Proof = tempting the Lord?

[Seminarysnoozer]

At what point does a strong desire for knowledge turn into desire for proof when it comes to spiritual knowledge. I have a science background and so my tendency is to find the proof or evidence based knowledge in whatever topic. And, I know a lot of you are that way too by previous conversations. When it comes to the gospel I think we have to switch gears and learn spiritually. Spiritually based learning is through the Holy Ghost, its a spirit to spirit communication. It's not something that can easily be transmitted by a series of arguments for or against a specific point.

But, where is that "line" where a strong desire for truth turns into a desire for proof. And if we ask for proof, isn't that the same as asking for a sign? Isn't that similar to Satan tempting Jesus to throw himself down from a high place and let angels save him from death? What did Jesus say to that? Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

I don't want to tempt the Lord. So, how do you know when you have crossed that line, when you are really asking God to prove Himself, even though (in your mind) it is just a strong desire for knowledge and truth?

[Intrigued]

What about Thomas..

[Dravin]

The key difference I think is are we setting conditions upon the evidence, confirmation or understanding it is we will accept? You must confirm things my way or I won't believe you is seeking a sign.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest Circus4Jesus]

It is for this reason there are no real intellectual people in the church. Being intelligent comes way after being obedient.

[Connie]

I don't know if this will help at all but reading your post reminded me of it.

I was reading some of the essays of Michel de Montaigne a while back and found this quote particularly interesting. It is from Book One, Essay 26, Of the education of children:

"Let the tutor make his charge pass everything through a sieve and lodge nothing in his head on mere authority and trust."

My thoughts: There are many different kinds of sieves. The scientific method is a great sieve for certain things but it cannot be used to test all things. You have to find the right sieve for the right problem. Hope that made sense.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It is for this reason there are no real intellectual people in the church. Being intelligent comes way after being obedient.

I can't tell if you are saying that is a good thing or a bad thing.

I mean ... I don't want to be called an intellectual if being an intellectual is similar to being like Korihor in the Book of Mormon. The argument of one who seeks a sign is that people are somehow held back or backwards because of their ignorance. This is what Korihor said;

"23 Now the high priest’s name was Giddonah. And Korihor said unto him: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

24 Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true."

This is his argument, that the people are kept from being "intellectual" and he wants to set them free from the bondage of the "foolish traditions of your fathers." He wants to try to teach the people that blind obedience is bad.

I agree with your last sentence, true enlightenment only comes after obedience. But at the same time we are taught to seek knowledge and understanding. I don't think obedience requires being blind, or not intellectual for that matter. But, there is a line on that spectrum where it becomes more of a desire for proof instead of just desire to understand. That far extreme is like Korihor.

And, I think there are some topics that I can clearly switch gears between taking a more scientific, proof oriented approach to understanding certain topics. But, I don't think you can apply those to many topics within the gospel. I see "prove it" type comments here often but I always ask myself, how can "prove it" type discussions be useful when talking about the gospel? Going further than that, should we avoid coming close to saying "prove it"?

[GADBabaganoosh]

So what if the lord gives you a "No, not now I'll tell you later." kind of thing. Or you simply don't recieve an answer for that very reason?

[Roseslipper]

:)

It is for this reason there are no real intellectual people in the church. Being intelligent comes way after being obedient.

to u circus, I want you to know that I feel bad for you. IM sure something has happened to u, that you feel that you are more happier out of the church then in. I want you to know even though you feel this way, God understand you more then you understand yourself, and He still Loves you, And I know that He hopes that some day you will change your mind and come back. Being bi sexual or what ever u said u are. Is a challenge a trail and you dont need to use that as an excuse to have a sexual relationship, just like hetrosexual people sorry I cant spell who are not married, or are div. shouldnt have that kind of a relationship if their not married. Any way I do hope that in time you will find your way back into the Church for thats where u will find real happiness and peace....

[Snow]

It is for this reason there are no real intellectual people in the church.

Are the days of Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, James Talmage, BH Roberts, John Widstoe, Hugh Nibley, Lowell Bennion, Eugene England gone already?

[Traveler]

Anything that relates to the empirical world, the empirical truth of it will be physically apparent. When we speak of spiritual things there is always evidence. The problem is not that it does not exist; it is that we want to define what that existence will be. It is like asking your wife to prove her love for you to feed your own ego. If you cannot figure out their love by the exercise of your own love then all the explaining will only bring more doubt.

