LDS Question from a Baptist

[RedPhoenix]

Hello all,

I'm new here. Great site!

I will preface this by saying that I have been investigating the LDS church for about 6 months now. This week, I made my decision to remain in the Baptist Church. I will say that I do believe the LDS church is an upstanding place, its members are sincere, and it is morally upright. My decision however was based on two sticking points that no matter how hard I tried to look away from, I couldn't. I'd like to get your opinions on them, especially from the LDS folks.

I will agree that alot of what has been said about the LDS church Biblically is questionable. I do believe there is some Biblical evidence that supports, and confirms the LDS church.

My concerns lie with the Book of Mormon itself. I said that some folks....admittedly mostly Baptists....throw mud at the LDS church because of the Book of Mormon. An often used scripture to refute the BofM is Revelations 22:18-19: "I testify to everyone who hears the propheti words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the Holy City written in this book." In my intepretation, this admonishment applies specifically to the Book of Revelation. My issue with the BofM from a Biblical perspective arose in Galatians 1:8-9. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him! Thoughts?

As a PhD student, here's a major issue for me. I can get on a plane and fly to Israel tomorrow. I can travel to Jericho. Bethlehem. The Dead Sea. I cannot, however, travel to Zarahemla or Moriantum. Why? Because to date, we have no clue...none, where these places are, or if they even existed.

I ask these questions seriously. I do not seek an argument. I am really interested to understand how the LDS folks explain this. Because in all honesty, these nagging issueskept me away from Baptism.

All of you be safe.

[crazypotato]

Hello There,

To address your book of Revelations reference, it just goes with your interpretation of that scripture. If you look at the history of the Bible, each book, obviously, was written long ago but at different times. There were a lot of books of scripture written by apostles and prophets that were assembled together.

Exactly when and how Bible was compiled? - Yahoo! Answers

Here is a timeline I found online of the assembly of the Bible. Note that it wasn't until the year 1536 that the Book of Revelations was placed at the end of the Bible. God did not assemble the order of the books in the Bible. There were many writers and priests who shuffled them around and then canonized them long after they were written.

We believe after Jesus died, he came to visit the Americas. I think that most LDS have a testimony of the Book of Mormon because we have read it, studied it, fasted, and prayed about it, not really out of a logical conclusion.

My question to you is why do you believe the Bible? Just because Jericho and Jerusalem are in the Bible, you can't prove that the stories in the Bible really happened. I think the only way to know that the Bible is true is because when we read it, the Holy Spirt touches our hearts and the principles that are taught in the Bible are true. The stories in the Book of Mormon do not contradict the gospel of Jesus Christ, in my opinion.

I understand your point of view and I respect it. I understand why people would not believe in the Book of Mormon. Either the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are a big hoax or they are true. I believe the same goes with the Bible. I understand why people would not believe the Bible, either. It cannot be proven by logic or facts to suit everyone. The Bible requires faith and a spiritual witness to believe in too.

[confuzzled]

This is a time where I wished I extremely well versed...I am simply not. So ........

As Crazypotatoe stated"the Bible requires faith and a spirtual witness to believe in too." YES! and YES!! If you are souly looking for mere scientific evidence you will be disappointed.

Instead of seeking proof ask yourself IF it could of happened. IF Noah built an Ark and IF Moses parted the Red Sea then Christ could of come to the Americas and could of appeared to a young boy in a grove of trees.

I wish you well!

[RedPhoenix]

I have read both posts with interest. Please know that I do not intend offense. I am simply loooking for explanations.

As for the intersection of faith and logic, I couldn't disagree more...respectfully of course. I am of the opinion that Christianity can be scientifically explained. If you are interested, a book entitled "The Physics of Christianity" will do a much better job than I. Regarding my geography question, I think we are speaking past one another. If we...LDS, Baptsist, Methodists, etc...believe in the Bible, then the question of the stories in the Bible being true is irrelevant. Sun rises in the East, the Lord shall return from the East, Protestant gravestones face the East....not a coincedence in my humble opinion. My point regarding the BofM has nothing to do with the moral message behind it. Rather, it stems from the historical, factual basis behind it. We can prove that Jesus walked the Earth. We have historical evidence that Paul travelled to such places as Macedonia. My point is that to date, we have no historical evidence to show that any of the people or place in the BofM existed. That was a major sticking point for me.

I will agree wholeheartedly that many Christians....mostly Baptists....use science only when it is convenient. Point taken!

To me, faith...any faith....must stand up to scrutiny. I am very wary of any person that cannot rationally....and logically..discuss and defend their faith without retreating into the "just have faith" defense. That goes for any faith.

I agree with many who have said that either Joseph Smith was a Prophet or a fraudster of the first order. Not for me to judge the man.

I love the LDS church, and I love the people that fill its pews. I just couldn't...and still can't...take that leap with these questions burning in my mind and heart.

In the end, for me it boils down to John 3:16.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Jenamarie]

1st Corinthians 2

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Sure, science may be able to prove some aspects of the Bible, but how can you scientifically prove that Jesus Christ was the Son of God? There have been other men who have attracted a following and formed a religion and had people travel their known world to bring converts to that religion and publish a book of "Holy Writ" (Muhammad and Islam, for example), and it's all recorded by history.

The Holy Spirit is what reveals Truth. Science only explains what man's current understanding of that Truth is, but it is by no means the Whole Truth, and there is plenty of history of science promoting falsehood as Truth (even if unintentionally).

[crazypotato]

I think there is a lot of truth everywhere in the world that our minds and hearts have to be open to.

