Prove it first!

[tubaloth]

Quote from "The Believing Heart"

Most of us have known people who rejected an opportunity to test the truthfulness of the gospel because they were not willing to submit to the gospel commandments. We have pleaded with the skeptic to try the gospel and see. How impatient we have become when the skeptic wants us to prove it first, before he will submit himself in some way that seems to him a loss of his freedom!

If the skeptic doubts that the process of complying with gospel principles will really bear fruit, his own doubting will indeed make it impossible for the gospel to bear fruit for him. For unless he yields and participates and loses himself in it, there is no way he can find the proof he demands.

Until a person who is attempting to learn a skill is willing to commit himself totally and irrevocably, there are many things he cannot learn. Polanyi describes how a blind man with a walking stick becomes accustomed to "seeing" with it. What the stick tells him, the blind man can never fully describe to anyone else. For those who are not blind—but who merely close their eyes at times to see what it is like—are not sufficiently motivated to learn what the stick can tell them about the world. Why not? Because they don't have to know.

How does one convince others about things like that? Our skeptical friends may say, "What is so wonderful about the celestial kingdom? Explain it to me so I can understand it, and then maybe I can put up with all the commandments, take the risks, submit myself to the Master, and go through all the practice and routine. But first I want you to prove to me that it is all going to be worthwhile in the end."

And what can our answer be? There is no way that human minds, resurrected or not, can communicate to other human minds what it is like. We do not know why that is so. It is in the nature of reality and the nature of the universe. All we can do is trust and try it. Something will happen to those who try, and then they will know. But when they attempt to explain it to someone else, the listener likely will not understand fully what they are talking about.

(Bruce C. Hafen, The Believing Heart, 2nd ed. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1990], 46-47.)

[NeuroTypical]

This guy could use a hefty dose of skepticism. It's like he's associating us with drug runners or satanists or something. Skepticism is a useful tool that accomplishes good things when used correctly.

How impatient we have become when the skeptic wants us to prove it first, before he will submit himself in some way that seems to him a loss of his freedom!

See, the world is full of schemes and plots and plans of naughty people who are trying to take things from us or harm us. Ordinarily, how carful/skeptical you should be, depends on how sensational or emotionally swaying or pivotaly important the claims are. There's nothing wrong with wanting a basis for belief.

The world is full of dangerous notions that arrive on your door, complete with adherents who will "plead with the skeptic to try [X] and see".

In other words:

* "Just smoke/drink/shoot/pop this, and your problems dissapear" = be skeptical.

* "Really baby, I've never felt like this with anyone before. Now let's [do something that makes you uncomfortable]. I think I'm in love!" = be skeptical.

* "Earn thousands per month from home - no selling!" = be skeptical.

* "God exists, and wants you to [set of commandments]!" = be skeptical.

Lots of people have pushed agendas with that last one. Lots of wars, asassinations, excuses for abuses by the ruling class, etc. Not everyone is pushing the same god, nor the same set of commandments. So a rational mind is supposed to, what? Figure out that JW's and moonies and that kool-aid drinking cult aren't it, but LDS is? Based on what evidence?

There's nothing wrong with this line of thinking.

Alma 32:26-43 is the roadmap for the skeptic who wishes to test this church's truth claims. No giving up skepticism necessary.

It's a pity that Brother Haefen seeks to demonize the skeptic. I think he could learn some important things from us.

LM

[pam]

I'm not sure I agree that Elder Hafen is seeking to demonize the skeptic. I think he makes a good point that we've seen here on lds.net many times.

People want proof. We can't always give proof because many of the things we believe in are based on faith. Many things haven't been revealed to us in it's fulness yet.

[catalyst]

There is a great quote from I believe John Taylor which basically says that as members we should always be questioning our thoughts and beliefs. I was digging through my stuff trying to find it but to no avail. I always found it interesting as it seems contrary to the more modern approach which is expressed in the quote being discussed in this thread or that one would hear in a typical service. I'll see if I can hunt it down.

