Coming to terms with the Book of Abraham

[Backroads]

You claim you don't have any evidence that God exists. Wow. That claim is simply unbelievable, particularly for a member of the Church. My guess would be that you don't accept the evidence that you have, because it doesn't fit your idea of what it should be.

HiJolly

It seems to be a common argument of atheists that if Deity doesn't fit such-n-such requirements, Deity doesn't exist. I'm not terribly up on my logic, but isn't there a fallacy in there somewhere?

[z_o_n_e]

Are you saying that the Holy Spirit will not confirm other truths or mysteries of the universe, and how do you know? Wait, that is because believing in Bigfoot is silly right?

Bigfoot is not likely to inspire the same reaction one would get upon stumbling upon evidence for Big Foot, I suppose it is possible but it just doesn't make sense. Perhaps in some circles ;p

It is hard to describe the feeling I get, it is not like the feeling you would get when you learn something new and exciting. What I feel is an unconditional love, an inner peace, it is so strong that it makes my skin tingle and I feel an embrace of warmth around me. Never before had I felt that sensation.

Not saying, others can not experience it. But, I just don't think uncovering the mysteries of the universe would inspire such a feeling of forgiveness, or unconditional love. I don't think Big Foot would either. It is a feeling specific to being forgiving for things you have done in your life, it is a feeling of acceptance by one greater than you. This would entail something that is sacred, and offers forgiveness. Which would be more specifically something I would expect of Jesus.

[Backroads]

I think the time will come, probably sooner than later, that the Church accepts a lot of things that you all don't accept. The fact that they stopped excommunicating intellectuals for stating facts (fighting against the Church is a different story) shows you that times are changing. The Church no longer claims that homosexuality is a sin or even a choice (except Boyd K. Packer, of course). The Church fought against gay marriage in CA, but were silent in NY. I'm not trying to get too far off the path here, but I think that as science and the dissemination of information becomes more a part of our lives and new generations rise up, the Church will change.

May I ask you to clarify your predictions on how you think the Church will change? Yes, I think it's not completely crazy to predict social view changes--you have given examples of that.

Yet I've seen people who want to claim to be Mormons, yet want the Church to completely change all of its core doctrine.

Not wanting to put words in your mouth but... is that what you are saying? The Church will one day not just change its social actions and maybe a few beliefs here and there that never were core doctrine, but the very beliefs that define the Church?

[DKM88]

I guess you are referring to something "other" than the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit...a member of the Godhead testifies of Jesus Christ and Heavenly father...it comforts and the experience is Sacred and Holy and shouldn't be debased by comments about receiving a spiritual witness about bigfoot.

But what if Bigfoot was my God? What if I sincerely believed in him, that he exists, that he's going about doing good works? Would you say that I'm not privy to spiritual experiences because I have a different belief than you? I hope you see what I'm getting at here. There's no intent to be disrespectful.

[DKM88]

May I ask you to clarify your predictions on how you think the Church will change? Yes, I think it's not completely crazy to predict social view changes--you have given examples of that.

Yet I've seen people who want to claim to be Mormons, yet want the Church to completely change all of its core doctrine.

Not wanting to put words in your mouth but... is that what you are saying? The Church will one day not just change its social actions and maybe a few beliefs here and there that never were core doctrine, but the very beliefs that define the Church?

That depends on what you define "core doctrine" as. If you ask the Church, the only things that are doctrine are found within the canonized books. Everything else is opinion, albeit well-informed for the most part.

Some people would consider the concept of Heavenly Mother as core doctrine. Others would consider Adam-God theory as core doctrine. Others would consider polygamy as core doctrine. Others might consider the seed of Cain not receiving the priesthood as core doctrine. You get the point. There have been many things that members have considered "core" doctrine and when it changed their testimonies were shattered. Some doctrines are ignored or denied that were previously very much at the head of the philosophies of the one true church. Brigham Young himself said that Adam was God and that doctrinal fact would never change...whoops.

[DKM88]

Of course I should. Always seek evidence, always resist assumptions that are unfounded in evidence. I doubt you. That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind. It just means I'm undecided. But as of right now, you are slippery and very dodgy. Example One:

You're like Snow. You have in this very thread denied the faith of several posters here. It's in black & white. And facts? Really? I don't think you understand how difficult it is to know the facts. Even professional historians know they don't have the facts, at least a huge percentage of them as they actually were in the day.