"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." - Joseph Smith

I don't believe that the LDS church is the only religion with truth in it.

If you would like to look at the Book of Mormon intellectually and not just spiritually, I know a lot of people will point to how fast the Book of Mormon was written, the level of education that Joseph Smith had (not very high), and look at how fast our religion has grown. Joseph Smith was not smart enough to do all he did, so he either did it with God's help, or he is a big fraud that Satan helped along. Lots of people try to disprove the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, rather than the basic gospel that our religion teaches. I think of all the tenets Mormons believe, Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are kind of either or teachings, like you either believe it is all true or that it is all fake, so I understand your point of view.

I am reminded of my step-mom, born and raised in the deep South, she grew up Pentecostal and was married to a preacher. She is a very smart, educated person and has taught school her entire career. One day, she was at a used book store and the Holy Ghost told her to buy and read an old book face down in a pile. She was astonished when she turned it over and saw that it was the Book of Mormon. She said if the Spirit had not told her it was true, she never would have believed it, and had always thought it was an evil book.

My point of of sharing that story was to explain that I am just a potato. What do I know? All I have is my own life experiences of studying and reading the scriptures, and I am not a great religious scholar. Only the Holy Ghost can tell people the truth of all things, because you can always find very smart, very scholarly, very well-educated people that will argue against religion and the Bible, and vise versa who argue for it.

[mordorbund]

When it comes to Mormon apologetics, you would probably do well to peruse the Neal A Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholorship. That's where LDS PhD's write papers about various LDS themes found in ancient cultures as well as literary criticism of our texts. I'm not up to date on all the latest finds, but I'll admit that American BofM archaelogy is difficult (there have been some promising finds for Lehi's route out of Jerusalem). The last I heard, although the plates were deposited in New York, Central America presents the best setting for BofM landmarks. Unfortunately, humid jungles are not optimal perservation conditions like the deserts of the middle east. We have found some things that corroborate the BofM story (themes that are found in the ruins that have been found as well as in the BofM, as well as physical artifacts mentioned in the book), but not enough to say difinitively that this is Zarahemla or this is Nephi's tomb.

The other point you mention has been wholly ignored by this thread so far. The angel of Galatians. My own response to that is to read it again and make a list of the characters and what they may do that's errant. We have Paul listing himself alongside the angel (and anyone else) preaching another gospel. This may be a liberty on my part, but I think that Paul continued to preach the gospel after writing that epistle. And we are told (in Revelations) that angels are involved in the work of the last days (there's even one specifically that carries the gospel). So simply having Paul or an angel speak to you, or testify to you, or even declare a gospel to you is not enough to cite this verse and dismiss the message. The issue is if he preaches another gospel to you. So every Christian (including both you and I) should counsel with the Holy Spirit and consider the message of the angel Moroni and see if this message is the original gospel taught by Paul and the other apostles, or if this message is another gospel. I leave that exercise to you and respect your decision. For myself, I sympathize with one of our hymns.

1. What was witnessed in the heavens?

Why, an angel earthward bound.

Had he something with him bringing?

Yes, the gospel, joyful sound!

It was to be preached in power

On the earth, the angel said,

To all men, all tongues and nations

That upon its face are spread.

2. Had we not before the gospel?

Yes, it came of old to men.

Then what is this latter gospel?

’Tis the first one come again.

This was preached by Paul and Peter

And by Jesus Christ, the Head.

This we latter Saints are preaching;

We their footsteps wish to tread.

[spamlds]

...My issue with the BofM from a Biblical perspective arose in Galatians 1:8-9. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him! Thoughts?

As a PhD student, here's a major issue for me. I can get on a plane and fly to Israel tomorrow. I can travel to Jericho. Bethlehem. The Dead Sea. I cannot, however, travel to Zarahemla or Moriantum. Why? Because to date, we have no clue...none, where these places are, or if they even existed.

I ask these questions seriously. I do not seek an argument. I am really interested to understand how the LDS folks explain this. Because in all honesty, these nagging issueskept me away from Baptism.

All of you be safe.

Hi RedPhoenix,

I wrote an article for the Examiner that deals with this scripture specifically. Here's the link to it. It's lengthy, but since you're a PhD student, I'm sure you can handle it.

Gnostics and Neoplatonists: the 'other gospel'

Please read this article first, then come back for consideration of my answer to your second "objection" -- the demand for physical evidence or proof.

Like you, I intend no offense here. In asking for physical proof, such as the coordinates of Zarahemla or Moriantum, etc., you must consider that this is a lack of faith. For example, what is the most sacred tenet of Christianity? I would have to say that it is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Like Paul says in 1st Corinthians, if Christ was not resurrected, our faith is in vain.

Think about that for a minute. There is no physical, scientific, or other evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Although there is some meager documentary evidence from ancient historians that a person named Jesus of Nazareth founded a Jewish sect or cult, there is no evidence (of the kind that you demand for proof of the Book of Mormon) that Jesus rose from the dead.

It is a matter of faith. Yet you will never, ever prove that he rose from the dead using scientific or physical evidence. It happened--most definitely it happened. But you can never prove it. Yet if there's not the kind of proof available that you're looking for, why believe in the resurrection.

You have to understand that the Bible isn't "proof." It's documentary evidence. It's testimony. It's the account of mortal witnesses. What "evidence" did Jesus leave for "proof?" He left eleven men who saw, touched, and felt his resurrected body.

Similarly, as I explained in a popular Youtube video (

), that God provided the same number of witnesses of the golden plates that he provided for the resurrection of Jesus. I don't think this is coincidental.

