Prove Doctrine

[Justice]

I read a quote by Brigham Young this morning that made me think of many of the discussions we have on this forum, and how this quote might change them...

"I had only traveled a short time to testify to the people before I learned this one fact, that you might prove doctrine from the Bible till doomsday, and it would merely convince a people but would not convert them. You might read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and prove every iota that you advance, and that alone would have no converting influence upon the people. Nothing short of a testimony by the power of the Holy Ghost would bring light and knowledge to them--bring them in their hearts to repentance. Nothing short of that would ever do." Journal of Discourses, Book 5, Page 327.

You know, since all Gospel truth is revealed, we are to teach and testify of those truths. We don't have to reason them, or prove them through intellect, even though all Gospel truths are in perfect harmony with reason and intellect. These things are known only through the Spirit of God. So it seems the better method is to teach and testify, rather than to argue or debate. The spirit of contention will never lead someone to embrace truth, even if it eventually proves doctrine.

[NeuroTypical]

Oh absolutely. Whenever I encounter critics of this church who advance DNA and archaeology arguments against us, I ask them a question: "Let's say tomorrow, you turn on the TV and discover that non-mormon archaeologists have discovered Zarahemla, the sword of Laban, evidence of the BoM battles, and Lehi's grave (complete with DNA linking him to various indiginous people in the Guatemala area). Would you bend your knee, profess Christ as your savior and Joseph Smith as prophet, and be baptised?

About a third of them refuse to answer, a third say yes, and a third say absolutely not and would still remain as passionately critical.

LM

[thews]

Oh absolutely. Whenever I encounter critics of this church who advance DNA and archaeology arguments against us, I ask them a question: "Let's say tomorrow, you turn on the TV and discover that non-mormon archaeologists have discovered Zarahemla, the sword of Laban, evidence of the BoM battles, and Lehi's grave (complete with DNA linking him to various indiginous people in the Guatemala area). Would you bend your knee, profess Christ as your savior and Joseph Smith as prophet, and be baptised?

About a third of them refuse to answer, a third say yes, and a third say absolutely not and would still remain as passionately critical.

LM

I hear this a lot... what if? The archaeology "arguments" are based on zero (not one) actual artifact to validate one story in the Book of Mormon. The DNA arguments are very conclusive. Polygamy/polyandry and racism are placed into buckets that somehow were OK then, but not OK now. Magic is a part of Mormonism, as is translated doctrine from the book of breathings ...these are all facts.

Let me ask you the same type of question... outside of your testimoney, if the lost pages were found and proved the stories differed, would this be enough to convince you that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God?

[Gatorman]

I hear this a lot... what if? The archaeology "arguments" are based on zero (not one) actual artifact to validate one story in the Book of Mormon. The DNA arguments are very conclusive. Polygamy/polyandry and racism are placed into buckets that somehow were OK then, but not OK now. Magic is a part of Mormonism, as is translated doctrine from the book of breathings ...these are all facts.

Let me ask you the same type of question... outside of your testimoney, if the lost pages were found and proved the stories differed, would this be enough to convince you that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God?

Science and 'facts' are evidence, not proof. My testimony is proof of the evidence I have. So, assuming change in that testimony through faith, then you can provide all the facts and science in the world. I am not concerned with worldly answers.

[Misshalfway]

I hear this a lot... what if? The archaeology "arguments" are based on zero (not one) actual artifact to validate one story in the Book of Mormon. The DNA arguments are very conclusive. Polygamy/polyandry and racism are placed into buckets that somehow were OK then, but not OK now. Magic is a part of Mormonism, as is translated doctrine from the book of breathings ...these are all facts.

Let me ask you the same type of question... outside of your testimoney, if the lost pages were found and proved the stories differed, would this be enough to convince you that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God?

I think the point of the OP is that acheological evidence is irrelevant when we are talking about conversion. Convincing and converting.....two totally different processes.

I can't tell you about the lost plates....But I can tell you how the Spirit has taught be about ideas that were true and ideas that were false. I can share with you how God has led me down roads that brought unseen blessings without explanations or reasonings that would satisfy my intellect.

The problem is that I can"t show you. I can't give you the knowledge I have or illustrate to you how it eclipses every other worldly voice. The power of this communication is between me and God.

People stay in these intellectual battles because its spiritually safe. It doesn't require faith or, heaven forbid, humility.

[thews]

I think the point of the OP is that acheological evidence is irrelevant when we are talking about conversion. Convincing and converting.....two totally different processes.

I dunno... I hear a lot of blanket statements that claim the critic's evidence is bogus, but it's very conclusive to me. I'm still trying to figure out how the opinion that DNA evidence would prove the bible is flawed?

I can't tell you about the lost plates....But I can tell you how the Spirit has taught be about ideas that were true and ideas that were false. I can share with you how God has led me down roads that brought unseen blessings without explanations or reasonings that would satisfy my intellect.

Then you've found what works for you... that's awesome.

The problem is that I can"t show you. I can't give you the knowledge I have or illustrate to you how it eclipses every other worldly voice. The power of this communication is between me and God.

This is the foundation for testimoney being the proof IMO. Again, if it works for you then good, but it doesn't counter the factually based arguments.

People stay in these intellectual battles because its spiritually safe. It doesn't require faith or, heaven forbid, humility.

Faith isn't based 100% on prayer. I've heard it said many times that someone shoudl pray for answers to factually based questions... I don't understand why prayer is required to conclude evidence is either true or not. The bible instructs us to test our faith, so I don't see how the facts can be dismissed if they don't fit what the person wants them to. How many times in your life have you heard "I know the church is true..."? How does one really "know" is my point, as we can't "know" but rather believe. As long as it all makes sense then it should make sense to you. I'm happy you've found what works for you.

[Misshalfway]

I dunno... I hear a lot of blanket statements that claim the critic's evidence is bogus, but it's very conclusive to me. I'm still trying to figure out how the opinion that DNA evidence would prove the bible is flawed?

What don't you know? That conversion is different than being intellectually convinced?

And I understand that science in all its forms is compelling ( I like the word compelling better than conclusive. Conclusive is somewhat overconfident for me at times). And with spiritual matters or matters of the heart, I am just not sure how important it is. The BofM isn't about archeology. It's about coming to Christ and being perfected in Him. If we miss the purpose of the book because some guy in tan pants didn't find an artifact...... You see my point? It also doesn't change the invitation of the Savior to obey anyway. "Dispute not because ye see not....". Conversion happens when we exercize faith and learn wisdom by the process of faith. I was also just thinking of the scriptural invitation to "be believing". It doesn't say to "just believe". Be believing is something different. I think its closer to an attitude than an act.

This is the foundation for testimoney being the proof IMO. Again, if it works for you then good, but it doesn't counter the factually based arguments.

It's not suppose to. And frankly, if it did, it would eliminate the need for faith and the spiritual growth the process is suppose to inspire. God doesn't invite only after he satifies our intellectual curiousity. He looks into our eyes and hearts and bids us to follow Him. He explains according to His will and pleasure. Relying on logic and sound argument for proof is an incomplete way of discovering the proofs that create conversion.

Faith isn't based 100% on prayer. I've heard it said many times that someone shoudl pray for answers to factually based questions... I don't understand why prayer is required to conclude evidence is either true or not. The bible instructs us to test our faith, so I don't see how the facts can be dismissed if they don't fit what the person wants them to. How many times in your life have you heard "I know the church is true..."? How does one really "know" is my point, as we can't "know" but rather believe. As long as it all makes sense then it should make sense to you. I'm happy you've found what works for you.

I never said faith was entirely based in prayer. If that is what you think the mormon message is, then you need to look again.

The process of exercizing faith and asking important questions is not to dismiss facts. It is rather to explore them and open ones heart to other explanations and possibilities that can't be answered with a beeker and and a measuring spoon. God requires that we use our human faculties (not just the mental ones) to answer questions ourselves sometimes as He doesn't always command or answer in all things. BUT.... there is such thing as spiritual knowledge. When it comes, it transcends the "conclusiveness" of human intellectual ability and strangely remains very reasonable.

Knowing is an interesting idea. I think what helps me is not to define the word in black and white terms. I like to think of it in terms of ranges or grades of knowing about something. And I don't simply look to the reason center of my brain to discern truth. I try to open all my faculties, even the ones that make me feel vulnerable, and I listen for the voice of the Spirit.

I am glad you are happy for me, but I dont' have a corner on the market. These blessings are available for everyone who can get their heart and mind and behavior into the right formations to allow the process to open doors of understanding for them.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Misshalfway]

We can't "prove" there is a God or a Savior. We can barely confirm a man named Jesus even walked the earth. Science isn't gonna help us , why is it that some think to use it when discussing doctrine?

[Traveler]

I dunno... I hear a lot of blanket statements that claim the critic's evidence is bogus, but it's very conclusive to me. I'm still trying to figure out how the opinion that DNA evidence would prove the bible is flawed?

.....

.

Are there humans that G-d created that are not related to Adam and Eve? According to the Bible Adam and Eve lived no more than 6,000 years ago. How can any people (humans) of Earth be unrelated through DNA that requires more than 6,000 years?

The Traveler

[Justice]

Then you've found what works for you... that's awesome.

In the days following Christ's resurrection and ascension I'm sure there were many that told the Christians, "I'm glad you found what works for you."

You see, the basis of our message is that it works for everyone. That's the message about Jesus being the Son of God, and atoning for the world. It works for everyone.

Very plainly... science, achaeology, and someone else's opinions are NOT going to bring the knowledge of the truth to you. Discussing facts and interpretation will never convince another of truth. You must open your mind and heart and presume it is possible for God to talk to man.

Don't you think it's possible that God appeared to Joseph Smith?

Of course it is possible.

The fruit or evidence of this is the Book of Mormon. The truth of the book can only be revealed to you by the power of God, not by the latest archaeological expedition.

The burden falls on you to open your mind and heart, discounting all the wisdom of men, and read it with a sincere desire to know if it is true. Don't condemn it before you read it. Once you see the prophets of the Book of Mormon preaching Christ and teaching that He is the only way, you can then pray to know if it's true.

Until you do this, discussions about evidence like DNA or unearthed digs will just be interesting. God's truths must be revealed. They will not come through the science of man.

[Justice]

Let me ask you the same type of question... outside of your testimoney, if the lost pages were found and proved the stories differed, would this be enough to convince you that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God?

To answer your question, though, my answer is absolutely not.

God told us that the reason those lost manuscript pages were stolen in the first place was so that they could be edited and, when compared to the re-translation of them, be found to disagree. So, why would I be surprised if they were found and they proved to be different?

There is great wisdom, even evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that he did not attempt to re-translate those same pages.

Even still, what about all the pages that weren't lost? Do they teach Christ? Do they teach a man to do good and follow the word of God? I don't understand why you hesitate to believe something that teaches that Christ is the only way, just as the Bible teaches?

[NeuroTypical]

The archaeology "arguments" are based on zero (not one) actual artifact to validate one story in the Book of Mormon.

Not sure what you mean by artifacts. There is evidence in support of BoM claims, just not conclusive evidence.

The DNA arguments are very conclusive.

It depends on what you think the conclusions are. And it also depends on what you think the BoM actually claims in the first place. Every discussion on DNA I've had involves the critic being off on one or the other.

LM

[Justice]

It's just sad that a person won't even give the Book of Mormon a chance because someone somewhere says the DNA doesn't match.

[Traveler]

Just for the record - As an engineer and scientist and a devout follower of the living G-d of truth - I am personally committed to truth and to seeking and finding truth. I consider anyone seeking truth to be my friend and ally.

However, I have learned in life that very few that claim they have found “truth” are telling the truth. I have also learned that the method of finding truth is more important than the truth itself. In this Jesus tells us that there is only one way or method to eternal life. If a person says they have found the way but themselves are committed to another way – they have lost their way. Or as Jesus says – he that says that they believe in me and do not keep the commandments are a liar and the truth is not in them.

The Traveler

[thews]

Not sure what you mean by artifacts. There is evidence in support of BoM claims, just not conclusive evidence.

There is not one piece of actual evidence to substantiate one story in the Book of Mormon as historically accurate... not one and that's a fact. If you claim opinion is "evidence" I'll disagree. If you disagree with the claim that real historical evidence exists, please link me to it.

It depends on what you think the conclusions are. And it also depends on what you think the BoM actually claims in the first place. Every discussion on DNA I've had involves the critic being off on one or the other.

LM

I'll disagree. American Indians are not descended from Isreal and that's also a fact.

[thews]

To answer your question, though, my answer is absolutely not.

Then there's really nothing that can convince that the Book of Mormon is not true. Would you agree? Why then, for argumentative purposes, would one assume the "what if" goes both ways?

God told us that the reason those lost manuscript pages were stolen in the first place was so that they could be edited and, when compared to the re-translation of them, be found to disagree. So, why would I be surprised if they were found and they proved to be different?

The way I understand it, evil men stole the pages. I wonder why God would allow this in the first place?

There is great wisdom, even evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that he did not attempt to re-translate those same pages.

I still don't get why God allowed the pages to be stolen if it was his word he was attempting to reveal.

Even still, what about all the pages that weren't lost? Do they teach Christ?

I don't believe so.

Do they teach a man to do good and follow the word of God?

Again I'll have to answer no, I do not believe they do.

I don't understand why you hesitate to believe something that teaches that Christ is the only way, just as the Bible teaches?

Because it's not the bible and I don't believe God make mistakes. If the Book of Mormon is "The most perfect book ever written," then it shouldn't require changing as times change, as the bible defines the real word of God will never change.

Can I ask you this... which is more important in LDS theolog, the Book of Mormon or the bible? You can answer it's a tie, or both, but according to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is more perfect than the bible. Agree/disagree?

[Just_A_Guy]

Can I ask you this... which is more important in LDS theolog, the Book of Mormon or the bible? You can answer it's a tie, or both, but according to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is more perfect than the bible. Agree/disagree?

Wow. Given your history here, the above is the very picture of "sucker bait".

Have fun, kids--

--JAG

[bmy-]

Then why not reveal it to the entire world at once in one mega-revelation? Why not remove all doubt and let those who would come unto God do so unhindered by evidences that seem to point in the opposite direction?

[MormonMama]

The way I understand it, evil men stole the pages. I wonder why God would allow this in the first place?

I still don't get why God allowed the pages to be stolen if it was his word he was attempting to reveal.

Why does God allow bad things to happen, period? Why did he allow His prophets and apostles to be killed? They were preaching His word, weren't they?

I don't believe so. Again I'll have to answer no, I do not believe they do.

You need to read it if you really think that.

Because it's not the bible and I don't believe God make mistakes.

We don't believe He makes mistakes either.

If the Book of Mormon is "The most perfect book ever written," then it shouldn't require changing as times change, as the bible defines the real word of God will never change.

God is unchanging, but reading through the Bible will show that His commandments to His children DO change as His children are able to handle them.

Can I ask you this... which is more important in LDS theolog, the Book of Mormon or the bible? You can answer it's a tie, or both, but according to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is more perfect than the bible. Agree/disagree?

Read our Articles of Faith for the answer to that question.

Then why not reveal it to the entire world at once in one mega-revelation? Why not remove all doubt and let those who would come unto God do so unhindered by evidences that seem to point in the opposite direction?

So, basically, you want God to just shove it in your face, no faith required?

Read through both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. You will see MANY examples of people who had the truth practically shoved in their faces, but still refused to believe. Look at the many miracles that Christ performed, yet there were more people than not who refused to believe he was the Son of God. Why should nowadays be any different?

Edited September 21, 2009 by MormonMama

[prisonchaplain]

Science and 'facts' are evidence, not proof. My testimony is proof of the evidence I have. So, assuming change in that testimony through faith, then you can provide all the facts and science in the world. I am not concerned with worldly answers.

Being sure of the voice of God is important. And yet, how many in your ward are converts from another religion? Ask them if at some point in their lives they FELT certain of that other religion's truth--if they thought they had a testimony of it.

If the remains of Jesus was found, DNA confirmed, and there was no doubt in the scientific community that it was indeed the remains of Jesus of Nazareth it would surely have an effect on my faith. I would not deny Christ, but I mght have to rethink some of my doctrine, beliefs, and understandings about God and his Bible. Do I expect this? Never. But I'm not so cavalier as to say that should the unthinkable happen I would just block it from my mind as a Satanic delusion, and continue unhindered in my beliefs. God has nothing to fear from truth, and nor should I.

[Justice]

I still don't get why God allowed the pages to be stolen if it was his word he was attempting to reveal.

It's one of the greatest stories ever told about obedience and humility. You should give it a read. God told them no twice, but they kept asking.

You know, you may be looking in the wrong place for your evidence. Why not study the lives of the people who claim to have lifted and handled the Gold Plates and saw the angel? If history proves them to be honest men, shouldn't that be evidence?

I only suggest that because you seem to be dead set on seeing evidence before you even begin to imagine it might be true. Sometimes, after you believe a thing is true, then you begin to see the evidence. There is evidence all through the Bible.

[MormonMama]

Being sure of the voice of God is important. And yet, how many in your ward are converts from another religion? Ask them if at some point in their lives they FELT certain of that other religion's truth--if they thought they had a testimony of it.

I can honestly say that I never had a testimony of any faith, or even felt like I had a real relationship with God and Christ, until I joined the LDS church. I was raised Catholic with exposure to other faiths, and never felt that any of them were true. I even abandoned Christianity for awhile because I had such negative experiences with so many Christian faiths.

But that's strictly my experience. I know many people who were very devout in their respective faiths before converting to the LDS church. I've never asked any of them about their former testimonies of their old faiths though. You've got me curious now.

[Justice]

There are a couple adult, recent converts in our Ward. It is very interesting to hear them expalin what they felt they had verse what they feel they have now.

It's remarakably like President Hinckley's invitation to bring what truth and light you have and let us add to it. That's almost exactly what they describe.

[Lorenzo]

Oh absolutely. Whenever I encounter critics of this church who advance DNA and archaeology arguments against us, I ask them a question: "Let's say tomorrow, you turn on the TV and discover that non-mormon archaeologists have discovered Zarahemla, the sword of Laban, evidence of the BoM battles, and Lehi's grave (complete with DNA linking him to various indiginous people in the Guatemala area). Would you bend your knee, profess Christ as your savior and Joseph Smith as prophet, and be baptised?

About a third of them refuse to answer, a third say yes, and a third say absolutely not and would still remain as passionately critical.

For my money, then, evidence is crucial. Thirty-three percent of those who do not believe and who will thus be deprived of the highest blessings (and exaltation) could be included, if they were provided with one of those evidentiary objects. That convinces me that evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is important. It is even crucial. We should use all the evidence we have, and even get more. The more evidence we have, the more people we can lead to salvation (and exaltation).

There is great wisdom, even evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that he did not attempt to re-translate those same pages.

... I don't understand why you hesitate to believe something that teaches that Christ is the only way, just as the Bible teaches?

I do not see how refusing to re-translate something proves a person is a prophet. That seems a rather unrealistic stretch. But, okay, some people believe that, so it's okay with me.

The Koran, too, teaches that one must accept Jesus to be approved by God. By the reasoning given, then, we should believe all the rest of what the Koran says.

I question your use of "the only way". I know it's a popular Christian term. I think it confuses things, because the "way" to the Celestial Kingdom requires much more than faith in Christ alone.

[Justice]

I do not see how refusing to re-translate something proves a person is a prophet.

Evidence and proof are 2 entirely different things.

I believe had he been a fraud, the liklihood that he would have re-translated them was high.

I believe where the D&C said it is wisdom not to translate them, and gave reasons why, is correct. Often, the only wisdom involved in a situation is inspiried wisdom. From that perspective, I believe it is evidence he was inspired.