[IAmTheWork]

I think it interesting that Alma isn't saying "just believe", or that continual belief is the aim of the process he describes. As HiJolly hinted in another post, we must challenge our own beliefs, and let go of many or almost all of them, to see the actual truth.

I've had lots of interesting discussions with people about scepticism, especially scientists as I grew up among and have worked with some.

A lot of people confuse scepticism with debunking. Without getting too tied up in words, I'd say that to be sceptical is to be healthily cautious, and if we weren't then we'd be prone to believing anything which seemed fanciful to our minds. To debunk means to me though, to try to uncover the untruth or illusion of something even when substantial proof exists, or when methods are available to try for oneself, but are refuted as being useless without the debunker trying it!

I think that because life is short, and we often feel a sense of urgency in spiritual matters, we sometimes miss the important truth that things which are learned are of far more value than that which is simply given. So, if someone is sceptical they have the option to try whatever they want in life to see what works for them. If they're more of a debunker, then nothing will change for them while they have a locked down mind.

Free agency; the bane of the missionary! :)

[Backroads]

I have never liked the idea that faith is completely blind.

I can claim to have faith in pink leprechauns--doesn't mean they exist (And for those of you who do believe in pink leprechauns, I will be gracious to say admit that not enough evidence has been gleaned to entirely dismiss their existence.)

When I have faith, I know at some degree that something does exist, is true.

All the evidence in the world short of a concrete scientific discovery will not replace faith.

That being said, it's not wrong to be skeptical, dubious, to take things with a grain of salt, if you will. The worst thing one can do in spiritual things is to believe something just because someone says so. If you have faith in something, you have reason for having that faith, be it tangible evidence or intangible. It might not be "evidence" per say, but it's something.

[IAmTheWork]

I have never liked the idea that faith is completely blind.

Me neither, but I suppose on that point we need to define 'faith'. I know the church definition(s), but find that by experience my own developed into this; Faith is an intuitive prompting that something may actually be true without immediate evidence or prior knowledge that it is.

This makes so much more sense to me than any other definition, as it gives ownership and empowerment to the individual who is showing faith. In other words, if someone says, "This is true, and you can know it by faith", you ponder, and you feel whatever you feel. You then decide what is or might be true, not the person trying to convince you. Free agency = self-empowerment.

The thing is, while the lord is called The Shepherd, he doesn't want mere sheep as his followers. I don't recall any scripture which records him saying, "Just shut up and do as you're told. You don't need to understand". In fact, that kind of talk is said to be from another agency altogether if I remember rightly.

When I have faith, I know at some degree that something does exist, is true.

Yes, when you know, you know. Or at least you feel something only you can feel, hinting that there's truth there. It's imperative to keep those personal promptings separate from pressures from others though, because sometimes our personal intuition can be pushed onto the back burner by clever arguments.

[Backroads]

Yes, when you know, you know. Or at least you feel something only you can feel, hinting that there's truth there. It's imperative to keep those personal promptings separate from pressures from others though, because sometimes our personal intuition can be pushed onto the back burner by clever arguments.

And I consider that feeling evidence! It's something more than saying "I believe it because the guy in church told me." Instead, I can say "I feel it's right. I have positive thoughts about it." It might not work for everyone as an argument, but hey, what can I do for them, you know?

I remember being like 13 and getting in a fight with a girl who said I had no scientific evidence for my faith. I eventually asked her for scientific evidence in her beliefs (she was Wiccan). She said she did... and then proceeded to tell me about feelings she had and how she could sense the Goddess in nature. Nothing scientific, but when I pointed it out, she was more accepting of my beliefs. Immature of us, but that's what it came down to.

[IAmTheWork]

And I consider that feeling evidence!

I'd say that these intuitive promptings are our deep and soulful connection with the world of spirit, of true life. What freaks people out at times is when their inner promptings don't fit what people are trying to tell them. When that happens, we have to relax and gently consider why that might be, rather than grasp at straws and go for the simplest 'truth'.

