The Alma 32 Experiment


Jungler
 Share

Recommended Posts

The greek word for 'terrestrial' means 'earthly.' Why would Paul refer to a kingdom of heaven as earthly?

 

I also see an equivalency in the term "Kingdom of God" and "Celestial Kingdom." But what does that have to do with this passage? The term "Kingdom" isn't used in the passage at all. Heaven itself isn't even mentioned. The passage talks about 'celestial bodies', not 'celestial kingdoms.'

 

Why do you start at verse 40 or 41? The passage is in response to a question Paul raises in verse 35. He continues to talk about bodies and flesh. There's nothing in the text to suggest he ever switches topics to start talking about kingdoms. A body is not a kingdom and a kingdom is not made of flesh.

 

Verse 41 may be teaching that some people will have resurrected bodies that are more glorious than others. But that doesn't mean those bodies will be in separate kingdoms. It certainly doesn't change the fact that the passage is focused on bodies, not kingdoms.

 

What text in verse 42 talks about "degrees of glory?"

This is why I wanted you to read the D&C verses, because it bridges the understanding of the Kingdom of God and the state of ressurection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't scripture be our revelation? All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. So can't we rely on careful study of that scripture for teaching, correction and training?

Of course we rely on scripture--in conjunction with the whisperings of the Spirit. The disconnect between your notion that a scholarly analysis of scripture will inexorably lead all good-faith Bible students to identical theologies, versus the cacophonous reality, is a major reason for Joseph Smith's retiring into the woods in the first place.

In some cases, a supplement can be a contradiction. The Gospel the apostles taught was completely sufficient for salvation. No one can come along and add anything to the Gospel and say it's just a "supplement" because that would contradict the previous teaching that the Gospel was completely sufficient. Either the Gospel in the Bible is incomplete and needs supplements or it is complete and any supplements would be contradictions.

The apostles taught the saints of their generation all that they needed to know to be saved. So too did Moses, and Abraham, and Adam. Abraham's "supplements" did not, by virtue of their existence, contradict the teachings of Adam; nor did Moses contradict Abraham; nor Jesus, Moses. Deuteronomy 4:2 specifically prohibits adding to or diminishing from God's commandments--at that point (traditionally) the Pentateuch--and then along come Joshua, Samuel, Nathan, and a slough of other major and minor prophets who spent the next thousand years doing just that. And were they justified? Yes, because they acted not of themselves--but at Jehovah's command.

Didn't Paul deal with Gospel supplements in Galatians? The Judaizers weren't contradicting teachings about faith in Christ. They just wanted to supplement the faith with following the Mosaic Law. But Paul considered that supplement a contradiction.

The Judaizers' additions were obviously not authorized; their position was contrary to the decision of the apostolic council at Jerusalem where the saints' obligations vis a vis the Mosaic law had already been decided.

Was Peter authorized to "supplement" Paul's epistles by warning the Church against those who would misinterpret them? Because, he did. Was Apollos authorized to teach in Ephesus and Corinth after Paul had already preached in those cities? Because, he did.

Supplementing is not per se contradiction. If it were, Paul wouldn't have written three epistles to the Corinthians, or two to the Thessalonians, or two to Timothy; and Peter and John would have contented themselves with one canonized epistle each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the claim is the apostles had authority to make additions to the Gospel, but the Judaizers didn't. But that's not what Paul said. Look at Galatians again. Who or what has the higher authority?

But even if WE, or an ANGEL from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if ANY MAN is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

So even Paul himself didn't have authority to supplement the Gospel. Even if you meet an angel in the woods who says you're being called to supplement the Gospel, it doesn't mean you have authority to do so. The highest authority here is the scriptures of the Gospel Paul already taught.

If Paul knew the Gospel would be lost and need to be restored, why would he say this? Why wouldn't he leave the window open for future prophets to supplement the Gospel? Why would he ignore the idea of praying to test a prophet?

The Gospel doesn't cover all scripture. Moses, Samuel and Nathan weren't suplementing the Gospel because didn't talk about it. John's, Peter's and Paul's other letters weren't supplementing it because they were about topics like how to treat other Christians and how the church should be led. The Gospel is the teaching that Christ died for our sins and how we can go to heaven and have eterrnal life through Him. The doctrine of 3 kingdoms in heaven would be a huge part of that. It doesn't make sense that any New Testament author would leave it out of their teaching on the Gospel. Wouldn't it be one of the first things they teach? Isn't the doctrine saying the whole purpose of this life is to progress to the higher level of heaven? Why would God wait 5800 years to reveal that to humans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve talked to many Mormons over the past few years, but I’ve always been skeptical of their claims, including the doctrine of testing a faith or religion with prayer. I was recently talking to a few missionaries and they encouraged me to read Alma 32 to help understand the doctrine. Verses 27-43 helped explain the doctrine, but they also raised more questions.

 

Three of the verses, 27, 33 and 36, describe planting and watering the seed as an experiment. If this is a valid experiment and a reliable way to test if something is true or not, couldn’t it be used to test similar doctrines or claims of truth?

 

Let’s say, hypothetically, that a Mormon used the model of testing truth described in Alma 32 and Moroni 10 to test the Protestant claim that the true Gospel was never lost and never needed to be restored and they receive what sounds like a “No” response. What do they do next? What does Alma say we should do if a seed doesn’t grow?

 

Alma 32 

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

 39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

 

So if a seed doesn’t grow, it’s because the person praying didn’t nourish it and their ground is barren. Moroni 10 isn't as clear as Alma 32, but the same implication is there. If someone doesn’t get a “Yes” response to the prayer, it’s because they didn’t have a sincere heart, real intent and faith in Christ.

