The Alma 32 Experiment

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

 

What you're saying, though you refuse to admit or accept it, is that we can follow what your human perception of what the Bible teaches, or we can follow what the Book of Mormon writer's human perception (as we Latter-day Saints perceive with our human perception) teaches us the Bible teaches.

 

There is no conflict between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. There is only conflict between your human perception of the Bible and the Book or Mormon.

[Jungler]

What you're saying, though you refuse to admit or accept it, is that we can follow what your human perception of what the Bible teaches, or we can follow what the Book of Mormon writer's human perception (as we Latter-day Saints perceive with our human perception) teaches us the Bible teaches.

 

There is no conflict between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. There is only conflict between your human perception of the Bible and the Book or Mormon.

Fine, where does the Bible say we're supposed to test teachers or doctrine with prayer? That would be an extremely important principle if it was true. Then why do the New Testament authors, at best, vaguely allude to it? Why don't the apostles mention it when they're spreading the gospel in Acts? I've heard Mormons refer to Protestants as modern Pharisees because we reject God's modern prophet like they rejected Christ. But where do the Apostles ask the Pharisees to pray to test their claims?

Edited September 6, 2014 by Jungler

[The Folk Prophet]

Fine, where does the Bible say we're supposed to test teachers or doctrine with prayer? That would be an extremely important principle if it was true. Then why do the New Testament authors, at best, vaguely allude to it? Why don't the apostles mention it when they're spreading the gospel in Acts? I've heard Mormons refer to Protestants as modern Pharisees because we reject God's modern prophet like they rejected Christ. But where do the Apostles ask the Pharisees to pray to test their claims?

 

Well, Matt 7:7 comes to mind. Also James 1:5. Although I suppose your perception of these scriptures will lead you to explain them away as meaning something entirely different.

 

You can call it vague allusion. It's hard to see James 1:5 as vague. It's pretty straightforward.

 

Either way...no conflict between these teachings and the Book of Mormon. None.

[Jungler]

James makes it clear he was writing to brothers in the faith who were experiencing persecution. It's not about testing teachers or doctrines. Just because a verse mentions prayer doesn't mean it supports the BoM. For it to support the BoM, it would need to talk about prayer being used to test teachers or doctrine. Why can't you quote a passage that actually talks about testing teachers or doctrine? Shouldn't those passages support the BoM? I've heard LDS quote 'by their fruit you will know them.' But again, that doesn't mention prayer as the test.

 

Okay, take Matt 7 at face value. Surely, God gives good gifts to people who ask Him. Then what about the millions of non-Mormons who are sincerely praying and trying to follow God? What good gift is God giving them? Some might say He's blessing them for the faith they do have, but that wouldn't be a good gift. If LDS doctrine is right, then Protestants are fooling themselves into thinking they're following the Gospel while they're really wasting their primary opportunity to prove themselves worthy in this grand test for eternal progression and exaltation. If your child refused to go to school, would you reward him for doing a few math problems? Of course not. Math is part of his education, but you wouldn't reward him when he's rejecting the rest of his education. That wouldn't be a good gift.

 

If Matt 7 really means that, then the LDS church would be the dominant denomination. The God would be leading the vast majority of people who are sincerely seeking Him to the LDS church. You might say they're not really sincere or seeking with real intent, but again, that's not in the Bible. If the Bible supported the BoM, it would do so without you needing to supplement it with BoM phrases.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Jungler

[Anddenex]

If the Bible supported the BoM, it would do so without you needing to supplement it with BoM phrases.

 

This reminds me of the conversations, the circular arguments from Protestants on my mission.

 

P: The BoM and the Bible are nothing alike.

 

M: The BoM and the Bible support each other as testaments of Jesus Christ teaching the same doctrines for the Salvation of men.

 

P: If they are the same then we don't need the BoM (wonderful circular arguments).

 

As long as ones mind is made up, nothing will be clear.  Why must the Bible and BoM conform to your interpretation of support?  Please tell me Jungler why I should accept your interpretation over others on this thread?  What makes your argument more valid?  Then answer, why I should trust you?  If you so say, don't trust me, trust the Bible, then please refer to circular arguments, because it is you who is making the supporting/negating argument of what the BoM must say to support the Bible -- what authority do you have that I should trust your judgement verses Folk Prophet, or Mordorbund, or others who have responded?

Edited September 6, 2014 by Anddenex

[Jungler]

When the Apostles were preaching the Gospel in Acts, they didn't tell people to sincerely pray with real intent to know it was true (Acts 3:15). When Paul was responding to the false teachings in Galatians, he told them to reject any gospel that was different than the one he taught (Gal 1:8). He didn't mention using prayer to distinguish truth from error. John taught the same principle when he was responding to false teachers. If you're questioning a teacher or doctrine, compare them to the doctrine in the Bible (1 John 4:1-3). Again, prayer isn't mentioned.

