Why Believe Smith About Non-Book of Mormon Claims?

[jinc1019]

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.

I can understand why you would think I am talking about labels, but I am not. I am talking about objective truth. All Mormons' beliefs cannot be right if all the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church are right. All Mormon beliefs cannot be right if all Muslim beliefs are right. Some church has to be wrong, which is to say have the wrong teachings about who God is, what God wants from us, etc. Even your assessment that we are all God's children is something many would reject in other faiths. My goal is to discover the truth...I don't care at all about labels, which is why I am not a member of any denomination (although I would like to be if the truth was taught there).

[estradling75]

I can understand why you would think I am talking about labels, but I am not. I am talking about objective truth. All Mormons' beliefs cannot be right if all the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church are right. All Mormon beliefs cannot be right if all Muslim beliefs are right. Some church has to be wrong, which is to say have the wrong teachings about who God is, what God wants from us, etc. Even your assessment that we are all God's children is something many would reject in other faiths. My goal is to discover the truth...I don't care at all about labels, which is why I am not a member of any denomination (although I would like to be if the truth was taught there).

How do you expect to recognize objective truth when it is presented to you?

[jinc1019]

How do you expect to recognize objective truth when it is presented to you?

The only way to truly KNOW something is objectively true is for God to tell you it is. Otherwise, one must make judgments based on the weight of the evidence. For the most part, that's what I do. If I believe the evidence supports one conclusion over another, I generally accept that conclusion...Unless God tells me otherwise.

[HiJolly]

I once (for most of my life) thought Truth was the most important thing ever and always.

Now I realize that as important as truth is, Love is much more to the point, in life.

Have you studied Epistemology?

[HiJolly]

"Thus, mystical theology is that knowledge of God and of things divine, which is derived, not from observation or from argument, but from conscious spiritual experience; and, being thus based, it possesses, for the individual who holds it, an irrefragable certainty."

Irrefragable. Word of the Day.

[Just_A_Guy]

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

Anatess, I'm going to respectfully diverge from your terminology (as I understand it) just a bit.

I think there are four key terms at issue here, and we aren't always very particular with the way we use them. The terms are canon, scripture, doctrine, and truth.

"Truth" is just things as the way they are. Brigham Young asserted that Mormonism encompasses and owns ALL truth--whether it be science, mathematics, philosophy, art, or theology; Mormonism claims it all.

"Doctrine", I would define as truths that the Church has formally embraced as being important for the salvation of man and which it is therefore actively disseminating.

"Scripture" is the means by which the Lord reveals "doctrine" to the Church. Anything a Church elder says when moved upon by the Holy Spirit is scripture. (See D&C 68:4)

"Canon" means "measuring stick". It consists of selections from the corpus of "scripture" that the Church has formally adopted as setting forth the standard by which "doctrine" will be evaluated.

Under these definitions, "canon" encompasses the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants (including Official Declarations 1 and 2), and Pearl of Great Price. "Scripture" would add proclamations, conference addresses, Ensign articles, the texts of confidential revelations sitting in some temple archives or the First Presidency Vault, inspired Sunday School lessons, the testimonies I heard in my LDS twelve-step program last week, the Scoutmaster's Minute done in front of a campfire last summer . . . ad infinitum. "Doctrine" derives from these other two sources (primarily from canon), as explained by the existing Church leadership and as occasionally supplemented by them when they present new canon to the Church for approval (or, rarely, remove canon that has been superseded by new revelation--aka, "scripture").

Edited November 6, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

The only way to truly KNOW something is objectively true is for God to tell you it is. Otherwise, one must make judgments based on the weight of the evidence. For the most part, that's what I do. If I believe the evidence supports one conclusion over another, I generally accept that conclusion...Unless God tells me otherwise.

And that answers the question you asked at the beginning of this thread. "Why Believe Smith About Non-Book of Mormon Claims?" because we have what evidence there might for it and then we have asked God and got an answer.

Other people might not like that answer, might disagree with that answer, might claim a different answer. But we don't care, we have our answer, and therefore we believe it to be an objective truth. And we aren't going to let go of that just because someone else thinks we are totally wrong

[jinc1019]

I once (for most of my life) thought Truth was the most important thing ever and always.

Now I realize that as important as truth is, Love is much more to the point, in life.

Have you studied Epistemology?

Too much yes...I don't enjoy it!

[jinc1019]

And that answers the question you asked at the beginning of this thread. "Why Believe Smith About Non-Book of Mormon Claims?" because we have what evidence there might for it and then we have asked God and got an answer.

