An honest question

[Just_A_Guy]

The apostle John, "the disciple that Jesus loved" (13:23; 19:26; 20:2) is the same "disciple who testifies these things and who wrote them down." (John 21:20, 24) . . .

But it doesn't really matter who wrote the Gospel of John, we know very little about who wrote much of ancient literature. The point is that here is a historical source which is telling us what Jesus said. If there are no issues with translation on this one, then I guess you all believe that it's the Word of God?

Of course, the fact that John wrote (or dictated) his testimony, does not mean that it was perfectly transcribed or transmitted.

The thing to bear in mind is that the fact that a tale originates from a "historical source" is not the end of the inquiry--not even close. After all, Joseph Smith was a "historical source", too. We don't know exactly when John wrote his book, we don't know who helped him, and we don't know what happened to it in the couple of centuries before the creation of the earliest surviving manuscript (about 4th century AD, IIRC). And even with those early manuscripts--we know there have been at least a couple of spurious introductions (the Johannine Comma, for example).

But even if we lay all that aside and take the text at face value, and assume that this particular section really did originate with John himself: the author is clarifying Jesus' words at that particular moment; but he is not explicitly saying that the underlying tale (that John would live until the second coming) is wrong.

I would definitely be interested in your methodology. Latter-day Saints will often point to biblical passages to establish they are the restored church. Yet when the accounts differ from Latter-day Saint tradition suddenly the validity of the sources needs to be reconsidered. It seems a little unfair to me.

I agree. The "proof" of Mormonism comes to the worshipper because God Himself confirms it to them. We often do look to the Bible to point out how we are consistent with some practices or ideas that some forms of conventional Christianity has eschewed for whatever reason; and we can use our own scriptures in conjunction with the Bible in order to build on some of the concepts we believe are hinted at there.

But IMHO, Mormons who say the Bible proves us right somehow are doing Mormonism a disservice. IMHO, the spiritual power (and the social utility) of Mormonism doesn't derive from academia; it derives from the fact that we believe we have heard the voice of God and that that belief spurs us to act for the good of all.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

The apostle John, "the disciple that Jesus loved" (13:23; 19:26; 20:2) is the same "disciple who testifies these things and who wrote them down." (John 21:20, 24)

Don't forget about verse 25.

[justinc]

he is not explicitly saying that the underlying tale (that John would live until the second coming) is wrong.

Well not explicitly. But he implies it is wrong.

The "proof" of Mormonism comes to the worshipper because God Himself confirms it to them.

How would someone know God has confirmed it to them?

Edited July 26, 2013 by justinc

[justinc]

Don't forget about verse 25.

Yea, I agree. I was just talking in the context of John tarrying etc.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well not explicitly. But he implies it is wrong.

That is something of an interpolation, I think; though an understandable one.

How would someone know God has confirmed it to them?

See John 14:16-26. For more on the fruits of the spirit--or living in accordance with that spirit--see Galatians 5:22-23.

Some exclusively Mormon scriptures have some additional observations; but I presume you wouldn't find that particularly persuasive at this point. Beyond that, all I can say is--you know it when you get it. Or, as Joseph Smith put it more elegantly:

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which are given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[justinc]

See John 14:16-26. For more on the fruits of the spirit--or living in accordance with that spirit--see Galatians 5:22-23.

Some exclusively Mormon scriptures have some additional observations

This is where the Latter-day Saint view starts to break down. You say that one must receive confirmation from God in order to know the Mormon faith is true. How do you know what confirmation from God is? Read the Scriptures. How does one know the scriptures are a valid source of truth? God will confirm it.

It seems in order to maintain faith at the very least one needs to have some reasonable basis somewhere to build from.

[Quin]

I'm behind on my SS on this / am not up to date on the doctrine... But here's my gut feeling;

If I was burdened with living thousands of years, MHF must be seriously ticked off at me to assign me even more responsibility (such as the sole maintenance of the gospel) on top of everything else I would have to be doing. And thank the stars that others hold roles and its not all on me given the task of being everything to everyone for ever and always.

