evidence and the church


soulfire
 Share

Recommended Posts

Q 1. lds tend to base their faith on personal experiences, but aside from things relating to personal experiences/revelation/feelings, what do you consider the most convincing pieces of evidence that the lds church is true?

Q 2. do you think there are any circumstances under which a religion can be proven false using experiments or observations? such as finding contradictions, failed prophecies, anachronisms, not receiving answers to prayer, etc

Q3. for those who insist there is no way to know that a religion is true (or false) without revelation and insist to "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding", i ask - arent all of our beliefs ultimately based on our own understanding? for example, even if god were to appear in front of us and tell us something directly, dont we use our own judgement in whether or not it actually was God? even if you knew it was god, that knowledge would be based on your own understanding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Reason. Logic.

2. I don't know about a religion being proven false, any religion, really, as each individual has to consider the elements of any given faith or belief system and judge, according to his own comprehension. Therefore, what one person may believe has been proven false, another may believe has been proven true.

3. Certainly we base all beliefs, ideas, and opinions on our own understanding, whether that understanding comes by way of a witness from God, or comes by way of reason, or it comes by our own life experiences and how we view things from our particular perspective, or any combination of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q 1. lds tend to base their faith on personal experiences, but aside from things relating to personal experiences/revelation/feelings, what do you consider the most convincing pieces of evidence that the lds church is true?

If Christianity is true, and the Bible is scripture, the only church that could possibly be true is the LDS Church. There is no other church on the earth today that conforms to biblical accounts and teachings than Mormonism. The LDS Church resembles the church that Christ established during His mortal ministry more than any other church as well.

Q 2. do you think there are any circumstances under which a religion can be proven false using experiments or observations? such as finding contradictions, failed prophecies, anachronisms, not receiving answers to prayer, etc

When a leader of a church claims the mantle of prophet, there are conditions that have to be met. Failed prophecies get you voted off the island. When the prophecies are fulfilled, though, you get some legitimacy. There are hundreds of articles about this on FAIR that are helpful in understanding the nature of prophets and prophecies.

Q3. arent all of our beliefs ultimately based on our own understanding?

Most definitely. Your question deals much more with philosophy than theology. The allegory of the cave would be better suited for discussion about perception and reality than specific instances found in religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gopecon

1) An uneducated farmboy producing the Book of Mormon.

2) Spartan hit this one pretty well. It's hard to prove faith false, especially when so much of what religions teach comes from hundreds or thousands of years ago. By their fruits ye shall know them - if there are bad fruits, then you've got a bad tree. The problem here is what is an actual fruit of the tree (miracles, lives of the followers), and what is an anomoly that came from human error/evil (Mountain Meadows massacre).

3) You're right, but so what? We all live our lives based on our own understanding. That doesn't prove anything one way or the other from a religious perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q 1. lds tend to base their faith on personal experiences, but aside from things relating to personal experiences/revelation/feelings, what do you consider the most convincing pieces of evidence that the lds church is true?

In my time and experience almost all the "evidences" posed by critics that supposedly prove the church to be totally false almost always end up being; untrue, misintrepreted, rumor, or unsupported by further evidence (and usually a combination of such), or something that does not really matter in relation to the gospel.

As for things that relate to the book of mormon, there are a surprising number of paralells being found within ancient american culture and the book of mormon that Joseph Smith had no way of knowing about from scholarly sources at his time. FOrtunately or unfortunately there has yet to be something found that translates directly into something that corresponds exactly as given in the book of mormon.

Q 2. do you think there are any circumstances under which a religion can be proven false using experiments or observations? such as finding contradictions, failed prophecies, anachronisms, not receiving answers to prayer, etc

sure. not every religion can be true. Unfortunately Men are flawed, both those inside the correct system and those who are outside of it. While the method of elimination can work, you also run the risk of not having all the right pieces of the puzzzle for yourself to make a correct assessment, or someone within the correct system may not have all the correct pieces of the puzzle themselves and could give one that isn't totally correct which would again interfere with coming up with a correct assessment. IMO it's better to rely on the Lord for Answers when dealing with one's spiritual search.

With me it's been with regard when the Lord has made something known to me as being from him or true, in regards to something specific in a way that's so that it was something that really only the LDS church matched up with, and as well an assurance at another time that I was to be with the LDS church.

Q3. for those who insist there is no way to know that a religion is true (or false) without revelation and insist to "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding", i ask - arent all of our beliefs ultimately based on our own understanding? for example, even if god were to appear in front of us and tell us something directly, dont we use our own judgement in whether or not it actually was God? even if you knew it was god, that knowledge would be based on your own understanding

Christ gives us a key- we are to strive with all our heart might and mind.. which means not only do we have to pay attention to our inspirations and feelings we have to use our minds, and we have to really work hard to attain it.

We start off with our own understanding, however as one comes closer to christ and starts recieving revelation from the Holy Spirit they will start leaving behind their worldy understanding and start seeing things from God's view litttle by little.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it might be interesting to consider these questions as they apply to science as well as the LDS religion.

Q 1. lds tend to base their faith on personal experiences, but aside from things relating to personal experiences/revelation/feelings, what do you consider the most convincing pieces of evidence that the lds church is true?

Our physical existence is what is often termed as an isotropic empirical experience. That is that we believe that something that is true is always true in our space time. The principles of diversity with stability, dedication to education and copious record keeping, and connection to past as well as to the future. These elements allow Zion to prosper at the grass roots level of families – the very means of preserving, maintaining and prospering the human race. I know of no other institutions that even come close to such accomplishments, enlightenments, and advancements. I have been unable to identify any more superior society that the LDS goal of a Zion community.

Q 2. do you think there are any circumstances under which a religion can be proven false using experiments or observations? such as finding contradictions, failed prophecies, anachronisms, not receiving answers to prayer, etc

Yes – and I have already covered that. The principles of prosperity are most inherent in the LDS social – political – economic structure.

Q3. for those who insist there is no way to know that a religion is true (or false) without revelation and insist to "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding", i ask - arent all of our beliefs ultimately based on our own understanding? for example, even if god were to appear in front of us and tell us something directly, dont we use our own judgement in whether or not it actually was God? even if you knew it was god, that knowledge would be based on your own understanding

This very question is a contradiction. It is impossible to identify something as being false without knowing and identifying that which is true in the same landscape. The converse is also true, knowing and understanding the true is necessary in identifying that which is false. Let’s take an example from the field of science. If for 40 years the best and most informed scientist insisted and taught that dinosaurs were cold blooded but were proven to be wrong – does this prove that there were no dinosaurs or that anything and everything recorded and believed concerning dinosaurs were false and that all such knowledge should be abandoned?

We can argue about quests for truth and about teachers in science that thought they were right but in one way or another errored. The quest for truth in religion is no different that the quest for truth in science. Just because Einstein failed badly to achieve the knowledge of unified field theory does not mean that all his contributions should be discarded. But rather we take the best that come through relativity and special relativity and we build upon what we learn.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of the only if only institution I know dealing within the religious spectrum and establishing new scripture and doctrine in the religious landscape that reconnect the entire history of mankind. Both science and religion. Thus I can be an active member of the LDS faith and a strong believer in evolution as a governing principle and I can sit next to someone at church that is upside down with a belief that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and not think that person my intellectual or otherwise enemy.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q 1. lds tend to base their faith on personal experiences, but aside from things relating to personal experiences/revelation/feelings, what do you consider the most convincing pieces of evidence that the lds church is true?

Q 2. do you think there are any circumstances under which a religion can be proven false using experiments or observations? such as finding contradictions, failed prophecies, anachronisms, not receiving answers to prayer, etc

Q3. for those who insist there is no way to know that a religion is true (or false) without revelation and insist to "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding", i ask - arent all of our beliefs ultimately based on our own understanding? for example, even if god were to appear in front of us and tell us something directly, dont we use our own judgement in whether or not it actually was God? even if you knew it was god, that knowledge would be based on your own understanding

1. Similarities to the church Christ set up plus the assurity of modern prophets and revelation.

2. Contradictions would suggest that something is not quite kosher with the religion, though it would have to be true contradictions and not just interpretations of things. As for failed prophecies... that's a tricky one. I would have to say a tentative "yes", but there is always the possibilty we didn't interpet the prophecy correctly (which throws us into a big grey area). Anachronisms, I believe, would also suggest something isn't right. Not getting answers to prayers is another story entirely, though I suppose if a religion is 100% adamant prayers are answers a certain way, then yes, that religion messed up on its doctrine of how prayer works.

