Maxel

KoalaBear- Did you read the article I linked? What do you think of it? science4Life- Same question. Also, it is of note that some of the current leading members of our church were scientists by profession before being called to lead the church. Some prominent examples: Russell M. Nelson- Earned his M.D. in 1947; was a member of the team that created the first machine that could take the place of 'the functions of a patient's heart and lungs, while the patient was undergoing heart surgery.' Richard G. Scott- '[G]raduated from George Washington University as a mechanical engineer and thereafter completed postgraduate work in nuclear engineering at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.' Other apostles are trained businessmen (such as Robert D. Hales, L. Tom Perry, David A. Bednar, Thomas S. Monson, and others) or lawmen (such as Dallin H. Oaks, who served in the Utah Supreme Court for a time). The reason I point this out, is that the men who faithfully lead our church and believe in it with all their hearts are not professional theologians, but men trained in the sciences and arts of the world. Many of these men received honors for outstanding work in their sundry fields; Holland attended Yale for his doctorate work. This is not a religion run by deluded men living in a purely theological world- this is a religion led by truly learned men. I mention this because I believe it has a direct bearing on the Book of Mormon. Their belief in the Book of Mormon is not based in accidental ignorance or purposeful delusion, but through a mixture of seeing the truths- mainly spiritual, some historical- the Book of Mormon actually contains. In the minds of these trained, scientific men they are able to make peace with the fact there's no magical neon sign saying 'GOD AUTHORED THIS BOOK', or 'THIS IS GOD'S CHOSEN CHURCH'. Truth, as is beauty, is to be found in the eye of the beholder, and one who has beheld cannot convince another of the truth unless the latter follows the same procedures as the former to ascertain said truth. I promise you, you will not find a satisfactory answer- yay or nay- on this issue unless you approach God, whether you believe He exists or not, and ask Him directly. Of course, you must know what exactly you're asking Him, so you must have at least read significant portions of the Book of Mormon first and pondered it in your mind. It is through this way, and this way only, that one can find out the truth. If no God exists, an answer will not be received. If He does...

What do you get when you play the Mormon Tabernacle Choir backwards? 1000 different recipes for salads/non-alcoholic beverages.

What would you regard as proof? A magical neon sign saying 'Authored by God'?Seriously, though; how do you intend to approach the subject? Do you plan to use the doctrine in the Book of Mormon as the groundwork for a grand philosophical theory that accurately explains the existence and origins of the cosmos? Or, do you intend to see if the events contained therein are historical and concurrent with modern theories of history? Or, do you have some other method in mind? Speaking from a 100% scientific standpoint, there is no technical, objective, extrinsic 'proof' on whether the Book of Mormon is of God or not. However, there are tons of examples and evidences pointing us towards the right conclusion. For starters, I direct you to Jeff Lindsay's web page of evidences for the divine origins of the Book of Mormon.

Well, you've come to the right place. Welcome!

Welcome! "Buongiorno" How do you pronounce that?

My mom always kept a 6-pack of beer in the house, and when she was getting really, really fancy she'd wash her hair in one of the bottles of it. It was always humorous when an LDS guest stumbled across it and she had to explain that beer's actually really good as a cleansing agent.

I echo applepansy's advice, and add a little bit of my own. Don't just start with prayer: inject heartfelt prayer throughout the course of preparation. You don't have to stop every other minute and fold your arms and pray, but keep a running prayer through your heart while researching and preparing. Doing so will help keep your conduit to the Holy Ghost open and keep your heart receptive to inspiration. Good luck! I'm rooting for you.

Okay, so I FINALLY got around to watching it (thanks again for linking it, PC!). I laughed when Robert Millet talked about his father telling Millet that 'we don't believe in being saved by Grace... because the Baptists do'. I didn't laugh because of the supposed ignorance of Millet's father, but because said ignorance mirrored my own until I actually began to honestly look at Mormon-Evangelical relationships. That was a clear example of attributing erroneous beliefs on the other faith and misunderstanding terms and theological concepts. I like Johnson's citing of John Stackhouse: "Winning an argument is not as important as winning a friendship." I think that's true. I really enjoyed watching this- thank you, PC! I like looking at examples like this, pairings of Evangelical/Mormon friendships among learned, faithful members of both religions that strive to find common ground with one another. Like Robinson/Blomberg, I'm hoping Millet and Johnson write some sort of book about Mormon/Evangelical relationships- either on social or theological grounds.

After researching and learning about these 'contradictions' in the past, I long ago came to the conclusion that there are really no contradictions, and all seemingly contradictory areas between the BoM and the Bible ultimately prove as witnesses of the truth of the BoM instead of the falsity of it. I think there's a reason most secular scholars haven't touched the BoM yet- it's full of historical truth, yet its origins lead one to accept one of two possibilities: it was inspired of God, or it wasn't. If it wasn't, how is there so much accuracy in it?