I think we can misinterpret spiritual promptings all too easily. For example, a church leader says something and we don't feel 'right' somehow. Does it mean he/she is wrong? Does it mean (as sometimes too many suggest) that we don't have deep enough testimony and understanding? Does it mean that we're being tempted by devilish forces? And with all of this comes, "Oh no, oh no - what do I DO?!"

So, back to the OP. Prove it! Well, in spiritual matters there often isn't proof as such, and when there is to you personally, you're past caring about needing to prove anything to anyone (as are the spiritual agencies who provide you with 'proof' simply by being in your presence).

[Backroads]

I'd say that these intuitive promptings are our deep and soulful connection with the world of spirit, of true life. What freaks people out at times is when their inner promptings don't fit what people are trying to tell them. When that happens, we have to relax and gently consider why that might be, rather than grasp at straws and go for the simplest 'truth'.

I think we can misinterpret spiritual promptings all too easily. For example, a church leader says something and we don't feel 'right' somehow. Does it mean he/she is wrong? Does it mean (as sometimes too many suggest) that we don't have deep enough testimony and understanding? Does it mean that we're being tempted by devilish forces? And with all of this comes, "Oh no, oh no - what do I DO?!"

So, back to the OP. Prove it! Well, in spiritual matters there often isn't proof as such, and when there is to you personally, you're past caring about needing to prove anything to anyone (as are the spiritual agencies who provide you with 'proof' simply by being in your presence).

There's also the problem of confusing emotions with spiritual sensations.

I think some of the confusion between inner promptings and what you are told and what you feel you should believe is a lack of comprehension of what you are feeling/thinking and what others are telling you. A lot of spiritual feelings can't be properly worded so, as you said, we shouldn't freak out. Consider everything from there. I wouldn't worry about being labled as not having a shallow testimony based on projection from mere mortals. More often than not, they're just talking. Sharing inspired and thoughtful things that mean a lot to them and potentially others, but it's hardly Word from God. We don't need to compare our testimonies to it.

[IAmTheWork]

Hmm... Or rather, wow... This could get so deep. I think at the simplest level, the level Christ would no doubt have us consider, is what do we feel is right for us, and where do we go with such feelings?

As you hint Backroads; how do we know whether our feelings are spiritual promptings or our emotions? Or can the two be the same? And as emotions are so close to sexual feelings, how do we fit these into our life? (This seems to be a major topic in other threads, and rightly so).

To dismiss feelings as simply 'unspiritual' is simply invalidating the life experience of others in order to control them, it seems to me. I wouldn't say that this is inherent in the church as some suggest, but I've seen it happen. People are asked to 'feel the spirit', but what if the feelings they have are to steer well clear? What if the spirit is telling the person that they should pursue another life, other ways of growing? The path they're on may not necessarily be the one for them, and the lord may be telling them so.

You mention testimony, and I haven't said much about that since joining this forum. So let me say that I have a knowledge of spiritual things, of angels as friends, of a mother and father who I know and love. Their personal state and power is indescribable, so I won't even try. Also, I'm not special in any way, but do know by experience that any of us can be far closer to angels and our loving parents than we're told.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Here is my thought on the whole "Provide Proof Before I Believe" - this works very well.

MormonCritic: "Prove to me that the Book of Mormon is really authentic by pointing to where Zerehemla is, and horses were here prior to the Spanish Conquest, et all."

Mormon: "Sure, I will do that, but first you have to provide some proof yourself for me."

MormonCritic: "What is that?"

Mormon: "Provide archaeological Evidence and empirical Evidence for the reality of a person named Jesus Christ and that he truly rose the third day as the New Testament Teaches. When you can provide this Archaeological Evidence, then I will provide the same Archaeological Evidence for the aunthenticity of the Book of Mormon."

MormonCritic: "That is easy, The Bible says he rose the third day and that is all the proof there is."

Mormon: "Actually no, I asked for actual Archaeological Evidence that Christ existed, lived, died, and rose as the Bible teaches. Surely you can provide Archaeological proof that is independent of Christian teaching, tradition, and Biblical Interpretation."

