One Explanation For When Moroni 10 Doesn't Work

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 18 2004, 10:25 PM

PD,

Not sure what to say other than nice work with a few clever phrases in your post (she-bears and what not). Thinking about the larger issue of spiritual confirmation for a moment - I think it is somehow tied into the issue of pride, and the necessity to subjugate it. It seems, logically that since the glory of God is intelligence that therefore the more you learn, intellectually, and the more yu reason, logically, that the closer you would grow to God and thus the closer you would be to the spiritual confirmation you seek. Perhap the paradox is that you must apply all the mental faculties that make logical sense and then do just the opposite and humble your intellect - leap of faith - and then the miracle comes.

I think the paradox you mention is even more profound that it seems on the surface. Because if a person's exercise of his mental faculties leads him to believe that there is more rational evidence against the Book of Mormon than for it, then the more he reasons, the greater must be his leap of faith. It's one thing to make a "leap of faith" that one man, long ago, was cured of leprosy by bathing in the Jordan. It's really impossible to know, by rational investigation, what happened to Naaman, one way or the other. It would take a much greater "leap of faith" for me to believe that I could jump out of my office window and float gently to the ground -- because there is very strong evidence against that possibility.

Not only that, but the longer a person is asked to keep suspending his reason and make leaps of faith that end in messy kersplats, the history of failed leaps adds yet another few meters to the hurdle that the final, successful leap of faith must clear. When I roll some dice once and it comes up double six, I can rationally expect to get a different result on the next roll. If the next twenty rolls also come up double six, I will tend to conclude there's something fishy with the dice, and that future rolls will also be double six. (And I will promptly head for the nearest craps table!)

Obviously, no person is the best judge of his own humility; to boast that you are very humble is a kind of paradox in itself. (One which Thomas Paine used to ridicule the idea that Moses could have written Deuteronomy himself, since it reads, "Now Moses was the most humble man that ever lived.") I do recognize that I am a little inclined towards intellectual pride, in that I don't think I'm particularly dull. I do think, though, that in the context of trying to be convinced that the Church is true, I've recognized the natural limitations of my intellect, and also what may be a relatively thick spiritual "rind," and having acknowledged these limitations, have humbled myself and earnestly and in good faith asked the Lord to help me in spite of them.

Humility also suggests that I shouldn't compare my escalating leaps of faith to the trials of faith faced by others. I haven't faced martyrdom, family rejection, or the like, although I did struggle through a mission made much harder by the lack of the answer I was looking for, and did cause my family a minor financial crisis once by making a tithing payment that left too little money to cover fixed expenses. But I do think that that there's a limit to the number of leaps of faith that make sense. If Naaman had stepped out of the Jordan and saw that his skin was still falling off, he might, in humility, have gone back to Elisha and asked if he were doing something not quite right. He might have gone back and bathed again. But after seven or eight baths, during each of which he left a little more skin in the river, he might naturally conclude that this Elisha guy was full of it. Don't they say that a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

After this much time and this many leaps, it would take one heck of an unmistakable confirmation to convince me of the Total Church Package, complete with Lamanites, papyri, and "whether-by-my-voice-or-the-voice-of-my-servants-it-is-the-same." A little inner "warmth" or lump in the throat won't do it; I get that from baseball movies and The Moldau. As it now stands, I'm left with a sense that the Church is my home; that it contains a higher-than-average level of religious truth; that it provides a better understanding of God and man than most other religions, as far as I can judge, and to the extent that other religious traditions may do a better job, their superiority isn't so pronounced so as to abandon the built-in advantages of staying with the religion of one's youth. If, on the other hand, I'm going to order any aspects of my life based on the existence of any Nephites or Lamanites, or on the idea that I can rely on the counsel of Church leaders as if it came directly from the Lord, I think it would take not only some kind of answer (although even that would be nice for a change) but a pretty clear one.

