clbent04

To clarify, in regards to uniquely containing the fullness of gospel, the Book of Mormon contains little essential doctrine. Doctrinally dense? Yes. But it contains little essential doctrine that we don't already have available elsewhere

I've long had my doubts concerning the usual interpretation of Joseph's observation, The Book of Mormon as the keystone of our religion-- meaning, the keystone is the most important stone in the arch; take it away, and the whole arch crumbles. What would happen if the BOM was taken away? Would we no longer have the fullness of the gospel? Would everything crumble? No, we would still have the Bible. The Bible also contains the fullness of the gospel in and of itself. We would still have the Priesthood, prophets, apostles, revelation.... I've made a study of arches. Not studied the subject like a construction engineer, but just like a dilettante. Turns out, just as I suspected, construction-wise, or engineering-wise, the keystone is NOT the most important stone in the arch. Take away ANY stone in the arch and it will collapse just as surely and just as quickly as if the keystone had been removed. But the mythology of the keystone illustrates a point, even if the physics doesn't support it. Nevertheless, I've come up with a novel interpretation-- perhaps not exactly what Joseph intended, but who knows. The Roman arch-- or actually the Etruscan arch, as the Romans got the arch (and almost everything else quintessentially Roman) from the Etruscans-- as I say, the keystone in the Etruscan arch was usually decorated with a statue of the face of the city's protective god, to ward off evil, plague, famine etc and protect from attack. Many Roman keystones were similarly adorned-- a practice extending right up into the Middle Ages and occasionally into the present. This is a novel way of thinking about Joseph's observation. The Book of Mormon is imprinted with the face of Christ, and reading it protects the reader spiritually. I like this. BTW, The Book of Mormon was translated mostly in the State of Pennsylvania-- which is nicknamed, by curious coincidence, the Keystone State. But truly I think the keystone function of the Book of Mormon is that it ties together the JS story, the angel Moroni, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and the legitimacy of Joseph's authority and angelic encounters. Little essential doctrine is in the Book of Mormon. It’s a link in the restoration narrative. At least that's how I see it and JS's comment

That’s why happens when you summon the Shanaynay!

Did someone say Shanaynay?

Unfortunately, no answer. This is probably my biggest hang up with Mormon theology. I just don’t get it. This question bothered me even thinking about it last week. I found some consolation knowing how infinitely powerful Jesus Christ was while here in his mortal existence. He healed a man on Earth from afar saying to the Centurion that brought message of his sick servant that the man would be healed according to the Centurion’s faith (Luke 7:1-10). I have never seen such great faith Jesus said as he was able to remotely cure the man. So why would physical proximity have anything to do with the Savior’s reach when we have this example? I don’t want to go down this rabbit hole anymore since it’s just negative for my simple understanding, but who’s to say we didn’t luck out with being THE ONE AND ONLY world where Jesus Christ spent his mortal existence? Seems very far fetched to me. But I just have to accept it. To me it makes the most sense to just accept it even though I don’t understand it. I have to accept I don’t know all the mysteries of God because I could never deny the truths of the gospel I DO KNOW. I think that even though Christ only had a mortal experience on this Earth, surely He would have made meaningful visitations on all other Earths. I just better stop writing now cause like I said, this is a rough one for me too. For every assumption I make, I end up countering myself with additional doubts I didn’t have before. Just accept this one, brother. Cling to what you do know is true, and let the Lord fill in the rest over time.

@Blossom76 When I was a kid growing up in the Church, I accepted it to be true simply because I had a good feeling when I was there. That was enough for me at the time. As I got older and more interested in religion, I realized having good feelings within a given church isn’t enough to confirm it is the one and only true church if such a church exists. Good feelings exist in pretty much every church setting. I studied more about Jospeh Smith, the cycles of restoration and apostasy, the plan of salvation, and everything seemed to fit together like a nice, neat little puzzle. I thought it made sense logically. Plus, Mormon apologetics have answers for everything that doesn’t make sense at face value (polygamy, blacks and the Priesthood, coffee and tea). So I read the apologetics answers and thought everything made logical sense. All the more reason to accept Mormonism. But then another realization came. The Mormon church isn’t the only church to have apologetics. Most churches have scholarly members who can equally defend their church’s history and beliefs. So even though my testimony in the church started with good feelings and logic, I knew I needed something more to sustain my faith. I needed true conversion. I needed to receive irrefutable, God-given knowledge— knowledge that impresses itself so deeply upon me, I could never in good conscious refute the truth of it. I believe that’s the kind of knowledge we are meant to obtain as faithful members in the Church. I believe it’s possible to obtain that kind of knowledge in every aspect of the LDS gospel. It’s okay if we start with good feelings and logic. That’s where I’m currently at with accepting the BOM and Joseph Smith. We have to start somewhere. God tells us to study it out in our minds. But our advancement towards true conversion requires true witness being borne to us by the Holy Spirit. We can all get there with the basic gospel truths that have been laid out there before us. And I can stop despairing over the fact I haven’t gotten there just quite yet.