 

Fine, don't trust my interpretations. But can you give me a reason to trust your interpretations? Can you show me one verse in the Bible that teaches testing teachers or doctrine with prayer? If that teaching isn't in the Bible, then the Bible doesn't support the Book of Mormon.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Jungler

[The Folk Prophet]

It's an entirely logically deficient argument -- totally circular, and a frank waste of time to debate.

 

The fact that things aren't as explicit in the Bible is exactly why we need to Book of Mormon. It does little to prove that the Book of Mormon is wrong to point out that there is detail in the Book of Mormon that isn't in the Bible. We Mormons are well aware that the Book of Mormon provides clarity that the Bible lacks. Pointing out that something isn't in the Bible does little to persuade us.

 

That being said, asking to receive from God IS in the Bible. It's just less explicit. So...whatever...enjoy your interpretation Jungler.

[Jungler]

It's an entirely logically deficient argument -- totally circular, and a frank waste of time to debate.

 

The fact that things aren't as explicit in the Bible is exactly why we need to Book of Mormon. It does little to prove that the Book of Mormon is wrong to point out that there is detail in the Book of Mormon that isn't in the Bible. We Mormons are well aware that the Book of Mormon provides clarity that the Bible lacks. Pointing out that something isn't in the Bible does little to persuade us.

 

That being said, asking to receive from God IS in the Bible. It's just less explicit. So...whatever...enjoy your interpretation Jungler.

We're not talking about some secondary detail of an obscure teaching. If your view on prayer is true, it would be an extremely important doctrine, maybe more important than the gospel itself. It would be an explicit part of the Apostle's message. But it's not.

 

It's not mentioned when the Apostles are spreading the Gospel.

There are plenty of passages that talk about prayer, but none mention what would be prayer's most important function.

There are many passage about false teachers, but none mention using prayer to know who the true teachers are.

 

So either there was a huge conspiracy to meticulously remove all mentions of this extremely important doctrine from many passages and supporting early church communications . . . or the doctrine was never taught in the first place. Which one seems more reasonable?

 

Could you support your claim that it's taught in the Bible by listing a verse that mentions testing teachers or doctrine with prayer?

[estradling75]

Read what the bible says about prayer...  If you think the importance of prayer is "secondary" then we have a fundamental disconnect.

 

Read James 1:5  "If you lack wisdom ask of God who will give" How can it be more clear?  What is the most important thing we need wisdom on.   Learning the Gospel...  What does James promise God will do if we lack wisdom about the Gospel? He will give it to us when we pray.

 

That seem very clear... very basic... very fundamentally laid out in the bible.  So much so I would say anyone making the case that we should not pray is teaching a different gospel then what Paul and the other Apostles taught.

[Jungler]

When did I say prayer is secondary?

 

James makes it clear he was writing to brothers in the faith who were experiencing persecution. They needed wisdom on dealing with persecution, not on learning the Gospel. The passage is not about testing teachers or doctrines.

 

Just because a verse mentions prayer doesn't mean it supports the BoM. For it to support the BoM, it would need to talk about prayer being used to test teachers or doctrine. Why can't you quote a passage that actually talks about testing teachers or doctrine? Shouldn't those passages support the BoM? I've heard LDS quote 'by their fruit you will know them.' But again, that doesn't mention prayer as the test.

 

Plus, if prayer plays such a key role in learning what the true Gospel is, wouldn't the Apostles have mentioned prayer when they were preaching about the Gospel? Where in Acts did the Apostles tell people to pray to know what they were saying was true?

Edited September 7, 2014 by Jungler

[The Folk Prophet]

So either there was a huge conspiracy to meticulously remove all mentions of this extremely important doctrine from many passages and supporting early church communications . . . or the doctrine was never taught in the first place. Which one seems more reasonable?

 

If you know much about LDS teachings on the the great apostasy, then you know what we think it more reasonable.

[The Folk Prophet]

James makes it clear he was writing to brothers in the faith who were experiencing persecution. They needed wisdom on dealing with persecution, not on learning the Gospel. The passage is not about testing teachers or doctrines.

 

To qualify James this way is silly. If any of you lack wisdom...who giveth to all men liberally... You're translation of "unless you're seeking wisdom concerning the truthfulness of scripture or false prophets. In that case don't ask God" is honestly baffling.

 

Just because a verse mentions prayer doesn't mean it supports the BoM. For it to support the BoM, it would need to talk about prayer being used to test teachers or doctrine. Why can't you quote a passage that actually talks about testing teachers or doctrine? 