[Guest Starsky]

PD,

Have you ever had anyone or a group of anyone's fast and pray that you might receive the kind of answer that you need in order to know the BofM is true?

There are many other ways to get the Lord's attention...sacrifice is the best however. Also I learned about praying by reading the prayers of others who got results...

My favorite is the story found in 2 Chr, chapters 20.

powerful prayers

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 19 2004, 12:50 PM

After this much time and this many leaps, it would take one heck of an unmistakable confirmation to convince me of the Total Church Package, complete with Lamanites, papyri, and "whether-by-my-voice-or-the-voice-of-my-servants-it-is-the-same."

That line of reasoning is interesting. I wonder how it plays into the humility aspect I was talking about.

Here are some thoughts:

I think many of the tesitmonies in the Church are a result of inculcation and aculterization (not a real word), rather than true spiritual connectivity - there are those, many of those, that truly have had a spiritual confirmation of ... whatever has been confirmed. I think that such confirmation comes one of two main ways:

1. Deep rooted change, as in conviction, often accompany a profound, motivating life experience or incident(s). Often the change in an addict or alcoholic comes AFTER something very important and cental to their view experiece whacks em on the head. Crisis leads to humility leads to being prepared leads to asking for help (or asking for a testimony/conversion) leads to receiving a confirmation...

2. Persistence and continued willingness to learn, sometimes over the course of many years, lead to an expansion of the mind and expansion of the heart (the heart being a receptivity to spiritual matters). One great appreciation I have for the gospel is how logical it (the LDS understood gospel) seems to my intellectual side - the eternal nature of matter and intelligence - free and moral agency as THE integral part of the plan of salvation that both requires an atonement and makes the atonement efficacious - families - God and sharing of his diety...

...I don't know if Jared had a brother or if polygamy is a true and correct eternal principle. What I do know, with a great deal of passionate faith, is that the gospel itself, as taught within the Church is as true as anything else in my life. Maybe one day I'll receive a witness on individual pieces of the puzzle but for now I try and keep my eye on the gestalt.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 19 2004, 03:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 19 2004, 03:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 19 2004, 12:50 PM

After this much time and this many leaps, it would take one heck of an unmistakable confirmation to convince me of the Total Church Package, complete with Lamanites, papyri, and "whether-by-my-voice-or-the-voice-of-my-servants-it-is-the-same."

That line of reasoning is interesting. I wonder how it plays into the humility aspect I was talking about.

Here are some thoughts:

I think many of the tesitmonies in the Church are a result of inculcation and aculterization (not a real word), rather than true spiritual connectivity - there are those, many of those, that truly have had a spiritual confirmation of ... whatever has been confirmed. I think that such confirmation comes one of two main ways:

1. Deep rooted change, as in conviction, often accompany a profound, motivating life experience or incident(s). Often the change in an addict or alcoholic comes AFTER something very important and cental to their view experiece whacks em on the head. Crisis leads to humility leads to being prepared leads to asking for help (or asking for a testimony/conversion) leads to receiving a confirmation...

2. Persistence and continued willingness to learn, sometimes over the course of many years, lead to an expansion of the mind and expansion of the heart (the heart being a receptivity to spiritual matters). One great appreciation I have for the gospel is how logical it (the LDS understood gospel) seems to my intellectual side - the eternal nature of matter and intelligence - free and moral agency as THE integral part of the plan of salvation that both requires an atonement and makes the atonement efficacious - families - God and sharing of his diety...

...I don't know if Jared had a brother or if polygamy is a true and correct eternal principle. What I do know, with a great deal of passionate faith, is that the gospel itself, as taught within the Church is as true as anything else in my life. Maybe one day I'll receive a witness on individual pieces of the puzzle but for now I try and keep my eye on the gestalt.

Snow and PD--I think both of you take perfectly rational and reasonable positions regarding your faith. There is a level of honesty in what you say that makes both of you credible.