In Matthew chapter 29 verse 8 we find the following: 8 And the Lord appeared, and said: 'Verily I say unto you, that thou shalt not eat of the flesh of dogs, for such are given as companions of man.' It's a religious thing for me not to eat dogs. *Sings 'That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!'*

Regarding the nature of original sin, and being born in sin: Original sin: Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the "original sin." In other words, we are not accountable for Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden. Original Sin - LDS.org Even though all men die in that they are afflicted by spiritual and physical death because of Adam's transgression, we are not culpable for said transgression, as it was not us who committed that transgression. Infant Baptism: From latter-day revelation, we know that little children are redeemed through the mercy of Jesus Christ. The Lord said, "They cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me" Baptism - LDS.org; under 'Additional Information' Little children, because of their innocent and pure nature, are alive in Christ. Though they may behave badly, it is through ignorance and not willful rebellion against God. Sin requires knowledge of what is right before committing a wrong act; transgression is done through ignorance of consequences and done in innocence. Remember the Lord's words to His apostles:

This seems to be descending into a mud-flinging contest... It would be more fair if we all admitted that we do not (indeed, cannot) read the Bible solely in a sense of 'strict interpretation', as the very idea of interpretation is to use one's prior knowledge and assumptions to process new data and reach an outcome based on said data. I've come to the conclusion that traditional Christians base their prior knowledge and assumptions in traditional Christianity (which is in turn based on the Creeds), and Mormons base their prior knowledge and assumptions in the ideas of continuing revelation and living Priesthood authority. The idea of a 'strict interpretation' is somewhat perplexing; one can strictly adhere to a previous interpretation, or one can strictly adhere to an interpretation of a certain type (literal, metaphorical, etc.), but one cannot have just a 'strict interpretation' of anything. Until such (or similar) grounds are reached, any discussion about what the Bible 'really' teaches will be one giant exercise in talking past each other, which inevitably ends in a contentious war of words. So, I ask you LittleNipper, where do you get your prior assumptions from? Do you hold to the traditional Creeds, another philosophy, do you attempt to reinterpret the Bible according to your own knowledge and power, or do you draw prior assumptions and knowledge from another source? Out of fairness, I ask you the same thing, Islander, although I think I already know the answer; we're both Mormon after all and we seem to agree that our prior assumptions come from the established doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which includes continuing revelation, etc. I don't pretend to speak for you, however, and open the floor to you and LittleNipper.

The-me-I-want-to-be: Spiritual, Strong, Charitable, Wise, Compassionate The-me-I-think-I-am: Spiritual, Artistic, Empathetic, Smart, Kind

First of all, I'd like to apologize to everyone involved if my remarks seemed aimed at any one person, which they were most definitely not. I have taken greater time to explain them here. I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but I feel MoE made a good point and wanted to address it. I thought it would be inappropriate to post again without addressing the preceding issue of contention, at least briefly. I particularly apologize to Janice and Wingnut, as an inadequate expression of my opinion led the former to mistakenly attribute my comments to the latter. I am seriously upset that I helped cause so much pain. I had never made that connection before- thanks, MoE.

Thank you sooo much, this is EXACTLY what I was looking for!

Good point. I particularly enjoyed the author's (of the article) comment about 'infusions of light' that we get through prayer, scripture study, blessings, etc. Yeah... I sometimes wonder if my own chronic depression is a result, in some magnitude, of some sort of demonic influence. I fully realize the physical causes, but I can't help think that it would make me (and others like me) particularly susceptible to a certain breed of demonic influence. I really enjoyed this, rameumptom. Thank you for sharing- the physical example of where the Spirit of God and Satan might attack our thoughts really got me thinking.

I can't speak for Justice, but I can weigh in on my opinion of the subject. To me, 'infinite' and 'eternal' are synonymous but not always containing the same nuances- that is, sometimes 'eternal' is speaking of an infinite duration of time, and sometimes 'infinite' is referring to an infinite quantity (or quality) of something, but not an endless duration of time.In this case, I see 'infinite' as meaning just that- in-finite, or not finite (or measurable). That is to say, the pain that Christ bore while fulfilling the requirements of the Atonement are immeasurable to finite beings, but measurable to Him and His Father- that is, that pain had an end, although we cannot comprehend the sheer amount of suffering He endured before that end was reached. Otherwise, Christ could not have declared 'it is finished' before 'giving up the ghost' at His crucifixion. To my knowledge, a belief like I have just stated is in line with what the LDS church 'at large' believes; though I do not claim to know 100%.