3. Very true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think much depends on the integrity of the questioner. What do they seek to find? There are few today who believe in the power, might, and majesty of Zeus, or Appolos....so what changed. Truth? Perception? Believe? Knowledge? Understanding? Today there are many that claim they belong to the true church, some of them are LDS and some are Catholic. Others are Seventh Day Adventis, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, or Baptists, the one thing that we can be sure of is that if any of them are correct about belonging to the one true church, then the rest of them do not.

Your question seems to me a question of from what and whence does absolute truth come, how do we know, and are we willing to test it....if it means we might be wrong.

For me we test, by trying to prove something false, not by trying to prove it correct. In science we call that the null hypothesis. The Book for Mormon recognizes the same, "...I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true..." For me, something that is true should not have any fear of being exposed to light...beat on it...test it, try it, and let's see what the result is. If it holds up, its valid....if it doesn't then we have learned as well.

-RM

Edited by RMGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mormonmusic

Ultimately, it's a choice to believe. I tend to believe what gives me the most peace -- and that means being open to my beliefs changing over time.

For me, the biggest evidence there is a God is the order of the universe, the complexity of life, the apparent miracle of birth. Of Christ, I don't have a lot of evidence, so my belief is not as strong, but it makes sense to me -- and for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as the "only true Church on the face of the earth?" -- that has undergone different meanings for me in recent years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. For me, hands down it's The Book of Mormon.

2. Depends on what you mean by "prove." Proof meaning sufficient evidences that could potentially convince or dissuade others? Yes.

3. I would go one step further and state that all "evidence" of truth is subjective to the senses. "Seeing" is merely light reflecting from an object, entering your brain through a complex series of neurons, and interpreting those impulses based on previous experiences. Same with touch, taste, smell, and sound. All impulses being subject to the interpretation of the one experiencing them.

That being said, the real "proof" for me comes by the overwhelmingly powerful outside influences I have felt by having my spirit touched and my heart changed. Like any good experiment, the results of my prayers are conclusive evidence for me. All I can urge others to do is "come and see."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 1. You're right that we put great stock in personal experience. In fact, I'd say this it's universal =). Stick a hand in a fire and I expect you'd put great stock in that personal experience as well.

Outside of personal experience? That's a tricky one to pin down. For the most convincing pieces are those which by nature are closely tie with powerful personal experience.

My personal answer would have to be the Book of Mormon.

A 2. Yes. Yes I do. The same way something can be proven true also enables us to prove if something is false. Alma 32:27-43 & Moroni 10:3-5.

One could indeed use contradictions to rule a religion false. The problem in doing so is that often supposed contradictions are simply a matter of ignorance. Science and the rules of aerodynamics tell us that a bee can not fly. Yet we have visual evidence indicating they can. The contradiction is based on ignorance.

Some individuals would indicate that there is a clear unresolvable contradiction between 3 Nephi 30:2 and D&C 42:18 in regards to whether or not murder can be forgiven. Yet any member will tell you that there is no contradiction. One was in reference to gentiles or non-members who had not made convenants with the Lord not to murder and the other in reference to members who had made such covenants.

Would you be willing to place your life on the line that your understanding of all aspects involved in a specific contradiction is sufficiently complete as to rule aboslutely against and that no logical or reasonable explination could be offered that would remove the contradiction?

One could indeed use failed prophecies to rule a religion false as well. Individuals who do so must be careful for there are many pitfalls wherein they may fall into error.

Was the recorded prophecy accurately transcribed? Is their contextual information not being considered? Is there a difference of usage regarding what certain words mean? Is there an ignorance as to possible explinations which would fulfill the prophcy beyond their understanding?

Prophcey by Joseph Smith: "There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death til Christ comes."

Now those ignorant of gospel truths would indicate that this prophcey was false yet do we not have the example of John the beloved who was given the gift of tarrying in the flesh until the Lord's return? Likewise the 3 Nephites in the Book of Mormon? It is not a stretch to me to conclude that there were those in that generation who desiring such a gift from the Lord were granted it.

There we go! Prophecy fulfilled!

Supposing the accuracy of a prophcey's recording is not questioned, would you be willing to place your life on the line that your understanding of all aspects involved is sufficiently complete as to rule it absolutely a failure and that no logical or reasonable explination could be offered that would allow it to be valid?