If you're basing your Christian beliefs on some kind of archaeological proof of the Bible, well, you'll be hard-pressed to prove to an atheist that Jesus was resurrected. You come to that knowledge by faith, prayer, and the whisperings of the Holy Ghost.

Likewise, the way you overcome your skepticism about the Book of Mormon is to approach God in prayer and accept the answers he gives you.

I submit that you as a "PhD" candidate are not exercising faith at all in this process. You're looking for "proof" and "evidence" to base your actions on. Remember it's by faith you are saved, not by proof. Like James said, "If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God." It doesn't say to ask your professors or your pastor or to Google search for it. I will tell you that, if you're looking for some justification to join the Church that will satisfy your friends, your parents, your PhD advisor, or whatever, you're never going to find it. The only justification to join the Church is when you receive a personal witness by the spirit of revelation that it is true. Then, and only then, will you have strength to withstand what the last days are going to require of you.

I invite you to get on your knees and ask the Lord for the Holy Ghost to confirm to you that it is true. If you do so without any subterfuge or evasion, you'll get your answer. Don't get baptized based on any "proof" except what comes to you by the Holy Spirit

The Lord lives. He is a resurrected personage. I know this by the Holy Ghost. I also know that the Book of Mormon is true because I have had a personal witness of it from the Holy Ghost. I have had many confirmations of this truth that have reinforced my testimony, but that testimony doesn't depend of evidence.

The "testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Revelation 19:10) Until you know by the Holy Ghost, you don't really know.

[RedPhoenix]

Interesting post. Thanks. As you can see, I am deeply into apolgetics. I also am deeply into the Gnostic aspects of Christianity. I don't want any of you to think that I am bashing or denying that the LDS church is a fraud. I do believe the church is true on its merits. What I have found throughout most of my adult life is that Christians of all denominations have a very hard time thinking outside the box. If I brought up half of the issues here in the Baptist church, I'd probably be burned at the stake as a heretic. My brother is in far worse shape than I. He is a Creative Evolutionist. Yet, he is a Christian. For this reason, I applaud all of you for the dialogue.

If I may, let me offer another perspective on a point you made. I am a recovering criminal justice professional. Actually, that's what my PhD is in, so that may not be totally accurate. You mentioned that we as Christians may not be able to prove that Christ arose. I disagree for this reason.

I will preface this with the established fact that people and groups are creatures of habit. Having been in circumstances where homicides have occurred, we were tasked with finding out who did it. What most people fail to recognize is the most important piece of evidence in a DEATH investigation is the body. Through much thought and prayer, I have come to the conclusion that the absence of Christ's body is evidence of his resurrection. Jesus was considered a criminal of the state when he was crucified. He was vilified. I am positive, based on the hatred expressed toward him bu groups and individuals, that a historical record would have surfaced if, for example, his body were stolen from the tomb. We've never seen or heard such evidence. Based on the hatred for him, I think there would've been some sort of record of this, accepting responibility for it. It never happened. Now, in the absence of physical evidence, I think the obvious conclusion rests on the testimony of the witnesses present. Hence, he is alove today.

I agree with what may come next. The testimony of the 11 witnesses. Did they witness the plates?Perhaps. I wasn't there. I'm still mulling that over. I do think there is some credibility in 11 separate people providing testimony. Like I said, I am not one of those that denies the truthfulness of the LDS faith. I may still be baptized. That's for the future to determine

Faith. Have we seen God before? In a physical state...no. But I would contend to you through his actions and manifestations in our lives he allows us to see him in a spiritual fashion. So I would argue that faith can be supported by sight, sound, etc....if you are willing to recognize it.

Thanks.

[crazypotato]

RedPhoenix,

That is an interesting idea about the crucifixion. I never thought about there being records of his death or his trial beforehand recorded.

Also, have you read the testimony of the 3 witnesses to the Book of Mormon and of the other witnesses? I find it interesting to note that all 3 witnesses who saw the golden plates and held them in their hands never took back what they said, but some of them later badmouthed Joseph Smith and the church over disagreeances. I think there is a book called "The Three Witnesses" that is an historical account of them.

Here is an interesting website about them:

The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon

[Matthew0059]

RedPheonix-

I have respect for your intelligence, and the fact that you are willing to put so much effort into ascertaining the truth. I haven't had time to read this whole thread (I have to leave for work in ~15 minutes), so if I repeat something someone else has said I apologize.

Regarding Galatians 1:8-9, I suggest another perspective on the scripture. We learn (at least) two things:

-The idea that angels from heaven may come in the future isn't an absurdity- in fact, it may be expected.

-We are to reject a "new gospel" ONLY if it disagrees with the established Gospel of the CHRIST.

As a Baptist, I'm sure you're familiar with the idea that heavenly manifestations ended with Christ's apostles (or somewhere along the line between the first ecumenical Councils and the Reformation), whether you agree with this idea or not. It isn't the best example, but this scripture which proves a stumbling block to you hints that such manifestations not only should have continue, but were expected to.

Which parts of the LDS faith do you find to be in contradiction to the Bible? And not just traditional extra-Biblical doctrine; the actual Biblical text?

As for not knowing where Zarahemla or Moriantum are- I suggest, if you wish to study more on the topic, to give the apologists over at FARMS a chance. I wish I had the time to hunt down a piece that dealt specifically with the problems of locating Zarahemla, but alas I do not. Also, the folks at FAIR do a stand-up job.

Most of all, I encourage you to go before the LORD in prayer and ask for yourself if the Book of Mormon is true. If you don't feel like you could do that, I encourage you to go before the LORD and ask, with real intent, intending to act on the answer, what the desires of your heart pertaining to the LDS Church are.

