The burden of proof

[DigitalShadow]

I have for the most part avoided talking about whether the Book of Mormon is a historical account or not because I know it is a touchy subject, but I would really like to know other people's opinions on the evidence. I'll start with presenting the situation as I see it right now:

First of all, from what I've seen I think it is fair to say that scientific evidence does not disprove the Book of Mormon. However, I think that it is also fair to say if it weren't for the Book of Mormon, from the archeological and DNA evidence available, no one would have even theorized that a group of people from the Israel once colonized the Americas. The generally accepted scientific theories on the origins of Native Americans vary significantly from the Book of Mormon account, not out of some spite for Mormons, but because the evidence points to other places.

I have been told many times to read the Book of Mormon and pray on its truthfulness, because that is the only way to KNOW whether it is true or not. I know that for some people, the feelings they receive in response is enough, but that simply isn't enough for me. I am well aware that this is the gap that faith is meant to fill, but deep down I can't help but think how convenient it is that everything must be taken on faith and then you will receive reinforcement through feelings. This is the same system that nearly every religion uses to get and keep followers which means it has a good chance of working whether the church is true or not.

Why must we rely on such an unreliable method if we are to find truth in religion? I know there is the standard answer of "that's just how it works", but from my point of view, that seems more like an excuse than an answer. If feelings were a reliable method of determining truth, there would be no dispute over which religion is correct, people would simply pray and be led to the correct religion.

I know I've gone over some of this in my other threads, and those who know me are probably sick of all this already, but I still haven't really resolved anything, so I will continue to post my most recent thoughts on the subject and see what other people think.

[skalenfehl]

God and faith exist in a different "plane" than science does. We can hypothesize, find proof for, and solve problems based on data and evidence, but even evidence is not always enough. We can be deceived by our own eyes.

Let us assume that everything in the Bible did indeed occur. The Israelites, who were delivered from bondage by Moses, whom they followed out as God's prophet, saw great and marvelous things, including crossing the parted Red Sea. What did they do right afterward? They built a golden calf and worshiped it. Christ performed miracles in front of the Jews and the Pharisees and the doctors of the law. Still they crucified their own God.

Peter, who was Christ's disciple knew that Christ was the Son of the Living God, not because he witnessed Christ perform mighty miracles, including walking on water and causing Peter to walk on water before faltering in his faith, but Peter knew that Christ was the Son of God because it was his Father in Heaven who revealed the truth to him. Christ came to the earth to bear witness of His Father and likewise in turn did Father in Heaven witness to Peter through personal revelation that Christ indeed was the Savior of mankind. Witnessing the miracles and Christ's atonement was not substantially enough. It was through the Power of the Holy Ghost that that Father in Heaven revealed and confirmed this witness to Peter.

Matt 16: 13-17

13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

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.

Matthew 16

We each have to take that leap for ourselves. Would you ever go skydiving? Do you consider it safe? Many thrill seekers love it, but many people would never jump out of a perfectly good airplane. Why? Do they lack the faith in their parachute to open? It's a perfectly good parachute isn't it? Father in Heaven challenges us to jump and assures us that he will catch us. If a parachute fails, the diver is killed. But if you never take the leap of faith of earnest and sincere supplication, what really do you have to lose?

In the Book of Mormon, a missionary named Aaron preached to a king who held no belief in a God but through Aaron's teachings, the king took that leap of faith:

Alma 22:15-18

15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy.

16 But Aaron said unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest.

17 And it came to pass that when Aaron had said these words, the king did bow down before the Lord, upon his knees; yea, even he did prostrate himself upon the earth, and cried mightily, saying:

18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day....

Alma 22

The chapter isn't that long if you read it. It is not an unreliable method and more and more people are taking that leap every day and finding the truth. You just have to take the appropriate steps to make a successful leap.