Q

[Anddenex]

This is where the Latter-day Saint view starts to break down. You say that one must receive confirmation from God in order to know the Mormon faith is true. How do you know what confirmation from God is? Read the Scriptures. How does one know the scriptures are a valid source of truth? God will confirm it.

It seems in order to maintain faith at the very least one needs to have some reasonable basis somewhere to build from.

One must receive confirmation from God even to know Jesus is the Christ. Nothing breaks down within the gospel of Jesus Christ save the interpretation a person applies to truth; as such, the only break down is your personal interpretation regarding scripture and the Latter-day Saint view.

Was it not the Lord who blessed Peter because he knew Jesus was the Christ, not by man, not by a book, but by a witness from our Father in heaven?

This is exactly what faith is, not a perfect knowledge, which means there is some form of knowledge to base our faith from. This knowledge can stem from someone who knows for themselves -- Joseph Smith, Thomas S. Monson, etc... This knowledge may stem from someone who has received a witness like Peter, or like parents.

[justinc]

One must receive confirmation from God even to know Jesus is the Christ.

But this assumes that the scriptures are a reliable source for truth about God. How do we know the scriptures are a reliable source of truth about God? God will confirm it. How do we know God will confirm it? Because the scriptures say so

One cant just "ask.. if these things [written in the Book of Mormon] are not true" because that assumes that Moroni 10:3-5 is true, the very thing you are supposed to be praying about.

[Anddenex]

But this assumes that the scriptures are a reliable source for truth about God. How do we know the scriptures are a reliable source of truth about God? God will confirm it. How do we know God will confirm it? Because the scriptures say so

One cant just "ask.. if these things [written in the Book of Mormon] are not true" because that assumes that Moroni 10:3-5 is true, the very thing you are supposed to be praying about.

I am unsure the logic you are presenting, because of how our conversation originated. If what you say is true, then you have officially given reason for every Christian not to believe in Christ. An argument I heard all the time on my mission.

Why do you believe in Jesus Christ? The Holy Bible says Jesus is my Savior. How do you know the bible is a "reliable source"? Jesus says the Holy Bible is his word. In order to believe in Jesus Christ one must believe the bible is a reliable source. In order to believe the bible is a reliable source one must believe Jesus's word.

If the bible is a reliable source, then James 1: 5 is reliable for people to receive an answer -- a witness. Are you thus assuming then a person is not able to "ask" God [as recorded in the bible] because it automatically assumes the record is correct and the record itself says Jesus is God?

It appears a person is able to ask God, and a person is able to pray to know if a record is true or not true. How else is a person to know a record is true? Why should a person believe, assume the bible is a reliable source by its own merits, while ignoring the Koran which is able to specify the same argument.

Why do you believe in Allah? The Koran says Allah is my God. How do you know Allah is God? The Koran tells me Allah is God. This bears witness to the notion that a book, by its own merits, isn't reliable. What then gives credence to the record -- the author -- and who is the author of the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon -- Jesus Christ. How then is the author to give credence to his words who is "invisible"?

What changed Saul to Paul? What allowed Peter to know Jesus was the Christ (what did Jesus bear witness of)? This is why I like Alma 32. A person is not asked to assume, a person is asked to believe -- to desire to know -- and from that desire God is able to witness to the soul his truth. Why is it that a person of faith would seek to demean a person's desire, assumption, to know truth from God -- to ask?

Edited July 26, 2013 by Anddenex

[Just_A_Guy]

This is where the Latter-day Saint view starts to break down. You say that one must receive confirmation from God in order to know the Mormon faith is true. How do you know what confirmation from God is? Read the Scriptures. How does one know the scriptures are a valid source of truth? God will confirm it.

It seems in order to maintain faith at the very least one needs to have some reasonable basis somewhere to build from.

Neat little exercise in logic there, but doesn't it also ultimately attack more secular knowledge-building pursuits like--say--the scientific method?