But I’ve only developed that knee-jerk reaction after having seemingly prayed with real intent multiple times over the years with no memorable result. That’s why I said earlier that I don’t want to keep putting forth the same effort to only arrive at the same disappointing result. I want to find out how much more I need to push myself to find those answers I’ve been looking for. Was I close to it before? Within arm’s reach? Did I need to fast for one more day? Pray an hour longer? I really thought I prayed with real intent, but apparently I didn’t. How can I be lying to myself that I didn’t pray with real intent when I feel like I did? What did I not give to the Lord that prevented the Holy Spirit from communicating with me?

I realized that my view of the BOM and Joseph Smith is so skeptical right now, that continuing to focus on these sore spots is not in my best interest under my current perspective. I want to continue hearing about others’ experiences with things like discovering the BOM to be true, but I need to dial down my skepticism. The faith of others won’t build me up when my own lackluster experience with the BOM is preventing me from having an open mind. So to put it more accurately, I realized my past perspective of the BOM and Joseph Smith needs to be changed for me to engage in healthy questioning. The answer that came to mind is that having faith is more important than getting every question answered the way I want it to be answered, and that the Holy Spirit will work within me if I allow it to

@NeuroTypical @Carborendum @Traveler @wenglund @Anddenex After reading your experiences, I suppose most members don’t have single, miraculous, AH-HA! moments when it comes to dicovering the truths of the gospel. I figured the majority of seasoned members would have more miraculous-type answers as to how they discovered the truths of the gospel. I know it’s a pretty small sample here with who has responded to this question, but it’s similar to most of the testimonies I’ve in Church over the years. No spiritual blockbuster or cinematic moments happening left and right with members in the church discovering gospel truths. Discovering gospel truths seems to largely be a slow and gradual process that involves worthy living and dedicated, prayerful study. I’ve questioned the process of obtaining answers from prayer for some time. A very long time! Some of my past questions included: How do positive feelings from prayer validate an answer being true? How positive do the feelings have to be to validate a truth? Do most members just keep praying over and over again until they essentially talk themselves into having a tesimony? I know I’ve been guilty of that in the past! How solid are most testimonies in the Church? Do most people base their religious decisions in this life on faith alone rather than first receiving solid spiritual confirmations of what they believe? And so on and so on. After pondering some of the responses I’ve received and thinking about in what areas my testimony remains deficient, I concluded that I’ve crossed the line of what I consider to be healthy questioning. The questions I posed are perfectly acceptable to be asked by others, but I’m seeing how my continual questioning is inhibiting my faith from growing further especially considering the spiritual experiences I’ve already had. I had such a miraculous experience when it came to discovering the power of the Priesthood that I figured I needed to have equally miraculous experiences discovering the other truths of the gospel. But not so. I don’t need miraculous answers for everything. I’m blessed to have to received the few miraculous experiences I did receive. I can start slow and steady with the basics to fill in the gaps of my testimony.

I first was skeptical of this advice, but when I clicked the link and realized Elder Packer wrote it, I took it more seriously. I tried this the other day and prayed the first meaningful prayer I've had in a while. I felt like I could testify in prayer the BOM was true and Joseph Smith was a prophet of God given the fact I've had so many rich and wonderful spiritually experiences in the church. It was a positive prayer that left me with a sense of calmness and confidence in church.

Great observation. That jives with some of my own experiences with the Holy Spirit within the Church

Now that I'm going back to church, one of my goals this year is to gain a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith being a prophet of God. To give you some background on my own familiarity with the BOM, I've read it 3x cover to cover, I've studied it for many years (seminary, church, serving a mission for 1 year, personal studies...), but yet I've never received a solid answer on if it really is the word of God. I've prayed on multiple occasions specifically asking God if the BOM is true, and as sincere and earnest as I felt those prayers were, I can say I've honestly never received an answer. I received positive feelings from time to time, but those positive feelings are not impressed upon me any differently than positive feelings I receive from reading other sources of uplifting literature. By my own admission, I acknowledge I'm not the most spiritual person. Part of being spiritually in tune with God requires a broken heart and a contrite spirit. So I admit the reason why I haven't gained a testimony of the BOM or Joseph Smith being a prophet of God is because I'm not humble enough. But how do I get to that level of humility? I don't want to keep repeating past efforts just to end up with the same result. For anyone who has a true, solid testimony of the BOM and Joseph Smith, could you please share your experience in how you gained such a testimony? I think hearing about the faith of others could help spark some hope for myself.

It could be the same thing, but I think there’s often a general distinction in the Church of preparing for your classes and personal scripture study

I know NT study is a part of Sunday School study, but never an area the Church specifically directs us to focus on during our personal scripture study. Why is that?