[skalenfehl]

Note verse 15-18 in the above link (Alma 22). Consider a-train's testimony and how it parallels with the king's experience in the above chapter in the Book of Mormon:

Testimonies » LDS Mormon Network

I know I've gone over some of this in my other threads, and those who know me are probably sick of all this already, but I still haven't really resolved anything, so I will continue to post my most recent thoughts on the subject and see what other people think.

Have you taken the same plunge that the king did and also the same experiment that a-train made? I'm just curious.

[gwozz]

I have for the most part avoided talking about whether the Book of Mormon is a historical account or not because I know it is a touchy subject, but I would really like to know other people's opinions on the evidence. I'll start with presenting the situation as I see it right now:

First of all, from what I've seen I think it is fair to say that scientific evidence does not disprove the Book of Mormon. However, I think that it is also fair to say if it weren't for the Book of Mormon, from the archeological and DNA evidence available, no one would have even theorized that a group of people from the Israel once colonized the Americas. The generally accepted scientific theories on the origins of Native Americans vary significantly from the Book of Mormon account, not out of some spite for Mormons, but because the evidence points to other places.

I have been told many times to read the Book of Mormon and pray on its truthfulness, because that is the only way to KNOW whether it is true or not. I know that for some people, the feelings they receive in response is enough, but that simply isn't enough for me. I am well aware that this is the gap that faith is meant to fill, but deep down I can't help but think how convenient it is that everything must be taken on faith and then you will receive reinforcement through feelings. This is the same system that nearly every religion uses to get and keep followers which means it has a good chance of working whether the church is true or not.

Why must we rely on such an unreliable method if we are to find truth in religion? I know there is the standard answer of "that's just how it works", but from my point of view, that seems more like an excuse than an answer. If feelings were a reliable method of determining truth, there would be no dispute over which religion is correct, people would simply pray and be led to the correct religion.

I know I've gone over some of this in my other threads, and those who know me are probably sick of all this already, but I still haven't really resolved anything, so I will continue to post my most recent thoughts on the subject and see what other people think.

Sounds to me like you'll just have to ask God why he's done it that way. He's clearly told us that it is intentional:

3ne26:9-11 says: 9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the agreater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the agreater things be bwithheld from them, unto their condemnation.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord aforbade it, saying: I will btry the faith of my people.

There are gaps and holes intentially. Thats just the way it is to try your faith.

[P-Worm]

I think I am much like you. Being a mechanical engineering student, I have been trained to look for holes in theories. That's how you prove things in the science world, test the theory until you know it is true. This can make studying the gospel very hard because instead of looking for truth, you are looking for lies to prove it is true. Not a very intuitive approach when doctrine can't be seen like other things in this world.

But I also realize that science isn't as perfect as we think, or would like it to be. At one time, science spoke of a medium light could pass through called the aether.

Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This wasn't that long ago when science seriously considered this mystical thing.

I think when it comes to the relationship between faith and science, it shouldn't have to be "I believe in such and such even though science proves otherwise," but rather "I believe that the day will come when science will understand truth and my faith and science will be one and the same."

I don't know much about DNA, but I do know that we don't understand as much about it as we think we do.

P-Worm

[Guest Xzain]

The generally accepted scientific theories on the origins of Native Americans vary significantly from the Book of Mormon account, not out of some spite for Mormons, but because the evidence points to other places.

True, although as time goes on the evidence points nearer and nearer to the explanations the Book of Mormon offers.

As to your question about the burden of proof, I think any literature's burden of proof can be assessed from two sources, internal and external. To this day I have found no internal inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon, and no external data that conclusively proves the Book of Mormon false. Indeed, there's much data to support it's claims. Additionally, it shows a process whereby one can ascertain its validity.

If you found a mysterious cookbook in the back of a used book store purportedly containing the secrets to making exquisite meals, how would you go about finding the truth of its claims? One could attempt to study its place of origin, compare it to other cookbooks, even use contextual criticism to an extent- but the fastest, simplest, and most honest way is to try it and see if it works! While the history of the book may be questionable from a scientific, historical viewpoint (because one cannot find all of the facts of its history) if it teaches one how to make exquisite meals- the cookbook is what it claims to be.