God bless.

[rameumptom]

Hello all,

I'm new here. Great site!

My concerns lie with the Book of Mormon itself..... My issue with the BofM from a Biblical perspective arose in Galatians 1:8-9. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him! Thoughts?

As a PhD student, here's a major issue for me. I can get on a plane and fly to Israel tomorrow. I can travel to Jericho. Bethlehem. The Dead Sea. I cannot, however, travel to Zarahemla or Moriantum. Why? Because to date, we have no clue...none, where these places are, or if they even existed.

All of you be safe.

Let's see if I can answer your questions from a slightly different perspective.

First on Galatians. If you read a little further, you get what Paul is teaching in a different context:

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.(Gal 1:10-12)

IOW, Paul was converted and learned his truths not by angels that taught other gospels (which would be angels of Satan), but by revelation of Jesus Christ. When we look at the Joseph Smith story, we note that his first spiritual experience was not with an angel, but with the revelation of Jesus Christ:

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. 16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! (Joseph Smith History)

The force that tried to destroy Joseph Smith was the angel that seeks to destroy all of us. It was the revelation of Jesus Christ that became the foundation for all the future revelations Joseph received (including several more from Christ himself).

If we take Galatians 1:8-9 and apply it to any angel or any revelation, then we must reject John's Revelation, its apocalyptic events very different from Paul's teachings and experiences. Of course, Peter and Paul had angels come to them, as well. Should we reject those angelic visits, also? Of course not. The concern for Paul was that the members in Galatia were receiving "angels" who were claiming new/other teachings than that taught by the apostles. These teachings included that Christ did not resurrect with a physical body, or that the 2nd Coming had already occurred. Paul was fighting the apostasy of his day, not foreseeing Joseph Smith's visions 1800 years later.

As for evidences of the Book of Mormon, there are actually several. Hundreds of evidences have come forth in the past 181 years, including physical locations. Places like the Saudi Arabian Bountiful, Nahom, and the Valley of Lemuel have been discovered. While we do not have exact definite locations in the Americas, we do have some good possibilities. For example, the ancient Mayan city of Lamanai (Laman, Lamoni, etc) is still around, though unknown in Joseph Smith's day.

The Book of Mormon has dozens of proper names that have been found to be correct names, since the BoM was written. William F. Albright was impressed to find authentic Egyptian names in the book, even though Egyptian was translated by Champollion the year the BoM was published.

I've noted ties between Nephi's Psalm (2 Nephi 4) and a Hymn in the Community Rule document of the Dead Sea Scrolls - strongly suggesting they both used the same ancient template. I've also noted that the strange event with Ammon, where the hands/arms are collected and shown to the Lamanite king as evidence of the battle, fits in perfectly with the Battle of Megiddo Papyrus' statement that hands were brought to Pharaoh after the battle to prove how many of the enemy were slain.

There are so many things Joseph Smith could not have known, but we find them showing up in the BoM and other LDS writings of his day. It would be a daunting task for a modern expert to gather together so many proper evidences. It would statistically be an impossible event for Joseph Smith to have done so.

Edited July 26, 2010 by rameumptom

[spamlds]

Now, in the absence of physical evidence, I think the obvious conclusion rests on the testimony of the witnesses present. Hence, he is alove today.

I agree with what may come next. The testimony of the 11 witnesses. Did they witness the plates?Perhaps. I wasn't there. I'm still mulling that over. I do think there is some credibility in 11 separate people providing testimony. Like I said, I am not one of those that denies the truthfulness of the LDS faith. I may still be baptized. That's for the future to determine

Faith. Have we seen God before? In a physical state...no. But I would contend to you through his actions and manifestations in our lives he allows us to see him in a spiritual fashion. So I would argue that faith can be supported by sight, sound, etc....if you are willing to recognize it.

Thanks.

Hi RedPhoenix,

I certainly appreciate and respect the amount of mental energy you have expended on the subject at hand. Certainly that is a part of the "formula" given in the Doctrine and Covenants, to reason it out in your mind. D&C Section 8, verse two says:

"Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation..."

Section 9 says:

"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought

Getting a personal testimony involves both the mind and the heart. In the Bible, the disciples on the road to Emmaus encountered the resurrected Jesus. He appeared in such a way that they didn't recognize him. As they walked along, talking of the dreadful events of the crucifixion of their Master, Jesus gently chastened them. He told them:

"...O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: (Luke 24:25)

Do you see where I'm going with this. They knew the scriptures. They had an intellectual grasp of them. It was their hearts that kept them from "seeing" him.

Jesus expounded the scriptures to them and even then, they didn't recognize him. They asked him to stay with them and they ate a meal together. When Jesus broke the bread, they recognized him. It was when they "let their guard down" and opened themselves up to the feelings they felt that they recognized him. After the fact, they felt foolish that they didn't know him. They said, "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"

I believe that you're "over-thinking" this and that you haven't opened up your heart to the Lord yet. There is some fear, some reticence that holds you back. You know the cost. If you embrace Mormonism, you know that you will become an object of ridicule by some people you probably respect. For some people, it's family or friends. Others are afraid of the impact it will have on their social standing, their careers, or some worldly position or honor. Until we're ready to become "fools for Christ" (1 Corinthians 4:10), the Lord will withhold the answers we seek. Commitment to follow the revelation is what brings it.