So the pros carefully qualify all their statements and portrayals of 'fact', and the polemicists go to town and make flat blanket assertions that are dubious at best as to accuracy. And here you are, buying into it without any indication that you understand any nuance whatever.

Psychologically we all seek certainty. Some do it by limiting themselves to science (more or less synonymous with materiality). Others do it by couching all belief in conclusive ambiguity or endless philosophical conundrums. Some do it by pinning down a few 'facts' and then emphasizing them over & over, many times in the wrong context or by inappropriate application.

Example two:

"I'm just one of you! What can be wrong with that?" ---is the gist that I'm getting from this statement. Truly, no one can argue that it's bad to follow the facts (whatever you may think them to be) or that God doesn't exist, or that having faith is bad.

But what about my comments, D?

You say I shouldn't doubt you -- why not? Is my doubt well founded? You imply that it is not. Say it directly, please. What do you accept as fact? A vision, perhaps?

In all fairness, D, have you read my testimony about the Church? HiJolly-comes-clean/ Keep in mind that I claim to be a mystic...

How is this a fact? Where did you learn this? What data supports the claim? Why do you believe it? My view is that many of the intellectual excommunications were irrational in their basis. What would cause that to change? Nothing, in my view.

Are you sure you don't have other exceptions? How can you be sure?

I agree, and I believe that much of the change will be more or less forced.

D, what makes me unhappy about your participation here is that you claim to have the facts, but you don't exhibit the evidence that would be expected of one having the facts.

You claim you don't have any evidence that God exists. Wow. That claim is simply unbelievable, particularly for a member of the Church. My guess would be that you don't accept the evidence that you have, because it doesn't fit your idea of what it should be.

HiJolly

My comment about not doubting me was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. Doubt is what keeps up going, oftentimes. It causes learning and carving new paths. I think everyone should be a skeptic.

As far as evidence that God exists, I really have none. I can put together a lot of things and string together a semi-coherent story, and it might make sense that he exists. I have a literal hope that he exists and I attempt to live my life as if he does. If God is up there, I'm not sure he'd be displeased with that.

[bytor2112]

But what if Bigfoot was my God? What if I sincerely believed in him, that he exists, that he's going about doing good works? Would you say that I'm not privy to spiritual experiences because I have a different belief than you? I hope you see what I'm getting at here. There's no intent to be disrespectful.

If Bigfoot were your God...any experience that you had that you described as "spiritual" would not be from the Holy Spirit.

[DKM88]

If Bigfoot were your God...any experience that you had that you described as "spiritual" would not be from the Holy Spirit.

I see. And if I claim to have a spiritual experience confirming that Bigfoot is real and I claim that it was the Holy Spirit, or some equivalent, you would call me a liar because only one type of believe is able to receive spiritual confirmation for things?

[Matthew0059]

DKM:

I don't have time to read this whole thread, but have you looked into the possibility of the surviving parchment that Joseph translated the Book of Abraham from was lost? To my understanding, it was broken up into pieces and only a few survived to the time that scholars could translate into the Book of Breathings.

The last time I looked into this issue- about 1 year ago- I didn't find anything that I thought was conclusive evidence that what modern scholars have found and translated was even what Joseph Smith originally translated. If they don't have the same parchment as Joseph did, then of course they won't translate said parchmen the same way Joseph did!

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here- don't have time or the willpower to read the whole thread.

[bytor2112]

I see. And if I claim to have a spiritual experience confirming that Bigfoot is real and I claim that it was the Holy Spirit, or some equivalent, you would call me a liar because only one type of believe is able to receive spiritual confirmation for things?

You don't see and I wouldn't call you a liar. You are free to believe in anything that you wish and worship as you choose and claim "spiritual" experience all you like. But, it is NOT the Holy Spirit.

[DKM88]

You don't see and I wouldn't call you a liar. You are free to believe in anything that you wish and worship as you choose and claim "spiritual" experience all you like. But, it is NOT the Holy Spirit.

And YOU are the one that makes the determination for other people?

[Matthew0059]

DKM:

I invite you not to offer over-the-top mock scenarios about receiving personal witnesses, as that area is sacred to those on this forum. I still really don't care to read all of this thread, but I again ask: have you looked into the history of the manuscript itself and the surviving pieces?

