In thinking it all over, it comes down to...

[Arkwelder]

I would make one addition: It all comes down to God, and whether or not He manifests the truth of Joseph Smith's prophetic calling and the reality of the Book of Mormon as an ancient religious document containing the gospel of Jesus Christ. So, in other words, it all comes down to revelation about these things...not the things themselves...as if we alone had the faculties to judge either way.

[Arkwelder]

Hey, Dove. Just wanted to say your advice was great. I agree that knowing the truth of all things really comes down to our relationship with God. I'm going to post a quote from your reply on the blog I write for: It's called Rising Generation and the address is FAIR's Rising Generation . Thanks.

[Ruck]

If I can put in my two sense to the first question, then yes you have pretty much nailed it on the head. See when I graduated I went to the center of the Catholic Religion, Italy. While there, I toured various monuments, especially churches. See my feelings there was that the true church was there but not physically. I wondered how could that be.

I came home back to Utah and met with the missionaries. I faced the same questions as you. I can testify to you that when President Monson announced that the Rome Temple was dedicated, my answer from Italy was answered. I walked all over Rome, and thought of Joseph Smith and the Church of Latter Day Saints.

On a side note, various churches that I visited in Italy have a seperate building built right next to it. The tour guides claimed it was the baptismal buildings. That the Catholic church built them long ago, but didn't know why. To this day, they still build those buildings next to the churches because they don't know the meaning it holds but all they know is it is written down from church official to church official that it must be built. I can say, with a strong feeling, that those buildings are the early attempts at baptism. That when the word was lost, they kept building it because they knew that it was important but didn't know why.

[Lilac]

Yeah - probably.

Do you also extend that logic to the Bible - that the truth of Judeo-Christianity comes down to Isaiah or the author of the Gospels?

Unless I am not understanding you correctly, yes.

If I didn't believe in the truth of the Bible, Isaiah, the Prophets and the Gospels, why would I ever be Christian?

As young adults/teens/kids we tend to believe what our parents teach us. But as mature Christians, I would hope that we really do take a step back and say "why do I believe what I believe?" "is this true?" I have done this.

I don't know, maybe others haven't and that is why you asked me that question?

I grew up in a Christian family and know Christianity well. However, as an adult I CHOSE to follow Jesus. It's not because my family was Protestant since the Reformation or because my mother made me or because it's a nice place to go on Sunday. It's because as an adult, I thought it through and decided that I believe Christianity to be true. I believe that Jesus is who He said He is and I believe that the Old Testament Prophets taught this. I believe that the Gospels are an accurate account of the life of Jesus. I also have spiritual reasons, of course.

Snow, maybe I did not understand your question but yes, I have thought it all through or I wouldn't be a Christian. I feel that Christianity is accurate because of a spiritual reason and because it logically makes sense to me.

[hordak]

whether or not I accept the Book of Mormon as another Testament of Jesus Christ.

My husband and I are practicing Protestants and live a Christian life. We love God. We believe Jesus is the Savior. Etc.

For us, I think that is what it all comes down to: Was Joseph Smith a Prophet? Is the Book of Mormon true? Trying ot figure out theology and this and that...it just comes down to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

What do you think?

Did I miss something?

I think that is an oversimplification. The LDS church is not the only church in existence today that believes that Joseph Smith taught the truth of God and that the BoM is true. In fact there are others that are more accurate to what he taught then the LDS church. That doesn't make them necessarily more correct or that the LDS are wrong.

I just think basing your religious affiliation and faith in its current leaders on the past ones isn't enough. You will find very few Christians who doubt the sincerity of Peter, but because of that they don't all believe Pope Benedict XVI is Gods spokesman.

I would say ask God about the church and it's leaders in the here and now. Not only will it keep you from jumping to conclusions but it can also protect your testimony if you find something unsavory about the churches history.

[Traveler]

whether or not I accept the Book of Mormon as another Testament of Jesus Christ.

My husband and I are practicing Protestants and live a Christian life. We love God. We believe Jesus is the Savior. Etc.

For us, I think that is what it all comes down to: Was Joseph Smith a Prophet? Is the Book of Mormon true? Trying ot figure out theology and this and that...it just comes down to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

What do you think?

Did I miss something?

I believe it is possible to misunderstand or misrepresent Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Many think of the prophesies of Joseph Smith and the scriptures of the Book of Mormon as a replacement of other things – to use an “us versus them” mentality. These things are not meant to replace one’s beliefs and understanding of truth but to enhance and clarify – to bring one to a higher level that can only be obtained by receiving (line upon line – see Isaiah 28:9-13) G-d’s word.

