The Folk Prophet

Per the original question: Matt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

By inverse implication, the body would have to raise out of the grave and zombie around a bit if the spirit were not joined beforehand. I know there are some details of how it will work that are entirely traditional speculation. I'm not sure on the standing over the grave and calling "come forth", etc... We really don't have that information.

Since when do we need to understand why God chooses to do things the way He does? Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Haven't read through the whole post...so if this has been said...sorry... The scriptures seem pretty clear that we will take up our bodies again, that it is a reuniting of body and spirit, etc... We are taught that the graves opened and bodies came forth, and thus will the resurrection be. Moreover, the church has long held a variety of traditions and practices that very clearly respect the idea that the body we die with will be taken up again. I dunno. Seems to me that whoever gave you the idea that we are done with our bodies upon death may not have been very well versed in these things...respectfully...bless their hearts. :)

I dunno. Smacks a bit too much to me of pre-destination. Maybe that's not what you're getting at. Either way it behooves us to do all within our power to find our mate in this life. If we do that, we can trust that it will work out on the other side. If we do not, I'm not so sure. Not making effort makes us accountable.

You do not know of what you speak.

"...if sufficiently many interrogators are unable to distinguish the computer from the human being then it is to be concluded that the computer thinks." Interesting logic.

Last time this question was asked I was quite upfront in my response. And then I got lambasted for it (by fellow Mormons nonetheless). The liberal, p.c., how-dare-you, don't-offend-anyone, tolerance-is-the-most-important-virtue world we live in has curtailed a lot of ability to communicate openly and clearly concerning these things. But the plain and upfront answers are: Yes. Yes. We have no idea. Yes.

By implication (and I think this has been mentioned by others) you're saying that one can be righteous and have the right relationship with God and yet at the same time not prioritize marriage or obey His will in these things. They are not mutually exclusive. One's righteousness and relationship with God is the determining factor. And marriage is a key part of that.

This thread make me.. Obviously, we should immediately update the lyrics to be, "Moderate respect to the humanoid that communed with Jehovah." Ah political correctness...how I love thee. Let me count the ways...

Problematic does not necessarily mean catastrophic. It could be catastrophic. It is definitely problematic.

Tablets, like most things, can be wonderful tools or nasty vices. Help kids use them as tools and they're awesome. Let kids use them as vices and they aren't. Plus, since when does use of a tablet mean the exclusion of other things. What kind of parent is going to let their kid sit all day on a tablet and never teach them to...I dunno...clean...do dishes...cook...fix things...read and write...etc., etc., etc... Just because tablets exist doesn't mean we can't teach our kids other skills. These studies mentioned are not meaningful if we actually bother to raise our children. Let the TV and the computer, and now the tablets raise them, and yeah...they're gonna turn out like they were raised by TV, computers, and tablets.

It's so very petty to presume that we know what will make us happiest. Maybe trust in God is a better choice than, "I don't like such-n-such so if I have to have/do that then...forget it" sorts of attitudes.

Why is this thread giving me major deja vu?

It's not shaming to imply that one needs to gain a testimony by the Holy Ghost and that joining the church without doing so is problematic. If one doesn't have a testimony by this means, one needs to go and get one by this means. And if one does not have a testimony by this means, then one's belief is, indeed, on rocky ground as compared to one who has a testimony by this means.

That's like saying to believe the teachings in Exodus one would have to have more faith in Moses than in God. Your logic is truly baffling.

I remember as a kid my mom telling me that anything with "-ism" on the end of it was a bad thing. Maybe that's key.

