Why Believe Smith About Non-Book of Mormon Claims?

[jinc1019]

Hi Everyone,

I am a Christian but I am not a Mormon. I am definitely looking heavily into the LDS church (mostly out of curiosity) and was wondering if you all could explain to me your view of Joseph Smith OUTSIDE of the Book of Mormon (see below for clarification).

I have read a lot about the evidence that supports the Book of Mormon and I admit I am quite amazed by some of the things written in it that I imagine Joseph Smith could not possibly have known.

However, the Book of Mormon is only ONE part of the LDS equation. Smith also claimed to have many other visions, prophecies, etc. which are not part of the Book of Mormon and therefore cannot really be proven in the same way. No one can look at a historical record and argue the validity of Smith's claim that God wants his people to stop smoking, drinking coffee, consuming alcohol, etc. So, why do you all believe Smith? It seems to me that it's certainly possible he told the truth, but it's also equally possible he didn't (in my opinion of course).

I am not a Mormon-hater by any stretch of the imagination and I am approaching this forum with a totally open mind, so please don't take offense at any of my questions. Ultimately, I just want to know the truth.

Thanks for your time and God bless!

Justin

Edited November 6, 2013 by jinc1019

[skippy740]

Welcome to LDS.net!

However, the Book of Mormon is only ONE part of the LDS equation.

Wrong. The Book of Mormon is THE LDS equation. If you can gain a testimony of The Book of Mormon... everything else about LDS doctrine falls into place.

[estradling75]

Welcome... To expand on Skippy's comment.

The Book of Mormon stands on its own merits... either it is what it says it is or it is not.

If a person believes the Book of Mormon to be true then that establishes Joseph's Smith credentials as a prophet, because through him we got the Book of Mormon.

With that his credentials established then other visions or revelations gain validity...

That is the simple logic and rationality that we can follow... But there is more.

Through the scriptures (including the Book of Mormon) the Lord as promised that we can learn truth from his spirit. That includes knowing the truth of Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon and other recorded visions and prophecy.

Thus many Mormon's can claim to believe based on both rationality and spiritual witness

[Anddenex]

Hi Everyone,

I am a Christian but I am not a Mormon. I am definitely looking heavily into the LDS church (mostly out of curiosity) and was wondering if you all could explain to me your view Joseph Smith OUTSIDE of the Book of Mormon.

For me you would need to be more specific regarding what you mean by "OUTSIDE" of the Book of Mormon. At face value, he was a father, a polygamist, a prophet, an uncle, and a friend to many who met him. He also was an ordinary man with faults just like us. He suffered for a cause he believed in and ended up giving his life for that cause. I don't know many man who would be willing to suffer what he suffered at the hands of cruel people for a lie.

I have read a lot about the evidence that supports the Book of Mormon and I admit I am quite amazed by some of the things written in it that I imagine Joseph Smith could not possibly have known.

Yes, I agree with the last sentence.

However, the Book of Mormon is only ONE part of the LDS equation. Smith also claimed to have many other visions, prophecies, etc. which are not part of the Book of Mormon and therefore cannot really be proven in the same way. No one can look at a historical record and argue the validity of Smith's claim that God wants his people to stop smoking, drinking, alcohol, etc. So, why do you all believe Smith? It seems to me that it's certainly possible he told the truth, but it's also equally possible he didn't (in my opinion of course).

I agree with Skippy that the Book of Mormon is the "main" part of the LDS equation. Without the Book of Mormon The Church of Jesus Christ would not survive. Its truth or its falsehood would elevate or breakdown the Church.

Joseph Smith provided many prophecies and teachings by which we have access to. One of my favorite words he spoke and I have found to be true, "Nothing is so much calculated to lead people to forsake sin as to take them by the hand, and watch over them with tenderness. When persons manifest the least kindness and love to me, O what power it has over my mind, while the opposite course has a tendency to harrow up all the harsh feelings and depress the human mind."