 

What, exactly, do you think seeking wisdom means? Seriously, your logic is pretty twisted and biased here.

Edited September 7, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[james12]

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.

 

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?

The Lord will answer in his own time when you are ready. But it appears not be now. You will come to know that the Book of Mormon contains the word of the Lord and that Joseph was his prophet, but when that will be I do not know. Until such a day I say remain open to the promptings of the spirit that will guide you in the ways of truth and salvation. I have appreciated our discussion and wish you the best as you continue to progress in your devotion to God.

[Jungler]

The Lord will answer in his own time when you are ready. But it appears not be now. You will come to know that the Book of Mormon contains the word of the Lord and that Joseph was his prophet, but when that will be I do not know. Until such a day I say remain open to the promptings of the spirit that will guide you in the ways of truth and salvation. I have appreciated our discussion and wish you the best as you continue to progress in your devotion to God.

What happened to Alma 32? I planted the seed and it didn't grow. So according to verse 32, the seed is bad. What about my other question? Why do you insist on falling back on an epistemology that's not taught in the Bible?

 

If you know much about LDS teachings on the the great apostasy, then you know what we think it more reasonable.

So it's reasonable to just assume an extremely important teaching was lost from multiple passages and letters between early church members? That's a very dim view of God's protection. Christ and the New Testament authors were very confident in the scriptures they had. They freely quoted from many passages and didn't need to restore any scripture or teachings that had been lost. Since they trusted that God had preserved His words for 2000-3000 years, why can't we have the same faith that God has preserved His words for the last 2000 years?

 

To qualify James this way is silly. If any of you lack wisdom...who giveth to all men liberally... You're translation of "unless you're seeking wisdom concerning the truthfulness of scripture or false prophets. In that case don't ask God" is honestly baffling.

 

 

What, exactly, do you think seeking wisdom means? Seriously, your logic is pretty twisted and biased here.

Can we agree that James wasn't writing to people in modern times or to people who weren't in the faith? That would mean the "you" was being addressed to a limited group of people. Of course, people today can still be part of that faith, so they can apply these teachings to themselves. But that doesn't mean the "you" can be applied to everyone on earth.

 

But do you really believe God gives to ALL men liberally? What about the people in the early church and the next 1700 years who were sincerely seeking wisdom from God? What did God give to them? I've followed the direction of many Mormons by reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it, but God hasn't confirmed it. What has he given me?

 

The fact is we both put certain limitations and qualifications on the "all men" phrase. The verse simply doesn't give us enough details to know either way. If that verse was all we had, I would probably be a Mormon by now. But it's not all we have. There are other verses that give more insight into how we can know what the true Gospel is. So why do you insist on quoting from a few vague verses and ignoring the verses that actually address the subject or give examples of the subject?

Edited September 7, 2014 by Jungler

[estradling75]

Why is it so hard to accept the plan text reading of James?  Was James not a preacher/apostle like Paul?  Would he not know exactly what he was talking about when he wrote it?  Are not his words scriptures?

 

The only reason you dislike James is because his words counter your interpretation.  Thus you must claim him to be wrong.  Either James knew what he meant when he said God would answer someone that seeks wisdom and asks.  Or James lied and God will not answer.  You are the one making the case that James can't be trusted that he lied that the scripture contains falsehoods.  Are you sure you wish to continue that line of reasoning?

 

On the flipside.  None of us have denied Paul's word or their truthfulness.  We simply point out that we don't have everything that Paul taught.  We only have what survived and was deemed important several hundred years later

[The Folk Prophet]

So it's reasonable to just assume an extremely important teaching was lost from multiple passages and letters between early church members? That's a very dim view of God's protection. Christ and the New Testament authors were very confident in the scriptures they had. They freely quoted from many passages and didn't need to restore any scripture or teachings that had been lost. Since they trusted that God had preserved His words for 2000-3000 years, why can't we have the same faith that God has preserved His words for the last 2000 years?

 

Yep. It must surely be that all Mormons just lack faith. Yeah. That's it.

 

 

Can we agree that James wasn't writing to people in modern times or to people who weren't in the faith? That would mean the "you" was being addressed to a limited group of people. Of course, people today can still be part of that faith, so they can apply these teachings to themselves. But that doesn't mean the "you" can be applied to everyone on earth.

 

If I agreed with this interpretation I wouldn't be a Mormon. Of course we can't agree on that.

 

I very much believe that the "you" can be applied to everyone on earth, and find it ridiculous that anyone would argue otherwise.