Other people might not like that answer, might disagree with that answer, might claim a different answer. But we don't care, we have our answer, and therefore we believe it to be an objective truth. And we aren't going to let go of that just because someone else thinks we are totally wrong

That's a very fair answer. I will continue to study your scriptures and ask God to bring forth the truth. I am perfectly willing to put the matter in God's hands, but admittedly, I don't expect to get an answer that's clear (which often seems to be the case with my studies).

[estradling75]

That's a very fair answer. I will continue to study your scriptures and ask God to bring forth the truth. I am perfectly willing to put the matter in God's hands, but admittedly, I don't expect to get an answer that's clear (which often seems to be the case with my studies).

Learning how God answers us is the study of a life time. But it also appears to be what God requires of all of us

[Anddenex]

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?

I recognize others have already answered your question; however, I will answer with my own thoughts to your question. Joseph Smith was a man with his own thoughts, personality, beliefs, etc... As with Moses when God commanded he obeyed and delivered his messages, as given by the Lord to us. As with the children of Israel, we have a choice either to accept or reject the message.

When Joseph Smith received a revelation from God, as with Moses ( or any other prophet ), we as children of God, are under obligation to honor God's servants, otherwise we may receive a consequence we do not like. Example, Noah and the flood, the children of Israel not allowed into the promised land and were condemned to wander for 40 more years in the wilderness, etc...

When Joseph Smith spoke as a man then it we are not under any obligation to follow him, but to think for ourselves. Thus, him being a prophet doesn't dictate automatically that everything he taught was/is true. For example, the quote I previously shared, is not canonical doctrine, but it is a great quote which I believe in and which I believe to be doctrine -- a truth. This quote has been quoted by other prophets, by other apostalic leaders, and general authorities of the Church. Thus, others can probably say what Joseph Smith spoke here was truth although not canonized.

Evidence is dependent upon the viewer. What evidence do we have of Adam and Eve? What evidence do we have of the biblical flood? What evidence do we have that Abraham, Jacob and Isaac even existed and weren't mythological people to create a good story? What evidence do we have of an ark? Because we can say, "Jerusalem exists, and Egypt, and other areas in this hemisphere," it doesn't dictate that these stories are true.

When Jesus asked Peter who he was, we are revealed, instructed, that the witness came from God, not because of evidence of towns, people, or places.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Anddenex

[rameumptom]

Here are some articles I wrote several years ago on such questions. You may especially like this article on Joseph Smith describing the first ancient IPad.

[jinc1019]

I recognize others have already answered your question; however, I will answer with my own thoughts to your question. Joseph Smith was a man with his own thoughts, personality, beliefs, etc... As with Moses when God commanded he obeyed and delivered his messages, as given by the Lord to us. As with the children of Israel, we have a choice either to accept or reject the message.

When Joseph Smith received a revelation from God, as with Moses ( or any other prophet ), we as children of God, are under obligation to honor God's servants, otherwise we may receive a consequence we do not like. Example, Noah and the flood, the children of Israel not allowed into the promised land and were condemned to wander for 40 more years in the wilderness, etc...

When Joseph Smith spoke as a man then it we are not under any obligation to follow him, but to think for ourselves. Thus, him being a prophet doesn't dictate automatically that everything he taught was/is true. For example, the quote I previously shared, is not canonical doctrine, but it is a great quote which I believe in and which I believe to be doctrine -- a truth. This quote has been quoted by other prophets, by other apostalic leaders, and general authorities of the Church. Thus, others can probably say what Joseph Smith spoke here was truth although not canonized.

Evidence is dependent upon the viewer. What evidence do we have of Adam and Eve? What evidence do we have of the biblical flood? What evidence do we have that Abraham, Jacob and Isaac even existed and weren't mythological people to create a good story? What evidence do we have of an ark? Because we can say, "Jerusalem exists, and Egypt, and other areas in this hemisphere," it doesn't dictate that these stories are true.

When Jesus asked Peter who he was, we are revealed, instructed, that the witness came from God, not because of evidence of towns, people, or places.

I don't deny anything you say here except that...What do you say to those who never receive a witness of the truth you believe? When you rely so heavily on that witness and it never comes, it seems impossible to believe it.

[Guest]

Anatess, I'm going to respectfully diverge from your terminology (as I understand it) just a bit.

I think there are four key terms at issue here, and we aren't always very particular with the way we use them. The terms are canon, scripture, doctrine, and truth.

"Truth" is just things as the way they are. Brigham Young asserted that Mormonism encompasses and owns ALL truth--whether it be science, mathematics, philosophy, art, or theology; Mormonism claims it all.

"Doctrine", I would define as truths that the Church has formally embraced as being important for the salvation of man and which it is therefore actively disseminating.

"Scripture" is the means by which the Lord reveals "doctrine" to the Church. Anything a Church elder says when moved upon by the Holy Spirit is scripture. (See D&C 68:4)

"Canon" means "measuring stick". It consists of selections from the corpus of "scripture" that the Church has formally adopted as setting forth the standard by which "doctrine" will be evaluated.