"You can believe the lab book is correct if you replicate the experiment therein and get the same results."

"But how do I know what results to look for?"

"The lab book will tell you."

"But how do I know that the lab book is right?"

That's why we call it faith. Because at some point you say "I don't know where this process will take me, and maybe I'm a little crazy for even trying--but I'm willing to do it and see what happens, because someone I really admire claims to have gotten pretty amazing results with it."

Edited July 26, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

But this assumes that the scriptures are a reliable source for truth about God. How do we know the scriptures are a reliable source of truth about God? God will confirm it. How do we know God will confirm it? Because the scriptures say so

One cant just "ask.. if these things [written in the Book of Mormon] are not true" because that assumes that Moroni 10:3-5 is true, the very thing you are supposed to be praying about.

James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

The answer is that you can just ask G-d - but if you do not get an answer they you motive for asking was false - which surely G-d does know?

If you do not trust G-d - why call yourself a Christian? If you do not trust G-d there is no reason to reference scripture. If you trusted G-d and he had answered your trust - I assume you would have testified of him concerning your asking and trust in him.

From my personal experience you would not ask how to know if G-d has answered unless you have never asked in faith and received of yourself an answer concerning anything from G-d. If you do not know how G-d answers; it is because you have never received anything from G-d - otherwise you would know and would not ask.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

But this assumes that the scriptures are a reliable source for truth about God. How do we know the scriptures are a reliable source of truth about God? God will confirm it. How do we know God will confirm it? Because the scriptures say so

One cant just "ask.. if these things [written in the Book of Mormon] are not true" because that assumes that Moroni 10:3-5 is true, the very thing you are supposed to be praying about.

James 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

The answer is that you can just ask G-d - but if you do not get an answer then your motive for asking was false - which surely G-d does know?

If you do not trust G-d - why call yourself a Christian? If you do not trust G-d there is no reason to reference scripture. If you trusted G-d and he had answered your trust - I assume you would have testified of him concerning your asking and trust in him.

From my personal experience you would not ask how to know if G-d has answered unless you have never asked in faith and received of yourself an answer concerning anything from G-d. If you do not know how G-d answers; it is because you have never received anything from G-d - otherwise you would know and would not ask.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

This is where the Latter-day Saint view starts to break down. You say that one must receive confirmation from God in order to know the Mormon faith is true. How do you know what confirmation from God is? Read the Scriptures. How does one know the scriptures are a valid source of truth? God will confirm it.

It seems in order to maintain faith at the very least one needs to have some reasonable basis somewhere to build from.

The basis is the 'light of Christ'. Everyone has it, to some degree. Some cause it to diminish by their actions and they obscure the "right eye" (ability to discern spiritual things).

The other source of basis is self. We believe that we are dual beings, both spirit and body. Our spirit lived in a premortal world in which we accepted the plan (the gospel truth). We all had faith in Christ, everyone. So, it is a matter of getting in touch with that spirit self that is part of all of our belief system to begin with. The veil does not allow us to recall all that occurred previously but we can be reminded of things learned when we listen to the spirit. In other words, it doesn't have to be learned again, just contain a familiar feel.

[justinc]

If what you say is true, then you have officially given reason for every Christian not to believe in Christ.

What I am saying is that in order to avoid circular reasoning and maintain belief, one must have reason to base faith on other than the scriptures and personal experience.

Why do you believe in Jesus Christ? The Holy Bible says Jesus is my Savior. How do you know the bible is a "reliable source"? Jesus says the Holy Bible is his word. In order to believe in Jesus Christ one must believe the bible is a reliable source. In order to believe the bible is a reliable source one must believe Jesus's word.

One might use historical evidence for the resurrection (see N.T Wright, Mike Licona etc). God then is the best explanation for Jesus resurrection as opposed to some naturalistic hypothesis. This would avoid the circular reasoning.

If the bible is a reliable source, then James 1: 5 is reliable for people to receive an answer -- a witness.