I have been told many times to read the Book of Mormon and pray on its truthfulness, because that is the only way to KNOW whether it is true or not... This is the same system that nearly every religion uses to get and keep followers which means it has a good chance of working whether the church is true or not.

Actually, as far as I understand the situation Mormonism is the ONLY church that tells a person what to pray about, how to go about it, and what to expect as a result. Though not an expert on world religions, I would say that Mormonism's proof for its verity is much more attainable, clear, and 'scientific' (to the degree that it has a designated formula).

Why must we rely on such an unreliable method if we are to find truth in religion? I know there is the standard answer of "that's just how it works", but from my point of view, that seems more like an excuse than an answer. If feelings were a reliable method of determining truth, there would be no dispute over which religion is correct, people would simply pray and be led to the correct religion.

You would be right, if it weren't for the fact that we need to know precisely what we are praying about- otherwise the answer is far too muddled to correctly perceive. Also, there's the issue of 'sincere desire and real intent'- if you don't really want to know the answer you won't find it. As skalenfehl quoted, one must be willing to 'forsake [one's] kingdom' (or, one's worldly status, assumptions, and practices) to find the truth.

I would make the note that the 'truth in religion' that we learn is actually the 'ultimate truth' every person seeks to find- religion is merely the organizational reflection created to teach the doctrines of that truth. Even irreligionists embrace irreligion as their dearest views on life- or, irreligionists reject the idea of truth coming from God and seek other ways to find it.

Consider this- when a gymnast is learning to execute a backflip they exercise the basic principles of receiving a spiritual witness (or, in a broader sense the basic principles of faith).

1- Study. In the gymnast's case, (s)he learns the body movements (s)he needs to execute on the ground; related movements (such as the front flip); theory on body movement; etc.

2- Preperation + Execution. The gymnast goes to a safe location, prepares him/herself mentally, and attempts the backflip. (S)he keeps trying until (s)he succeeds.

3- Knowledge. The gymnast is now well aware of his/her own ability to backflip- (s)he has now done it for him/herself and knows, by execution and experience, what a backflip feels like.

The three steps- Study, Preperation + Execution, and Knowledge, are analagous to the Faith/Works/Knowledge cycle in spiritual experience. The gymnast could not know what doing a backflip felt like by ground-based tumbling; we cannot know what a witness feels like without experiencing it for ourselves.

As you can see, the cycle is the same for mastering all new experiences in life.

[Dr T]

First of all, from what I've seen I think it is fair to say that scientific evidence does not disprove the Book of Mormon.

This sounds a lot like "because you cannot disprove a negative." (whatever that means)

[DigitalShadow]

I truly enjoy your posts and conversing with you, so I hope you don't take offense from my responses because none is intended.

God and faith exist in a different "plane" than science does. We can hypothesize, find proof for, and solve problems based on data and evidence, but even evidence is not always enough. We can be deceived by our own eyes.

Of course we can be deceived by our own eyes, otherwise magicians would be out of a job, however I have found reason and examining evidence to be more reliable than feelings in my experience.

Let us assume that everything in the Bible did indeed occur. The Israelites, who were delivered from bondage by Moses, whom they followed out as God's prophet, saw great and marvelous things, including crossing the parted Red Sea. What did they do right afterward? They built a golden calf and worshiped it. Christ performed miracles in front of the Jews and the Pharisees and the doctors of the law. Still they crucified their own God.

Now let's take the inverse of your proposal and assume that the events in the Bible are the ancient equivilent of urban legends passed down by oral tradition. That explains why in the Bible, people who saw proof of their God would betray Him so easily, since it makes for a better allegory that way.

Not to say that either explaination is true, but both are plausible.