Why do I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet? The same reason why I believe the Bible to be the word of God. The same reason why I believe Adam and Eve to be the first humans, created by God; although, there is no historical record to accurate prove they existed. The same reason why I believe Christ rose from the dead. The spirit of our Heavenly Father witnessed to me the truth and has I have followed other evidences have been given me through my faith.

And you are correct any truth, which requires faith, spoken has the possibility to be true or false equally; which is why we don't trust in men. We place our trust in God and his spirit.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Anddenex

[Just_A_Guy]

No one can look at a historical record and argue the validity of Smith's claim that God wants his people to stop smoking, drinking, alcohol, etc. So, why do you all believe Smith?

Well, yes and no. Certainly, in the past, God has had no problem with--say--the consumption of wine. On the other hand, the historical record is also clear (at least, to those who take the Bible at face value) that God has, in times past, imposed specific dietary codes on His people (kashrut, and all that). Mormonism would argue that a major rationale for this was to impress upon His people's minds the idea that they are supposed to be different; that they are supposed to be living a higher standard in every aspect of their lives. A proscription on alcohol, tobacco, etc serves that same purpose in our modern society.

[jinc1019]

Welcome... To expand on Skippy's comment.

The Book of Mormon stands on its own merits... either it is what it says it is or it is not.

If a person believes the Book of Mormon to be true then that establishes Joseph's Smith credentials as a prophet, because through him we got the Book of Mormon.

With that his credentials established then other visions or revelations gain validity...

That is the simple logic and rationality that we can follow... But there is more.

Through the scriptures (including the Book of Mormon) the Lord as promised that we can learn truth from his spirit. That includes knowing the truth of Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon and other recorded visions and prophecy.

Thus many Mormon's can claim to believe based on both rationality and spiritual witness

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far. I greatly appreciate it.

One problem with this line of reasoning though is that it is assuming that just because Joseph Smith had a valid prophecy once that all other prophecies must also be valid. Isn't it possible that the Book of Mormon is valid but then as time went on, he got carried away and made mistakes? There are tons of biblical examples of men blessed by God who start out on the right track and end up going down the wrong one. King David, King Solomon, etc....How do you know Smith isn't in this line?

And while I am not saying the Holy Spirit CAN'T confirm beliefs or even create belief in a person about anything, virtually every major religion makes this claim but you all can't be right. Devout Roman Catholics OFTEN tell me how they know they belong to the one true Church because God has confirmed it for them in their lives. Muslims feel the same way about their alleged prophet. I understand the Mormons believe strongly that the Holy Spirit speaks specifically to them when studying the Book of Mormon and other LDS text (AND maybe the Holy Spirit does!) but it's hard for me, who has never experienced that, to believe it when so many other religions claim the same thing.

Justin

[jinc1019]

Why do I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet? The same reason why I believe the Bible to be the word of God. The same reason why I believe Adam and Eve to be the first humans, created by God; although, there is no historical record to accurate prove they existed. The same reason why I believe Christ rose from the dead. The spirit of our Heavenly Father witnessed to me the truth and has I have followed other evidences have been given me through my faith.

And you are correct any truth, which requires faith, spoken has the possibility to be true or false equally; which is why we don't trust in men. We place our trust in God and his spirit.

I can certainly appreciate your point. I agree that, to some extent, all religions require faith. However, people choose to place their faith in one religion over another for one of two reasons: 1. Because they feel compelled to by the Holy Spirit or spiritually in general. 2. Because the weight of the evidence, which I admit cannot ever be fully be placed on the side of "faith," falls decisively on that side of the scale because of what reason and evidence tells us. While I agree that one can make reasonable arguments against the validity of the New Testament, the weight of the evidence, in my opinion, clearly falls on the side of it being true. The same may be possible for the Book of Mormon, but that doesn't automatically mean it is true for the rest of what Joseph Smith taught. Does it?

[jinc1019]

Well, yes and no. Certainly, in the past, God has had no problem with--say--the consumption of wine. On the other hand, the historical record is also clear (at least, to those who take the Bible at face value) that God has, in times past, imposed specific dietary codes on His people (kashrut, and all that). Mormonism would argue that a major rationale for this was to impress upon His people's minds the idea that they are supposed to be different; that they are supposed to be living a higher standard in every aspect of their lives. A proscription on alcohol, tobacco, etc serves that same purpose in our modern society.