I am always amazed at how many intelligent people miss the greatest blessings and opportunities that can be had. They spend so much time analyzing and rationalizing it, they never get to the point where they will simply ask God and trust the answer that comes. To the people in the Book of Mormon, Jesus said:

"And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things. And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God." (3 Nephi 11:37-38)

The "great and wise" miss this because they are unwilling to become simple, like a child. The answer is right there in front of you. What a wonderful invitation is given us, to approach God and get an answer directly from him. It puts our faith on the line. Those who have faith to obtain a personal revelation will have faith to inherit eternal life. Those who wait for proof will perish in unbelief. The entire process is between the person asking and the Lord.

Brother, can I liken a scripture to you for a moment in a positive way? Mark chapter 12 tells about a scribe who came to Jesus with a question about what was the "first commandment." Here was a man learned in the scriptures and apparently an honorable seeker of truth. Jesus gave him an answer in very direct, simple terms: love God and your fellow man.

Verse 34 tells us "And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." The scribe answered "discreetly," meaning that he was trying to be "objective" or non-committal in his response. He wasn't ready yet. He was still logically trying evaluate the cost of following Jesus.

This is very much like your situation. You see good reason to join the Church. You also have some conflicts with the teachings of the creeds that are broadly accepted instead of taking the strait and narrow way. I ask you to consider Mark 12 and ask yourself what the scribe should have done. Should he have continued to debate with Jesus or wait for proof? Or should he have followed the feelings in his heart and followed the Savior? He was so close to the kingdom of God. Likewise, you are very close.

Study the scriptures for every reference about the Holy Ghost. You'll find that it doesn't depend on intellect alone. Click on the link below to a list of New Testament passages about the Holy Ghost. Do any of them show any requirement for physical proof or evidence? Do any of them require a person to have even scriptural proof of the veracity of the revelations that come?

Word Search: Holy Ghost

Similarly, here's another list on the search term "led by the Spirit."

Word Search: led by the spirit

How much intellectualism is required for one to be led by the Spirit of God?

Here's another list on the term "Spirit of God."

Word Search: spirit of god

Note how it tells us to find truth, discern false prophets, etc. by the Spirit of God. These verses tell us that no man can know the things of God unless the Spirit of God gives them unto him to know.

None of this involves "proof" or "evidence" of any physical nature.

Our testimony is that God will reveal truth to those who will become like a child and ask in faith. Any other method to find a testimony of these things will be ineffective.

I hope you find the truth you seek. It comes by the Spirit. Not by man.

Best wishes,

Greg

[LocalFarms]

As a PhD student, here's a major issue for me. I can get on a plane and fly to Israel tomorrow. I can travel to Jericho. Bethlehem. The Dead Sea. I cannot, however, travel to Zarahemla or Moriantum. Why? Because to date, we have no clue...none, where these places are, or if they even existed.

Jericho and Bethlehem and other places like them in ancient Palestine where built from hewn stone. In the BoM, they built their cities out of wood. Wood rots stone doesn't. :)

[Vanhin]

Hello all,

I'm new here. Great site!

I will preface this by saying that I have been investigating the LDS church for about 6 months now. This week, I made my decision to remain in the Baptist Church. I will say that I do believe the LDS church is an upstanding place, its members are sincere, and it is morally upright. My decision however was based on two sticking points that no matter how hard I tried to look away from, I couldn't. I'd like to get your opinions on them, especially from the LDS folks.

I will agree that alot of what has been said about the LDS church Biblically is questionable. I do believe there is some Biblical evidence that supports, and confirms the LDS church.

My concerns lie with the Book of Mormon itself. I said that some folks....admittedly mostly Baptists....throw mud at the LDS church because of the Book of Mormon. An often used scripture to refute the BofM is Revelations 22:18-19: "I testify to everyone who hears the propheti words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the Holy City written in this book." In my intepretation, this admonishment applies specifically to the Book of Revelation. My issue with the BofM from a Biblical perspective arose in Galatians 1:8-9. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him! Thoughts?

As you are probably aware, latter-day saints use the Bible in establishing our doctrines, as well as the Book of Mormon. We teach from the Bible in Sunday School, from the pulpet, and when we are doing missionary work. Can you give us an example of where the message of the Book of Mormon represents a "another gospel" from what the Bible teaches? We obviously think it doesn't. :)

As a PhD student, here's a major issue for me. I can get on a plane and fly to Israel tomorrow. I can travel to Jericho. Bethlehem. The Dead Sea. I cannot, however, travel to Zarahemla or Moriantum. Why? Because to date, we have no clue...none, where these places are, or if they even existed.

Can you get on a plane and fly to the Biblical Mt. Sinai? The Book of Mormon mentions places that we know the locations of, Jerusalem, Red Sea, and Egypt, for example. But like the Bible, there are places we do not know the current names of or their location.

So, both books mention places that we know, and places that we do not know about. Personally that doesn't concern me.

I ask these questions seriously. I do not seek an argument. I am really interested to understand how the LDS folks explain this. Because in all honesty, these nagging issueskept me away from Baptism.

All of you be safe.

Let me ask you this. If God told you that the Book of Mormon is His word, and that it is true, would it matter to you at this point that some of the locations in it where unknown to us?

The content of the Book of Mormon, its message of Salvation through the merits of Jesus Christ, is sufficient in establishing whether it is from God or not. I think a far better way to establish the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon is to examine the message, and by appealing to God for discernment on the matter. Truth is truth. Consider the following passages from the Book of Mormon.

15 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.

16 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.

17 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. (Moroni 7:15-17)

What do you think? Is the above truth?