Jungler, Faith in God. That is what counts. Faith in other things, is by, through, and for God. The fact that I have faith that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that the Book of Mormon is true is directly according to my faith in God...that Joseph Smith was His prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is His word. My faith in the Bible is, likewise, dependent of God. All faith is in God. And God stands revealed, or we cannot know Him. If you have faith that the Book of Mormon is false, then you simply do not have faith in God's word. That's not a crime. You can't have faith in it without it being revealed to you. But it is factual nonetheless. You would say the same to someone who did not believe the Bible was the word of God. The difference being that you simply choose to believe the Bible, whereas I have the Bible and the Book of Mormon revealed to me as truth. How can you exercise faith in anything without God revealing it to you first? Your faith is meaningless if it's willy-nilly. We can throw faith at anything. Have faith in the Great Toad of Eastbrook. Or, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That was popular amongst the anti-God crowd for a while, right? Why have faith in any of these things though? Including God? Once more, I have to ask you, wherein do you have faith in the Bible if it has not been revealed to you as the word of God? Without revelation, your faith is as meaningless as someone having faith they'll win the lottery someday or that there Area 51 exists. Or that there actually is a flying ball of spaghetti out there. It's all fine and dandy to have random faith. But without revelation, it doesn't amount to much. Why are you okay making a leap of faith in the Bible? Just because others have? Peer pressure is it? You say you're okay in that. I ask Why? Why are you okay taking a leap of faith in God? How do you know God even exists? Without revelation you cannot. So why are you wiling? Just on the off chance that your random coin toss may land where you've staked your claim? You can repeat it again and again that the test of prayer (meaning revelation, for what else is it that we pray for if it is not revelation?) is absent from the Bible. I deny that. But even if we accepted your extremely limited, skewered logic approach and acquiesced, it still does not matter, for as I have said as well, we believe the Bible to be the word of God only as it has been translated correctly, and we believe that many great and precious things have been removed from it. I'm afraid you are not going to gain much traction convincing us by using the Bible as your proof text. It's hard to get around our view in that regard. Even if you could point to a specific passage that said, "You should not pray to test if someone's words are of God" then we'd still claim it a mistranslation, purposeful corruption, or otherwise, and we would still hold to our view. Moreover, and this is even harder to get around. I have received direct revelation from God on the matter. I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God because God told me so through the Holy Spirit. So I don't much care what Bible text you think proves it wrong, or for your, "it's not in the Bible so it must be false" theory. I know better, and you can't get around that. Whereas you do not believe in revelation as a proof concept, you are missing this aspect of understanding, and therefore your opinion on it holds no sway. At least if you could say you got revelation from God that the Book of Mormon was false you'd have a leg to stand on that was toe-to-toe in principal. That would, at least, put us at an honest impasse. As it is, the impasse is merely your unwillingness to look past your biased interpretation of things, in spite of the fact that you have no concrete reasons to hold the view you do. You read some books based on some man's reasoning that directly contradict other men's reasoning, and you've randomly thrown your part in with one ideology and now claim it infallible. I'm sorry...that ain't gonna stand up against my direct revelation card buddy. ___ James 1:5 is a meat passage! No question. Full on meat of the gospel. Important. Key. Critical. As per my prior explanation, it is given so by modern prophets and apostles, not the least of which was Joseph Smith himself, who was inspired by it to seek revelation in the first place, which led to the entire restoration of the gospel in these latter-days. So, yeah. Meat -- per the LDS view. ___ I don't know that you should expect a yes answer. I do know that you should, without doubt, expect an answer. For God has promised us, (even Biblically) that He will not leave us hanging when we seek for answers. ___ No one has ever, nor would we ever, ask you to doubt your faith in God or the Bible. We have faith in God and the Bible. Why would we be persuading you to doubt that. Now your specific view of all the meanings and translations of the words therein? Yeah, that I'd ask you to question -- clearly...as I view and translate them differently -- mine based on revelation and the words and teaching of prophets (who I know are prophets because it has been revealed to me that they are). Therein is where I get my faith. It is not a guess. It's not based solely on what I was taught, what my friends and family believed, on some book(s) I read, or on any man. It is from God. It is revealed to me directly through the power of the Holy Spirit. ____ Substantial, objective, empirical evidence that Jesus came back to life? I don't think so. You are clearly biased, and clearly basing your beliefs on the bias of others. I, on the other hand, though perhaps seemingly as biased, at least can claim that my evidence is securely from God himself, and not just from some scholar doing backbends to support an un-provable thesis.