I don't deny any of this. But my point is...Unless you had a specific directive from Joseph Smith to follow those dietary concerns you mentioned above, you wouldn't do it. The reason you do it is because Joseph Smith, who claimed to be speaking as God's representative on earth (which is what a prophet is), said that's what God now required of his people.

Look, I am a very reasonable person...and reasonably speaking, the validity of ALL Mormon beliefs hinges on whether Joseph Smith was telling the truth or not. This includes the Book of Mormon but it also includes everything else he said as well. If Smith was telling the truth about the Book of Mormon but was wrong about many other things he said, then you should have a church that looks very different from the way it looks today. So my question is, if we all just assume, myself included, that the Book of Mormon is 100% true, then why does that automatically mean that everything else he said is also true?

I agree that it could be true, but could and is are very different terms.

Many of you have already suggested that the way to know is for the Holy Spirit to tell you, but as I said before...the two problems linked to this is: 1. What about those who the Holy Spirit doesn't confirm it for? and 2. How do I know it's the Holy Spirit and not just an internal feeling I have similar to that felt by many others in many other religions?

[Guest]

I can certainly appreciate your point. I agree that, to some extent, all religions require faith. However, people choose to place their faith in one religion over another for one of two reasons: 1. Because they feel compelled to by the Holy Spirit or spiritually in general. 2. Because the weight of the evidence, which I admit cannot ever be fully be placed on the side of "faith," falls decisively on that side of the scale because of what reason and evidence tells us. While I agree that one can make reasonable arguments against the validity of the New Testament, the weight of the evidence, in my opinion, clearly falls on the side of it being true. The same may be possible for the Book of Mormon, but that doesn't automatically mean it is true for the rest of what Joseph Smith taught. Does it?

No, it doesn't.

And we don't claim that everything that Joseph Smith said is scripture. He has sure made a lot of mistakes. Everything he has said pertaining to God and His Church is written in Doctrine and Covenants - including accounts of when God reprimanded Joseph for all his mistakes. Anything Joseph Smith said outside of D&C is not canonized and may or may not be correct. Now, here's the thing - canonization requires everything to have been supported not only by direct divine revelations to Joseph and all involved parties in the revelation but also through personal revelations given to the Apostles.

This is true for all revelations given to all prophets proceeding Joseph Smith. This is especially critical when trying to determine which Church holds the authority after the death of Joseph Smith - Brigham Young (who are now the LDS Church) or Joseph Smith's eldest son (who are now the Community of Christ).

Hope that helps.

Edited November 6, 2013 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

While I agree that one can make reasonable arguments against the validity of the New Testament, the weight of the evidence, in my opinion, clearly falls on the side of it being true.

There are few people on this site who would argue with this point. But there are millions of people elsewhere who would indeed be very happy to argue the point all day.

We're light on Atheists on this site, but I've argued with enough of them to be able to channel their response: The supernatural claims of both the Bible and the BoM have pretty much exactly the same weight of evidence behind them. It's silly to believe that because we can point to Jerusalem on a map, but not Zarahemla, that you should believe Joseph Smith less than anyone else trying to explain God.

[jinc1019]

No, it doesn't.

And we don't claim that everything that Joseph Smith said is scripture. He has sure made a lot of mistakes. Everything he has said pertaining to God and His Church is written in Doctrine and Covenants - including accounts of when God reprimanded Joseph for all his mistakes. Anything Joseph Smith said outside of D&C is not canonized and may or may not be correct. Now, here's the thing - canonization requires everything to have been supported not only by direct divine revelations to Joseph and all involved parties in the revelation but also through personal revelations given to the Apostles.

This is true for all revelations given to all prophets proceeding Joseph Smith. This is especially critical when trying to determine which Church holds the authority after the death of Joseph Smith - Brigham Young (who are now the LDS Church) or Joseph Smith's eldest son (who are now the Community of Christ).