 

So how does the Mormon get an answer about the Protestant claim? It sounds like this model is saying they should keep praying about it with a sincere heart, real intent and faith in Christ.

 

Is this really a reliable experiment and model for testing truth? What kind of experiments predicts the result before you even start and then blames you if you get any other result?

 

Have you applied these verses to the RLDS church or any other LDS splinter group? If it’s a valid way to support the LDS church, can’t it be applied to those other groups? If you have applied it to those groups, what response did you receive?

I had a mormon friend who tried this while visiting a protestant sermon, upon which he had a unique experience after asking in prayer whether to know if what was being said was true and if he should listen to it- after he had said the prayer he couldn't hear the person who was giving the sermon as tho they were just moving their mouth and not issuing any sound, and no one else in the meeting seemed to be bothered.

so yeah that works too. 

the things i notice is you have to be in a situation in which the spirit can touch you in some way, and generally humility, sincerity, and getting answers takes work and patience.... usually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the claim is the apostles had authority to make additions to the Gospel, but the Judaizers didn't. But that's not what Paul said. Look at Galatians again. Who or what has the higher authority?

But even if WE, or an ANGEL from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if ANY MAN is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

So even Paul himself didn't have authority to supplement the Gospel. Even if you meet an angel in the woods who says you're being called to supplement the Gospel, it doesn't mean you have authority to do so. The highest authority here is the scriptures of the Gospel Paul already taught.

The Gospel, of course, is what it is; and it is defined by God Himself independently of our poor semantical efforts. That doesn't mean that a man's declaration/explanation of said Gospel is complete, infallible, or exempt from supplementation. Nor does it mean that the Bible is a complete and accurate representation of the entirety of the Gospel as taught by the apostles.

Paul didn't have the authority to muzzle either God or the other messengers God might thereafter send--nor, I suspect, would he have wanted to. Someday we'll have to ask him. ;)

If Paul knew the Gospel would be lost and need to be restored, why would he say this? Why wouldn't he leave the window open for future prophets to supplement the Gospel? Why would he ignore the idea of praying to test a prophet?

Paul was talking to a specific body of Saints in Galatia who had actually heard the gospel from his own lips, all of whom are dead now. How do you know exactly what he said (or didn't say) to them when he was with them; and by what authority do you extend his limited instruction to a specific group, to a worldwide audience living two millennia later?

The Gospel doesn't cover all scripture. Moses, Samuel and Nathan weren't suplementing the Gospel because didn't talk about it.

So, did Moses never teach the Gospel (ie salvation via Christ) to Israel? Or were his Christian teachings simply omitted from the Pentateuch? If the former--were any of the ancient Israelites saved? If so, how could this be if Christ were never preached to them? Isn't God the same "yesterday, the same and forever"? And if the latter--why couldn't the the same process of omission that afflicted the Old Testament, also afflict the New?

John's, Peter's and Paul's other letters weren't supplementing it because they were about topics like how to treat other Christians and how the church should be led. The Gospel is the teaching that Christ died for our sins and how we can go to heaven and have eterrnal life through Him. The doctrine of 3 kingdoms in heaven would be a huge part of that.

If I read you correctly, you are essentially arrogating for yourself the right to say what Christian teachings (or books of the Christian canon) are actually part of "the Gospel" and which ones aren't. The details of the rewards and obligations Christians should anticipate in the hereafter, in your view, seem to be an integral part of that "gospel"; but the details of the rewards and obligations Christians should anticipate in this life are extraneous thereto.

Also, if I read you correctly, only one individual may ever speak on "the gospel"--and then, only once--to a particular audience; and we must thereafter disregard anything that isn't a rehash of that first sermon. So "the gospel" may be found in one--and only one--of Peter's epistles; one (and only one) of John's writings (Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, or Revelation); and one (and only one) of Luke's writings. Moreover, Peter's and Jude's epistles, being general in nature, would--if either is deemed to contain "the gospel"--exclude all other epistles (including those of Paul); and you can only pick one of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as containing a declaration of "the gospel".

This stilted attempt to relegate Mormonism to the realm of heresy results in a remarkably skinny Bible for all you good Christian folk to use.

Why would God wait 5800 years to reveal that to humans?

You've already admitted that not all scripture is gospel. Why are you so bothered by the notion that not all gospel is in the scriptures that you have hitherto embraced? The Bible doesn't describe itself as comprehensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like we've moved on without acknowledging one way or another about the Alma experiment.

 

Jungler, in light of James12's post showing that your OP was actually a caution of discarding a growing sapling rather than throwing out a bad seed, and that there are verses (that were initially passed over) that permit you to remove bad seeds from your life and philosopy; given that, do you acknowledge that Alma's methodology is internally consistent and viable on its own terms?

 

If not, I think we should continue to work towards a resolution here. If so, then with that acknowledgement we should recognize that this concern you keep raising about "another gospel" is not because Alma doesn't provide a proper "out" for false teachings, but that you feel this methodology does not line up with the biblical model.

 

Let's put away the old toys before we start playing with new ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I was having trouble responding to the issue of trusting a specific denomination or interpretation when they all try to follow the Bible and disagree. So I took a break and asked a guy I've talked with before. Have you heard of J. Warner Wallace? Many of his family members while growing up were Mormon or Catholic (I think they still are), but he rejected them all and was an atheist until he was in his mid-30s. He's a cold case homicide detective trained in building criminal cases based on eyewitness testimonies even if those witnesses are dead. Someone convinced him to visit a church service and he noticed that the 4 gospels are written just like the eyewitness testimonies he works with. That was almost 20 years ago. Since then, he's written a book, Cold Case Christianity, and taught many seminars on the reliability of the gospels as eyewitness testimonies and how to defend our faith. He also has a weekly podcast to talk about various apologetic issues and answer emails, like mine.