MormonCritic: "That is impossible, you have to believe and have faith that Christ truly lived, was crucified, and was resurrected. Even if there were proof you would not believe it anyway."

Mormon (as he/she taps the Book of Mormon): "Exactly, it is impossible to believe something, even if Christ himself were to reveal himself to those who are skeptic. The New Testament teaches about one called Doubting Thomas who refused to believe that Christ rose from the Grave, and when Christ appeared and showed himself to Thomas, Thomas then believed. Yet, Christ said that those who do not see and yet believe, it is far greater for them. While I am not able to show you actual archaeological Evidence for the existence of the cities, peoples, and histories contained in the Book of Mormon, I testify to you that by true sincere faith God, the Father has revealed to me that this Book talks of Christ, preaches of Christ, and teaches us how to live our lives in accordance with the way Christ himself taught we ought to live our lives." (hands the copy to the critic), "Now, do you take empirical evidence and physical proof to be more important than trusting in God and what God reveals that requires faith?"

[IAmTheWork]

... your emotions cannot do things like tell you about the traffic jam, or warn you about a spider in your shoe, or tell you who needs a phone call... when you get correct information about something - information that does not come from your eyes, or ears, or any of your other senses - the info came from without, not from within...

Good point, and of course I was asking for such, not saying that emotions and spiritual promptings are the same thing. I wouldn't say that all intuitive feelings/promptings are from 'outside' of us though, but rather an innate connection we have with everything. We're brought up to see everything in terms of separation, which is good enough for stopping us walking in front of cars and so on, but a very limited way of seeing things.

Here is my thought on the whole "Provide Proof Before I Believe" - this works very well.

I must admit, I've never seen that discussion go that way before. But on the subject, I've read various things saying that there IS some archaeological or written evidence of Christ as a person (other than the bible), and other things saying there definitely ISN'T any such evidence. While I don't care to waste too much time on it, and realise that everything I read on the internet and in newspapers MUST be true, I am a bit confused by all that. :)

Edited January 3, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Wording.

[Backroads]

Hmm... Or rather, wow... This could get so deep. I think at the simplest level, the level Christ would no doubt have us consider, is what do we feel is right for us, and where do we go with such feelings?

As you hint Backroads; how do we know whether our feelings are spiritual promptings or our emotions? Or can the two be the same? And as emotions are so close to sexual feelings, how do we fit these into our life? (This seems to be a major topic in other threads, and rightly so).

To dismiss feelings as simply 'unspiritual' is simply invalidating the life experience of others in order to control them, it seems to me. I wouldn't say that this is inherent in the church as some suggest, but I've seen it happen. People are asked to 'feel the spirit', but what if the feelings they have are to steer well clear? What if the spirit is telling the person that they should pursue another life, other ways of growing? The path they're on may not necessarily be the one for them, and the lord may be telling them so.

You mention testimony, and I haven't said much about that since joining this forum. So let me say that I have a knowledge of spiritual things, of angels as friends, of a mother and father who I know and love. Their personal state and power is indescribable, so I won't even try. Also, I'm not special in any way, but do know by experience that any of us can be far closer to angels and our loving parents than we're told.

I'm not calling any emotions necessarily unspiritual; just that there is a difference between "Oh, I'm so touched by this concept and I'm crying" and actually feeling the Spirit. And I believe that feeling is different for everyone.

You should also understand my position on things: A relationship with God, a spiritual understanding, is ever so much more important in my view than a particular religion, even the LDS one I'm happy to be a part of. I think that connects to what you are saying about what path people should take. I believe certain things are right, and I believe the gospel is true, but I think there are various paths of getting there.

Thanks for sharing your testimony. It's beautiful. :)

[tubaloth]

First, Elder Hafen and his book is about developing Faith. The quote in question is really talking about how the vail is an important part of us developing Faith. The Faith process that Elder Hafen is using is Alma 32. More you have to experiment upon the word. (no blind faith) Elder Hafen was getting at that there are plenty of people that doesn't want to go through the experiment, but they want Faith. It doesn't, and I would think Can't happen that way. True Faith takes wanting and doing something about it. Thats the quote is talking about.