Hope that helps.

It does help a lot. Another question (related) for you then is: What else, besides the D&C and Book of Mormon is considered "canonized" and comes from Joseph Smith? What about the doctrines of your Church which come from later prophets? Where can I find those?

You also made an interesting point about church authority that I still don't quite understand. You said "This is especially critical when trying to determine which Church holds the authority after the death of Joseph Smith - Brigham Young (who are now the LDS Church) or Joseph Smith's eldest son (who are now the Community of Christ)." I am still lost on the woods on that one though. How do you know Brigham Young had the authority and not Joseph Smith's son?

[jinc1019]

There are few people on this site who would argue with this point. But there are millions of people elsewhere who would indeed be very happy to argue the point all day.

We're light on Atheists on this site, but I've argued with enough of them to be able to channel their response: The supernatural claims of both the Bible and the BoM have pretty much exactly the same weight of evidence behind them. It's silly to believe that because we can point to Jerusalem on a map, but not Zarahemla, that you should believe Joseph Smith less than anyone else trying to explain God.

I agree that an atheist would likely and has likely made this point. However, I think there is a difference between the two (or at least there is a possibility of a difference). In the case of the New Testament, there really are no conflicting accounts...You have what the Apostles allegedly claim to see and that's all. In the case of Joseph Smith, you have a great deal of witnesses and historical evidence which can help/hurt the Mormon claim. Further, in the New Testament, there are very few prophecies (especially specific prophecies) outside of the Book of Revelation, which I think we can all agree is vague and confusing enough to be construed in many different ways from a purely historical point of view. So, it's much more difficult to say the New Testament is false because there were lots of prophecies that never came true. In the case of Joseph Smith, some of his prophecies, whether actual prophecies or not, did come true. Others did not, leading many to claim that he was a fraud.

While I agree it's a similar situation, I think the existence of more evidence and the close proximity in time to the claims by Smith create a difference between the NT and the BOM/other prophecies. If Jesus lived in 1830 and the NT recorded that, it would be a very similar situation.

[estradling75]

One problem with this line of reasoning though is that it is assuming that just because Joseph Smith had a valid prophecy once that all other prophecies must also be valid. Isn't it possible that the Book of Mormon is valid but then as time went on, he got carried away and made mistakes? There are tons of biblical examples of men blessed by God who start out on the right track and end up going down the wrong one. King David, King Solomon, etc....How do you know Smith isn't in this line?

Simple because if you believe that the Book of Mormon is true then you can exercise some faith that maybe some of the others revelations are true (say like the Word of Wisdom). If you can have a willingness to believe then you study it, you pray about it and you practice it. That is a very powerful combo for a person to find out what kind of fruit such a revelation might bare. And by their fruits you shall know them.

And while I am not saying the Holy Spirit CAN'T confirm beliefs or even create belief in a person about anything, virtually every major religion makes this claim but you all can't be right. Devout Roman Catholics OFTEN tell me how they know they belong to the one true Church because God has confirmed it for them in their lives. Muslims feel the same way about their alleged prophet. I understand the Mormons believe strongly that the Holy Spirit speaks specifically to them when studying the Book of Mormon and other LDS text (AND maybe the Holy Spirit does!) but it's hard for me, who has never experienced that, to believe it when so many other religions claim the same thing.

Justin

And this fundamentally is the root of your problem. You want to do things your way according to your wisdom and according to what you think God should do. Rather then what God has clearly time and time again showed us. He requires that we trust in his arm and not the arm of the flesh.. and that we exercise faith in him. If there was one clear group then joining that group would not be an act of faith.

While the LDS church does claim to be the true church we also acknowledge that the Elect of God (aka those that are following his spirit) can be found among all the groups of the earth and those faithful are not going to be denied anything in the afterlife just because they were in a different group.

Thus you need to learn to listen to the spirit and follow it where ever it may take you. Anything else and you are trusting in the arm of the flesh.