Can we ever in mortality receive complete understanding of knowledge from G-d? Please note what happens to those that end such learning. Do they maintain a place or do they fall?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

That's looking at it straight on, I suppose. On the other hand, how do you get there, conclusively? For example, Joseph Smith taught a theology that is probably signficantly different from that which your current church does. So, in discerning whether he was a prophet or not, it might help to consider:

1. Did you exist prior to the creation of our physical world?

2. Did the Christian church at large fall into an era of apostasy for centuries, and lose it's authority to act in Jesus' name?

3. Does salvation (living eternally with God the Father) only become certain at the end of life, when He will determine if we did "all that we could?"

These are but three teachings that may draw you to or away from belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

PC – I am a little disappointed with you #3. Well all of them in essence. The theological difference is that through the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith; we are able to see more clearly and understand other scriptures more fully. I thought you could understand our reference to those that only give only a part (withholding some) of their heart, might, mind and strength. The understanding of the LDS is that you give ALL your heart, might, mind and strength to G-d – not just a part and then think salvation is granted in full. (See Matt 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:37)

The point is that the scriptures and “Knowledge” of G-d is not granted in an instant but line upon line upon line.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not following you, Traveler. The OP is posted by a Protestant, who appears to have a fair level of knowledge and experience with God, through the lense of her faith tradition. If conversion is being considered, it would seem reasonable to at least investigate and pray over some of the significantly different teachings. Do you really find it untoward to, instead of praying, "Lord is Joseph Smith a prophet from you?" to pray, "Lord, did I really exist prior to the creation of this world? Is it really true that my community of faith, for all its good, is in a state of apostasy? Is it really so that I cannot be certain I'll spend eternity in your (Father's) presence until I pass on?" IMHO, these would be wise questions for a thoughtful investigator to ask of Heavenly Father.

[Lstinthwrld]

whether or not I accept the Book of Mormon as another Testament of Jesus Christ.

My husband and I are practicing Protestants and live a Christian life. We love God. We believe Jesus is the Savior. Etc.

For us, I think that is what it all comes down to: Was Joseph Smith a Prophet? Is the Book of Mormon true? Trying ot figure out theology and this and that...it just comes down to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

What do you think?

Did I miss something?

Since I have been on this forum this my be the first time I have seen a sincere intelligent investigator...wow they do exist.

I will say as a nonmormon that I do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. He knew to many things that he shouldn't have to not to be one.

So I do believe he was a prophet just not my prophet.

[Traveler]

I'm not following you, Traveler. The OP is posted by a Protestant, who appears to have a fair level of knowledge and experience with God, through the lense of her faith tradition. If conversion is being considered, it would seem reasonable to at least investigate and pray over some of the significantly different teachings. Do you really find it untoward to, instead of praying, "Lord is Joseph Smith a prophet from you?" to pray, "Lord, did I really exist prior to the creation of this world? Is it really true that my community of faith, for all its good, is in a state of apostasy? Is it really so that I cannot be certain I'll spend eternity in your (Father's) presence until I pass on?" IMHO, these would be wise questions for a thoughtful investigator to ask of Heavenly Father.

Thanks PC.

First. I would like to avoid the issue of someone rejecting what they believe in place of something else. That is not the case at all. LDS theology is to expand and enlighten understanding and truth. But there is one very important point. LDS theology is not contrary to Biblical scripture – but because of a “restoration” LDS theology is contradictory to traditional Trinitarian interpretations of scripture in the same manner that Jesus’ teachings were contradictory to the traditional Jewish interpretations of scripture employed by the Pharisees and Scribes of his day. LDS no more change Christian scriptures and understanding than did Jesus change Jewish scriptures and understanding.

Second: Prayer – I agree that it is a commandment and covenant that all pray – especially for knowledge and understanding. Personal revelation is a two edged sword. It is important to be true (obedient to) commandments prior to seeking revelation. Many want a “sign” prior to a commitment but the commitment must come first or the seeking is in vein or an exercise of vanity. Jesus said that if a person will do – they will know what is of G-d. Now we do not need be foolish – some things are obvious – but when we lack wisdom we must ask of G-d without wavering in our commitment to “do” that which we have understanding. So if we are doing something that we understand to be contrary to G-d and are unwilling to repent or putting off repentance, then it is contrary to the eternal order of things that such a method would bring froth divine enlightenment. Also if we ask with no intention of being obedient to his answer – we are most likely to justify the answer and bend it to our will rather than to the will of G-d. Prayer is answered to the faithful. Faithful meaning, not only having a belief that G-d will answer but a commitment that we will be faithful both to what we already know is true and to the answer we recieve.