Regards,

Vanhin

[Elgama]

1) Nowhere does the Bible say God won't add to scriptire just we can't. As I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God the Book od Mormon does not in anyway conflct with that scripture.

2) Despite having continous occupation noone can tell us where Sodom and Gammorah is, or what Gopher wood is. There is no independent evidence for many of the patriach's etc No other evidence for the parting of the red sea or plagues of egypt. Nothing but speculation concerning Joseph and Moses despite they lived in a culture which relied on the written word. There is no real evidence of a world wide flood etc We can't even reliably name Tutankamen's parents. Even the encient history we do have is full of holes. And quite frankly most of it disagrees with the bible chronology. The Bible has a lot more pointing against it than the Book of Mormon does if we pursue the academic studies relating too it. The Book of Mormon has no real evidence for but also a lot less against

There is evidence of advanced civilisations in the Americas the little we know of the Olmecs makes intersting reading. etc

Edited July 27, 2010 by Elgama

[Kawazu]

As a PhD student, here's a major issue for me. I can get on a plane and fly to Israel tomorrow. I can travel to Jericho. Bethlehem. The Dead Sea. I cannot, however, travel to Zarahemla or Moriantum. Why? Because to date, we have no clue...none, where these places are, or if they even existed.

The Book of Mormon describes a land called "Bountiful" on the arid Arabian penninsula. It is depicted in 1Nephi 17:5 as a rich, green garden spot with trees, abundant fruit, water, honey, and a mountain. Modern-day Wadi Sayq, Oman, is currently considered to be the likeliest candidate for Bountiful.

Bountiful (Book of Mormon) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are some other locations in the Book of Mormon to which one could travel and see, today. Perhaps one of the other forum members could help refresh my memory?

Regards,

Kawazu

[rameumptom]

Here is a Wikipedia article on Nahom:

Nahom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evidence is rather impressive, given Joseph Smith could not have guessed that on the Arabian Peninsula, along the spice trade route, there would be a place already named Nahom/NHM and that it was a major burial place along the spice route.

Yes, there are critics, but there always are critics who refuse to believe. Yet, there is the evidence. Joseph either had an amazing guess of not only the right name and location, but also the location of the burial site and the right timeframe for the burial site, OR this is an actual geographical site for the BoM. Given all the other evidences popping up over the last 20 years, I'm convinced that it is an actual geographical site.

[Sean1427]

I’d like to share some thoughts with you on your question and some of your comments regarding the Book of Mormon. But I would ask you to be patient and allow me to do so in a slightly different way that other posts. Moreover, what I’d like to share will be done in several parts given that it’s hard to do in a shorter post. Please be patient, but remember that each part is part of the whole and needs to be read in context with the part preceding it. This part involves your initial post wherein you wrote that a major issue for you was that while you could visit some places named in the Bible, you couldn’t to the same for places named in the Book of Mormon. You also wrote that “we have not clue . . none, where these places are, or if they even existed.” Please note that what I share will end differently than it begins, but I want to start with this major issue you’ve mentioned.

One of the most interesting sights in the world is from certain vantage points on the eastern slopes of the Andes. From these points, you can look eastward over what appears to be a sea of green The green, of course, is from the treetops of the Amazon below and before you, a vast wilderness that stretches far beyond what the eye can see, covering a distance that's about the same as that from California to Washington, D.C. It was into this vast wilderness that the legendary British explorer Percy Fawcett ventured and vanished in 1925.

Much of his adult life, Fawcett had been obsessed with finding a fabled civilization he believed in the Amazon just waiting to be re-discovered. The educated of his day and even into our own time believed that the civilization he had searched and died for was merely a fool’s dream. After all, there was no evidence for such a civilization. There was nothing such as ancient cities in the Andes with names such as Cuzco or Tiahuanaco. There was nothing such as Macchu Picchu or Pachacamac. Nor were there cities such as were well known from much farther north in Mexico and MesoAmerica such as Tikal, Teotihuacan, or Chichen Itza. There were no magnificent stone structures or ancient highways. All that was there was what was known as a “Green Hell,” a jungle so harsh, deadly, and inhospitable that it could not possibly sustain life in large numbers. In fact, the only ones living there were but a small number of primitive tribes who were barely able to survive themselves.

Yet despite what everyone said, Fawcett truly believed he was right. But all he had to go on were the stories told by the early European chroniclers. What they said they personally witnessed no one but Fawcett believed. Their writings were considered fictional at best, tales only the feeble minded could possibly believe. TAs a result, their chronicles were left buried and long-forgotten in the dusty basements of churches and libraries across the globe. Fawcett spent years gathering many of these chronicles and based on what he read, he came concluded that he knew just where to look. Using the information he’d gained, he made his last trip into the Amazon in 1925.

In the past few years, Michael Heckenberger, an archaeologist from the University of Florida, has been excavating and mapping what he and his team have discovered in a remote part of the Amazon known as Xingu. This is the same area where Fawcett disappeared. Heckenberger is the world’s expert in this part of the Amazon and his findings are amazing. He points out that most archaeologists avoided it because of the prevailing notion the Amazon was a counterfeit paradise. “They presumed it was an archaeological black hole” and that Fawcett, an amateur, was the exception and a crank. Making it even easier to dismiss Fawcett was the fact that he lacked the proper tools and the discipline of a modern archaeologist. “But even thought Fawcett was an amateur, . . . , he was able to see things more clearly than many professional scholars” both then and now.