Peter, who was Christ's disciple knew that Christ was the Son of the Living God, not because he witnessed Christ perform mighty miracles, including walking on water and causing Peter to walk on water before faltering in his faith, but Peter knew that Christ was the Son of God because it was his Father in Heaven who revealed the truth to him. Christ came to the earth to bear witness of His Father and likewise in turn did Father in Heaven witness to Peter through personal revelation that Christ indeed was the Savior of mankind. Witnessing the miracles and Christ's atonement was not substantially enough. It was through the Power of the Holy Ghost that that Father in Heaven revealed and confirmed this witness to Peter.

Matt 16: 13-17

13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

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.

Matthew 16

Yes, I have heard that story in church before.

We each have to take that leap for ourselves. Would you ever go skydiving? Do you consider it safe? Many thrill seekers love it, but many people would never jump out of a perfectly good airplane. Why? Do they lack the faith in their parachute to open? It's a perfectly good parachute isn't it? Father in Heaven challenges us to jump and assures us that he will catch us. If a parachute fails, the diver is killed. But if you never take the leap of faith of earnest and sincere supplication, what really do you have to lose?

You say that Heavenly Father is challenging us to make the first leap of faith, I say that faith is a convenient concept for religion to get and maintain members without having to stand up to reason. I would like to believe, but it seems like the the more I discuss things, the latter explaination is appearing more likely to me.

In the Book of Mormon, a missionary named Aaron preached to a king who held no belief in a God but through Aaron's teachings, the king took that leap of faith:

Alma 22:15-18

15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy.

16 But Aaron said unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest.

17 And it came to pass that when Aaron had said these words, the king did bow down before the Lord, upon his knees; yea, even he did prostrate himself upon the earth, and cried mightily, saying:

18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day....

Alma 22

The chapter isn't that long if you read it. It is not an unreliable method and more and more people are taking that leap every day and finding the truth. You just have to take the appropriate steps to make a successful leap.

I will read the chapter you suggest, however the fact that people make leaps of faith in drastically different directions does make it an unreliable method by definition.

[DigitalShadow]

Sounds to me like you'll just have to ask God why he's done it that way. He's clearly told us that it is intentional:

3ne26:9-11 says: 9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the agreater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the agreater things be bwithheld from them, unto their condemnation.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord aforbade it, saying: I will btry the faith of my people.

There are gaps and holes intentially. Thats just the way it is to try your faith.

I have asked God, and the results have been underwhelming. Yes, the scriptures say the need for faith is intentional by God, but that doesn't make it any less convenient.

[DigitalShadow]

I think I am much like you. Being a mechanical engineering student, I have been trained to look for holes in theories. That's how you prove things in the science world, test the theory until you know it is true. This can make studying the gospel very hard because instead of looking for truth, you are looking for lies to prove it is true. Not a very intuitive approach when doctrine can't be seen like other things in this world.

But I also realize that science isn't as perfect as we think, or would like it to be. At one time, science spoke of a medium light could pass through called the aether.

Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This wasn't that long ago when science seriously considered this mystical thing.

I think when it comes to the relationship between faith and science, it shouldn't have to be "I believe in such and such even though science proves otherwise," but rather "I believe that the day will come when science will understand truth and my faith and science will be one and the same."

I don't know much about DNA, but I do know that we don't understand as much about it as we think we do.

P-Worm

I am well aware of the many failed theories given by science, but in general it is a self correcting process giving closer approximations to the truth as more evidence comes to light. All our scientific advancements are not achieved through feats of faith, but quite the opposite... questioning even things that are assumed to be true when the evidence to the contrary comes to light.

If science and faith are indeed converging on something, I will wait until science arrives there and see for myself :)

[DigitalShadow]

I will reply to everyone, but at the moment I need to get some sleep so I'll get to it in the morning :)

Thanks to everyone for the replies so far, goodnight everyone.