[DKM88]

DKM:

I invite you not to offer over-the-top mock scenarios about receiving personal witnesses, as that area is sacred to those on this forum. I still really don't care to read all of this thread, but I again ask: have you looked into the history of the manuscript itself and the surviving pieces?

I don't see how my scenario was mocking and over the top. I was making a point. And I believe the point was made. Which was that MANY members of the Church believe that since they have the full truth, the holy spirit would never reveal any truth to anyone else, and if anyone claimed to have an experience with the holy spirit they are simply wrong. In other words, WE, the Mormons, are the judge of whether an experience was from God from a non-member.

I have looked into it, and I find it less than convincing. Joseph was 100% wrong on the manuscript that we have. So it's safe to assume that the rest wasn't magically 100% correct. I'm sure you have read Dr. Gee's work on this. You also should know that his predecessor has basically discredited him in a respectful way and completely disagrees with his findings. Although, recently Dr. Gee gave a speech that was published by the Church where he basically said that the truthfulness of the Church doesn't rest of whether the Book of Abraham is legit or not. So it seems that the Church is moving in the direction of phasing out the legitimacy of the book, and for good reason.

Here are some points to consider when attempting to determine what sources may have been used in the production of the Book of Abraham:

• Abraham 1; Facsimile #1, #3: Abraham’s biographical information in Abraham 1 and Smith’s claim of what these two Facsimile pictures portray comes from The Works of Flavius Josephus. Smith owned an 1830 edition of this book. Smith’s detailed explanations for the individual Egyptian characters on these two Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham have been thoroughly discredited by Egyptologists.

• Abraham 2, 4-5: Eighty-six percent of the verses in these three chapters came from Genesis, 1, 2, 12, and 11:28-29. This material came from a 1769 edition or later printing of the KJV, including its errors.

• Abraham 3; Facsimile 2: The text of Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2 has some remarkable resemblances to the astronomical concepts, phrases, and other motifs found in Thomas Dick’s, Philosophy of a Future State. Smith owned an 1830 copy of this book.

• Abraham 3; Facsimile 2: Thomas Taylor’s 1816 book, The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, especially volume 2, also has most of the motifs in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. **** and Taylor both contain a number of exact phrases found in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. Importantly, Smith’s Newtonian astronomy concepts, mechanics, and model of the universe that he borrowed from these Newtonian books have been thoroughly discredited by Einstein’s twentieth-century model of the universe.

• Strange names: The few Hebrew names and phrases found in the Book of Abraham reflect Smith’s study with Hebrew scholar Joshua Seixas during the winter of 1835-36, in Ohio.

[Torch]

Today I spoke to a very close friend who is a Muslim. In this thread and among members in general, there seems to be a consensus that people of other faiths can feel the spirit selectively but only active members of the LDS church have the constant companion of it. Also, LDS members are the only people in the world that pray to know the truth of things from the Holy Spirit, ie. The Book of Mormon. However, this is NOT true. My Muslim friend discussed that it is openly encouraged to seek guidance, truth, and answers, which is given freely to those who ask it. So, if I were to study Islam, have faith in the Qur'an and pray with faith in Allah that he WILL answer my question then there is no reason why he wouldn't. And if I got the answer that Islam was not true or didn't receive anything, it could be said that I lack faith. The overall point was to get away from Bigfoot and show that from real people, answers can and do get answered to belong to other religions all day, every day. So, why would anyone believe the LDS claims when one can receive the same answer with every other religion? I am not being contentious, but if you are seeking truth, it is a good topic to discuss with your friends of other faiths. What do you believe and more importantly why do you believe it?

[DKM88]

Today I spoke to a very close friend who is a Muslim. In this thread and among members in general, there seems to be a consensus that people of other faiths can feel the spirit selectively but only active members of the LDS church have the constant companion of it. Also, LDS members are the only people in the world that pray to know the truth of things from the Holy Spirit, ie. The Book of Mormon. However, this is NOT true. My Muslim friend discussed that it is openly encouraged to seek guidance, truth, and answers, which is given freely to those who ask it. So, if I were to study Islam, have faith in the Qur'an and pray with faith in Allah that he WILL answer my question then there is no reason why he wouldn't. And if I got the answer that Islam was not true or didn't receive anything, it could be said that I lack faith. The overall point was to get away from Bigfoot and show that from real people, answers can and do get answered to belong to other religions all day, every day. So, why would anyone believe the LDS claims when one can receive the same answer with every other religion? I am not being contentious, but if you are seeking truth, it is a good topic to discuss with your friends of other faiths. What do you believe and more importantly why do you believe it?