The above paragraph is a roundabout way of saying that the only reason anyone doubts G-d and his work is because they are not committed to the L-rd. Jesus said that there is a direct connection between knowing G-d and keeping (being loyal to) the commandments – it is impossible to separate the two. I read an interesting passage in the translation of the Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll where Isaiah is talking to king Ahaz. Isaiah says, “You do not trust G-d because you are not loyal to him.”

The Traveler

[mnn727]

It is for this reason there are no real intellectual people in the church. .

What?!?! Come on, this Church is full of: college grads, business leaders, scientists, educators, etc.

[Blackmarch]

At what point does a strong desire for knowledge turn into desire for proof when it comes to spiritual knowledge. I have a science background and so my tendency is to find the proof or evidence based knowledge in whatever topic. And, I know a lot of you are that way too by previous conversations. When it comes to the gospel I think we have to switch gears and learn spiritually. Spiritually based learning is through the Holy Ghost, its a spirit to spirit communication. It's not something that can easily be transmitted by a series of arguments for or against a specific point.

But, where is that "line" where a strong desire for truth turns into a desire for proof. And if we ask for proof, isn't that the same as asking for a sign? Isn't that similar to Satan tempting Jesus to throw himself down from a high place and let angels save him from death? What did Jesus say to that? Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

I don't want to tempt the Lord. So, how do you know when you have crossed that line, when you are really asking God to prove Himself, even though (in your mind) it is just a strong desire for knowledge and truth?

I think the line is crossed when it becomes "show me a sign or I will not believe". Quite frankly I think its fine to ask find proof or something, but let him know that it's not necessary.

I think some of the better "proofs" come from asking for assistance with a certain thing, after having done all you can to achieve that thing, and then recieveing that thing in a manner that tends to be uncommon or rare.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think the line is crossed when it becomes "show me a sign or I will not believe". Quite frankly I think its fine to ask find proof or something, but let him know that it's not necessary.

I think some of the better "proofs" come from asking for assistance with a certain thing, after having done all you can to achieve that thing, and then recieveing that thing in a manner that tends to be uncommon or rare.

Thanks for your response. Let me "pin you down" a little (if you are okay with that :)) ... Would you go as far as saying that wanting proof is equal to asking for a sign?

Because really, what is proof if you already believe ... I think that would be called confirmation, not proof. So, anyone saying they want proof are already saying they don't believe, in my opinion.

[rameumptom]

As one who is science-minded, I don't seek for "proof". I seek for evidence. You cannot prove a theory, you can only disprove it. However, you can provide evidence for a theory. As it is, we are still finding evidences supporting Einstein's theories. It is always possible that some day we'll find some evidence that completely changes those theories.

So it is with spiritual things. We receive evidences, not proof.

[rameumptom]

Are the days of Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, James Talmage, BH Roberts, John Widstoe, Hugh Nibley, Lowell Bennion, Eugene England gone already?

I would have added Daniel Peterson, but then I remembered that every anti-Mormon knows he's a complete moron.

[Seminarysnoozer]

As one who is science-minded, I don't seek for "proof". I seek for evidence. You cannot prove a theory, you can only disprove it. However, you can provide evidence for a theory. As it is, we are still finding evidences supporting Einstein's theories. It is always possible that some day we'll find some evidence that completely changes those theories.

So it is with spiritual things. We receive evidences, not proof.

I guess I am not making myself clear, sorry. Whether you call it evidence or proof, these are things that the physical mind can comprehend, that the carnal mind can make sense of. If it is asked for, in any form, is that not the same, maybe in a small way, as asking for a sign?

In other words, the only way to not "ask for a sign" is to ask for spiritual confirmation.

To me, this is different than the process of just understanding something, which takes study and looking for evidence etc. But if you tell yourself that you don't believe something until you see evidence that is confirmed by the carnal mind ... than to me that is very close to asking for a sign. Where is the line drawn? Or, maybe it's not even on the same spectrum.

Whereas, asking to understand something (of a gospel or spiritual nature) at a spiritual level, such as in prayer and receiving spiritual confirmation, to me, is not asking for a sign. But, if its in the form of a book or some ancient writing or even some talk that an apostle gave a long time ago as "proof" or "evidence" that we should believe that way - that is asking for a sign. And to me looking or hunting for a sign is the same as asking. (One doesn't have to say "I want evidence", just the desire for it is the same as asking for it, in my opinion)

Edited April 21, 2010 by Seminarysnoozer
clarification

[Snow]

I would have added Daniel Peterson, but then I remembered that every anti-Mormon knows he's a complete moron.