[jinc1019]

Simple because if you believe that the Book of Mormon is true then you can exercise some faith that maybe some of the others revelations are true (say like the Word of Wisdom). If you can have a willingness to believe then you study it, you pray about it and you practice it. That is a very powerful combo for a person to find out what kind of fruit such a revelation might bare. And by their fruits you shall know them.

And this fundamentally is the root of your problem. You want to do things your way according to your wisdom and according to what you think God should do. Rather then what God has clearly time and time again showed us. He requires that we trust in his arm and not the arm of the flesh.. and that we exercise faith in him. If there was one clear group then joining that group would not be an act of faith.

While the LDS church does claim to be the true church we also acknowledge that the Elect of God (aka those that are following his spirit) can be found among all the groups of the earth and those faithful are not going to be denied anything in the afterlife just because they were in a different group.

Thus you need to learn to listen to the spirit and follow it where ever it may take you. Anything else and you are trusting in the arm of the flesh.

Perfectly fair suggestion. And for those directives that actually produce fruit, it makes sense. But what about the LDS Church's teachings on the sacraments (such as baptism and the Lord's Supper)? If I practice those sacraments within the LDS Church, how can I "test the fruits" of those teachings? I can't. The LDS Church may be right and it may be wrong on those teachings, but I can't practice those things and then find out after the fact that they were right the same you can with many other teachings that clearly can produce positive outcomes.

The same is true about the LDS' teachings on the afterlife. If the LDS Church is wrong, I won't know until I get there (God willing)!

I agree that faith is more than an academic exercise, and perhaps that's something I need to learn in a practical sense, but believing something before knowing it's true is not something I think I could ever do.

[estradling75]

Perfectly fair suggestion. And for those directives that actually produce fruit, it makes sense. But what about the LDS Church's teachings on the sacraments (such as baptism and the Lord's Supper)? If I practice those sacraments within the LDS Church, how can I "test the fruits" of those teachings? I can't. The LDS Church may be right and it may be wrong on those teachings, but I can't practice those things and then find out after the fact that they were right the same you can with many other teachings that clearly can produce positive outcomes.

The same is true about the LDS' teachings on the afterlife. If the LDS Church is wrong, I won't know until I get there (God willing)!

I agree that faith is more than an academic exercise, and perhaps that's something I need to learn in a practical sense, but believing something before knowing it's true is not something I think I could ever do.

That is what is known as a leap of Faith or a trial of Faith. The Lord will give us things to help us build our Faith... but in the end it is our Faith that he is going to test. There are things that we are required to study about and pray about, but until we step out in to the darkness in faith we will not have the knowledge. That the knowledge comes after the test of faith

[Guest]

It does help a lot. Another question (related) for you then is: What else, besides the D&C and Book of Mormon is considered "canonized" and comes from Joseph Smith? What about the doctrines of your Church which come from later prophets? Where can I find those?

Joseph Smith also translated the books in the Pearl of Great Price.

Anything that comes from proceeding prophets gets added to D&C or written as Proclamations. An example of which is https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation which is the latest one that we received from when Gordon B. Hinckley was the prophet back in 1995.

You also made an interesting point about church authority that I still don't quite understand. You said "This is especially critical when trying to determine which Church holds the authority after the death of Joseph Smith - Brigham Young (who are now the LDS Church) or Joseph Smith's eldest son (who are now the Community of Christ)." I am still lost on the woods on that one though. How do you know Brigham Young had the authority and not Joseph Smith's son?

In the early days of the Church, the method of succession was not quite established clearly although guidelines have been laid out. After the death of Joseph Smith, a conference was held in Nauvoo in August 1844 to determine the presiding authority of the Church. In that Conference, the Twelve Apostles (being the ones that held all the keys to the Priesthood) was determined to lead the Church. Joseph Smith III (then 11 years old) do not hold the priesthood. Signey Rigdon, being the sole survivor of the First Presidency after Joseph and Hyrum Smith was killed, claimed that he was given a Revelation to lead the Church. He was not sustained by the Twelve Apostles in the August conference. A vote was made (as is the manner by which we sustain Church leaders) among the members present in the conference and the Twelve Apostles were sustained to lead the Church.