Jungler, you can't prove anything by absence. Absence of something does not prove it. Clearly, and very obviously, not every teaching ever given by every apostle and even by the Savior Himself was recorded. We simply don't have a day to day record of everything they ever said. Moreover, as indicated, the LDS stance is very firm that there are missing teachings and doctrines from the Bible. So your saying, repeatedly, that something or another is not in the Bible doesn't hold much sway. We agree. It's not all in the Bible. Where we disagree is in your thinking that the Bible was maintained with all the core, important doctrines that God intended us to have. We also disagree on how God preserves His word and the meaning of those passages in the Bible. The Book of Mormon is, in our view, an answer to how God does just that. Apparently, it's according to Protestant interpretation. :) How do we know what's milk and meat according to LDS teachings. By the words of supporting witnesses, both in the form of additional scripture and living prophets and apostles. Why would you not expect an answer when you pray? I'm not sure how it's unclear. "...and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Does this not imply that we should expect a specific response from the Holy Ghost? By weeding and watering I am only making an analogy. Specifically, humility and sincerity. Remembering God's mercy. Trusting Him implicitly. Letting go of ourselves, our own wills, our own biases and perceptions and giving ourselves entirely over to Him and His will and His guidance, with absolute intent that we will follow what we are given. I started with this, but absence of something proves nothing. The fact that prayer as a test was not specifically mentioned in these instances doesn't prove it a false concept. The entire comparison to other doctrines model makes no logical sense at all. Talk about a weak test. You'll know this is true because it matches this other thing. But what about this other thing? How do you know it's true? Oh...it matches the first. Circular logic anyone? Without a source validation, I'm afraid, I can't even accept the Bible, not to mention the Book of Mormon. Just because some guy who claimed to be a prophet said something and then some other guy believed him and so he said the same thing...sorry, that is not proof. I don't disagree with the idea entirely. The doctrines must support Christ. If they don't, they are anti-Christ. But even the knowledge that Christ is Christ needs to come from something more substantial than that some book written thousands of years ago says so, and then it was parroted by others again and again. A bunch of people saying something does not render truth. Not in the least. Without prayer, how can I know the Bible is true? Pretend I'm a Muslim or Hindu. How are you going to convince me that the Bible isn't a bunch of made up stories without prayer? I'm curious how you think you could possibly do this. Ah...yes...assumption. That's a valid test of truth. You've read books showing, reliably, that Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, raised people from the dead, and was resurrected Himself? What reliable evidence did they give for these facts? Moreover, what evidence did they have that proved what He taught was true. Reliable evidence that a man existed doesn't prove his words true. There's plenty of reliable evidence that Joseph Smith lived. Does that make the teaching in the Doctrine and Covenants true? There's evidence Muhammad lived too. Does that make the Qur'an, true? How many books have you read on the foolishness of the Bible? You know it has talking donkeys, right? Oh...wait...you've seen how God worked in your life. Wait a minute...isn't that the Alma 32 experiment at play?

One other point on the Alma 32 experiment in general. It was not an experiment given to test the validity of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon didn't exist. It was a general experiment given to validate the word of God. This includes, most definately, the Bible. So I have to ask you Jungler. How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? Seriously. By what means are you positive that the Bible is true and not made up, rambling philosophies of men? Did you not experiment upon it? Did you not feel the fruit of it grow within you? Were you able to assess, therefore, that the word was good, and should not be cast aside, but nourished? And as you nourished it, were you not then able to partake of the fruit and know of it's goodness, and thereby declare, "This is God's word"?