Under these definitions, "canon" encompasses the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants (including Official Declarations 1 and 2), and Pearl of Great Price. "Scripture" would add proclamations, conference addresses, Ensign articles, the texts of confidential revelations sitting in some temple archives or the First Presidency Vault, inspired Sunday School lessons, the testimonies I heard in my LDS twelve-step program last week, the Scoutmaster's Minute done in front of a campfire last summer . . . ad infinitum. "Doctrine" derives from these other two sources (primarily from canon), as explained by the existing Church leadership and as occasionally supplemented by them when they present new canon to the Church for approval (or, rarely, remove canon that has been superseded by new revelation--aka, "scripture").

This is not how I was taught. I went through years of Catholic School so the usage of those words in Catholicism is what I hold until today. But, I do not think that it matters what religion you belong in - truth, canon, doctrine, scripture all hold the same meaning.

This is how I see those 4 words:

Truth - God. That pretty much sums it up. If it is of God, it is Truth. Now, man's understanding of what is of God is different. In addition, there are those that God has not yet revealed to man. That does not change what is Truth. The LDS Church, just like the Catholic Church, claims it has ALL truth that God has revealed to man. Of course, since their theology is different, they have different understanding of what is True. At the point where they diverge, only one of them or none of them is correct.

Canon - The Body of Knowledge that we know is Truth. This is Truth that has been revealed by God and accepted by the Church as True. There are those that people, even prophets has proclaimed as true but is not canonized as such. These are not part of Canon. Canon, therefore, contains all the system of covenants, commandments/laws, principles, traditions, etc. etc., that stems from Revealed Truth by which the Church abides by. Canon, therefore, may expand when God reveals more Truth to Man.

Doctrine - Are the teachings of the Church. Canon establishes the boundaries by which doctrine needs to stay within. Therefore, if one wants to know whether a teaching is doctrinal, one needs to know what is canonical and what is not. Doctrinal teachings may include articles in the Ensign, Sunday sermons, Testimonies, etc. etc., in addition to the scriptures themselves. Doctrine may only expand as Canon expands.

Scripture - A compendium of authoritative writings that journals God's Revealed truth to Man and how Man applied Truth throughout history. One determines which writings are scriptural and which aren't through the process of canonization - that is, if it is canonical then the writing is Scripture. But, Canon may expand when more scriptures with new revealed truth are accepted as canonical.

Yes, there are doctrinal writings (such as articles in the Ensign) that are not considered scriptural. But all of scripture is doctrinal.

So, when one is asked... what is the LDS Church's doctrine? One can easily point to all the writings accepted as scripture because these are canonized. The doctrinal teachings in things such as the Ensign, Sunday sermons, testimonies, etc. merely proceeds from these. There should not be any doctrinal teachings that are not based on Scripture. Basically, if a teaching is not backed by canonized scripture, then it is not doctrinal and, in a perfect world, it will not appear in the Ensign or be taught in Sunday School. But, this is not a perfect world, therefore, if you instruct somebody to look for LDS Doctrine in any other place besides scriptures, we will be spending a lot of time defending our beliefs from things like Journal of Discourses.

There is also traditional (as opposed to scriptural) stuff that we teach as part of doctrine. I am not touching on these as I don't consider this relevant in these discussions.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi Anatess -

Based on your last post, is there such a thing as "non-canonical scripture"?

[Anddenex]

I don't deny anything you say here except that...What do you say to those who never receive a witness of the truth you believe? When you rely so heavily on that witness and it never comes, it seems impossible to believe it.

One of the most thought provoking quotes, for me, regarding Joseph Smith's history is when he said, "If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself." The message is one of compassion toward individuals who sincerely seem it "impossible to believe." What then?

Within our scriptures, particularly the Doctrine and Covenants 46: 14, we read a gift of the spirit, "To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful." To individuals who find it impossible to believe, then I would say, "Lean on my testimony until the spirit whispers/confirms to your mind/heart the truth of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

However, in connection with the previous paragraph, we have promise from the Lord that he would not leave us comfortless. He would provide a comforter who would teach us all things and bring all things back to our remembrance. This is an eternal truth. When our hearts are sincere, when our minds are pure, and we are truly seeking the Lord with real intent the Lord has provided a promise that an individual will receive a witness from the Holy Ghost. When that comes -- that is between the Lord and the individual -- but this one thing is for sure that the Lord's hand is always outstretched. If a person doesn't receive a witness, then they must look deeply within their own hearts and verify if they truly have come before the Lord without guile.