So what has Heckenberger and his team found? They’ve found moats or defensive ditches. One of these moats was a dozen and sixteen feet deep and about thirty feet wide and was nearly a mile in diameter. Next to these moats is evidence of palisade walls. “All around the moat, you can see these funnel shapes, equally spread apart. There are only two explanations. Either they had traps at the bottom or they had something sticking into them, like tree trunks.” He mentions that when he first discovered them it didn’t seem to make sense to build moats and defensive walls in a wilderness. He’s found broken potter everywhere, so much so that the broken potter was used as a form of landfill in creating mounds. In fact, on certain high areas in the Amazon, “very little scratching will produced an abundance” of ancient pottery. He points out that “[t]here isn’t a lot of stone in the jungle, and most of [the settlements were] built of organic material—woods and palms and earth mounds—which decompose. But once you begin to map out the area and excavate it you are blown away by what you see,” the massive remains of a man-made landscape. One settlement he found had the remains of three moats around it, arranged in concentric circles. The former inhabitants, whoever they were, had roads, causeways, and canals. Some of the roads had been nearly 150 feet wide. “We even found a place where the road ends at one side of a river in a kind of ascending ramp and then continues on the other side with a descending ramp. Which can only mean one thing: there had to have been some kind of wooden bridge connecting them, over an area that was a half mile long.” All the settlements, the roads, the causeways and the canals seemed to fit into an elaborate whole, like an abstract painting whose elements only cohere at a distance. “Once my team started to map everything out, we discovered that nothing was done by accident. All these settlements were laid out with a complicated plan, with a sense of engineering and mathematics that rivaled anything that was happening in much of Europe at the time.” Susanna Hecht, a geophysicist at UCLA, called Heckenberger’s finds extraordinary. Other archaeologists and geographers have described them as monumental, transformative, and earth-shattering.

But even more startling is that these unknown people took the infertile land of the Amazon and transformed it into fertile land that could sustain large populations. Scientists have uncovered throughout the jungle large stretches of terra preta (“black earth”) which is soil that has been enriched with organic human waste and charcoal so that the land becomes exceptionally fertile. And these tracts of land have remained fertile to this day. Since the Amazon is one large flood plain, these fertile areas were raised to form large squares or blocks of land for agricultural purposes. This kept them above the annual floodwaters and allowed the inhabitants to work the land throughout the year. Roads and canals ran parallel to the farmlands, and all was laid out on a grid, with roads running north-south, east-west. What they did the soil, which remains even today unlike the surrounding land, and the massive amounts of earth that needed to be moved are absolutely mind-boggling.

Heckenberger states: “Archaeologists made a mistake of coming into the Amazon in the twentieth century and seeing only small tribes and saying,’Well, that’s all there is.’ The problem is that, by then, many Indian populations had already been wiped out by what was essentially a holocaust form European contact. That’s why the first Europeans in the Amazon described such settlements that, later, no one could ever find.”

This ends part one of what I wanted to share with you. The next part will continue from here. Please know that I do not mean to imply by what I've written here that what has been found in the Amazon is rooted in the Book of Mormon. I simply use this as an example for what I’ll share later. My apologies for its length. If it's too overwhelming for you, just let me know. Hopefully, the next one will be shorter.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Sean1427

[RedPhoenix]

Sorry I've been away. I am finishing my dissertation this week, so pleasure surfing on the internet had to take a backseat. Hope everyone is having a good week.

I'll be honest. Many of your posts make sense.

I think we all...despite our denominations and beliefs....have different interpretations. At the ward I attended, there were a few things I heard the Bishop say that in my view, were almost blasphemous. I've also heard that in the Baptist church. By my best estimation, I think we are all pretty much aying the same thing.

I think the biggest thing that has to be overcome by all faiths is misconception. I don't think I've ever been to a church where I've agreed 100% with everything that was said or done. My one and only allegiance is to Jesus Christ. In the end, I believe....no....I know beyond any doubt that John 3:16 and Romans 10:13 are what counts. Thry make life worth living I think.

One of you had expressed that I hadn"t "given my heart over to the Lord" yet. I could not help but burst into laughter at that one. I know beyond any doubt that when I leave here..meaning Earth....I'll be with the Father. On that assumption, you're wrong. Be very careful about making judgments and assumptions my friend.

Talk soon.

[RedPhoenix]

Interesting. In my opinion, I think something like that is plausible. Let me ask you this though, and this is where my concerns rose primarily. Didn't a major battle allegedly take place on the Hill Cumorah? I have read many things about this. If so, it would seem to me that there would be some type of evidence of this historical event. Or, is the Hill Cumorah symbolic of another place where a great battle took place? If that level of carnage took place, it would seem like something would have been left behind.

Like I said, I hold a special place in my heart for the church. There are just a few pieces of the puzzle missing for me at present moment.

Take care

[Elgama]

Interesting. In my opinion, I think something like that is plausible. Let me ask you this though, and this is where my concerns rose primarily. Didn't a major battle allegedly take place on the Hill Cumorah? I have read many things about this. If so, it would seem to me that there would be some type of evidence of this historical event. Or, is the Hill Cumorah symbolic of another place where a great battle took place? If that level of carnage took place, it would seem like something would have been left behind.

Like I said, I hold a special place in my heart for the church. There are just a few pieces of the puzzle missing for me at present moment.

Take care

All it takes with archaeology is a couple of inches. I know we spent five years looking for a village, only to find it very close to the first trench that had been sunk.

It could be under New York or Washington etc There is evidence of battles within the US. And the level of carnage whilst terrible would be proportionate to the times. Thomas Jefferson performed the first modern archaeological dig, by his time there was plenty of opportunity for archaeology to have been destroyed.