Since when? I defy you to prove that Christ and the NT authors believed they had "complete and accurate" scriptures. Apparently you are unaware that we also believe that there are, very much alive today, those who are part of the twelve tribes. But that is irrelevant. We read the scriptures to liken them unto ourselves. The message is for our day as much as it was for those the messages were directly given to. If not so, then what's the point in even having them. None of them were literally written to me. So I can simply disregard all therein? No. Of course not. the messages are universal. First of all, God never ignores our prayers. I'm quite positive He did not ignore yours either. Now whether we hear His answer or not...that's an entirely different matter. I am telling you what I believe about my experience and about the promises of God. The idea behind the experiment has been thoroughly discussed. It's very plain. You can't plant tomatoes and expect to harvest pumpkins. If you don't water the garden, it doesn't grow. If you don't weed it the weeds choke the fruit. It's not even an experiment. It's just reality. If you don't do what you need to to reap the fruit of the spirit then you won't reap the fruit of the spirit. Because your garden didn't produce the fruit you were expecting your blaming the garden. We're simply saying you did something wrong then. Try again. This time, weed the garden better. Don't forget to water it. And don't plant tomatoes if you want pumpkins. The idea that your garden didn't render any fruit is no evidence whatsoever. Whether you view Mormon ideology as prideful or not is irrelevant. It is also not persuasive. But this is not the position of the LDS church (or mine). There are, certainly, sincere people outside the LDS church. Sincerity is not the entire equation, however. Moreover, God's interaction with each of us is individual. He works with us according to our needs, not according to our mortal views of things. Some get answers easier than others. I don't know why. God does. I trust in Him. I also know that if you continue to seek to know if the Book of Mormon is true or not, eventually you'll know that it is. God will answer you. He has promised He will and He will. But for some it takes a greater trial of faith. That fact does not render the experiment false. And when you receive the answer, if you continue to seek for it, you'll know I'm right. Hmm...I wasn't aware I was being challenged to explain my interpretations of other verses. You asked for supporting Biblical scriptures concerning praying for answers to test scripture. I (and others) gave you James 1:5 as one of those. But...okay... 1 John 4:1-3 I agree. Any spirit that confesses not Jesus Christ is anti-Christ. How is this relevant to praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true? Gal 1:8 Clearly we have a fundamental difference as to our ideas of what gospel is being taught that is contrary to what was being preached. Acts 3:15 Um..."And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from thedead; whereof we are witnesses." ???

Anyone who believes the church discourages intellectual thought is an unthinking half-wit. Study by learning and also by faith is a core tenet of the church.

Yep. It must surely be that all Mormons just lack faith. Yeah. That's it. If I agreed with this interpretation I wouldn't be a Mormon. Of course we can't agree on that. I very much believe that the "you" can be applied to everyone on earth, and find it ridiculous that anyone would argue otherwise. Sorry Jungler, but I don't believe for a second that you've taken the steps of humility and sincerity in asking to truly test these things. Your claims that you have are insubstantial. Your very stance shows resistance, pride, bitterness, and antagonism concerning the matter. It will not be useful to debate this matter, obviously, since personal experience is subjective to the individual, but your claim that you've tested it and that proves the test false holds no weight whatsoever. This is not a sociological experiment. It doesn't matter how many others claim any given thing. Other's perception and experience is irrelevant. Each of our journeys with God is between us and Him. If you don't agree that this method is valid, the be off and go on with your view. Stop trying to convince those of us that know what we've experienced that it is invalid. It is rude. It is offensive. And it is a waste of time. God giveth to all men liberally as they humble themselves and truly seek him. I know that is true. If you continue to truly seek Him and are honest in your heart with Him, He will lead you to the same place He has led me. If you don't believe that, fine. You have that right. Enjoy it. But please stop attacking and criticizing the beliefs of those of us who do find it valid.

To qualify James this way is silly. If any of you lack wisdom...who giveth to all men liberally... You're translation of "unless you're seeking wisdom concerning the truthfulness of scripture or false prophets. In that case don't ask God" is honestly baffling. What, exactly, do you think seeking wisdom means? Seriously, your logic is pretty twisted and biased here.

If you know much about LDS teachings on the the great apostasy, then you know what we think it more reasonable.