But you are saying to pray for knowledge "if these things are.. true" James 1:5 is about God providing wisdom in time of trials. As the saying goes "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." James 1:5 doesn't offer us a way of gaining knowledge, just that God will give us wisdom to make the right decisions in times of trial.

Why should a person believe, assume the bible is a reliable source by its own merits, while ignoring the Koran which is able to specify the same argument.

The Koran says Jesus never died. No historian takes that seriously. New Testament critic, Robert Funk, says that the crucifixion is "one indisputable fact" concerning Jesus.

Edited July 27, 2013 by justinc

[Anddenex]

What I am saying is that in order to avoid circular reasoning and maintain belief, one must have reason to base faith on other than the scriptures and personal experience.

Good deal, I was understanding you correctly then. I would agree to a point. The scriptures are -- alone -- sufficient reason to believe if the scriptures are true. A person doesn't need more than the scriptures to have reason for their faith and for their faith to reap fruit, a witness; however seeking to convince a person who is horizontally learned will be difficult to convince.

One might use historical evidence for the resurrection (see N.T Wright, Mike Licona etc). God then is the best explanation for Jesus resurrection as opposed to some naturalistic hypothesis. This would avoid the circular reasoning.

Until you compare other historical documentation, i.e. Jewish historical writing which specify the redeemer has not come and the tomb was not empty. Historical documentation doesn't by itself also give reason to say something is true or not true.

I am not sure this escapes circular reasoning because the belief still stems from another person's words, one may call this a "journal" or one may call this "scripture." There is not much difference between a personal journal, and scripture, except one is considered cannon and the former isn't.

But you are saying to pray for knowledge "if these things are.. true" James 1:5 is about God providing wisdom in time of trials. As the saying goes "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." James 1:5 doesn't offer us a way of gaining knowledge, just that God will give us wisdom to make the right decisions in times of trial.

This is intriguing. I have never come across this interpretation that James specifically means "only in times of trial." Why should we seek wisdom from God only in times of trial? The scripture specifically states if we "lack wisdom" then ask God. We lack wisdom in trial, in success, in desire for more knowledge. This appears highly a personal interpretation of scripture rather than what the scripture is actually dictating.

Although I agree that God will give us wisdom in times of trial, and will help us make the right decision. The Book of Mormon promise, is a witness, a testimony from a prophet. In essence, we don't have to take his word for it, we can pray for guidance and for knowledge and the Lord will witness the truth.

The Koran says Jesus never died. No historian takes that seriously. New Testament critic, Robert Funk, says that the crucifixion is "one indisputable fact" concerning Jesus.

No historian of course that you would agree with. Although I agree his crucifixion is indisputable other records say otherwise, as you point out with the Koran. What evidence, historical fact do you have for the flood?

The majority of professional scientist, unless they are Christian, specify a flood never happened. This puts individuals in a pickle who seek to say the Koran says something that isn't true, indisputable.

What evidence do we have of the Garden of Eden, besides scripture? When Adam was first cast out, what record did he have to back up his knowledge? His knowledge was delivered by God. His witness wasn't based upon historical facts, his witness was upon his experience with God.

[justinc]

Until you compare other historical documentation, i.e. Jewish historical writing which specify the redeemer has not come and the tomb was not empty.

Where did the Jews claim this?

Historical documentation doesn't by itself also give reason to say something is true or not true.

Historical evidence does make the belief that Jesus rose from the dead reasonable. Although it may not be true, in light of history, its the most reasonable position to hold. Probability over Possiblity.

I am not sure this escapes circular reasoning because the belief still stems from another person's words, one may call this a "journal" or one may call this "scripture." There is not much difference between a personal journal, and scripture, except one is considered cannon and the former isn't.

We have to remember that the New Testament was compiled much later then the individual documents were written. I look at the New Testament documents as historical records as apposed to the word of God. It is because of the resurrection that I am able to accept the Judeo-Christian worldview as the most plausable, and thus accept that the bible (and other ancient Jewish literature) contain the word of God.