 

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/conversations-with-atheists-four-observations-cold-case-christianity-broadcast-7/

 

The first 2/3 of the video is Wallace giving 4 tips on talking with atheists. The rest is him answering my question. The point he brings up is there will always be disagreements about any event in the past when we have to rely on eyewitness testimonies. Whether we’re talking about American history 300 years ago, a criminal case for a murder from 30 years or the Bible from 2000 years, they all rely on us interpreting eyewitness testimonies. If you’re on a jury, you have to base your decision on the evidence and the witnesses. The defense and prosecution will each interpret them in different ways, but it’s still up to you as a juror to weigh the evidence and make a decision. Why would investigating the Bible be any different?

 

Of course, this raises the question of if the gospels were actually meant to be read and used as eyewitness statements. Wallace answered this question a few weeks ago in another podcast.

 

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/are-the-gospels-eyewitness-accounts-cold-case-christianity-broadcast-3/

 

Christ commissioned the apostles as eyewitnesses (Luke 24:48).

 

2 Peter 1:16 - For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

1 John 1:1 - That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—

 

Acts 3:15 - . . . and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

 

Mormons I’ve talked to keep insisting the LDS church is the same church Christ set up in the New Testament, but I don’t see it in these verses. In Acts, when the apostles were planting the first churches, they were not asking people to pray about what they were teaching. No, they acted like and identified themselves many times as witnesses. They were simply expecting people to trust what they were saying. Yes, prayer is important in Acts, but it’s not used as the way to trust the Gospel. How can you claim to be the same church as the one in Acts when you use a completely different epistemology?

 

Unfortunately, many people in many denominations either refuse to accept the New Testament as eyewitness statements or let their own biases and feelings skew their interpretations. That’s why so many people who try to follow the Bible disagree. But the solution isn’t to search for another source of authority or guidance. No, the solution is to do what the new believers in Acts did and simply trust the witnesses.

 

I feel like we've moved on without acknowledging one way or another about the Alma experiment.

 

Jungler, in light of James12's post showing that your OP was actually a caution of discarding a growing sapling rather than throwing out a bad seed, and that there are verses (that were initially passed over) that permit you to remove bad seeds from your life and philosopy; given that, do you acknowledge that Alma's methodology is internally consistent and viable on its own terms?

 

If not, I think we should continue to work towards a resolution here. If so, then with that acknowledgement we should recognize that this concern you keep raising about "another gospel" is not because Alma doesn't provide a proper "out" for false teachings, but that you feel this methodology does not line up with the biblical model.

 

Let's put away the old toys before we start playing with new ones.

Then how do we identify false teachers? What does the Bible say about how we recognize false teachers? Do the BoM, D&C or PoGP say anything about how we can recognize or avoid false teachers?

 

I’ve heard some Mormons say we can recognize them by their fruit, or lack thereof. But what exactly is fruit? It can’t be a reliable way to test a teacher if we allow that teacher to define or interpret fruit. It’s circular reasoning. Plus, it’s not even internally consistent since Moroni 10 doesn’t mention fruit at all.

 

I also saw someone in this thread say there would be some kind of verbal or auditory disruption while listening to a false teacher. That would be a very convenient method, but it’s not in the Bible at all. If that’s how we recognize a false teacher, why don’t one of the many Bible passages about false teachers actually mention it?

 

How do we know which seeds are bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then how do we identify false teachers? What does the Bible say about how we recognize false teachers? Do the BoM, D&C or PoGP say anything about how we can recognize or avoid false teachers?

 

I’ve heard some Mormons say we can recognize them by their fruit, or lack thereof. But what exactly is fruit? It can’t be a reliable way to test a teacher if we allow that teacher to define or interpret fruit. It’s circular reasoning. Plus, it’s not even internally consistent since Moroni 10 doesn’t mention fruit at all.

 

I also saw someone in this thread say there would be some kind of verbal or auditory disruption while listening to a false teacher. That would be a very convenient method, but it’s not in the Bible at all. If that’s how we recognize a false teacher, why don’t one of the many Bible passages about false teachers actually mention it?

 

How do we know which seeds are bad?

You have not questioned what I previously posted so, based on Alma 32 and Moroni 10 you should now know how to distinguish truth from error. Try the word, do the work, and see if it begins to enlarge your soul, enlighten your understanding, and be delicious to your soul. Have you followed Moroni's promise? If not, why do you continue to question and yet do not follow these simple steps? This is the way to know. Such understanding comes through the spirit, not through man's methods. The Lord at times uses man's methods to support personal revelation but not to superceed it. It has always been this way, and will continue to be so. There are witnesses of the Book of Mormon but their testimony simply leads a person to ask God in faith. Personal revelation is the first step to knowledge of the things of God. Once you have this truth then continuing down this same path you can know the truth of all things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not questioned what I previously posted so, based on Alma 32 and Moroni 10 you should now know how to distinguish truth from error. Try the word, do the work, and see if it begins to enlarge your soul, enlighten your understanding, and be delicious to your soul. Have you followed Moroni's promise? If not, why do you continue to question and yet do not follow these simple steps? This is the way to know. Such understanding comes through the spirit, not through man's methods. The Lord at times uses man's methods to support personal revelation but not to superceed it. It has always been this way, and will continue to be so. There are witnesses of the Book of Mormon but their testimony simply leads a person to ask God in faith. Personal revelation is the first step to knowledge of the things of God. Once you have this truth then continuing down this same path you can know the truth of all things.