[Guest Xzain]

I am well aware of the many failed theories given by science, but in general it is a self correcting process giving closer approximations to the truth as more evidence comes to light. All our scientific advancements are not achieved through feats of faith, but quite the opposite... questioning even things that are assumed to be true when the evidence to the contrary comes to light.

You know, I see this same process exhibited in my daily life. Perhaps faith and religion can be seen as the science of the soul.

[john doe]

I believe that one of the main reasons for signs or evidences is for the benefit of those who have faith. If you don't or won't have faith, the signs are pretty meaningless, and even if they give you pause in the short term, in the long term, you will learn to ignore the significance of the sign. The Book of Mormon shows this process repeating itself over and over again. People who look for a physical sign of the truthfulness of the gospel eventually ignore or downgrade the significance of that same sign. People who have faith in the gospel generally look to that sign as a reinforcement of their faith, but not as an end-all, be-all of their faith. Signs benefit the believers, not the unbelievers.

[azazel420]

There is very little that can be definitively proven for a species with perception as limited as ours. As Descartes says, "Cogito, ergo sum" shows definitively that I exist in some form, though I can't be definitively sure in what form I exist. For all intents and purposes I can be assured that my senses are generally correct. If I witness the same response to the same stimuli without fail then I can be reasonably assured of a causal link between the two. This (along with the scientific method) is the foundation of modern science. Beyond this fundamental ideal we can't hold to anything more substantial then speculation and faith. Both speculation and faith can be strengthened in their own way but neither can be proven until they become part of our observable reality. Science deals with speculation (inference based on evidence) while religion deals with faith. We can never know with assurance that either are totally correct, you just have to decide what you believe and what you think for yourself.

[Misshalfway]

What about evaluating the words of the BofM on their merits? I think that it is faith to look at a doctrine and believe that it is true. Are there any doctrines or ideas in the book that you feel are true or might be true.

What about the concept of sin vs righteousness or opposites in all things?

What about the Atonement and understanding the demands of justice and mercy?

What about prayer, obedience, and service?

In my mind, understanding this doctrine and evaluating it in this way is very logical and reasonable.

I was reading in the D&C and read these verses and I thought immediately of you, DS.

Section 50: 10-12

"And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;

"Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face."

"Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of men, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord reason with you that ye may understand."

[gwozz]

I have asked God, and the results have been underwhelming. Yes, the scriptures say the need for faith is intentional by God, but that doesn't make it any less convenient.

Well, what are you looking for? It says that IF you accept this lesser account, and manifest your faith in it, then the greater things will be given to you. This knowledge of the greater things which take us beyond "faith" in the Book of Mormon towards a "knowledge" come not by artifacts and scientific observations. It is by the revelation from on high. God's system is very convenient--it is the only way for him to dictate who gets to know his mysteries and greater truths--he reserves the right to give them to the individual himself. As such, those who manifest faith are rewarded, and their faith becomes firm unto a knowledge (see alma 32-34). We can KNOW that jesus is the SON (which is the seed in the allegory). To some it is give to know, to others it is given to believe on their words (see gifts of the spirit). You may consider this process an "inconvenience" just like how having to learn how to read and write were an "incovenience." Exercizing faith to come to know the great things makes us really appreciate higher light and knowledge given us. If it came easy, we wouldn't value it nearly as much. And, if all things were open for the world to see, then those who rejected the truth (when they had the greater portion given), would have all the more condemnation upon their heads. God's plan is perfect for the development of his children on earth. We shouted for joy to be here (well, atleast I hope we were among the faithful ones who did shout for joy). No inconvenience, this is the central part--to exercise faith to come to know God.

[mike_uk]

I would love to be in a position where I were able to say that "spiritual feelings" are enough to keep my testimony of the Book of Mormon intact and rescue my family from the grief I am causing them but I am unable to do this.

I just cannot do it. To me there are too many errors, Its like everything that is mentioned in there has been swallowed up leaving no traces. Is it plausable the God has hidden everything as part of the test of faith? I don't think so.

I wish it was true though, then I wouldnt be in this dark, lonely place.

[DigitalShadow]

True, although as time goes on the evidence points nearer and nearer to the explanations the Book of Mormon offers.

As to your question about the burden of proof, I think any literature's burden of proof can be assessed from two sources, internal and external. To this day I have found no internal inconsistencies in the Book of Mormon, and no external data that conclusively proves the Book of Mormon false. Indeed, there's much data to support it's claims. Additionally, it shows a process whereby one can ascertain its validity.

If you found a mysterious cookbook in the back of a used book store purportedly containing the secrets to making exquisite meals, how would you go about finding the truth of its claims? One could attempt to study its place of origin, compare it to other cookbooks, even use contextual criticism to an extent- but the fastest, simplest, and most honest way is to try it and see if it works! While the history of the book may be questionable from a scientific, historical viewpoint (because one cannot find all of the facts of its history) if it teaches one how to make exquisite meals- the cookbook is what it claims to be.

I have not seen any external evidence supporting the Book of Mormon or any religious text for that matter. Many people point to "coincidences" and claim they are ample evidence, but the problem is that if you really want there to be evidence for something, you will see it in coincidences and disregard anything that goes against it. The great thing about science is that it accounts for that and looks for repeatable experiments and evidence from multiple sources that supports the same conclusion independently.

And if you found a mysterious cookbook that calls for ingredients that don't make sense together, tried its meals and determined they did not taste good, how would you react? What if the cookbook then said that only those who have faith the meal will taste good will enjoy it? I'm sure if you convince yourself it should taste good or grew up eating it, it would actually taste good to you, but that doesn't mean there's any point in it.

Actually, as far as I understand the situation Mormonism is the ONLY church that tells a person what to pray about, how to go about it, and what to expect as a result. Though not an expert on world religions, I would say that Mormonism's proof for its verity is much more attainable, clear, and 'scientific' (to the degree that it has a designated formula).

Nearly all churches encourage you to pray, if people got responses along the lines of "your church isn't true", I don't imagine they would stay with their church very long.

You would be right, if it weren't for the fact that we need to know precisely what we are praying about- otherwise the answer is far too muddled to correctly perceive. Also, there's the issue of 'sincere desire and real intent'- if you don't really want to know the answer you won't find it. As skalenfehl quoted, one must be willing to 'forsake [one's] kingdom' (or, one's worldly status, assumptions, and practices) to find the truth.

Again, I am aware of how you are "supposed" to do it, but it seems a bit too convenient to me that you can pray to Heavenly Father and he will tell you that the church is true, but only if you ask properly, have faith and ask about the "right" church. If we really are children of a loving Heavenly Father who want us to know Him and is our all-powerful creator, why couldn't he just lead anyone honestly searching to the "right" church?

I would make the note that the 'truth in religion' that we learn is actually the 'ultimate truth' every person seeks to find- religion is merely the organizational reflection created to teach the doctrines of that truth. Even irreligionists embrace irreligion as their dearest views on life- or, irreligionists reject the idea of truth coming from God and seek other ways to find it.

I have no idea what an "irreligionist" is, but I'm assuming it is some term for atheist and if that is the case, I don't think you are accurately portraying their thought process.

Consider this- when a gymnast is learning to execute a backflip they exercise the basic principles of receiving a spiritual witness (or, in a broader sense the basic principles of faith).

1- Study. In the gymnast's case, (s)he learns the body movements (s)he needs to execute on the ground; related movements (such as the front flip); theory on body movement; etc.

2- Preperation + Execution. The gymnast goes to a safe location, prepares him/herself mentally, and attempts the backflip. (S)he keeps trying until (s)he succeeds.

3- Knowledge. The gymnast is now well aware of his/her own ability to backflip- (s)he has now done it for him/herself and knows, by execution and experience, what a backflip feels like.

The three steps- Study, Preperation + Execution, and Knowledge, are analagous to the Faith/Works/Knowledge cycle in spiritual experience. The gymnast could not know what doing a backflip felt like by ground-based tumbling; we cannot know what a witness feels like without experiencing it for ourselves.

As you can see, the cycle is the same for mastering all new experiences in life.

Yes, I will agree that the steps to joining a religion require the same processes as anything else, but the problem with your analogy is that I don't want to join a religion any more than I want to be a gymnast. I am in search of the truth, and your religion (among others) claims to have it and so I am investigating that truth.

[DigitalShadow]

You know, I see this same process exhibited in my daily life. Perhaps faith and religion can be seen as the science of the soul.

I had never thought of it that way.

[DigitalShadow]

I believe that one of the main reasons for signs or evidences is for the benefit of those who have faith. If you don't or won't have faith, the signs are pretty meaningless, and even if they give you pause in the short term, in the long term, you will learn to ignore the significance of the sign. The Book of Mormon shows this process repeating itself over and over again. People who look for a physical sign of the truthfulness of the gospel eventually ignore or downgrade the significance of that same sign. People who have faith in the gospel generally look to that sign as a reinforcement of their faith, but not as an end-all, be-all of their faith. Signs benefit the believers, not the unbelievers.

But human psychology shows us that if we are already looking for signs for something, we will see them in the random events of everyday life and assign more meaning to them. Having faith just tells your brain, alright I'm looking for more "signs" to back up this piece of information.

[DigitalShadow]

There is very little that can be definitively proven for a species with perception as limited as ours. As Descartes says, "Cogito, ergo sum" shows definitively that I exist in some form, though I can't be definitively sure in what form I exist. For all intents and purposes I can be assured that my senses are generally correct. If I witness the same response to the same stimuli without fail then I can be reasonably assured of a causal link between the two. This (along with the scientific method) is the foundation of modern science. Beyond this fundamental ideal we can't hold to anything more substantial then speculation and faith. Both speculation and faith can be strengthened in their own way but neither can be proven until they become part of our observable reality. Science deals with speculation (inference based on evidence) while religion deals with faith. We can never know with assurance that either are totally correct, you just have to decide what you believe and what you think for yourself.

That sums up my philosophy pretty well. I'm guessing you are agnostic as well?

[DigitalShadow]

What about evaluating the words of the BofM on their merits? I think that it is faith to look at a doctrine and believe that it is true. Are there any doctrines or ideas in the book that you feel are true or might be true.

What about the concept of sin vs righteousness or opposites in all things?

What about the Atonement and understanding the demands of justice and mercy?

What about prayer, obedience, and service?

In my mind, understanding this doctrine and evaluating it in this way is very logical and reasonable.

I was reading in the D&C and read these verses and I thought immediately of you, DS.

Section 50: 10-12

"And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;

"Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face."

"Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of men, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord reason with you that ye may understand."

I agree with many (not all) of the concepts presented by the church, otherwise I would not have married a Mormon. Making the leap from having some useful teachings to being the word of God is where I stop short of.

[DigitalShadow]

Well, what are you looking for? It says that IF you accept this lesser account, and manifest your faith in it, then the greater things will be given to you. This knowledge of the greater things which take us beyond "faith" in the Book of Mormon towards a "knowledge" come not by artifacts and scientific observations. It is by the revelation from on high. God's system is very convenient--it is the only way for him to dictate who gets to know his mysteries and greater truths--he reserves the right to give them to the individual himself. As such, those who manifest faith are rewarded, and their faith becomes firm unto a knowledge (see alma 32-34). We can KNOW that jesus is the SON (which is the seed in the allegory). To some it is give to know, to others it is given to believe on their words (see gifts of the spirit). You may consider this process an "inconvenience" just like how having to learn how to read and write were an "incovenience." Exercizing faith to come to know the great things makes us really appreciate higher light and knowledge given us. If it came easy, we wouldn't value it nearly as much. And, if all things were open for the world to see, then those who rejected the truth (when they had the greater portion given), would have all the more condemnation upon their heads. God's plan is perfect for the development of his children on earth. We shouted for joy to be here (well, atleast I hope we were among the faithful ones who did shout for joy). No inconvenience, this is the central part--to exercise faith to come to know God.