Another conference was held in October 1844. In this Conference, the Twelve Apostles sustained Brigham Young as the President of the Quorom of the Twelve at which time he also was sustained President of the Church.

Today, the Church has over 14 million members in different parts of the world. The order of succession has remained the same. When the President of the Church dies, the First Presidency is dissolved and the 2 counsellors join the Quorom of Twelve Apostles and they all hold the keys to preside over the Church. The President of the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles is then sustained as the President of the Church, the Quorom ordains a Milchezedek Priest to join the Quorom, and the President of the Church then calls his 2 counsellors and the First Presidency is established. Each and every one of these 15 people is then submitted to the entire 14 million+ membership for a sustaining vote and every April of every year, we get to sustain them again. It is the responsibility of each member of the Church to inquire of God and receive personal revelation on the authority of all Church leaders.

Edited November 6, 2013 by anatess

[jinc1019]

Joseph Smith also translated the books in the Pearl of Great Price.

Anything that comes from proceeding prophets gets added to D&C or written as Proclamations. An example of which is https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation which is the latest one that we received from when Gordon B. Hinckley was the prophet back in 1995.

In the early days of the Church, the method of succession was not quite established clearly although guidelines have been laid out. After the death of Joseph Smith, a conference was held in Nauvoo in August 1844 to determine the presiding authority of the Church. In that Conference, the Twelve Apostles (being the ones that held all the keys to the Priesthood) was determined to lead the Church. Joseph Smith III (then 11 years old) do not hold the priesthood. Signey Rigdon, being the sole survivor of the First Presidency after Joseph and Hyrum Smith was killed, claimed that he was given a Revelation to lead the Church. He was not sustained by the Twelve Apostles in the August conference. A vote was made (as is the manner by which we sustain Church leaders) among the members present in the conference and the Twelve Apostles were sustained to lead the Church.

Another conference was held in October 1844. In this Conference, the Twelve Apostles sustained Brigham Young as the President of the Quorom of the Twelve at which time he also was sustained President of the Church.

Today, the Church has over 14 million members in different parts of the world. The order of succession has remained the same. When the President of the Church dies, the First Presidency is dissolved and the 2 counsellors join the Quorom of Twelve Apostles and they all hold the keys to preside over the Church. The President of the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles is then sustained as the President of the Church, the Quorom ordains a Milchezedek Priest to join the Quorom, and the President of the Church then calls his 2 counsellors and the First Presidency is established. Each and every one of these 15 people is then submitted to the entire 14 million+ membership for a sustaining vote and every April of every year, we get to sustain them again. It is the responsibility of each member of the Church to inquire of God and receive personal revelation on the authority of all Church leaders.

Thank you for all of this wonderful information.

Just to be clear though (because I want to be sure I get it absolutely right), the ONLY official doctrine of the LDS Church is held within the Book of Mormon, the D&C, the Pearl of Great Price, and Proclamations, correct? I know where to find the first three, but what about the "Proclamations"? Is there a place where all of the Proclamations not contained within the D&C are listed?

[jinc1019]

That is what is known as a leap of Faith or a trial of Faith. The Lord will give us things to help us build our Faith... but in the end it is our Faith that he is going to test. There are things that we are required to study about and pray about, but until we step out in to the darkness in faith we will not have the knowledge. That the knowledge comes after the test of faith

Fair enough. Perhaps a leap of faith is required. But again, how do you distinguish your leap and the result from it and the leap made by Muslims or Presbyterians or anyone else? It just seems like, at the end of the day, unless you have a religious experience, it's all just up in the air.

[Guest]

Thank you for all of this wonderful information.

Just to be clear though (because I want to be sure I get it absolutely right), the ONLY official doctrine of the LDS Church is held within the Book of Mormon, the D&C, the Pearl of Great Price, and Proclamations, correct? I know where to find the first three, but what about the "Proclamations"? Is there a place where all of the Proclamations not contained within the D&C are listed?