Snow--Having said that: First, I don't proclaim to have any more CERTAIN answers than anyone else.

Second, it is never my intention to try to "break down" someone's testimony, as accused by Paul. However, I, as you and PD have an aversion to simply ignoring the obvious. The 'obvious' to me are serious questions raised by a rigorous application of science (using the term broadly) to historical claims by many religions, including mormonism. Luckily, mormonism is of recent enough origin that it has managed to avoid some of the nastier conundrums of the Biblical literalists (biblical inerrancy) or the Catholic church ( earth centered universe, etc)

When I was younger I found it easier to just sweep the pesky little problems (some of which PD mentioned) under the carpet of my "God can do anything" testimony. But, I can't follow that kind of thinking now. It just isn't sane, as PD might say.

Another way of saying this is: We may not know for sure if there is a God, or if JS saw him (if he does exist) or if the LDS church deserves the pedistal TBM's believe it does. But we DO know that what distinguishes us from every other form of life is a relatively (relative to other primates) highly rational brain, not the emotional brain. The part of the brain

that gives us emotions is just as developed in other mammals as it is in humans. Our emotionality is not distinctively human. Therefore, I would argue, that, if religion is also distinctively HUMAN, we should approach it with our rational brain, not our emotional brain, even though the two, as PD well points out, are intimately entwined. Now, it is clear that believing in religion does something EMOTIONAL for us. We seem to need it. But does that necessarily mean that we have to suspend all rationality to have it? OR that we yield to the temptation (one might say the easy way out) of dismissing our rationality in order to obtain the good emotional effect?

Another approach might ask the question: Is it possible to obtain the satifying emotional effects of religion without adhereing to a rigid set of assumptions about what religion has to be? IOW--can one maintain a religous faith and still modify, from time to time, the assumptions he makes about the dogma of that religion?

(I think I may be getting off on to another line of thought and will post a new thread so as to not go to far afield.)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 19 2004, 03:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 19 2004, 03:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 19 2004, 12:50 PM

After this much time and this many leaps, it would take one heck of an unmistakable confirmation to convince me of the Total Church Package, complete with Lamanites, papyri, and "whether-by-my-voice-or-the-voice-of-my-servants-it-is-the-same."

That line of reasoning is interesting. I wonder how it plays into the humility aspect I was talking about.

The principle of humility suggests that I probably could have been less flippant in describing the "Total Church Package." I guess what I was trying to say was that there comes a point where a history of repeated, unfulfilled leaps of faith starts to constitute evidence in and of itself. When evidence is added to one side of the ledger, it takes greater evidence on the other side to balance it out.

Mind, I define "evidence" very broadly -- essentially, as any reason to believe something, whether it's rational evidence, spiritual promptings, or even a vague sense of desire to believe. But ultimately, everyone -- the man of faith and the rationalist alike -- bases his decisions on some kind of evidence.

One great appreciation I have for the gospel is how logical it (the LDS understood gospel) seems to my intellectual side - the eternal nature of matter and intelligence - free and moral agency as THE integral part of the plan of salvation that both requires an atonement and makes the atonement efficacious - families - God and sharing of his diety...

.... What I do know, with a great deal of passionate faith, is that the gospel itself, as taught within the Church is as true as anything else in my life. Maybe one day I'll receive a witness on individual pieces of the puzzle but for now I try and keep my eye on the gestalt.

That's pretty much my approach -- most of the time. Maybe the reason it doesn't always satisfy me entirely is that I'm still young enough that it hasn't been that long since I was being taught that I truly would get some M10 witness of the whole deal -- the "individual pieces of the puzzle" and all. And I still have fresh recollections of prayerfully, diligently, desperately and tearfully seeking an answer. (When you've soldiered through two months of missionary training boot camp and are about to fly off to some goshforsaken icebox of an island for two years, you tend to get a little concerned that you're not yet convinced of the things you're supposed to be teaching. When you spend those two years still waiting for an answer, "concerned" becomes a little of an understatement.)