It is not just a matter of prayer.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks PC.

First. I would like to avoid the issue of someone rejecting what they believe in place of something else. That is not the case at all.

Perhaps you find the word "reject" to be too hard, too pejorative? You might prefer to see LDS theology as an evolution of belief, and perhaps you'd say that the old beliefs are not so much rejected as they are simply "let go." Nevertheless, there's no denying that for the new revelations to be true, the old truths must be deemed, at minimum, obsolete.

LDS theology is to expand and enlighten understanding and truth. But there is one very important point. LDS theology is not contrary to Biblical scripture – but because of a “restoration” LDS theology is contradictory to traditional Trinitarian interpretations of scripture in the same manner that Jesus’ teachings were contradictory to the traditional Jewish interpretations of scripture employed by the Pharisees and Scribes of his day.

The Pharisees and Sadduccees were wrong: About the Messiah, about the law of love, about the value the poor, about the need to ultimately include Gentiles into the community of faith, and certainly about Jesus. If Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then there's no denying that Protestants are wrong about several important matters. A sincere, reasonable investigator would do well to seek the Lord on these matters. If I am to build line upon line and precept upon precept, I need to figure out how it is that I've done so thus far, with some serious errors. Father God will answer those inquiries just as easily as He will the more limited "Was Joseph Smith true?"

LDS no more change Christian scriptures and understanding than did Jesus change Jewish scriptures and understanding.

Which means, quite substantially--even theologically revolutionary.

Concerning prayer, it is so very true that if we go to God with these questions, we must be read to accept his answers, and to obey, not walking with double-mindedness, nor wavering to the left or the right. No disagreements with you there.

[Snow]

Pam, from my perspective, Snow may actually be validating the OP's logic. If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the BoM and the Church are likely true. And, vice versa. Likewise with Isaiah and the Gospels of the New Testament and Christianity in general.

Uh, probably not.

While JS prohethood and The Church of Jesus are most likely inextricably bonded together - if one is valid, then the other probably is as well, it does not hold that Bible authors are so closely bound to Christianity. That is, if the Gospels are false, then Christianity is likely false, but reverse is not necessarily true. Mark or Paul wrote in the middle of the first century. They were not Christians. Mainstream historical Christianity is product of the 2nd century. The NT could be true but what we think of as Christianity could be headed down a wrong path.... I suppose you could say the same of the LDS Church... that we headed off on the wrong track post JS, but that seems less likely.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Snow

[Justice]

Do you really find it untoward to, instead of praying, "Lord is Joseph Smith a prophet from you?" to pray, "Lord, did I really exist prior to the creation of this world? Is it really true that my community of faith, for all its good, is in a state of apostasy? Is it really so that I cannot be certain I'll spend eternity in your (Father's) presence until I pass on?" IMHO, these would be wise questions for a thoughtful investigator to ask of Heavenly Father.

I really thought you got it by now, PC.

You see, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then there is no need to pray about those other things... you would know the answer by virtue of receiving that answer.

Those other things are interpretation. Those are things the Christian world largely disagrees about. But, if Joseph Smith was a prophet...

[Snow]

I really thought you got it by now, PC.

You see, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then there is no need to pray about those other things... you would know the answer by virtue of receiving that answer.

Only if you believe that being a prophet ensures infallibility... which I do not.

[Dove]

Unless I am not understanding you correctly, yes.

If I didn't believe in the truth of the Bible, Isaiah, the Prophets and the Gospels, why would I ever be Christian?

As young adults/teens/kids we tend to believe what our parents teach us. But as mature Christians, I would hope that we really do take a step back and say "why do I believe what I believe?" "is this true?" I have done this.

I don't know, maybe others haven't and that is why you asked me that question?

I grew up in a Christian family and know Christianity well. However, as an adult I CHOSE to follow Jesus. It's not because my family was Protestant since the Reformation or because my mother made me or because it's a nice place to go on Sunday. It's because as an adult, I thought it through and decided that I believe Christianity to be true. I believe that Jesus is who He said He is and I believe that the Old Testament Prophets taught this. I believe that the Gospels are an accurate account of the life of Jesus. I also have spiritual reasons, of course.

Snow, maybe I did not understand your question but yes, I have thought it all through or I wouldn't be a Christian. I feel that Christianity is accurate because of a spiritual reason and because it logically makes sense to me.

Hey, Lilac~

I really appreciate/like the points you are making.....

I think all of us, at some point, in growing and progressing, will examine our belief system; why it is we believe as we do....

I was born and raised in an LDS home; however, God bore witness to me many times as to the validity of the priesthood authority, mainly through priesthood blessings. There were so many times He would answer my silent, personal prayers verbatim through those blessings, as well as enlightening me concerning my personal life.

I like that you say that Christianity makes logical sense to you as well as spiritual sense. I feel that in spades concerning my religion of choice, the LDS church....

One thing that has helped me a great deal is following the Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible~His translations can be obtained in any Bible published by the LDS church. Usually they are in the footnotes and are also in the back of the bible for more lengthier verses......

As I have read and compared the Bible's traditional translation and his translation, the LDS version, to me, is a lot more congruent with whom I understand God to be. It makes a lot more sense and is keeping with what I believe God would teach.

I like that you say you also have spiritual confirmations beyond the logical level. So often does God bear witness to me in a quiet, personalized way as to His reality and existence. At times I feel frustrated because there is no way I can prove it to anyone; but, I know it's real and from Him.

Snow, I really appreciate your points and think they are valid, ones I agree with. I think what Pam has been trying to say is perhaps you could word them in a more friendly and invitive way, rather than in an argumentative way that could easily be perceived as hostile. Just something to think about in relating to others.....

[Justice]

Only if you believe that being a prophet ensures infallibility... which I do not.

Not necessarily. I didn't mention anything about infallibility. But, those beliefs (the first 2 anyway) he mentioned are certainly addressed in the "restored gospel."

We did exist before we were born here.

There was an apostasy.

Both of these things are true if Joseph Smith was a prophet. If he wasn't, it doesn't make them untrue, but it certainly destroys the LDS position that they are true based on modern revelation. However, you cannot come to know Joseph Smith was a prophet simply by believing we existed before we were born or by believing there was an apostasy, or by simply believing any other part of the restored gospel. This is the point I was trying to make.

That we cannot know we are "saved" until we die is not an LDS belief. I know many think it is. We can know, but that knowledge doesn't come by accepting Jesus in your heart one day. It comes by faith, which requires us to do something after we accept Him in our heart. In fact, we cannot accept Him unless we believe what He says and follow Him... or (covenant to) keep His commandments.

It's a covenant relationship. It always has been, and it always will be.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Justice

[Snow]

Snow, I really appreciate your points and think they are valid, ones I agree with. I think what Pam has been trying to say is perhaps you could word them in a more friendly and invitive way, rather than in an argumentative way that could easily be perceived as hostile. Just something to think about in relating to others.....

I certainly like to argue but having reread my post, I can't see anything remotely argumentative about it. Unless reading it with some preconceived context, it is completely neutral in tone:

"Yeah - probably.

Do you also extend that logic to the Bible - that the truth of Judeo-Christianity comes down to Isaiah or the author of the Gospels?"

I didn't ask because I am trying to argue or not argue. I am merely seeking information.

[Snow]

Not necessarily. I didn't mention anything about infallibility. But, those beliefs (the first 2 anyway) he mentioned are certainly addressed in the "restored gospel."

We did exist before we were born here.

There was an apostasy.

Both of these things are true if Joseph Smith was a prophet. If he wasn't, it doesn't make them untrue, but it certainly destroys the LDS position that they are true based on modern revelation. However, you cannot come to know Joseph Smith was a prophet simply by believing we existed before we were born or by believing there was an apostasy, or by simply believing any other part of the restored gospel. This is the point I was trying to make.

That we cannot know we are "saved" until we die is not an LDS belief. I know many think it is. We can know, but that knowledge doesn't come by accepting Jesus in your heart one day. It comes by faith, which requires us to do something after we accept Him in our heart. In fact, we cannot accept Him unless we believe what He says and follow Him... or (covenant to) keep His commandments.

It's a covenant relationship. It always has been, and it always will be.

I'll grant that unless there was an apostasy JS was not a prophet. I wouldn't concede so easily that if JS actually was a prophet, there must needs be a pre-existence. Of course I do believe that there was but do not necessarily accept that JS prophethood = pre-existence. I can think of at least one example of a JS central teaching that would not surprise me to later learn that he had been in error.

[bytebear]

You know I find it far easier to accept LDS doctrine than the visions and miracles, because most if not all, are well supported through Biblical interpretation, including the "controversial" ideas. I keep thinking if some bishop in 300 AD had been a bit more or less vocal, we would be debating vastly different interpretations today.

[prisonchaplain]

I really thought you got it by now, PC.

You see, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then there is no need to pray about those other things... you would know the answer by virtue of receiving that answer.

Those other things are interpretation. Those are things the Christian world largely disagrees about. But, if Joseph Smith was a prophet...