Why should we seek wisdom from God only in times of trial?

I think we should always seek the wisdom of God. All I am saying is that James is not talking about knowledge. Proverbs 2:6 seems relevant "For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding." I agree that James teaches God given wisdom. But Wisdom is not the same thing as knowledge, which the author of Proverbs believes is found in Gods words (mouth etc).

The Book of Mormon promise, is a witness, a testimony from a prophet. In essence, we don't have to take his word for it, we can pray for guidance and for knowledge and the Lord will witness the truth.

The Book of Mormon promise requires one to pray already "having faith in Christ" (Moroni 10:4). Which begs the question, where does one obtain faith in Christ apart from the Book of Mormon, since this is what one is praying about? Of course one must turn to the historical records of the New Testament.

What evidence, historical fact do you have for the flood?

My faith in the Judeo-Christian faith is based on Jesus' resurrection. I haven't looked into the flood enough to come to any conclusion. But if it did or didn't happen I don't have an issue with it.

What evidence do we have of the Garden of Eden, besides scripture?

Same, as above.

When Adam was first cast out, what record did he have to back up his knowledge? His knowledge was delivered by God. His witness wasn't based upon historical facts, his witness was upon his experience with God.

Agreed. But its not analogous since Adam would have actually seen and spoken with God etc.

[Anddenex]

Where did the Jews claim this?

Known fact. The Jews do not believe the Messiah has come yet. They are still waiting. The tomb being empty, meaning, they do not believe Jesus was resurrected.

Historical evidence does make the belief that Jesus rose from the dead reasonable. Although it may not be true, in light of history, its the most reasonable position to hold. Probability over Possiblity.

The only historical evidence we have or the Lord's resurrection is through "testimony." How does one person know whose testimony is worth believing? Historical evidence doesn't verify or validate the resurrection. The Lord validates the resurrection through his Holy Spirit, and through personal experience and witness. Joseph Smith, like other prophets, through divine manifestation was able to bear witness of the resurrection first hand and without faith.

This experience is now historical. How then do you distinguish between the testimony, a historical element, of the apostles and prophets and Joseph Smith's? What makes one historical witness more viable than others, your view?

We have to remember that the New Testament was compiled much later then the individual documents were written. I look at the New Testament documents as historical records as apposed to the word of God. It is because of the resurrection that I am able to accept the Judeo-Christian worldview as the most plausable, and thus accept that the bible (and other ancient Jewish literature) contain the word of God.

Agreed, however I find your belief intriguing regarding the New Testament not being the word of God. Our Article of Faith declares the Bible appropriately, "as far as it is translated correctly."

As a journal writer, if my words were compiled by either family or friends 300 years after my death, would these words no longer be my words? They would as long as they were translated correctly, or abridged correctly.

The New Testament is the word of God -- as far as it has been translated correctly. As you are familiar with, we have come to accept the KJV as the most correct translation.

I think we should always seek the wisdom of God. All I am saying is that James is not talking about knowledge. Proverbs 2:6 seems relevant "For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding." I agree that James teaches God given wisdom. But Wisdom is not the same thing as knowledge, which the author of Proverbs believes is found in Gods words (mouth etc).

I think you are splitting hairs with James. If we lack wisdom, in other words, we lack knowledge, then through prayer we gain knowledge, otherwise how would a person be wise, or have wisdom? Wisdom is our ability to act upon our knowledge. We are unable to be wise, or have wisdom, without first obtaining knowledge. Wisdom is merely a person who acts upon the knowledge he/she has gained.

Or as the proverb you shared, wisdom is the culmination of knowledge and understanding. Some people have knowledge, but are unwise with their knowledge.

The Book of Mormon promise requires one to pray already "having faith in Christ" (Moroni 10:4). Which begs the question, where does one obtain faith in Christ apart from the Book of Mormon, since this is what one is praying about? Of course one must turn to the historical records of the New Testament.