[rameumptom]

Most LDS scholars who have critically examined the text of the Book of Mormon have determined that the Hill Cumorah in New York is not the scene of the Nephites' last battles. Such a hill was probably in Mesoamerica (and there are scholars who have suggested a couple possible sites). After their destruction, Moroni traveled and wrote for decades, allowing him sufficient time to travel north to what is now known today as New York State and deposit the plates of gold.

Book of Mormon/Archaeology/Hill Cumorah - FAIRMormon

[spamlds]

One of you had expressed that I hadn"t "given my heart over to the Lord" yet. I could not help but burst into laughter at that one. I know beyond any doubt that when I leave here..meaning Earth....I'll be with the Father. On that assumption, you're wrong. Be very careful about making judgments and assumptions my friend.

Dear RedPhoenix,

Let me reposition the assumptions involved here. I fully respect your right to believe what you will. However, you seem to display an attitude that you'd be doing the Church a favor by joining it. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, because written communications often is inadequate to express our intentions. I pray that you will accept these words as being delivered in a spirit of meekness. The words of the Lord are bold. Thus the boldness is not mine, but those of the scriptures themselves.

If you have no doubt that you're going to be with the Father in your present spiritual state, you are nowhere even close to considering baptism in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Lord expects us to come to him with a sincere heart, a contrite spirit, and a broken heart. The question for you is how that occurs.

I invite you to carefully read the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus in John chapter 3. Jesus teaches several important truths during that conversation. I'll post them one by one, beginning with verse 3.

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." ((John 3:3)

The definition of being "born again" is to "see the kingdom of God." The moment you see that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on earth, you will be born again. You cannot see it until you gain a testimony of it. That testimony is spiritually discerned. Paul wrote:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (2 Corinthians 2:14)

Paul's statement of how one gains knowledge parallels the teachings of Jesus to Nicodemus back in John chapter 3:

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:11-12)

Latter-day Saints offer testimony. We teach what we know by the Spirit and encourage you to approach God to obtain a testimony in the same manner.

Once a person is born again, he "sees" the kingdom of God, he can identify it--its characteristics and properties, its organization, its officers, and its authority. The natural desire for a sincere seeker is to unite himself to that kingdom. Jesus said in verse 5:

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Baptism is the gateway to enter into the kingdom. There would be no point in baptism if there is no kingdom or that the kingdom was some unidentifiable spiritual essence.

Baptism is unto the remission of sins, which means that repentance must necessarily precede it. RedPhoenix, because you have not "seen" that kingdom yet, you are not repentant. Not being in a state of repentance, you are unprepared for baptism. Peter said: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the fgift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)

My "assumption" on your spiritual standing is based in how you have responded as the knowledge of the gospel has presented to you. I'm sure you're a pleasant person with many wonderful characteristics. I'm sure you have a belief in Jesus Christ. That's a wonderful thing and I'm sure it brings blessings to you.

The next step in the progression of your relationship is to accept the Lord's servants and the authority he has given them. In John 13:19-20, Jesus said:

"Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

Do you see the linkage between verse 19 and 20? When it comes to pass that any person believes that Jesus is the Savior and "receives" him, he must also come to terms with the invitation to accept those whom the Lord has sent. One cannot receive Jesus and reject those whom he has called and sent. If one rejects Jesus' servants, they reject him and the Father who sent him.

The "seeing" of the kingdom of God that comes at the moment of being born again is the realization that Jesus Christ called men and gave them his authority. It is the realization that he established a kingdom, organized it, and vested it with his power and authority. It is a discovery that there are men who are called of God.

In our day, if someone rejects Joseph Smith as a prophet, they reject Jesus who sent him. If they reject Jesus who called Joseph, they reject the Father. The rejection of the restored gospel, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, priesthood authority, power to seal on earth and in heaven, and all the revelations that have come since 1820 is a rejection of those whom Jesus has sent.

RedPhoenix, I assure you that, like all the rest of us have done, you have a need to repent of your sins and submit yourself to the Lord's servants, humbly applying for baptism with a contrite spirit and a broken heart. You must clearly understand that, despite your sincere desire to follow Jesus, you have committed errors and sins, and you must confess them and forsake them. You must enter into a covenant to take upon you the name of Christ and witness to him by baptism that you have sincerely repented.

Your statement that you are confident that you'll be with the Father is an admission that you have no need of repentance at the present time. In that case, you're not prepared to be baptized.

I'll conclude with a scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 84.

45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.

47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.

48 And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world.

49 And the whole world lieth in sin, and groaneth under darkness and under the bondage of sin.

50 And by this you may know they are under the bondage of sin, because they come not unto me.

51 For whoso cometh not unto me is under the bondage of sin.

52 And whoso receiveth not my voice is not acquainted with my voice, and is not of me.

53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked, and that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now.

My intent is not to offend, but to stir you up unto repentance--to shake a smug confidence that you are saved in the kingdom of the Father. If you had been born again, it would be a natural process for you to humbly request baptism, having an acceptance of the Lord's servants.

It will be apparent to everyone here when you have been born again and when you have received a testimony. I truly believe that the Spirit has witnessed to you that these things are true, but you are resisting those feelings. I hope you will consider these words as being delivered in a spirit of meekness. The power is in the words of the Lord, not in anything I might say of my own. I hope you will be troubled sufficiently by these things and inquire of God directly to find his kingdom. I wish you well.

[mormonboy51]

Red Phoenix, I have found some genetic evidence online for the book of mormon if your interested. It doesnt prove but it supports it for sure.

Does DNA prove the Book of Mormon?