I posted quotes from first chapter of Elder Hafen's book here:

Blogs » God s Dilemma » LDS Social Network

Another quote from Joseph Fielding McConkie/Millet

Nephi prophesied that whenthe "great and marvelous work" of restoration, foretold by Isaiah, was about to begin with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, many would reject it and give the argument that they already had a Bible and had no need for another. The statement is its own refutation. The philosopher argues that there can be no absolutes, not realizing that such a pronouncement constitutes an absolute. The false religionist argues that the Bible contains all revelation, not realizing that since the Bible makes no such a claim for itself, the only way they could know this would be by revelation. Thus men and women find themselves in the awkward position of claiming a revelation to say that there is norevelation. Such is the confusion of which the kingdom of darkness is made.

Every missionary who has labored among Christian nations has heard Nephi's prophecy- this basis for rejecting the Book of Mormon- fulfilled near countless times. The argument is, as the Lord suggests, most foolish. It is our modern counterpart to those of Jesus' day who rejected him in the pretense of being loyal to the Law of Moses, the irony being that loyalty to the Law of Moses demanded acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. The purpose of the Law of Moses was to teach and testify of Christ. Such is also the purpose of the Book of Mormon, it being the most Christ-centered book ever written. Yet it is rejected in the name of loyalty to the Bible. The logical extension of such reasoning would be to reject the Gospel of Mark in the name of loyalty to Matthew or to reject the witness of Peter in the pretense of loyalty to Paul and his teachings. Indeed, some have done so, claiming contradictions between these early Apostles; yet the spirit, purpose, and doctrine of these special witnesses, like that of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, are the same.

　

(Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 4 vols. [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1987-1992], 1: 347.)

[IAmTheWork]

... you have to experiment upon the word. (no blind faith) Elder Hafen was getting at that there are plenty of people that doesn't want to go through the experiment, but they want Faith. It doesn't, and I would think Can't happen that way.

Yes, I think so too. One of the problems human beings face is a mind which thinks a lot, but which wants answers up front often without any effort at all. The statement, "Prove it!" says it all. My answer to that these days tends to be, "We have to learn for ourselves, you, me, all of us, and no proof I offer will be good enough". I can't remember who said it, but I like the quote; "That which is learned is of far more value than that which is simply given".

However, on the subject of logical discussion or argument I have a point to share (having studied logic formally at degree level). I don't attempt to be perfectly logical in all I do and say - how boring a life that would be! - but it's useful for noticing when a convincing argument actually is not as purely logical and true as it sounds.

The false religionist argues that the Bible contains all revelation, not realizing that since the Bible makes no such a claim for itself, the only way they could know this would be by revelation. Thus men and women find themselves in the awkward position of claiming a revelation to say that there is no revelation. Such is the confusion of which the kingdom of darkness is made.

I hear and read statements made by people (not just church members or authorities) all the time, and others nod in agreement or turn away. In the case of the church, members naturally 'see the sense in it' and (generally) agree. They too easily decide that those who disagree are doing so because either they're ungodly, don't have their eyes opened to truth yet (which, if I may say so, can be a very condescending viewpoint), or are just too lazy or dumb to get it.

People tend to think that they understand and use logic well, and yet take things to be logically true or false when in fact they're not. And in this case, I'm not trying to disprove the truth of the quoted statement with regard to scripture as such, NOR trying shouting "The church isn't true!", so bear with me. :)

The false religionist argues that the Bible contains all revelation. ~ This may or may not be true of course, but let's go with true and agree that most (assumed false religionists) do/will say this.

not realizing that since the Bible makes no such a claim for itself ~ Debatable, and not 'set in stone' true as claimed. There are scriptures in the bible saying things like (generalised), "I have given you god's word, and you should follow it". Saying, "Ah, but it doesn't specifically say there will be no more revelation" is adding something in, or leading to doing so.

the only way they could know this would be by revelation. ~ The above line is not categorically true, and this final part of the statement is certainly not. Revelation is not the only way to know truth, and revelation has not been given on every single point and question humanity ever had or now has.