There is also the Holy Bible as far as it is translated correctly.

But yes, these are the canonized body of doctrine of the Church. Everything else follows from these. Doctrine is a fluid thing when you have a Church that is run by Divine Revelation. We don't have a closed canon.

Okay, proclamations are also called declarations. Besides the one I linked to you on the previous post, here are the others:

Official Declaration

Edited November 6, 2013 by anatess

[HiJolly]

I highly recommend a careful reading of the following: Approaching Mormon Doctrine

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't deny any of this. But my point is...Unless you had a specific directive from Joseph Smith to follow those dietary concerns you mentioned above, you wouldn't do it. The reason you do it is because Joseph Smith, who claimed to be speaking as God's representative on earth (which is what a prophet is), said that's what God now required of his people.

It's one of two reasons, actually--the other, being that after I obtained the statement from Smith, I tried it out for myself and got a spiritual confirmation that it was what God wanted me to be doing.

Many of you have already suggested that the way to know is for the Holy Spirit to tell you, but as I said before...the two problems linked to this is: 1. What about those who the Holy Spirit doesn't confirm it for? and 2. How do I know it's the Holy Spirit and not just an internal feeling I have similar to that felt by many others in many other religions?

Re 1): If the seeker has truly gone through all the steps with an open heart/mind, and no manifestation comes, the God holds Himself accountable for that. I do think that, in some isolated cases, God actually feels some specific individuals at a particular time in their lives can do more good outside of Mormonism, than inside of it. When the time is right, the Lord reveals all and we are then expected to change our lives accordingly. Until then, if we've acted in good faith, I believe we are held blameless.

On 2): Some specific scriptures (ie Galatians 5:22-23), in conjunction with a good bit of trial and error.

Incidentally: why would you assume that the "internal feelings" felt by those in other religions, are automatically counterfeit? The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, and it will confirm that truth wherever it is to be found.

[jinc1019]

I highly recommend a careful reading of the following: Approaching Mormon Doctrine

I will be sure to read this over carefully. Thank you.

[jinc1019]

It's one of two reasons, actually--the other, being that after I obtained the statement from Smith, I tried it out for myself and got a spiritual confirmation that it was what God wanted me to be doing.

Re 1): If the seeker has truly gone through all the steps with an open heart/mind, and no manifestation comes, the God holds Himself accountable for that. I do think that, in some isolated cases, God actually feels some specific individuals at a particular time in their lives can do more good outside of Mormonism, than inside of it. When the time is right, the Lord reveals all and we are then expected to change our lives accordingly. Until then, if we've acted in good faith, I believe we are held blameless.

On 2): Some specific scriptures (ie Galatians 5:22-23), in conjunction with a good bit of trial and error.

Incidentally: why would you assume that the "internal feelings" felt by those in other religions, are automatically counterfeit? The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, and it will confirm that truth wherever it is to be found.

All good points. I can't dispute any of them logically.

[jinc1019]

There is also the Holy Bible as far as it is translated correctly.

But yes, these are the canonized body of doctrine of the Church. Everything else follows from these. Doctrine is a fluid thing when you have a Church that is run by Divine Revelation. We don't have a closed canon.

Okay, proclamations are also called declarations. Besides the one I linked to you on the previous post, here are the others:

Official Declaration

Thank you for all of your help. I will read over all of it.

Justin

[estradling75]

Fair enough. Perhaps a leap of faith is required. But again, how do you distinguish your leap and the result from it and the leap made by Muslims or Presbyterians or anyone else? It just seems like, at the end of the day, unless you have a religious experience, it's all just up in the air.

You seem to be stuck on labeling things... As if the wrong label means everything else about it is wrong. God doesn't see it that way. God sees us as his children and his is willing to guide and help all those that will listen. He works with individuals. If an individual will best develop learn and understand as a Muslim, or a Presbyterian, or a Jew, or a Catholic then that is were God will guide them to. Because God will put the welfare of his struggling child over the importance of any man made label.

As long as the child continues to listen to God, then God will be able to lead them out when he feels the time is right.