Maybe I would have had an easier time if I hadn't taken Church matters as seriously as I did growing up.

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Mar 18 2004, 09:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Mar 18 2004, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 18 2004, 07:14 PM

The Lord knows us better than we know ourselves.  Let's not forget that.  I'm not saying that he is withholding anything from you.  But all of us must be tested to show whether or not we really faithfull.  Jesus Christ himself cried out,"Father, why hast thou forsaken me."  Jesus Christ, the Son of man, our Redeemer.  He also had to be "without" at one moment, when he was bleeding on the Cross.  So I don't think it is cruel, nor unusual that some don't get the "answer" right away.  If we knew we could get the "answer" right away everytime, then how much of a sacred thing would we really think it to be.  I believe a great deal would take it for granted.  It's not a one size fits all, that's the point, if it were a "one size fits all", we'ed all get the answer in the same amount of, in the same way.  I look at Moroni 10 as "lighting a fuse", some have longer, some have shorter.  Some may even have to deal with opposition.  Let's say one day you are reading and praying about Moroni 10, the next day a buddy comes over, sees the BOM and starts handing you Anti-Mormon material.  You start reading, and now you've got doubts.  Would you stave off those doubts to recieve that answer?  Whether it be yes or no?  The thing I have come to see, is that other Churches produce vehemant propaganda against LDS beliefs.  I do not see us circulating pamphlets and movies about the fallacy of other religions.  Instead we worry about promoting our truth.  That is one thing that always stood out to me.

Porter -- I recognize that one size doesn't necessarily fit all, and that we shouldn't expect an answer "right away," and that we must be tested, and that the "fuse" may be longer for some than others.

That said, what would you figure to be a reasonable length for the fuse, or a sufficient test? And how much longer than "right away" is it appropriate to wait?

Before I went into the MTC, or even got my call, I was in absolute HELL for 2 1/2 months. Everything was working against me, it felt like someone had thrown a black cloud over my head and black blindfold over my spiritual eyes. But I kept on pressing for what I knew was right...my mission. I felt so unworthy for the smallest reasons. Some nights it felt like someone gave me a spiritual gasoline bath and then lit a match. Some nights I would go running at the harder I ran, and prayed...the worse I felt. I was constantly crying inside, asking for a little help, knowing that the Lord had to let me experience this so I could prove to him that I really did want what he wanted. When I got my missionary blessing from my Stake President I felt like a little bit of weight had been dropped from me. Then my father said to me, if you still think you are unworthy, there wouldn't have been that same spirit there had you been unworthy. Things started to fall into place. Then at the MTC, I had come home to deal with some mental and emotional issues. It's all a test, if I want what he wants I will return and serve the people I was meant to touch. That is the way I look at it. I know why I am completely obedient, or at least strive to be. When I was in the MTC I read Moroni 10 a bunch, and everytime I read it, I got more and more excited...like a little kid who had just seen his first christmas. I kept thinking, this is so true, how can one not see this truth that I do. I get such a strong confirmation from, because I think with the Lords help I broke down some of my spiritual barriers that weren't allowing me to see what was meant to be seen.

[Guest Starsky]

I wonder if I would know what I know the way I know it, if I had strictly waited for a religious experience....

I went down another path. I needed to know that God wasn't a prideful, bossy, self-centered bigot. I needed to know that I actually needed to know and have this being in my life.

I needed to know why everything was in a ceremonious mumbojumbo thing instead of a common sense approach..

So i set out to make sense of it all. I had to know God as a person ...not some far away fantacy kind of super super untouchable, mistical kind of thing....

Once I began to see reality, I never again worried about the mumbojumbo,...it was all common sense....everything finally fit together in a puzzle kind of way...

So I understand people having problems with the mystical kind of God and promises on that level....I have had revelations....but they didn't leave me mystified...just enlightened...more accountable...