There's a core difference between the normal physical feelings of indigestion, etc. and the type of 'burning in the bosom' that comes as a witness from the Holy Ghost. The fact that there are evil spirits does not excuse us of finding the correct spirit and following it- however said spirit would manifest itself.

A response to your earlier question in another thread. Not a bad question. The answer lies in the nature of the changes, and what Joseph Smith really said when the BoM was the 'most correct of any book on earth'.His full quote reads “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (BM Publication History). He was obviously not speaking about typographical or grammatical perfection, but about the doctrine found therein being the 'most perfect' of any book on the Earth- including the Bible. To better understand the statement 'most perfect', it is important to note that the Book of Mormon is seen to include the fullness of the Gospel of Christ that the Bible has lost either through mistranslation or misinterpretation throughout the centuries (more information here). Most of the changes were typographical and grammatical in nature, and none of them influenced the doctrine found therein. I am immensely curious; what's your sources for these claims? You don't have to link it (in fact, please don't if it's an anti-Mormon website) but I am curious, as all these claims are ones advanced by anti-Mormons who don't realize these issues have been addressed- years and years ago. EDIT: I fear you have to be frequenting anti-Mormon websites to find all these arguments- that, or you're an accomplished Book of Mormon and biblical scholar. If the former is true, please be aware that those websites don't care about accuracy or fairness at all. Many arguments they level against Mormonism and the Book of Mormon have also been leveled against the Bible itself, and no one in the scholarly community has reached a true consensus.

See your new thread for the answer, Dymmesdale.

Thank you, Connie. I can explain fuller here a post I made elsewhere that I now sorely regret posting because it was a gateway to contention, when it was simply not meant to be. I posted elsewhere that I sometimes see Mormons advocating 'blind obedience'; a 'following without questioning'. I must state emphatically here, echoing Connie, that the two are not the same- in fact, in some cases they are dichotomous of each other. Following without questioning only becomes blind obedience when we refuse to go to the Lord with questions and feelings and put our trust in our Church leaders on the false notion of them being infallible, which they are not. Following without questioning becomes true faith when we go to the Lord with our questions (if we have any) and say 'thy will be done'. My comment was to reflect on the occasional lack of interest in some of the LDS community (and no, I can't name anyone from these forums who I have seen do this) to go to the Lord to receive knowledge from Him about commandments. I have found, in my life, the best pattern for receiving knowledge goes like this: Receive commandment --> Follow commandment as faithfully as possible --> Ask the Lord 'why', that I may understand His will concerning my life more fully --> Study, Ponder, and Pray --> Receive revelation concerning the nature of the commandment --> Follow the commandment more perfectly than I could before. An example of 'blind faith', as I meant it, would flow like this: Receive commandment --> Follow it because the prophet said so, and only because the prophet said so, not taking the time to ponder it or understand it. Blind faith is not built on testimony or communion with God, but on trust in man, albeit a godly, inspired man. If we trust the prophets without realizing our ability to trust them comes from the fact that they are inspired of the Lord and wear the prophetic mantle; if we trust them because they are merely the leader of the Church; then we have no root of our own and when temptation comes, we wither in the sun. Oftentimes we must throw up our hands and say 'thy will be done' because we simply do not know the answers, or we acknowledge that we are reticent in following them. In the case of true faith, this happens very often. I hope that helps clear up the situation.

There are many Jewish faithful who adamantly oppose the idea that the Old and New Testaments don't contradict each other. It is the interpretation of the scriptures where we find 'contradictions' between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Those interpretations are often influenced by the faith we adhere to. As for your most recent example- about Christ being born in Jerusalem- I refer you here. Trying to 'prove' the BoM and the Bible contradict each other to Latter-day Saints just leads to argument- I flatly reject the idea that they do contradict each other. Your example of biblical terms not being found in the Book of Mormon is absurd- there are many symbols and ideas expressed in the Old Testament not found in the New Testament; are we to reject the latter for that reason? No; we are to accept the latter because of its divine origin, and the fact it is scripture.

Aaaah, ok. My mistake. And, my apologies.

Good luck in your quest for knowledge, Alliecat! If you have any other questions about the Mormon church, feel free to PM me. I promise I don't try to convert. In these situations, I live by the phrase 'Just the facts, ma'am'.

Wow, Dr T, I've never seen you so condescending before, and this use of a straw man is the first time I've seen you employ the tactic. Of course I may be wrong, but I didn't see any invitation for debate about doctrine on this thread. I wouldn't go into a thread started by someone looking for information on the Muslim faith, or traditional Christianity and start claiming their doctrine and practices were false- please show us (and Allie) the same courtesy.A treatment of the Word of Wisdom is given in the link I cited; and I think her purpose here is to learn about the Church's stance and not debate about its truth. I may be wrong on that too, and if I am I apologize, Alliecat.