Excellent point.

[Matthew0059]

I don't see how my scenario was mocking and over the top. I was making a point. And I believe the point was made. Which was that MANY members of the Church believe that since they have the full truth, the holy spirit would never reveal any truth to anyone else, and if anyone claimed to have an experience with the holy spirit they are simply wrong. In other words, WE, the Mormons, are the judge of whether an experience was from God from a non-member.

You know, most of the Mormons that I know don't feel that our religion has a monopoly on the truth, and I have never sought to discredit a member of another faith who had a spiritual experience. The few members that I do know who do feel/act this way are kind of rude. And one man who was this way, then lost his faith, vehemently claims to this day that all Mormons are like this. One will see what one wants to see, and what one is capable of seeing.

It makes sense, however, that if truth exists at all than what is true is always true- therefore, a testator of truth cannot testify two opposite things to two different people. The secret in truly understanding is in understanding how clear a "lens" one has in their "telescope" of receiving revelation, and where they are looking (very crude analogy, but it works).

I have looked into it, and I find it less than convincing. Joseph was 100% wrong on the manuscript that we have.

Says who? The so-called "experts" who are still learning about a long-dead civilization that they know about only from ancient writings (which we don't have the full context of) and artifacts from the earth- a civilization which we learn new things about every year that advances the field and sometimes changes the whole paradigm? If you want to listen to such uninspired men whose narrative changes and evolves with each decade, that's your perogative.

I'm sure you have read Dr. Gee's work on this. You also should know that his predecessor has basically discredited him in a respectful way and completely disagrees with his findings.

No, I haven't read Dr. Gee's work. I really was never that interested in the Book of Abraham. When I heard some variant theories about it, I researched it a little and was content with what I found. I didn't know how far your research had taken you and thought I'd suggest what helped me. Clearly that won't ease your mind on the subject, so I don't have anything else to offer.

As for your examples as to possible explanations for the content of the Book of Abraham- if you want to believe those things, that's fine. We can agree to disagree.

I hope you find peace with this issue, and with Mormonism. I really do.

God bless, Matthew.

[livy111us]

I believe Dr. Gee makes a strong case, while his "predecessor" has an obvious bone to pick and is employed by anti-Mormons. That should speak volumes. Have you read Dr. Gee's work? Dr. Muhlstein? Dr. Hauglid? They have made some very interesting points that cannot be dismissed by the wave of a hand. Before you dismiss the book of Abraham all together, read up on what modern scholarship is saying about the issue, it may surprise you.

[DKM88]

I believe Dr. Gee makes a strong case, while his "predecessor" has an obvious bone to pick and is employed by anti-Mormons. That should speak volumes. Have you read Dr. Gee's work? Dr. Muhlstein? Dr. Hauglid? They have made some very interesting points that cannot be dismissed by the wave of a hand. Before you dismiss the book of Abraham all together, read up on what modern scholarship is saying about the issue, it may surprise you.

Can you verify that his predecessor is employed by "anti-Mormons?" Oftentimes we consider people searching for verifiable facts to be uninspired or anti.

I also encourage you to read what scholars say on the subject. You may be surprised (although not pleasantly).

[Blackmarch]

I don't see how my scenario was mocking and over the top. I was making a point. And I believe the point was made. Which was that MANY members of the Church believe that since they have the full truth, the holy spirit would never reveal any truth to anyone else, and if anyone claimed to have an experience with the holy spirit they are simply wrong. In other words, WE, the Mormons, are the judge of whether an experience was from God from a non-member.

I have looked into it, and I find it less than convincing. Joseph was 100% wrong on the manuscript that we have. So it's safe to assume that the rest wasn't magically 100% correct. I'm sure you have read Dr. Gee's work on this. You also should know that his predecessor has basically discredited him in a respectful way and completely disagrees with his findings. Although, recently Dr. Gee gave a speech that was published by the Church where he basically said that the truthfulness of the Church doesn't rest of whether the Book of Abraham is legit or not. So it seems that the Church is moving in the direction of phasing out the legitimacy of the book, and for good reason.

Here are some points to consider when attempting to determine what sources may have been used in the production of the Book of Abraham:

• Abraham 1; Facsimile #1, #3: Abraham’s biographical information in Abraham 1 and Smith’s claim of what these two Facsimile pictures portray comes from The Works of Flavius Josephus. Smith owned an 1830 edition of this book. Smith’s detailed explanations for the individual Egyptian characters on these two Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham have been thoroughly discredited by Egyptologists.

• Abraham 2, 4-5: Eighty-six percent of the verses in these three chapters came from Genesis, 1, 2, 12, and 11:28-29. This material came from a 1769 edition or later printing of the KJV, including its errors.

• Abraham 3; Facsimile 2: The text of Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2 has some remarkable resemblances to the astronomical concepts, phrases, and other motifs found in Thomas Dick’s, Philosophy of a Future State. Smith owned an 1830 copy of this book.

• Abraham 3; Facsimile 2: Thomas Taylor’s 1816 book, The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, especially volume 2, also has most of the motifs in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. **** and Taylor both contain a number of exact phrases found in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. Importantly, Smith’s Newtonian astronomy concepts, mechanics, and model of the universe that he borrowed from these Newtonian books have been thoroughly discredited by Einstein’s twentieth-century model of the universe.

• Strange names: The few Hebrew names and phrases found in the Book of Abraham reflect Smith’s study with Hebrew scholar Joshua Seixas during the winter of 1835-36, in Ohio.

so your saying that JS used these sources and these sources are 100% wrong?

also to anyone:

Does anyone have a source or link to something that provides verification as well as to when JS had these books?

[NeuroTypical]

Just to clarify my statement:

No, I'm not saying that LDS are the only people who can have a spiritual experience. No, I'm not saying the Holy Ghost only works with Mormons.

What I am saying, is the more I talk to members of other faiths, the more I study their beliefs, the more I don't see anything resembling a testimony (as we LDS understand it). Apart from the exercise of apologetics, which uses reason to allow for the possibility of a God, I see very little in other faiths suggesting that an individual should attempt direct two-way communication with Deity for the purpose of becomming convinced about the truth claims of that particular faith.

So yeah - if there is such a thing as a Muslim who came to his/her belief through a directly-answered prayer to know if Allah and the Quran are real, I've never heard about that person.

So, you asked the question "A man prays in Iran and receives a profound spiritual witness that Islam is the one true religion. Is he wrong". My answer is "I don't think they do that, and I don't think that man exists".

Not the answer you were expecting, I know. But it's the answer I'm giving.

[livy111us]

Can you verify that his predecessor is employed by "anti-Mormons?" Oftentimes we consider people searching for verifiable facts to be uninspired or anti.

I also encourage you to read what scholars say on the subject. You may be surprised (although not pleasantly).

I have read what the critics have said and try to stay updated on any new information they produce. BUT, I also do the same for evidence in behalf of the book of Abraham and implore you to do the same. Have you read any modern scholarship in behalf of the book of Abraham?

I also got the information about Ritner from Gee himself. Gee was trying to contact him and found him to have -an- office at a prominent anti-Mormon Church.

[AGStacker]

I feel like I've been on a tailspin for about a year and I'm about done with it all. What I mean by that is I feel like I've lost virtually all of my faith for a number of reasons, all being historical/doctrinal issues with the church. Now I feel like I've got the back breaker...the Book of Abraham.

It's widespread knowledge (apparently) that the Book of Abraham was completely wrong. What I mean is that now that we have scholars that can actually read the Egyptian language, we know that the Book of Abraham was simply a funeral text and nothing more. In other words Joseph Smith was completely wrong in this translation. There's no way of getting around this. There's not faith involved. We have the manuscript and it's been proven wrong.

My question is how do you wrap your mind around this? How do you come to terms with this and still feel good about Joseph Smith and the validity of everything else he did (or any of the other prophets for that matter)?

Thank you in advance for the responses. I'm sorry of my post isn't all that clear, but I'm dead tired physically, intellectually, and spiritually right now. Any help would be appreciated.

Don't believe EVERYTHING science says would be my answer. I doubt that anyone person can totally interpret ancient Egyptian. Many of the brightest minds have been incorrect in many things. Hawking recently said that we no longer need God in science. The Big Bang theory is a load of garbage. They even admit that there are many parts of the story that are left blank and that "we can't explain this part". Science has a lot of A,B,C and no L,M,N,O,P. I didn't evolve from cro-magnum man.