One could indeed use anachronisms to rule a religion false. I like this tool the least. Are we so well informed of everything that happened in the past to make such judgements?

I had corn yesterday. well I'm sorry, says my friend, I have no evidence that what you say is true. Therefore it must be false.

For a long time there existed a biblical anacronism regarding the placement of lions in Palestine. Yet there was no evidence supporting such a claim. Some undoubtedly said that here is an anacronism and I can use this to rule the bible false.

Robert R. Bennett: "The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region."

An anacronism is simply another name for a contradiction existing due to a disagreement regarding historical accuracy and has the same difficulties in proper use as the other.

Are you willing to place your life on the line that our current understanding of history and everything that has occurred in the past is sufficiently complete as to rule in favor of an anacronism? Have we suddenly discovered every piece of archaeological evidence as to conclude so?

One could indeed use a lack of an answer in prayer to rule a religion false. After all, at one point, I did exactly just that. However I was wrong.

I used to work for DirecTV and I received many calls where customers stated that their box's were broken and they needed a replacement. Yet in many cases it was proven that the fault was not with the machine but with the person using it who didn't know how to operate it.

They were convinced that the box was broken. Yet the truth was a different story. They were not operating the device correctly.

Would you be willing to place your life on the line that your understanding of all aspects involved in regards to prayer, how it works and what enables one to receive answers, is sufficiently complete as to rule that it does not work?

Is that... not what you are doing? It was... what I was doing. My profile has my conversion story and testimony on it. Feel free to read it.

It doesn't matter how much my grandmother wants to call me. If she doesn't have a phone, she can't call me. Even if she has one, if she doesn't turn it on, she can't call me. Even if it's on, if she doesn't dial my number, she can't call me. Even if she dial's my number, if she holds the phone upside down, she won't be able to converse with me. Even if she's holding the phone rightside up, if she has an earplug in or has the tv turned up so loud as to drown me out, she won't me. Sure she is free to conclude in any of those situations that the phone doesn't work and that I can't be reached but that doesn't make her conclusion true.

Is it not illogical to use a lack of evidence to determine something does not exist?

When you have evidence that something exists, well then you know that it exists. But when you do not have such evidence, you do not know that it does not exists, you simply do not know that it does.

When you obtained evidence that atoms are real and exist, well you knew that they existed. Yet before you had such evidence, you did not know that they did not exist, you simply did not know that they did.

A college class was led by an atheist professor who would stand in front ofthe class every day and say, "Have you ever seen God?" to which nobody would answer. Then he'd ask, "Have any of you ever felt God?" and nobody would answer. Finally he'd ask, "Have you ever heard God?" and, like the other times, nobody would answer. He then would say, "It is obvious that there is no God."

One of the student stood and receiving permission addressed the class. "Have you ever seen our professor's brain?" and nobody answered. They then asked, "Have you ever felt our professor's brain?" and nobody answered. Finally she asked, "Have any of you ever heard our professor's brain?" and, like the other times, nobody answered.

She then said, "It is quite obvious that our professor has no brain."

A 3. You're absolutely right.

What would it take to prove to an aethist that God existed? Would a miracle do it?

It would not.

It is usually sufficient to get a man to start exercising faith, but even this is not guaranteed.

Just as there is an established protocol as to how an individual determines what something texturally feels like there is also an established protocol for testing spiritual things.

If a man never plants a seed, he can not say that he knows it is not a good seed but only that he does not know that it is a good seed. Until he plants it, he'll never know.

While I needed to exercise faith in the beginning, I can testify to you that on many points my faith is now dormant and is no longer faith but sure knowledge. Some of which is based on senses even you would accept.

Edited by Martain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

Sometimes I wonder if this is one of the most misquoted and misunderstood scriptures talked about in modern times. Why? Because very few people read the next few verses where Jesus provides the example of “identifying fruits” in his statement, “Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?”

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to work for DirecTV and I received many calls where customers stated that their box's were broken and they needed a replacement. Yet in many cases it was proven that the fault was not with the machine but with the person using it who didn't know how to operate it.

They were convinced that the box was broken. Yet the truth was a different story. They were not operating the device correctly

I work for a different company, same sort of thing, same sort of calls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share