I've always wondered why the Book of Mormon has to be prioritized over the Bible in terms of where we as members are directed to focus our time. The New Testament is my favorite when I read about Jesus's life and his apostles. But I almost feel guilty on any given day for wanting to read the New Testament without having read the BOM. This guilt stems from the constant initiatives of the Church to have it's members focus on the BOM in our scripture study. Why not ever have special initiatives for us to focus on the New Testament? Maybe there has been New Testament initiatives, and I just don't know or wasn't paying attention. But I don't recall one time the Church has had us focus our personal scripture studies on the New Testament over the BOM. I know the Church upholds the BOM as the book that will bring us closest to God, but here's my admission: I feel closer to God reading the New Testament. And I've read the BOM 3x cover to cover. I've studied it on a daily basis for some time - growing up in the Church, attending Seminary, serving a mission for a year, and personal scripture study beyond that. I'm not priding myself on the fact I've studied the BOM as much as I have since I know many of you are much more scholarly than I, but more so I'm making the point that I'm not someone who has merely glossed over the BOM in a cursory review in my comparison how I feel when I read the New Testament. Is it the Church's initiative that we always place precedence on reading the BOM above reading the New Testament? Or is it just an every-now-and-then type of initiative. And why does it seem like as a member of the Church I have to make time to read the Bible outside of what we are specifically instructed to do as members? Do I understand how the Church wants us to approach scripture study, or am I taking an old initiative of prioritizing our BOM study too seriously?

@Carborendum , @Vort So spot on with some of my own thoughts. I too had trouble connecting with President Monson's style of story telling for many years. My mom absolutely loved him, and growing up as a kid I never understood why. It wasn't until I discovered the OP video about 3-4 years ago that my entire attitude towards President Monson's teaching style changed. Suddenly I realized this was the very man who exemplified so many of the values and ideals I admire in others. From that moment on I didn't care how he shared his thoughts. I came to know him to be the prophet of God, and one of the most sincere and dedicated servants of the Lord. President Monson greatly influenced my testimony of the Church, specifically the divine intervention at hand with who is called to serve in Church leadership. My testimony of the divinely inspired succession of prophets leading up to President Monson largely rests on the spiritual confirmations I received of President Monson being a prophet of God while considering his good merits and the exemplary life he led.

Btw - where were you going with chores?

I thought I heard something about his name being revealed, but I never knew where the source came from. Thanks. Now I’m just trying to picture how a name like Mahonri Moriancumer just rolls off the tongue in a blessing. Would Moriancumer be a last name or middle name? Did they even have last names back then?

Anyone know why we don’t have the brother of Jarod’s name? Just kind of confusing how we have an entire account detailing his interactions with God, but yet no recorded name for him other than Jarod’s brother. How do we have Jarod’s name and not his brother’s? Jarod was like a background character in a movie, and his brother, the star, somehow is the one who goes nameless. Just curious if anyone knows anything about that peculiarity.

@Vort I just can’t handle the change! Revert back, revert back please! Come back to us Icelandic chick with the big eyes. Oh the humanity! Is this another random pic for your avatar?

@Vort this explains some the many layers behind the man, the mystery, the legend... Vort. Lol. I think upon joining this website I too would've been irritated with your gangster avatar considering how you usually prove me wrong or just less knowledgeable on gospel topics. Would've been salt in the wound staring at your gangster avatar. I think everyone should vote on a new avatar for Vort. I'll try looking for a suitable recommendation. Maybe Woody from Toy Story? Not too intimidating. Everyone likes Tom Hanks

Haha, come on, who really is in your avatar pic? That has to be someone you know, right? Or did you just find a random pic on google? I’ve always wondered about your avatar selection. The first week I joined this site, I thought that was you! Then I thought, ok, now knowing Vort is a dude, is this his wife? Girlfriend? Old fling? But now knowing you have a son that served a mission, and assuming you’re married, I ruled out the girlfriend and old fling supposition. Which leaves me scratching my head. You seem too well thought out to just have your avatar as a random pic of some Icelandic chick with big eyes unrelated to you. You always have deep, profound meaning. What is the meaning of the avatar? lol

@Vort how old are you if you don’t mind me asking? I always thought you were in your 30’s for some reason. And who is that a picture of in your profile pic?

Had a meeting with my Bishop last night. I asked him this exact question. Several times actually worded in different ways for my own piece of mind. He responded confidently saying, "Absolutely," that even if I never mastered the Law of Chastity in this life (specifically completely avoiding viewing pornography, taking that second look, indulging an impure thought), that I could still have the opportunity to make it to the Celestial Kingdom. He reminded me that as Bishop he is Christ's representative judge over me during this time, and that when I die, it will be Christ himself who will judge my heart to see if I lived worthy enough to advance towards the Celestial Kingdom. Mastery to the Law of Chastity is NOT required in this life based on how I previously understood it to be. So there it is. The crux of my issues has been taken away. I had a misguided view of what we are expected to achieve in this life in relation to the Law of Chasity. My inactivity in the Church these last 2 1/2 years has largely stemmed from my inability to deal with my spiritual failures, and how I viewed my own trajectory path and eternal welfare. With the Bishop helping to correct my misguided thinking, I’ve decided to go back to Church with hopes of a better tomorrow, be it success or failure. Trying is not futile even if I fail again. I can make it if I diligently put forth the effort and continue to try with everything I have. I know I can at least do that.

I got a baseball bat from Louisville