[bytebear]

I don't deny anything you say here except that...What do you say to those who never receive a witness of the truth you believe? When you rely so heavily on that witness and it never comes, it seems impossible to believe it.

Doctrine and Covenants 46

10 And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.

11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

But I also want to point out that truth and doctrine are byproducts of authority. The church isn't true because it has truth. It's true because God has authorized his power to the church through living prophets and through the priesthood keys that the prophet holds (and disseminates to the members).

Joseph Smith was tutored by angels. He didn't know everything, but he had insights because of his calling. But it was the authority that was passed down through to our prophet today. That priesthood authority is what makes the church true.

[Guest]

Hi Anatess -

Based on your last post, is there such a thing as "non-canonical scripture"?

Yes. These are things that are generally considered scripture but is not part of LDS Canon. For example... the Maccabees books are not part of LDS Canon as we don't have a version that does not contain "many interpolations by man". Many other books(apocrypha) are not in LDS Canon like Ecclesiasticus (one of my favorites) - not sure if all of these books were considered and studied but it just never got God's approval, or if they simply were not considered as they weren't in the Hebrew Bible.

These books are part of other religion's Canon - like Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus are part of Catholic Canon.

Edited November 7, 2013 by anatess

[bytebear]

It's important to understand the scripture (even Canon) may only apply to the people it was written for. Much of Leviticus, for example, does not apply to us today, but it is still canonized. Similarly, General Conference talks may only apply to the people of the time. We can't assume that every word given by the Lord is ours to follow. That's why we have a living prophet.

Edited November 7, 2013 by bytebear

[skippy740]

In direct response to Anatess's post, here's a revelation regarding some ancient text that isn't LDS cannon, but was revealed that it wasn't necessary to translate and why:

Doctrine & Covenants 91

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

There is truth in nearly everything. Does it make sense to review it? Sure it does. The differences are that we should not be preaching from it - particularly with LDS classes and functions. This kind of learning is for personal edification only.

Edited November 7, 2013 by skippy740

[jinc1019]

All excellent posts. I appreciate everyone's efforts in these discussions. Thanks so much again.

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . not sure if all of these books were considered and studied but it just never got God's approval, or if they simply were not considered as they weren't in the Hebrew Bible.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess per the definitions I was suggesting I would say God "approves" scripture, too; canon is what gets approved by the church.

I suspect this horse is good and dead, though.

[Guest Baccupsgadips]

obliczanie bmi

Jeżeli chlasnąć w wzrostu i motłoch ciała aż do kalkulatora BMI , tudzież efekt pojawi się mówi, masz nadwagę , to jestdobry propozycja, aby podjąć pewne działania . O ile masz BMI pomiędzy 25 i 29,9 , masz nadwagę . Jeśli BMI wynosi nad 30 , jesteś wewnątrz otyłe . Czasami , podczas gdy zauważysz tuszy wkradły się na , pełnia, co chcesz posiadać wiedzę, jak schudnąć prędko , jakkolwiek nierzadko lepiej nadać bardziej strategicznego podejścia . Częściej niż nie ,trwanie spędzony próbuje dowiedzieć się, gdy schudnąć błyskawicznie lepiej byłoby podkablować na z większym natężeniem sensowny program odchudzania . Wysoki odczyt na kalkulatorze BMI nie oznacza, że ​​musisz panikować . Basta aresztować się destrukcyjnych zachowań w poprzek modyfikację diety tudzież wykonywania ćwiczeń , które pomogą ograniczyć BMI . Wyznaczenie ciała regularnie pomoże Ci stracić na wadze, zaś być może nawet stracić na wadze błyskawicznie .

O ile kalkulator BMI mówi ci, iż jesteś otyły , to może byćdobry inicjatywa, żeby nawiązać od jakiegoś śmigły parada ewentualnie jogging światła . O ile nie skorzystał przez jakikolwiek trwanie, umówić się na zebranie z lekarzem, iżby egzystować pewnym, iż całość jest w porządku. Zawału serca , na przestrzeni jak starasz się stracić na wadze, owo nie to, co chcesz , aby się stało . Gdylekarz usuwa się , zacząć 30 minut spaceru ewentualnie joggingu , pięć dni w tygodniu . Oszczędzał się zaś nie przesadzaj , pomimo tego bytność spójne , na skutek dlaczego jest dozwolone zacząć , by ujrzeć wyniki chcesz . W miarę postępów , zaczniesz odchudzić się i kalkulator BMI rozpocznie pokazując niższe liczby. Spacery i jogging nie daje odpowiedzi na gdy odchudzić się szybko sprawdzanie, toż owo pomoże , iżby uzyskać się w ową stronę, dokąd powinno się znajdować się .

<a href="http://wskaznik-bmi.pl/">licznik bmi</a>