He came to So Cal and spoke to my study group last month.

He's much nicer in person than on the internet.

[rameumptom]

He came to So Cal and spoke to my study group last month.

He's much nicer in person than on the internet.

I've met him a few times. He is a decent person. As for his Internet persona, it isn't that bad either, as long as the other side is interested in actual dialogue, and not just attacking monologues.

[rameumptom]

I guess I am not making myself clear, sorry. Whether you call it evidence or proof, these are things that the physical mind can comprehend, that the carnal mind can make sense of. If it is asked for, in any form, is that not the same, maybe in a small way, as asking for a sign?

It isn't the same thing. People seek signs to consume upon their lusts. They insist on proof to justify believing something else. Seeing is believing, they claim. However, Seeing is knowing, not believing. Meanwhile, honest seekers of truth seek evidence to what they should believe.

Evidence and proof are two completely separate things. Humble people seek evidence of truth. Stubborn people insist on proof.

Example: Many non-believers have insisted on having proof of locations in the Book of Mormon verified in archaeology. LDS scholars have provided locations, such as Nahom, the Arabian Bountiful, and name-places such as Lamanai in Mesoamerica as examples of evidence. So far, I have yet to meet anyone who has agreed that such is "evidence", when what they mean is it isn't proof. One LDS scholar years ago talked with Sandra Tanner about this. He said, what if there was a discovery in central America of a sign that said "12 miles to Zarahemla", would you then believe? She paused and said, "it would be a point of discussion."

You see? Huge difference between proof and evidence. Proof lies in the eyes of the beholder. Evidence does not. Or at least should not.

[Blackmarch]

Thanks for your response. Let me "pin you down" a little (if you are okay with that :)) ... Would you go as far as saying that wanting proof is equal to asking for a sign?

it may be. It really depends on what you want that proof for. For instance if someoen demanding proof because they are lliving in wickedness and want to justify it or having to change- then that would be asking for signs in the wrong way.

Whereas if someone was honestly searching for the truth, and was wanting an indication or sign to know if that is what they should pursue, and have the full intent of going down whatever path is shown to them by a sign (especially if they have done lots of work to find out about whatever choice), I think is perfectly fine.

We had an investigator on my mission that kept praying for signs... and was getting them, it was pretty freaky.

Because really, what is proof if you already believe ... I think that would be called confirmation, not proof. So, anyone saying they want proof are already saying they don't believe, in my opinion.

proof is the evidence that convinces of a thing. SO I guess for someone who already believes then ya you could call it a confirmation.

a humble seeker is like someone who is lost asking for a light to guide them... where as for the prideful man (quite likely who is in sin), it is like demanding why they should follow any guide.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Seminarysnoozer]

It isn't the same thing. People seek signs to consume upon their lusts. They insist on proof to justify believing something else. Seeing is believing, they claim. However, Seeing is knowing, not believing. Meanwhile, honest seekers of truth seek evidence to what they should believe.

Evidence and proof are two completely separate things. Humble people seek evidence of truth. Stubborn people insist on proof.

Example: Many non-believers have insisted on having proof of locations in the Book of Mormon verified in archaeology. LDS scholars have provided locations, such as Nahom, the Arabian Bountiful, and name-places such as Lamanai in Mesoamerica as examples of evidence. So far, I have yet to meet anyone who has agreed that such is "evidence", when what they mean is it isn't proof. One LDS scholar years ago talked with Sandra Tanner about this. He said, what if there was a discovery in central America of a sign that said "12 miles to Zarahemla", would you then believe? She paused and said, "it would be a point of discussion."

You see? Huge difference between proof and evidence. Proof lies in the eyes of the beholder. Evidence does not. Or at least should not.

Seeing isn't always believing. There are many people that saw Christ and probably many that saw Him even perform miracles that didn't believe He was the Savior.

Question then, can one tell if another is asking the question for proof versus evidence (since you seem to be able to distinguish the two so well)?

[Saturnfulcrum]

I believe it's the intent.

I've talked to a few converts and anti-mormons and they all said the same thing. They all said at some point in ther interest in the church, "Lord, if this church is true, show me a sign." The only difference between the converts and the anti-mormons was how they said it.