Not quite true. The Book of Mormon promises that if a person will begin to exercise faith in Christ, not that they already have faith in Christ, that a witness will be provided in accordance with their faith. A person, may have been an Atheist, like my father, who began to search for truth and discovered it. Unless you think an Atheist has already had faith in Christ before reading the scriptures, or the Book of Mormon. At that moment, upon reading, the Book of Mormon invites the reader to exercise faith in Christ, to begin the process of receiving a witness from God, not of man, but of God.

The Book of Mormon invites a person to look to Adam first, which is the Old Testament, and then to look at how merciful the Lord has been from Adam until their time (thus the evidence stems from the beginning up until the time they are living and the Book of Mormon was handed to them). The Book of Mormon doesn't mention specifically the New Testament, this is your personal inference upon this scripture.

My faith in the Judeo-Christian faith is based on Jesus' resurrection. I haven't looked into the flood enough to come to any conclusion. But if it did or didn't happen I don't have an issue with it.

So you believe then the testimony of others?

Agreed. But its not analogous since Adam would have actually seen and spoken with God etc.

Agreed, and we thus see the pattern continue even today. Adam experienced God first hand. Noah, Abraham, Jacob and Moses all experienced God first hand.

Peter and the rest of the apostles experienced God first hand, and also experienced his resurrection for they were able to touch him.

We see this historical pattern again in our day. Joseph Smith knowledge, wisdom, stemmed from an actual visitation from God and his son, Jesus Christ.

JC, we truly live in wonderful times, great and terrible times.

[justinc]

Known fact. The Jews do not believe the Messiah has come yet. They are still waiting. The tomb being empty, meaning, they do not believe Jesus was resurrected.

It depends on which Jews but principally yea, they are still waiting for a Messiah. As far as we know the Jews at the time of Jesus were aware that the tomb was empty. They said that the disciples "stole away the body" which was their explanation for why the tomb was empty.

The only historical evidence we have for the Lord's resurrection is through "testimony." How does one person know whose testimony is worth believing?

Right. Early Christians wrote down that Jesus rose from the dead. We cant just accept that as evidence on face value. What we need to do is apply the Criteria of Authenticity to see if we can establish authentic facts within the historical accounts. And then figure out what hypothesis best explains those historical facts.

I find your belief intriguing regarding the New Testament not being the word of God.

I see them more as historical records which contain the word of God. It's close enough for me : )

I think you are splitting hairs with James. If we lack wisdom, in other words, we lack knowledge

The issue is your equating wisdom & knowledge. There are different words for these in the Greek had the author wished to have been more clear.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What I am saying is that in order to avoid circular reasoning and maintain belief, one must have reason to base faith on other than the scriptures and personal experience.

But you are saying to pray for knowledge "if these things are.. true" James 1:5 is about God providing wisdom in time of trials. As the saying goes "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." James 1:5 doesn't offer us a way of gaining knowledge, just that God will give us wisdom to make the right decisions in times of trial.

To "maintain belief" one must base the "knowledge" (defined as; "Understanding and comprehension, especially of truth as taught or confirmed by the Spirit" LDS scriptures) on spiritual influences; Alma 18 " 35 And a portion of that Spirit dwelleth in me, which giveth me knowledge, and also power according to my faith and desires which are in God."

The test is not based in the quantification of the accumulation of knowledge but more related to where you find your knowledge. I think you are exactly right there. Where do you try to find your base of knowledge? .... that is the test of this life.

Your approach is opposite of what Jesus taught; Matthew 6: "33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

And just before that; Matthew 6; " 19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!"

In other words, if you treasure words of men, (historical, corrupt writings of men) then that is who you serve but if your eye is single to God, that is where you find your treasure, understanding and wisdom then you will be full of understanding. But, Matthew 6; " 24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." You will find less and less treasure in God's word the more you find treasure in the corrupt.