I suppose that if an investigator comes from a non-religious, or a shallow religious faith tradition, it might be sufficient to seek the veracity of Joseph Smith's office as a prophet. However, for Christians from rigorous Protestant or Catholic practice, the admonition to "line upon line," may actually necessitate going to Heavenly Father with these questions of teaching and of church history. In a sense, though President Hinkley encouraged converts to bring all that is good with them, those from strong religious practice must also "unlearn," quite a bit. That unlearning might require a personal testimony from the Holy Spirit. Some comforting practices are hard to let go of (coffee and the Bible for morning devotion, for example).

[Traveler]

I suppose that if an investigator comes from a non-religious, or a shallow religious faith tradition, it might be sufficient to seek the veracity of Joseph Smith's office as a prophet. However, for Christians from rigorous Protestant or Catholic practice, the admonition to "line upon line," may actually necessitate going to Heavenly Father with these questions of teaching and of church history. In a sense, though President Hinkley encouraged converts to bring all that is good with them, those from strong religious practice must also "unlearn," quite a bit. That unlearning might require a personal testimony from the Holy Spirit. Some comforting practices are hard to let go of (coffee and the Bible for morning devotion, for example).

Truth does not matter where a person is coming from - what matters is where they are going.

The Traveler

[StallionMcBeastly]

All I can tell you is that I have a testimony that Joseph Smith did see what he claims, and is a true prophet of God. The Book of Mormon is a testament of his work.

[Justice]

I suppose that if an investigator comes from a non-religious, or a shallow religious faith tradition, it might be sufficient to seek the veracity of Joseph Smith's office as a prophet. However, for Christians from rigorous Protestant or Catholic practice, the admonition to "line upon line," may actually necessitate going to Heavenly Father with these questions of teaching and of church history. In a sense, though President Hinkley encouraged converts to bring all that is good with them, those from strong religious practice must also "unlearn," quite a bit. That unlearning might require a personal testimony from the Holy Spirit. Some comforting practices are hard to let go of (coffee and the Bible for morning devotion, for example).

During Christ's day, and shortly after, there were Jews-turned-Christian who thought all who came to Christ had to come to Him through the Law of Moses. We know that isn't right. Yet, it was the single most addressed concern by the Apostles. My point being that many of the Jews who believed in Christ were very learned in Jewish scripture. They saw that Christ was the foretold Messiah. They understood the scriptures better. So, I don't think it is more difficult for a more learned Catholic or Protestant to convert to the LDS faith. I think if they really understand the scriptures they would be very intrigued by the Book of Mormon.

From my perspective, it really doesn't matter how learned you are in your current Christian belief system. Accepting many LDS teachings can only be done by coming to know Joseph Smith was a prophet. I don't think a person has to be shallow in their beliefs. I think all that is required is that a person honestly want the truth, whatever the cost. Setting aside ones beliefs is easy if they feel their beliefs are being replaced with truth.

Speaking of the latter days, the Lord said:

Isaiah 29:

14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

How does wisdom perish or understanding hide? When it is replaced with truth.

But, to your point, for a man to admit his beliefs are wrong, especially a schooled man, is a hard thing to do. All that man really needs to have is humility and a desire to know the truth, even at the expense of what he believes to be true. Even so, it is still very difficult.

[prisonchaplain]

Truth does not matter where a person is coming from - what matters is where they are going.

The Traveler

I majored in history, and would argue the benefits of a rearview mirror.

TO JUSTICE: Strong Protestant/Catholic converts to your faith will probably make good teachers, good evangelists, and good workers...because, in some ways they work harder to arrive at the same beliefs those born into the church do. BTW, the converse is also true. LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses in particular, who convert to evangelical faith, often become the most diligent laborers in the harvest. Being very familier with the Bible may make a convert a stronger member of your church, but it might also lengthen the journey to conversion.

Edited September 9, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Dove]

I certainly like to argue but having reread my post, I can't see anything remotely argumentative about it. Unless reading it with some preconceived context, it is completely neutral in tone:

"Yeah - probably.

Do you also extend that logic to the Bible - that the truth of Judeo-Christianity comes down to Isaiah or the author of the Gospels?"

I didn't ask because I am trying to argue or not argue. I am merely seeking information.

Hey Snow,

My impression of it was, if not argumetative, one of chanllenging her reasoning. It also sounded a little flippant to me. I won't dismiss, though, that my own "preconceived contexts" very well could have been involved.

I'm really glad, though, and I do believe, you are not seeking argument for argument's sake....The best in your search of more info....

Dove

Edited September 10, 2009 by Dove