Thus men and women find themselves in the awkward position of claiming a revelation to say that there is no revelation. ~ This is the logical clincher, and it's worth church members considering why this kind of statement puts so many people off before they even consider the missionary's message; they've seen the logical error and think, "Well, if this is how it all holds together, I prefer string and glue!"

"Thus..."? No, not at all. "Thus" in this sense essentially means, "What I have stated is absolutely true". Other men and women who claim that (as far as they have been taught) the bible contains all they need, do NOT find themselves in the position of claiming a revelation which says that no more can be given - that is implied ONLY by the illogical statement made above!

Again, I'm not bashing the church here, but I do take to task the methods used and which often twist things around so that those claiming absolute truth appear to be correct. Non-members hate this with a passion, because it looks so false. In fact, it looks like missionaries and church leaders are deliberately lying to them, so they turn away. The scripture to, "Avoid the appearence of evil" is often used for various reasons, yet it doesn't occur to those preaching the gospel that this kind of thing looks evil to others?

I do hope this doesn't seem a daft point to labour, because I think it is important in the church's dealings with the world in general.

I've watched some church videos (or rather LDS produced videos) lately, and one of them is an inspirational talk given by a mission president. Sadly, I can't find the link now. Anyway, he's telling missionaries how to handle questions from non-members such as, "Is it true that your church teaches that we can become gods, man and woman together?" The way this mission leader swims around the question, saying that non-members need 'milk before meat', is astounding. He uses false logic to show that what the missionaries should be answering is not the person's question, but the question they should have asked! (Addition). He then goes on to tell the missionaries what question the investigator should have asked, as though that person has no brains or right to ask questions they feel are relevant. I can see where he's coming from, but wow does that look like twisting the truth to non-members!

Continual debate about any doctrinal or logical point can go around and around, and scriptures can be found to support almost any kind of argument of course, and I don't want to over-do it. However, it should be clear to anyone that when scriptures along the lines of, "My words are plain, and I give you truth" are quoted to people, yet they then see missionaries and members obfuscating things so they don't have to directly answer something (for whatever reason), it has the appearence of deception.

Most of us have known people who rejected an opportunity to test the truthfulness of the gospel because they were not willing to submit to the gospel commandments. We have pleaded with the skeptic to try the gospel and see. How impatient we have become when the skeptic wants us to prove it first, before he will submit himself in some way that seems to him a loss of his freedom!

That's the first part of your opening post tubaloth, and while I don't have all the answers, I'd suggest seriously considering what I've said, because you and others may be missing some very important reasons why people reject your pleading: to them, many Mormons can look like liars because they aren't direct about things.

(Addition). It may be worth mentioning that while I left the church almost twenty years ago (as mentioned elsewhere), one elder who taught me was very direct, and openly answered every question put to him. If someone asked him about temple garments - a major point to avoid in those days for missionaries - he'd say, "Yep, I'm wearing them" and explain roughly what they were all about. If someone asked to see them he'd say, "Sorry, can't do that: as I said, we consider them sacred". I don't remember one person ever rolling their eyes or giving any other negative reaction because he may appear to be squirming out of answering something. I do remember seeing his companions squirm though! :)

Edited January 5, 2011 by IAmTheWork
Punctuation, spelling, and additions (marked).

[HiJolly]

I think there is a small subset of 'religionists' that do actually fit with brother McConkie's reasoning. I've met some myself.

But in the larger scope of religious people and beliefs and what-not, I generally agree with you, IAmTheWork.

I think it comes from LDS folks who limit their scholarship and education to LDS-only sources. A kind of religious inbreeding, if you will. Nasty!