Those who were converted were really looking for an answer, those who didn't were not.

Zacharias and Mary both questioned Gabriel when he appeared to them, and yet Zacharias became mute and Mary was given an answer. Why? Because Zacharias was disbelieving and Mary was asking in sincerity (and probably really curious about how she could have a child without being with a man. I would be too.)

If you are looking for a sign, and are honestly, truely, looking for it, it will appear because you are LOOKING. If you are looking for a sign because you think God should answer to YOU, he'll send one, you just wont see it. Or he might hit you over the head. Whichever he feels is more appropriate.

About the science thing: I took an anatomy class in high school and after dissecting cats for 6 weeks straight I was truely convinced that God existed and my testimony grew tremendously. Why? Because the more I looked at the muscles, organs, veins, bones, etc., the more I saw that our bodies are perfect. How could I be part of a star that spontaneously combusted on itself and expect to end up so perfectly? Yet others became agnostic. Why? Personally I think it was because they were so focused on the worldly aspects of the body that they started to doubt (but then again, this IS high school.)

The great thing about science is that its constantly improving and changing. I believe God is a god of science. Think back to what we knew 100 years ago vs. now. Science is CHANGING. It amuses me that people say "the bible can't be true because this cant be proven scientifically". Well, 400 years ago scientists were just discovering bacteria. Back then bacteria couldn't be proven scientifically until the microscope was invented. Does it mean bacteria didn't exist? Of course not.

The history channel came out with a documentary about Moses and the Plagues. Science PROVED that yes, all those plagues could have happened at the same time IN A WAY that was described in the bible. The only thing they are still unsure about is how the first born died when the door frame wasn't painted in blood. There are theories about this (some not even dealing with the door frame), but they're interesting. Some people (like my mom) think this documentary is an attack on faith because it's trying to 'degrade' the miracles Moses did but personally, I think its cool that people are trying to prove that the bible is true, including how the miracles could work scientifically.

I firmly believe that science can prove every miracle in the Bible and the Book of Mormon AND that God exists, we just don't have the technology yet. :)

[Marchman]

Hey. I think your screen name is the answer to your query. Just kidding.

I think its ok and healthy to have a genuine intrest in trying to expand your faith and testimony. Joseph Smith encouraged the saints to " know the character of God, the image of God, and the workings of God". I do believe that if your heart is in the right place, meaning you sincerely want to follow the gosple then its ok to ask the Lord concerning these things. The reason why I say that is you are trying to learn and see these things for your self and you need to find out first hand, through prayer, whats ok to ask for and what is not ok. I think the lord will let you know what's ok and since your a humble follower he wont mind you asking things that might be amiss to help tutor you and learn more of his ways and his will. Understand and know that by the holy spirit is where we will find our profound proof. The best proof and witness you can get is when the holy spirit speaks to your spirit, when this happens what other proof do you need. When that light and inteligence flow into you wouldn't that be proof enough? As you draw closer for him in searching out for him, he in turn will be searching out for you. Remember, to keep yourself sensitve to the holy ghost.

[Melissa569]

I honestly think it depends where you are comming from. If you believe in god, and you WANT to believe in him, then you don't really need proof. And even if you do search for it, you will find plenty of it-- because you WANT to. Your desire for him to exist is more than enough. And quite frankly, if that desire is strong enough, you will still believe, even in the face of ALL scientific proof aggaisnt him. I have a strong interest in science myself.. But I find that the more I learn about it, the bigger and more complex it all is. And the more I see of it, the more I know there MUST be something amazong out there behind it all. Also, the more all these theories scientifically make sense and can be explained, the more clear it is that its INDEED possible for a greater being to understand it all better than we do, to the point that he can have full control over it. In my opinion, god is the greatest scientist there ever was. Making Einstein's mind look like the mind of a flea, in comparison to a human's.

On the other hand, if you are walking around "refusing to believe in god until something PROVES it to you" -- that is tempting the lord.

But that will never be you, as long as you still want to beleive that he is real. Only people who don't like the idea of a god will be challenging his existance.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Melissa569

[Snow]

On the other hand, if you are walking around "refusing to believe in god until something PROVES it to you" -- that is tempting the lord.

If I walk around refusing to believe in Brahma (the Hindu creator) until something proves it to me, am I tempting the Lord, or does it only count if I walk around refusing to believe your opinion of God?