If Alma 32 and Moroni 10 were that clear, I wouldn't have posted this thread. The whole point is it's not clear how they work as a reliable and consistent test of truth. I've read Alma 32, all of Moroni and large chunks of 1 Nephi and 3 Nephi and I've prayed about them more times than I could count. But heard, felt or received any witness. What else am I supposed to do?

You say the passages tell us how to distinguish truth from error. So shouldn't the method work on more than just LDS doctrine? Shouldn't someone be able to use it to determine the error of protestant doctrine? What would that look like? How do you recognize false teachers? Can you show how it's a reliable and consistent method to determine truth from error?

What about my point that the apostles preached the Gospel as eyewitnesses? Look at Acts, like 3:15. They didn't tell people to use prayer to distinguish truth from error. They simply expected people to trust their eyewitness accounts. How can the LDS church be the same church Christ started when LDS theology uses such a different method of epistemology then they used in Acts?

Edited by Jungler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Alma 32 and Moroni 10 were that clear, I wouldn't have posted this thread. The whole point is it's not clear how they work as a reliable and consistent test of truth. I've read Alma 32, all of Moroni and large chunks of 1 Nephi and 3 Nephi and I've prayed about them more times than I could count. But heard, felt or received any witness. What else am I supposed to do?

Joseph Smith said, "The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence." Such intelligence expands the mind, enlightens understanding. The result of such knowledge is, "love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith".

I would say, pray with sincerity on the matter. Tell the Lord you have been asking but have not received a clear answer and that without an answer you will move on and will not further pursue the BofM and the LDS church. And then ask one last time if the BoM contains the word of God and was brought forth by his power and direction, then pause, listen, and consider in your heart and mind. If understanding elightens your heart and mind on the matter you will know. If it does not, then move on. For some reason, the time is not right.

 

You say the passages tell us how to distinguish truth from error. So shouldn't the method work on more than just LDS doctrine? Shouldn't someone be able to use it to determine the error of protestant doctrine? What would that look like? How do you recognize false teachers? Can you show how it's a reliable and consistent method to determine truth from error?

I have used the above method over and over again. I have found out that the BofM is the word of God, and that Joseph was a prophet of God. I have also found truth in other religions teachings. Moreover, I have found false teachings using the method. It takes time and practice. Spiritual matters do not come in a day. They must be cultivated over years.

 

What about my point that the apostles preached the Gospel as eyewitnesses? Look at Acts, like 3:15. They didn't tell people to use prayer to distinguish truth from error. They simply expected people to trust their eyewitness accounts. How can the LDS church be the same church Christ started when LDS theology uses such a different method of epistemology then they used in Acts?

Very well. Read Joseph's eyewitness account of seeing the Father and Son and follow him. Read the accounts of the three witnesses who testify they saw an angel and handled the BofM. If you accept this as fact then there is nothing to do but join the LDS church. But I would guess you are not so quick to believe. I would guess that you will question what you have read. We live in a different age. An age which has been taught to question every fact, which has been taught to disbelieve in the spiritual, which has been taught that such things as new scriptures are false. For this reason we say ask God. Edited by james12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph Smith said, "The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence." Such intelligence expands the mind, enlightens understanding. The result of such knowledge is, "love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith".

I would say, pray with sincerity on the matter. Tell the Lord you have been asking but have not received a clear answer and that without an answer you will move on and will not further pursue the BofM and the LDS church. And then ask one last time if the BoM contains the word of God and was brought forth by his power and direction, then pause, listen, and consider in your heart and mind. If understanding elightens your heart and mind on the matter you will know. If it does not, then move on. For some reason, the time is not right.

You're saying God wants us to give him an ultimatum? Why would properly following God's directions involve me threatening Him 'Answer me or I won't pursue your church'?

 

I have used the above method over and over again. I have found out that the BofM is the word of God, and that Joseph was a prophet of God. I have also found truth in other religions teachings. Moreover, I have found false teachings using the method. It takes time and practice. Spiritual matters do not come in a day. They must be cultivated over years.

Could you be more specific? What false teachings did you find? How did the process work? How are you so sure those teachings are false?

 

Very well. Read Joseph's eyewitness account of seeing the Father and Son and follow him. Read the accounts of the three witnesses who testify they saw an angel and handled the BofM. If you accept this as fact then there is nothing to do but join the LDS church. But I would guess you are not so quick to believe. I would guess that you will question what you have read. We live in a different age. An age which has been taught to question every fact, which has been taught to disbelieve in the spiritual, which has been taught that such things as new scriptures are false. For this reason we say ask God.

There's multiple ways to look at Joseph's story. It could all be true. It could have been an elaborate con that Joseph embellished over time. Or maybe Paul was warning the church about something that could actually happen when he said "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel . . ." Isn't it possible that an angel could appear to someone, claim to be from heaven, and give them a "gospel"? Ultimately, the question isn't about whether or not Joseph actually saw an angel. The issue is whether or not the gospel he taught was from God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're saying God wants us to give him an ultimatum? Why would properly following God's directions involve me threatening Him 'Answer me or I won't pursue your church'?

You are not threatening God, nor giving Him an ultimatum. This is about you making a decision and then asking him for guidance.

 

Could you be more specific? What false teachings did you find? How did the process work? How are you so sure those teachings are false?