LDS do not believe that the purpose of this life is to obtain all knowledge and understanding as that was previously tested. In the pre-mortal life we had a test having all understanding of the gospel plan and purpose. We believe we all passed that test. There is no reason to retake that part of the test, to see if we are in agreement with the concepts. We already made that claim. Now, the test is to see if we will do the things we already said we would but in a situation where we have to rely on faith in Christ. The test of this life is not to see how much empirical knowledge we can gather and prove our reasoning skill, it is a test to see what we love more, the treasures of this world or spiritual treasures. Jesus expressed this concept over and over again, that we should care less about the proven and the tangible but care more about the unseen (spiritual side), Matthew 6 " 25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?"

[Anddenex]

The issue is your equating wisdom & knowledge. There are different words for these in the Greek had the author wished to have been more clear.

I believe I will only address this statement. What I am actually providing is the relation between knowledge and wisdom; I am not equating the two.

Example, knowledge is what we gain through study, experience, and by observation. Wisdom is the proper application of our knowledge. The adversary, Satan and his minions, know that Jesus is the Christ, but do not act properly on this knowledge -- they are not wise, or they do not have wisdom.

Wisdom is the proper application of knowledge. If we lack wisdom, God then will give us the knowledge necessary to act properly. If we don't know something, God will give us the knowledge such that we may act in wisdom, or act wisely.

People equate wisdom with knowledge when they say knowledge is power, when in reality wisdom is power, because it is the proper application of our knowledge. Knowledge by itself is not power.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Example, knowledge is what we gain through study, experience, and by observation. .

Also, "knowledge" when used in the scriptures is referring to the type of knowledge that is obtained through the spirit, as defined by the 'LDS scriptures' on LDS.org.

[gimom07]

I think the points made are valid.

I have always believed that John... like the 3 Nephiest actually were taken from the earth. Moroni says this.

I take this that the earth had gotten so wicked that really there was no point in letting them (John and the three Nephites) stay. Now I also believe they came back probably before or around the time of the Restoration.

But the scripture says land, not earth. They could have just gone to a different land. That is how I interpret it, anyway.

[Traveler]

Also, "knowledge" when used in the scriptures is referring to the type of knowledge that is obtained through the spirit, as defined by the 'LDS scriptures' on LDS.org.

What other type or kind of knowledge (assuming that such knowledge has actual association to truth) is there or that exists that is not obtained through the spirit?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

What other type or kind of knowledge (assuming that such knowledge has actual association to truth) is there or that exists that is not obtained through the spirit?

The Traveler

One could define "truth" as truths that are eternal, so your question seems worded in a way to try to catch me in what I said, even though I never used the word "truth" just knowledge. "Truths" as we both know are acquired spiritually when we are really talking about "eternal truths". I may know the truth that Boston won the first world series of 1903 over Pittsburgh, but is that an "eternal truth"? So, your question requires a definition of what you meant by "truth". Even then, I will answer your question (assuming that such a question was asked with no intention for entrapment but for real discussion).

The simple answer is the kind of knowledge that is not obtained spiritually. As the parable of the sower explains so well, it is not the seed that differs but how it is received. So, the question is not what knowledge but how the knowledge is obtained, whether it really takes root and starts to produce fruit or not. There are many scriptures and conference talks that describe the methods of receiving spiritual truths because it doesn't come natural to us, the natural man does not learn through the spirit.

The "other type", is the kind of knowledge that does not stay with a person after this life, that is not spiritual knowledge as all things carnal will turn to dust. The kind that does not require being in tune with the spirit and receiving the message through faith in Christ, in other words, things that are not spiritually discerned. A proud individual cannot know the things of the Spirit. Paul taught this truth, saying:

“The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. …

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:11, 14).

Read Richard G. Scott's talk on "Acquiring Spiritual Knowledge".

2 Nephi 9 " 39 O, my beloved brethren, remember the awfulness in transgressing against that Holy God, and also the awfulness of yielding to the enticings of that cunning one. Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal."