Prove Doctrine

[Justice]

I question your use of "the only way". I know it's a popular Christian term.

The fact that you question it is natual and normal. I don't begrudge anyone for questioning anything. :)

It is a popular Christian term for a variety of reasons. A couple I can think of are:

1. Because Christ said it.

2. Because if He is the Son of God, as He claimed, then no one else is, and He is the only one... only way.

I think it confuses things, because the "way" to the Celestial Kingdom requires much more than faith in Christ alone.

That all depends on how you define faith in Christ, or how you separate what actually is faith in Christ and what isn't. All things of God require faith, in my estimation, because until He actually reveals Himself to a person, that person must move forward in faith.

Out of curiosity, I'd like to see the list of things that have to be done that you think aren't considered faith in Christ.

[Lorenzo]

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..

Had he been a fraud, he probably would have known he was one, and would not have attempted it. His refusal proves neither that he was or was not a prophet. Whatever his reasons for not re-translating, only he knows.

[Lorenzo]

The fact that you question it is natual and normal. I don't begrudge anyone for questioning anything. :)

It is a popular Christian term for a variety of reasons. A couple I can think of are:

1. Because Christ said it.

2. Because if He is the Son of God, as He claimed, then no one else is, and He is the only one... only way.

It was not the way it is used by popular Christianity that I was wondering about. It was your use of it in a way that seemed like the popular Christian way rather than the Restored Gospel understanding.

[Hemidakota]

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.

Truth only prevails by the the Holy Ghost. Thanks for the post...we all need to read this from time-to-time.

[Moksha]

The good thing about faith is that it can leap over a lack of knowledge. Most likely the confusing part to Thews is that we frequently confuse knowledge with faith in order to be in line with an initial misunderstanding.

My coping mechanism in dealing with this is to say fine, if you insist you know rather than believe, then go ahead and believe you know.

Faith in the Gospel of Jesus is a wonderful thing. Faith is transcendent.

:)

[Justice]

Had he been a fraud, he probably would have known he was one, and would not have attempted it. His refusal proves neither that he was or was not a prophet. Whatever his reasons for not re-translating, only he knows.

We all know why he didn't re-translate it. It is outlined in the D&C. He was told not to re-translate it by the Lord and told why. He wrote and published it for us all to see.

Also, he made known to us his mistake of not listening to Lord. I doubt a fraud would also admit his mistakes. :)

[Justice]

It was not the way it is used by popular Christianity that I was wondering about. It was your use of it in a way that seemed like the popular Christian way rather than the Restored Gospel understanding.

I guess I don't see the difference. It's a small, simple term that anyone who reads the Bible can believe. You don't have to be LDS to believe Christ is the only way.

[Lorenzo]

We all know why he didn't re-translate it. It is outlined in the D&C. He was told not to re-translate it by the Lord and told why. He wrote and published it for us all to see.

Also, he made known to us his mistake of not listening to Lord. I doubt a fraud would also admit his mistakes. :)

Right. Either way, if he were a fraud, he wouldn't say so, and whatever he did would be to cover his tracks, not to provide more truth. I think we're agreed in principle. and obviously he wasn't a fraud. That's obvious.

[Snow]

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?

Bad example.

Joseph Smith was concerned about the same thing and acted accordingly. Finding the 116 pages, whatever they said, wouldn't prove anything.

Do you have a better example?

[Lorenzo]

Finding the 116 pages would prove they existed and I believe would prove more strongly Joseph's call as prophet and translator, and again I believe the teachings in those pages would further confirm the truth of the entire Book of Mormon.

Thews asked how we would respond if the 116 pages differed from the rest of the Book of Mormon. With today's technology, alterations in the writing on those pages would be detected, as Hoffman's eventually were. So the true original would be seen. Since God does not lie, and since God inspired the men who wrote the Book of Mormon, there is no possibility there could be any disagreement in it, any more than there is disagreement in the rest of the Book of Mormon, and anymore than there is disagreement between the Book of Mormon and the Bible as translated correctly and as understood correctly and as taught correctly by the Lord's Anointed.

[Snow]

Finding the 116 pages would prove they existed and I believe would prove more strongly Joseph's call as prophet and translator, and again I believe the teachings in those pages would further confirm the truth of the entire Book of Mormon.

Thews asked how we would respond if the 116 pages differed from the rest of the Book of Mormon. With today's technology, alterations in the writing on those pages would be detected, as Hoffman's eventually were. So the true original would be seen. Since God does not lie, and since God inspired the men who wrote the Book of Mormon, there is no possibility there could be any disagreement in it, any more than there is disagreement in the rest of the Book of Mormon, and anymore than there is disagreement between the Book of Mormon and the Bible as translated correctly and as understood correctly and as taught correctly by the Lord's Anointed.

The question was not whether you could bear your testimony. The question was one of how you would respond if it could be shown that Joseph Smith was not what he said he was - the poster just didn't understand enough to ask the question appropriately.

And simply finding the 116 pages would do nothing to more strongly prove anything other than JS and his scribes had penned 116 pages - something that is not in dispute by anyone.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Snow