Finding false teachings is important. However, it has been my experience that uncovering and being open to truth is the greater need. For example the other day I read a statement about reincarnation which said, "The soul of Elijah, after converting his physical body into luminous astral energy and ascending to heaven "in the whirlwind of a fiery chariot," remained in the astral land to be timely reincarnated as John the Baptist to witness for the divine mission his disciple Elisha, reincarnated as Jesus, was preordained to fulfill" (The Second Coming of Christ, The Resurrection of the Christ Within You, p 41-42) Now, some might compare this teaching to Christianity and point to Bible scriptures "proving" it as false. But how I come to know it is false is not by rejecting it out of hand because it is different. Rather, I look inward. How does this statement feel? Does it "taste" good to my spirit? Does it give light to my mind? On the other hand does it cause me unease and unquiet? By this process I recognize it as false.

 

Note: Words here are hard to come by. I say "feel" or "taste" and this is right to a point, but it still seems a little incomplete. I guess I'm saying that words are in some measure insufficient to describe this process. 

 

There's multiple ways to look at Joseph's story. It could all be true. It could have been an elaborate con that Joseph embellished over time. Or maybe Paul was warning the church about something that could actually happen when he said "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel . . ." Isn't it possible that an angel could appear to someone, claim to be from heaven, and give them a "gospel"? Ultimately, the question isn't about whether or not Joseph actually saw an angel. The issue is whether or not the gospel he taught was from God.

Indeed. Just as there are multiple ways to look at a miraculous healing (the power of Beelzebub comes to mind) or to see the resurrection as a hoax. At the end of the day, it all comes down to knowing how to find truth because people question witnesses, as you have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not threatening God, nor giving Him an ultimatum. This is about you making a decision and then asking him for guidance.

That's what I have been doing. Why would adding 'Give me an answer or I won't pursue the church anymore' change anything? God already knows I've been asking and haven't received an answer.

 

 

Finding false teachings is important. However, it has been my experience that uncovering and being open to truth is the greater need. For example the other day I read a statement about reincarnation which said, "The soul of Elijah, after converting his physical body into luminous astral energy and ascending to heaven "in the whirlwind of a fiery chariot," remained in the astral land to be timely reincarnated as John the Baptist to witness for the divine mission his disciple Elisha, reincarnated as Jesus, was preordained to fulfill" (The Second Coming of Christ, The Resurrection of the Christ Within You, p 41-42) Now, some might compare this teaching to Christianity and point to Bible scriptures "proving" it as false. But how I come to know it is false is not by rejecting it out of hand because it is different. Rather, I look inward. How does this statement feel? Does it "taste" good to my spirit? Does it give light to my mind? On the other hand does it cause me unease and unquiet? By this process I recognize it as false.

 

Note: Words here are hard to come by. I say "feel" or "taste" and this is right to a point, but it still seems a little incomplete. I guess I'm saying that words are in some measure insufficient to describe this process.

Where does the Bible use any words even close to "feel" or "taste" when it talks about distinguishing truth from false teachings? There are plenty of passages that talk about false teachers, but I haven't seen any of them say anything like your feeling and tasting.

 

In Judges, one of the signs of apostasy was people doing what seemed right in their own eyes. I'm sure many Israelites thought worshiping idols felt and tasted right. Why would God want anyone to do what's right in their eyes when it went so bad for Israel? Why would God want you looking inward for the answer when He's already given revelation on the subject in the Bible?

 

What if the author of the Elijah/John teaching told you God has revealed to them that it is true and you can receive the same revelation of truth? You just need to keep reading that book with sincerity, have faith and keep praying about it. It may take years for you to see the truth and power of the reincarnation doctrine, but don't let that discourage you. There's so much you're missing out on if it's true. What would you say to him?

Edited by Jungler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I have been doing. Why would adding 'Give me an answer or I won't pursue the church anymore' change anything? God already knows I've been asking and haven't received an answer.

 I commend you for your efforts. It is more than most bother to do. I would say, ask one last time in sincerity, and cast pre-conceived notions away before you pray. Just try it. I have prayed that he would give you an answer tonight if you ask in earnestness. If your open and he doesn't respond, then I wish you well in this important search.   

Where does the Bible use any words even close to "feel" or "taste" when it talks about distinguishing truth from false teachings? There are plenty of passages that talk about false teachers, but I haven't seen any of them say anything like what your feeling and tasting.

Listen to Paul from Mars Hill, "That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring" (Acts 17:27-29). Or again speaking to the Hebrews, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come..." (Heb 6:4-5). Feel after him and taste the word he will speak to your heart. 

In Judges, one of the signs of apostasy was people doing what seemed right in their own eyes. I'm sure many Israelites thought worshiping idols felt and tasted right. Why would God want anyone to do what's right in their eyes when it went so bad for Israel? Why would God want you looking inward for the answer when He's already given revelation on the subject in the Bible?

You asked how the process works. I endeavored to explain it. The Bible can be misinterpreted in so many ways by the unenlightened. Just look at all the religions. If the Bible, without personal revelation, were conclusive we would have one Christian religion.

 

But you have more than my word on this subject, Jesus himself tells us to look inward, "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). Not only that but he tells the Jewish rulers, "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (John 5:39-40 ESV). Those scriptural scholars would not accept him while he was with them.

 

What if the author of the Elijah/John teaching told you God has revealed to them that it is true and you can receive the same revelation of truth? You just need to keep reading that book with sincerity, have faith and keep praying about it. It may take years for you to see the truth and power of the reincarnation doctrine, but don't let that discourage you. There's so much you're missing out on if it's true. What would you say to him?

If I had not received an answer I would keep what he has told me in my heart. I would not discount his words unless I knew otherwise. Moreover, if I did know and he told me to pray one last time you can bet I would do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I commend you for your efforts. It is more than most bother to do. I would say, ask one last time in sincerity, and cast pre-conceived notions away before you pray. Just try it. I have prayed that he would give you an answer tonight if you ask in earnestness. If your open and he doesn't respond, then I wish you well in this important search.

What pre-conceived notions? Could you give an example? I already have faith in the Bible and God. Can I keep any of those notions while I pray? Where is the line between what I should keep and what I should cast away?

 

 Listen to Paul from Mars Hill, "That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring" (Acts 17:27-29). Or again speaking to the Hebrews, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come..." (Heb 6:4-5). Feel after him and taste the word he will speak to your heart.

 

You asked how the process works. I endeavored to explain it. The Bible can be misinterpreted in so many ways by the unenlightened. Just look at all the religions. If the Bible, without personal revelation, were conclusive we would have one Christian religion.

 

But you have more than my word on this subject, Jesus himself tells us to look inward, "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). Not only that but he tells the Jewish rulers, "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (John 5:39-40 ESV). Those scriptural scholars would not accept him while he was with them.

Take a moment to look at a few other words from Christ on a different topic. "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Then in Luke, "Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box,and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins.And he said, 'Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on' " (21:1-3).

 

So Jesus taught repentance and financially supporting the church. Therefore, we can repent by financially supporting the church. The Catholics must have had it right when they were donating to the church to help pay for their sins, right? Of course, the repentance passage doesn't talk about tithing and the tithing passage doesn't talk about repentance, but why would that matter? Christ said both of those statements, so why couldn't we use them together like that?

 

If I had not received an answer I would keep what he has told me in my heart. I would not discount his words unless I knew otherwise. Moreover, if I did know and he told me to pray one last time you can bet I would do it. 

If you prayed about it one last time, would you also cast away pre-conceived notions? What notions would those be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What pre-conceived notions? Could you give an example? I already have faith in the Bible and God. Can I keep any of those notions while I pray? Where is the line between what I should keep and what I should cast away?

 I am talking about a state of mind, not a list of ideas you should keep in your head. There is a way to approach God. Here is how Jacob states it: 

And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and thier riches - yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them. (2 Ne 9:42, see also 1 Cor 3:18-20)

Take a moment to look at a few other words from Christ on a different topic. "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Then in Luke, "Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box,and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins.And he said, 'Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on' " (21:1-3).

 

So Jesus taught repentance and financially supporting the church. Therefore, we can repent by financially supporting the church. The Catholics must have had it right when they were donating to the church to help pay for their sins, right? Of course, the repentance passage doesn't talk about tithing and the tithing passage doesn't talk about repentance, but why would that matter? Christ said both of those statements, so why couldn't we use them together like that?

I am not stringing a list of scriptures together with no thought. I am trying to explain to you the process. But very well, continue as you have done.

If you prayed about it one last time, would you also cast away pre-conceived notions? What notions would those be?

As I explained above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I have been doing. Why would adding 'Give me an answer or I won't pursue the church anymore' change anything? God already knows I've been asking and haven't received an answer.

 

Where does the Bible use any words even close to "feel" or "taste" when it talks about distinguishing truth from false teachings? There are plenty of passages that talk about false teachers, but I haven't seen any of them say anything like your feeling and tasting.

 

In Judges, one of the signs of apostasy was people doing what seemed right in their own eyes. I'm sure many Israelites thought worshiping idols felt and tasted right. Why would God want anyone to do what's right in their eyes when it went so bad for Israel? Why would God want you looking inward for the answer when He's already given revelation on the subject in the Bible?

 

What if the author of the Elijah/John teaching told you God has revealed to them that it is true and you can receive the same revelation of truth? You just need to keep reading that book with sincerity, have faith and keep praying about it. It may take years for you to see the truth and power of the reincarnation doctrine, but don't let that discourage you. There's so much you're missing out on if it's true. What would you say to him?

 

I'd just like to again point out that you've again moved away from the initial charges against the Alma 32 methodology. Can I take it then that you acknowledge that Alma's methodology is internally consistent and viable on its own terms? Indeed, James has even witnessed that he uses it for extra-canonical teachings. By returning to the biblical argument, I take it that you see that God could hypothetically use this to teach truth, but you question whether it actually is a God-supported pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve talked to many Mormons over the past few years, but I’ve always been skeptical of their claims, including the doctrine of testing a faith or religion with prayer.

This seems an odd statement since no one can enter the Christian Faith without prayer??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I am talking about a state of mind, not a list of ideas you should keep in your head. There is a way to approach God. Here is how Jacob states it:

I still don't understand what you mean by that state of mind. I can't just ignore the elephant in the room. Obviously, I need to have faith in God while I pray, but I also have faith in my beliefs about salvation, heaven and the Bible which contradict your beliefs on those subjects. That faith is intricately interlinked just like your faith in God is linked with your faith in the Book of Mormon.

 

So what things was Jacob saying we should cast aside? The verse makes sense for an atheist praying, but what about someone who's spent years sincerely trying to follow God? Belief that God exists could certainly be described as "wisdom," but that same wisdom also supports my belief in salvation, heaven and the Bible. So again, where is the line between what I should keep and what I should cast away?

 

I am not stringing a list of scriptures together with no thought. I am trying to explain to you the process. But very well, continue as you have done.

I have no doubt you and many other LDS have put thought into this issue, but that's not the issue here. I'm sure the author of the reincarnation book also put a lot of thought into it. But no amount of thought will ever make a false teaching true. The question is whether or not God has those thoughts. Other than your feelings, tasting and looking inward, is there any evidence in the Bible that God has those thoughts?

 

Why is the indulgences doctrine just 'stringing scriptures together'? Repenting and tithing are both taught in the Bible. So why can't we conclude 'repenting + tithing = indulgences'? If that's unreasonable, how is 'prayer/feeling/tasting + testing teachers = truth' any better?

 

Of course it feels and tastes right to look inward. Where else do you think pride leads people? That's exactly what Lucifer wants you to do. He wants you looking anywhere but the Bible for guidance and truth. He wants you to feel like you're following God because the most effective lies have a lot of truth in them. With Lucifer roaming around seeking whom he may devour, we need an anchor a lot more reliable than human perception.

 

I'd just like to again point out that you've again moved away from the initial charges against the Alma 32 methodology. Can I take it then that you acknowledge that Alma's methodology is internally consistent and viable on its own terms? Indeed, James has even witnessed that he uses it for extra-canonical teachings. By returning to the biblical argument, I take it that you see that God could hypothetically use this to teach truth, but you question whether it actually is a God-supported pattern.

I started this thread because I didn't see how the "experiment" is a reliable and consistent method of testing truth claims, and that hasn't changed. Verses 30-32 say 'If the seed grows, it's good. If it doesn't grow, it's not good.' But it doesn't explain what that growth or lack of growth might look like.

 

As I said in the OP, Moroni 10 is also part of this. It seems to be saying if someone doesn't get a confirmation to the prayer, then they weren't praying with a sincere heart of have real intent. Mormons I've talked to have backed that implication up by saying I need to keep reading and praying. I tried planting the seed and it didn't grow, so doesn't that mean it's not good?

 

Has James really used it for extra-canonical teachings? Did he cast away fundamental LDS beliefs while he prayed about those teachings? I've seen quite a few Mormons say it may take years of reading and praying to receive a real answer. So unless he's been reading the reincarnation book for years, has he really used it for those other teachings?

 

Even if it was internally consistent, that doesn't mean it's consistent with the Bible. Why don't any Biblical authors describe finding God's truth as an 'experiment'? If it's true, then it's a crucial part of the foundation of faith. It would be one of the most important doctrines taught in the Bible. But it's not. At best, Biblical authors vaguely allude to that extremely important doctrine. How does that make sense? We know the gospel is extremely important because it's extremely emphasized. How can you claim this method of testing doctrine is extremely important when the Bible, at best, barely mentions it?

Edited by Jungler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand what you mean by that state of mind. I can't just ignore the elephant in the room. Obviously, I need to have faith in God while I pray, but I also have faith in my beliefs about salvation, heaven and the Bible which contradict your beliefs on those subjects. That faith is intricately interlinked just like your faith in God is linked with your faith in the Book of Mormon.

 

So what things was Jacob saying we should cast aside? The verse makes sense for an atheist praying, but what about someone who's spent years sincerely trying to follow God? Belief that God exists could certainly be described as "wisdom," but that same wisdom also supports my belief in salvation, heaven and the Bible. So again, where is the line between what I should keep and what I should cast away?

 When I ask God a question I do not worry about all my different beliefs. I just let God speak to me about the specific question at hand. I do not need to hold my understanding up as badges of recognition or even worry about them at that instant. If I did so I would get no answer because I would be too concerned about them rather than the answer to my question. 

 

Just drop all these worries for a moment and ask a sincere question. If you knew the answer you would not need to ask, so just listen, let the spirit speak as I have explained.   

I have no doubt you and many other LDS have put thought into this issue, but that's not the issue here. I'm sure the author of the reincarnation book also put a lot of thought into it. But no amount of thought will ever make a false teaching true. The question is whether or not God has those thoughts. Other than your feelings, tasting and looking inward, is there any evidence in the Bible that God has those thoughts?

 

Why is the indulgences doctrine just 'stringing scriptures together'? Repenting and tithing are both taught in the Bible. So why can't we conclude 'repenting + tithing = indulgences'? If that's unreasonable, how is 'prayer/feeling/tasting + testing teachers = truth' any better?

 

Of course it feels and tastes right to look inward. Where else do you think pride leads people? That's exactly what Lucifer wants you to do. He wants you looking anywhere but the Bible for guidance and truth. He wants you to feel like you're following God because the most effective lies have a lot of truth in them. With Lucifer roaming around seeking whom he may devour, we need an anchor a lot more reliable than human perception.

I do not know the truth about how to receive personal revelation from a string of scriptures. I know it because I have used it. Sure the scriptures testify of the process and helped lead me down the path but if I did not experience it I would not know. I give you the scriptures because you will not receive my word on the matter. 

 

Now to your next comment, Satan's temptations are external. They come through the body and the mortal mind. They lead to lust, pride, and other vices. God works from the inside out. He speaks to our spirit and then we change who we are. Do not confuse these two nor call spiritual guidance lies of Satan. I have felt both and I assure you I know the difference.

...Has James really used it for extra-canonical teachings? Did he cast away fundamental LDS beliefs while he prayed about those teachings? I've seen quite a few Mormons say it may take years of reading and praying to receive a real answer. So unless he's been reading the reincarnation book for years, has he really used it for those other teachings?

 

Even if it was internally consistent, that doesn't mean it's consistent with the Bible. Why don't any Biblical authors describe finding God's truth as an 'experiment'? If it's true, then it's a crucial part of the foundation of faith. It would be one of the most important doctrines taught in the Bible. But it's not. At best, Biblical authors vaguely allude to that extremely important doctrine. How does that make sense? We know the gospel is extremely important because it's extremely emphasized. How can you claim this method of testing doctrine is extremely important when the Bible, at best, barely mentions it?

I have of course used this method for many teachings. If I had not I would not be trying so hard to explain it to you. It is the way to receive personal revelation and find truth. If I did not have this it would be like searching in the dark at noon day. I have received answers regarding the atonement, prophets, specific LDS teachings, Buddhists teachings, Catholic teachings, the Holy Ghost, specific scriptures, and so many others. The process need not take years but instead can take moments. However, to one who is not open to the spirit it may take a lifetime and beyond.

Now I have tried to explain and explain. Have you bothered to ask God in sincerity? Or are we just having a discussion over meaningless words. The real test is in the doing. Jesus said, "If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself" (John 7:17). I say the same about the way to find truth. Test it and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started this thread because I didn't see how the "experiment" is a reliable and consistent method of testing truth claims, and that hasn't changed. Verses 30-32 say 'If the seed grows, it's good. If it doesn't grow, it's not good.' But it doesn't explain what that growth or lack of growth might look like.

 

And again, that was addressed early on.

 

 

1. Planting the Seed

a. The seed is the word (v28) or in other words a gospel truth (not faith).

b. We must give place in our heart for the seed, good or bad. At this stage we must not cast it out either way because of unbelief. Those who cast the seed out at this stage have not even given it chance to grow or not. They simply reject the word without any serious consideration.

c. If it is a good seed it will: enlarge your soul, enlighten your understanding, and begin to be delicious (end of v28). A bad seed will do no such thing, it will simply not grow at all (v32).

d.  At this stage the bad seed is cast away (end of v32). After having tested the word we can now cast it out because it is dead.

 

See 1c (vs 28) to see what that growth looks like. So far what I've heard is that there is no place in your heart for this seed, regardless of whether it's good or bad.

 

 

 

Even if it was internally consistent, that doesn't mean it's consistent with the Bible. Why don't any Biblical authors describe finding God's truth as an 'experiment'? If it's true, then it's a crucial part of the foundation of faith. It would be one of the most important doctrines taught in the Bible. But it's not. At best, Biblical authors vaguely allude to that extremely important doctrine. How does that make sense? We know the gospel is extremely important because it's extremely emphasized. How can you claim this method of testing doctrine is extremely important when the Bible, at best, barely mentions it?

 

If it's not internally consistent, then we don't even need to worry about the biblical concerns. On the other hand, my experience has been that those who have found the method reliable find that it gels nicely with biblical teachings. I would encourage you to undertake that exercise when (and only when) you've acknowledged the viability of the Alma methodology on its own merits.

 

As I said in the OP, Moroni 10 is also part of this. It seems to be saying if someone doesn't get a confirmation to the prayer, then they weren't praying with a sincere heart of have real intent. Mormons I've talked to have backed that implication up by saying I need to keep reading and praying. I tried planting the seed and it didn't grow, so doesn't that mean it's not good?

 

In that case, I wish you well on your faith journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Just drop all these worries for a moment and ask a sincere question. If you knew the answer you would not need to ask, so just listen, let the spirit speak as I have explained.

Okay, I read another chapter in the BoM last night and prayed about it. I did what you said. I wasn’t thinking about my own beliefs. I was just praying for God to show me if He had anything more to reveal to me. I asked if the BoM is true. I said multiple times I would move on and not ask anymore if I didn’t receive an answer. You know when you’re trying to fall asleep and either your mind wanders or it’s just blank? That’s the ‘answer’ I got. Nothingness. The seed did not grow. According to Alma 32, that means the seed is not good and should be cast away as a false teaching.

 

I do not know the truth about how to receive personal revelation from a string of scriptures. I know it because I have used it. Sure the scriptures testify of the process and helped lead me down the path but if I did not experience it I would not know. I give you the scriptures because you will not receive my word on the matter. 

The fact that you've used it does not mean it's reliable or from God. Where did the idea come from in the first place? The Bible talks about prayer and it talks about testing teachers by comparing their doctrine to scripture, but it does NOT talk about testing teachers with prayer. There’s no Bible verse that testifies of that process. If the apostles actually taught that process, wouldn’t it have been a major point in their letters? The process would be a huge part of the New Testament, but it’s not. Since you didn’t get the process from the Bible, where did you get it?

 

See 1c (vs 28) to see what that growth looks like. So far what I've heard is that there is no place in your heart for this seed, regardless of whether it's good or bad.

So a growing seed will enlarge my soul, enlighten my understanding and begin to be delicious. What? That sounds like it was written by a high school student who didn’t have anything substantive to say on a paper, so they just used a thesaurus to sound fancy. What does it mean to have your soul enlarged? How is a thought delicious? It sounds nice without saying much at all. Like I said, the passage doesn’t really explain what that growth looks like.

 

If it's not internally consistent, then we don't even need to worry about the biblical concerns. On the other hand, my experience has been that those who have found the method reliable find that it gels nicely with biblical teachings. I would encourage you to undertake that exercise when (and only when) you've acknowledged the viability of the Alma methodology on its own merits.

How does it gel with Biblical teachings when the Bible doesn’t teach us to test teachers with prayer?

 

In that case, I wish you well on your faith journey.

How can you just dodge that question? According to Alma 32, if I plant the seed and it doesn’t grow, then it’s not true. I prayed just like James asked me to and the seed didn’t grow. If the passage is consistent, that means it’s false.

 

Impossible. Human perception is all we have. We are human.

Right, but the difference comes in how you use that perception. Many people in the Old Testament thought it felt right to worship idols along with worshipping God. The Galatians thought it felt right to mix the gospel with the old covenant. In both cases, they could have used their perception to follow what God had already revealed, but they chose to look elsewhere. We can use our perception by following what the Bible says about testing teachers and doctrine with scripture or we can follow what the Book of Mormon says about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share