied/translated by one person (Joseph Smith) who supposedly had God's authority to do so using originals (the plates) that were written by God's Oracles (Nephi. Mosiah, etc., who maybe were real people and maybe were not). In both cases, the originals of the writings are no longer available, just, as you noted, is the same case as Moses' stone tablets. It still comes down to the appearance that people are just offended by the mention of the name Joseph Smith. It is easier to believe some unknown translator than to believe a known one, because the unknown one does not have a human face.

Thus, getting back to the original subject of the thread, the thing that seems to bother people the most is Joseph Smith. Prophets have always been a thorn in the side of people who would rather not have their consciences bothered by someone claiming to have moral judgement.

[_MormonMendacity]

What faith do you have? You believe in nothing?

Of course I believe in many things but I do not think faith is a useful thing.

Can you give me a reason to have faith and a practical application of it that I can agree with?

As to the question on the use of faith, faith allows you to take the next step in your life. Everyone uses faith every day, especially intellectuals (e.g. scientists, historians, engineers, etc.). You have to have faith to spend research dollars provided by your bread-and-butter financial sources on that next step in your research, hoping you will be fruitful and not disappoint the people with the deep pockets. When does anyone ever know that they have all of the truth on any given subject at any given time. On a more common level, didn't it take faith to get married to that person, or is this a pandora's box that I should not open? ;-)

In terms of christianity, "faith," by itself, is not enough. "Faith in Jesus Christ" is what is required. Whether or not there is an afterlife, faith in Jesus Christ empowers the individual to build a life modeled on ideal human attributes. If your desire is to have such attributes, then there should be no disappointment at the moment of death when you feel you have achieved this. Sinically, this can be considered to be the ultimate way of lying to yourself; but if you die happy, who cares. Maybe the answer to your question on the usefulness of faith in Jesus Christ is that it can help you lead a happy life.

On this note, I do believe that many (both those who are still members and those who are not) have lost their way AND ARE NOT HAPPY. There is some thinking that has crept into Church discussion through our layspeakership in sacrament meetings that faith, as a fruit of the Spirit, is demonstrated by worldly success, spiritual experiences, or position in the Church. It is not. This is a false teaching. I believe the first step to loss of belief is the loss/lack of a sense of joy. The causes of such loss/lack could be many. On this note, the message I am hearing from the conferences is not "How do you feel?" but "How do you feel when you serve?" I know I am happiest when I am doing something for someone else with altruistic intent. One could argue that he who dies with a long list of good deeds and many friends wins. If God exists, you are resurrected, and gain eternal life, that is just icing on the cake of a well-lived life.

Beyond this "guidance" from the leadership (i.e. find joy in service), everything else just makes sense (e.g. stay out of debt, live within your means, get a good education). Even people who pay tithe (or donate to a charity) have been shown statistically to become financially better-off as life proceeds.

See, I think you take the religous tack that all humans exercise faith. You and I part ways on your definition when you do that, lee.

Whenever religious people imply that daily activities require the use of faith I think they complicate a useful understanding of the meaning. I think faith should only apply to religious thoughts and distinguish them from what we do in a practical sense.

One could assert that it takes faith to go to the faucet for a drink of water. You never know if there will be water...you act on faith. That's simply not true. I act on the combined experiences I have with the water faucet. If it quit giving me water for a period of time I'd go elsewhere. Faith is not involved: experience is.

When a scientist proceeds with scientific research it's because he's testing the viability of theories not showing faith.

As I said, I think wrapping up all activities in a religious word confuses and complicates understanding.