If you have doubts but still believe in God, look how the rest of Christianity teaches the Bible. It is honestly horrible how they interpret it. Joseph Smith interpreted and explained the Bible better than any man. His words make sense and "taste good". Know that Satan is active and uses man to be deceptive. The Church offers you so much. What does the world have to offer you?

[NeuroTypical]

actually, Islam has a very similar story as ours... Muhammad was frustrated and went - not to a sacred grove, but instead to a cave up in the mountains. He prayed to find answers, and there received a revelation from God. Through direct communication from God Muhammad restored the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses which had been lost through apostasy.

Right - and now when they quote him, they sing his words out of respect, and say 'peace be upon him' after naming him. He's the last prophet. He also has been given over 30 honorific titles (like 'the opener' or 'the intercessor') and five names (like 'the chosen one'). Sufis believe he is still alive and invisible. The Shi'a believe he is sinless. Some islamic states take those who criticize Muhammad and put them to death. People have died for drawing pictures of him. He ain't like other muslims.

But yeah, I guess that answers my question - there is maybe one Muslim who has done such a thing.

[DKM88]

Don't believe EVERYTHING science says would be my answer. I doubt that anyone person can totally interpret ancient Egyptian. Many of the brightest minds have been incorrect in many things. Hawking recently said that we no longer need God in science. The Big Bang theory is a load of garbage. They even admit that there are many parts of the story that are left blank and that "we can't explain this part". Science has a lot of A,B,C and no L,M,N,O,P. I didn't evolve from cro-magnum man.

If you have doubts but still believe in God, look how the rest of Christianity teaches the Bible. It is honestly horrible how they interpret it. Joseph Smith interpreted and explained the Bible better than any man. His words make sense and "taste good". Know that Satan is active and uses man to be deceptive. The Church offers you so much. What does the world have to offer you?

So we should be skeptical with science but not with religion? That doesn't make any sense.

Are you saying that Hawking is wrong about saying we no longer need God in science? Are you more right than he is? Are you qualified to make that statement?

What evidence do you have that you didn't "evolve" from a lower form of human? Everybody knows that the idea of Adam and Eve, two people, used to populate a whole planet is impossible. You learn that in Biology 100 at BYU. There have been many apostles pre-Joseph Fielding Smith & McConkie that believed in evolution and that the Adam & Eve story was a metaphor for our separation from God. It's impossible that the story is true, as we understand the physical and biological world.

Are you ok with the idea that we evolved from single celled organisms but we, the children of God, inhabited human bodies once they were deemed "evolved enough" to house our spirits?

[ehkape]

DKM88, I believe I know how you are feeling right now. I have been down the same road for the last 3 years now. I returned from my mission with a firm testamony which I belived would never be shaken. But All that history stuff you mentioned in your posts were just screaming out too loud "How can you still belive?"

It tears you apart to sort of believe in the church but at the same time not to be able to accept major parts of it.

You asked how to deal with it...

First of all: It's the toughest thing I know of so far. It's like fighting yourself. Your core beliefs are taken and ripped apart. There might be family and friends involved. They might not understand. Most TBMs don't understand, how someone can dare to question such a thing as holy scripture.

I've been on the edge of quitting and leaving the church a few times. Partly because of this forum, too. Some of the answers I got just hurt because I didn't have the impression my concerns were taken serious. (I hope you other guys may learn to be a bit more understanding)

Anyway, so I've been dealing with all my questions for about 3 years now. Last week I "made a decision" to believe again. Elder Bednar held a fireside in our stake and I could feel the Spirit so stongly. I prepared for the meeting by asking the Lord in prayer whether E. Bednar was a true and honest apostle or not. And my feelings just didn't leave any doubt. Yes, he is an apostle, a disciple of Jesus Christ.

How could the church he represents possibly have gone astray?

There was another thing, that kept coming to my mind. Something like 'You live now in 2011 and not back in the day 1830' Just let it go.

Ok, that doesn't resolve any of the historic issues I have with the church, but it sets them into perspective. They lost much of their importance. I'D rather focus on the blessings that come from believing in Christ as my Savior. I feel like a huge burden has just been lifted from my shoulders.

I hope this has been of any help to you. I guess, nobody can talk away your concerns. Maybe it will take time to come to terms with the matter.