HiJolly

[Seminarysnoozer]

We have already proven our spiritual belief in God and God's plan, all of us here have in the pre-existence. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. Our test isn't to develop a belief, as we already have. The test is to let our belief shine through our physical being. To not let our physical being be so much of a thick veil that we can't detect the spiritual influence at all. I think it is important to see it this way as it will help with the concept that we don't have to formulate anything with the physical mind. Our physical mind just has to accept the spiritual influences. This also, of course, applies to ones ability to detect what has been spiritually formed by others versus a "scholarly" work generated by the carnal mind. ... as we say on Sunday, "to feel the spirit".

I believe one reason this is a "must" for future development is the fact that it is always easier to learn faster from a trusted reliable source than it is to try to work it out yourself. Imagine if, to use this computer I first had to discover electricity on my own, then figure out how to forge metal and make wires etc. ... we would never be having this conversation as I don't think I would get even close to making metal, let alone a computer in one lifetime. But, because other people learned from others and trusted their discoveries they built on what was told to them and we have all these wonderful things based on their trust of basic science, electricity, physics, metallurgy etc.

Well, the same applies to future, spiritually learning. God wants in his "advanced class" of future Gods, individuals who will trust what He says and not have to "figure it out" on their own. Those people will learn a lot faster than those that get bogged down in their own disbelief. That is the benefit of faith and trust in God. The beauty of God's plan is that we learn from others. Trusting in our own knowledge is the opposite of that. I would say that I am about 50% of the way there but that is my goal, to have 100% faith. ... it helps to know why, though.

[IAmTheWork]

We have already proven our spiritual belief in God and God's plan, all of us here have in the pre-existence. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

One of the problems with such a statement is that while church members may accept it as a 'given', non-members will probably not. I like your points, but beginning with a statement which many will simply not agree with means that they may not bother to consider what you say in the larger sense. The topic being about 'proof', this is probably quite important. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

One of the problems with such a statement is that while church members may accept it as a 'given', non-members will probably not. I like your points, but beginning with a statement which many will simply not agree with means that they may not bother to consider what you say in the larger sense. The topic being about 'proof', this is probably quite important. :)

I am just saying that a person can't serve two masters. If "proof" becomes the motive then the other master gets neglected which becomes an obscuration of the right eye.

All we know in this world is faith based at some level. One has to trust their mom or dad at some point to learn the basics of life, then teachers, friends, text books etc. So, the proof one seeks here is put into a context of trust based knowledge. ... is that really "proof" then? We are only going to clear up the muddy waters completely when we can see clearly, through spiritual eyes alone. For the majority of us that is not going to happen in this life.

I haven't "proven" to myself that there is a planet out there that people are calling Jupiter. I have never seen it with my own eyes (to my knowledge), or touched it. But I can trust what other people say about it to the point that I would say it is a fact that there is a planet called Jupiter. I doubt that many would argue with that point and yet it is a "trust" based "fact" for most of us. Why, is it so different then for spiritual matters. Why can't I say that because I read about it from a trusted official of God in a book then that is proof enough? Why would I need any more proof than that?

[Backroads]

So what kind of "proof" are we asking for when someone makes spiritual claims?

[LDSChristian]

That's an excellent quote. It's like people are afraid to learn or test the Holy Ghost. I believe it would be pride more than anything else.

[Seminarysnoozer]

So what kind of "proof" are we asking for when someone makes spiritual claims?

That is kind-of my point. Spiritual matters are not proven they are only discerned. We either recognize truth or we don't. We are given the ability to do so through the light of Christ and can build on that with the gift of the Holy Ghost.

There are some things of a spiritual nature that can be "proven" through physical eyes but because the physical in this life is inherently flawed it is never a perfect proof anyways. It is like second-hand proof at best. To have a perfect knowledge of spiritual matters requires seeing through the "right eye" only. Most people have at least some obscuration through their "right eye" though and some to the point of not being able to see through it at all. Zechariah 11:17

[LDSChristian]

Ever notice how people will say the Golden Plates weren't real because they haven't seen the plates and then they turn around and say they know by faith that Jesus Christ died for our sins? That's one of the oldest double standards I hear from anti-'s.