By "convenient" I meant like getting an email from a wealthy middle eastern prince who needs to liquidate his assets but can only do so if you give him your bank account information!

I do get your point though and I can see how since something harder to obtain is valued more, Heavenly Father would not make it easy for us. The problem is that I also see that if the church weren't true, the exact same tactics would be used to get members to believe.

[DigitalShadow]

I would love to be in a position where I were able to say that "spiritual feelings" are enough to keep my testimony of the Book of Mormon intact and rescue my family from the grief I am causing them but I am unable to do this.

I just cannot do it. To me there are too many errors, Its like everything that is mentioned in there has been swallowed up leaving no traces. Is it plausable the God has hidden everything as part of the test of faith? I don't think so.

I wish it was true though, then I wouldnt be in this dark, lonely place.

Living in Utah, I see a lot of families torn apart by religion. I think the main problem is that they don't realize that everyone is their own person and religion is a personal choice that doesn't have to be shared by an entire family. I don't fault the church for this, but I do fault the culture for making non-believers (especially those who left the church) outsiders and black sheep in a religion that is supposed to practice love and acceptance.

I wish you the best and that your family can come to terms with your decision.

[Vanhin]

DigitalShadow,

There is nothing more to it that what we've told you. Proof that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, is the witness of the Holy Ghost, which comes only after the trial of your faith. That's it. We cannot produce anything else for you. Faith is the evidence in this matter, and the Holy Ghost is the proof.

It is safe for me to assume that you have not yet witnessed this proof. If you had, then you would not be so quick to discount it as mere feelings, and therefore unreliable. Unfortunately for those of little faith, the proof is not forthcoming, and cannot be produced any other way than the method we have shown you.

Brother, I wish you would understand this. You must exercise sufficient faith to gain the witness. That is a necessary and unavoidable requirement. However, you are not left alone in determining what to place your faith in. This is what I wanted to tell you about.

You, like the rest of us, have within you a divine power or influence that helps you judge between right and wrong among other things. I'm not talking about magic; I'm talking about something the scriptures describe as light or intelligence. It is by this light, that even people who have never heard of Jesus Christ are able to discern the good from the bad. It's not a feeling, any more than conscience is. In fact, it is our conscience. If we heed this light, it will lead us to further truth and light, and to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Do we really need organized religion, for instance, to teach us that lying, stealing, or being mean to other people is wrong? Or do we need it to tell us that helping other people out, or being honest is right? No, not really. We discern these things for ourselves because of that light that is in us. It sets us apart from all other creations of God; namely our ability to know good from evil coupled with our agency to choose for ourselves one or the other.

By this light, we just know what is good and what is not. The scriptures teach us that if it is good and leads to Christ, it is from God. That is how we know what to place our faith in. The scriptures call this light by many names. In the following scripture, it is called the Spirit of Christ:

For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. (Moroni 7:15-18)

It's important to understand this, because that is all you have right now... the light or Spirit of Christ. Your conscience. It should not be confused with the Holy Ghost, which is an actual spirit person. It is a divine power, or influence that proceeds from the Father through his Son, and gives light and life to all things in the universe, and is the law by which all things are governed (D&C 88:6-13).

If you are honest with yourself, you will know by this light what to do to receive the proof that you seek. Heed the light. Even if you don't want to have faith in the Book of Mormon, follow the dictates of your conscience to the place it will take you, and you can't go wrong. It will continue to grow brighter and brighter, until the perfect day.

That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day. (D&C 50:24)

Obviously the opposite is true if we ignore our conscience.

Sincerely,

Vanhin