 

 

But do you really believe God gives to ALL men liberally? What about the people in the early church and the next 1700 years who were sincerely seeking wisdom from God? What did God give to them? I've followed the direction of many Mormons by reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it, but God hasn't confirmed it. What has he given me?

 

The fact is we both put certain limitations and qualifications on the "all men" phrase. The verse simply doesn't give us enough details to know either way. If that verse was all we had, I would probably be a Mormon by now. But it's not all we have. There are other verses that give more insight into how we can know what the true Gospel is. So why do you insist on quoting from a few vague verses and ignoring the verses that actually address the subject or give examples of the subject?

 

Sorry Jungler, but I don't believe for a second that you've taken the steps of humility and sincerity in asking to truly test these things. Your claims that you have are insubstantial. Your very stance shows resistance, pride, bitterness, and antagonism concerning the matter. It will not be useful to debate this matter, obviously, since personal experience is subjective to the individual, but your claim that you've tested it and that proves the test false holds no weight whatsoever.

 

This is not a sociological experiment. It doesn't matter how many others claim any given thing. Other's perception and experience is irrelevant. Each of our journeys with God is between us and Him. If you don't agree that this method is valid, the be off and go on with your view. Stop trying to convince those of us that know what we've experienced that it is invalid. It is rude. It is offensive. And it is a waste of time.

 

God giveth to all men liberally as they humble themselves and truly seek him. I know that is true. If you continue to truly seek Him and are honest in your heart with Him, He will lead you to the same place He has led me. If you don't believe that, fine. You have that right. Enjoy it. But please stop attacking and criticizing the beliefs of those of us who do find it valid.

[Jungler]

Why is it so hard to accept the plan text reading of James?  Was James not a preacher/apostle like Paul?  Would he not know exactly what he was talking about when he wrote it?  Are not his words scriptures?

 

The only reason you dislike James is because his words counter your interpretation.  Thus you must claim him to be wrong.  Either James knew what he meant when he said God would answer someone that seeks wisdom and asks.  Or James lied and God will not answer.  You are the one making the case that James can't be trusted that he lied that the scripture contains falsehoods.  Are you sure you wish to continue that line of reasoning?

 

On the flipside.  None of us have denied Paul's word or their truthfulness.  We simply point out that we don't have everything that Paul taught.  We only have what survived and was deemed important several hundred years later

Whoa, slow down. I never said anything like 'James was wrong' or 'I dislike James' or 'James can't be trusted.' Can you respond to what I've actually said about James?

 

Yep. It must surely be that all Mormons just lack faith. Yeah. That's it.

Again, I didn't say that. It's just a question. Since Christ and the NT authors trusted that their scriptures were complete and accurate, why can't we have the same faith about our scriptures? Yes, that's it.

 

If I agreed with this interpretation I wouldn't be a Mormon. Of course we can't agree on that.

 

I very much believe that the "you" can be applied to everyone on earth, and find it ridiculous that anyone would argue otherwise.

So why did James address his letter to the "twelve tribes" in verse 1? Are the opening greetings in the New Testament books useless? Should we just ignore them and assume everything was written to everyone?

 

Isn't the point of interpretation to figure out what the author really meant when they wrote those words? We can't start by asking 'What does this mean to me?' Protestants deal with this problem as well. There's too many people just looking at a passage and saying 'This is saying X to me.' That's one of the main reasons why there's so much disagreement about what the Bible teaches.

 

No one alive today is part of the twelve tribes. So how could the "you" be referring to modern people? How does that make sense?

 

Sorry Jungler, but I don't believe for a second that you've taken the steps of humility and sincerity in asking to truly test these things. Your claims that you have are insubstantial. Your very stance shows resistance, pride, bitterness, and antagonism concerning the matter. It will not be useful to debate this matter, obviously, since personal experience is subjective to the individual, but your claim that you've tested it and that proves the test false holds no weight whatsoever.

This kind of response is a big part of why I started this thread. In the first post, I was asking why it sounds like the BoM is blaming someone if they don't receive a 'yes' to the prayer. People were quick to respond and assure me I was reading the text wrong, so I backed off. But now here you are blaming me for not receiving the right answer. It's a rigged experiment. God reaches out to us. He doesn't ignore our prayer if our motives don't exactly line up correctly.

 

You can believe whatever you want about me, but it won't change the fact that I have sincerely prayed and asked God. But my question was about more than me. Are you saying the LDS church is the only church with people sincerely trying to follow God? Are they part of the 'all men' that God gives wisdom to or not? It almost sounds like your whole faith system depending on the idea that Mormons are more faithful and sincere than everyone else. Do you see how that could be seen as prideful?

 

Again, why do you insist on quoting from a few vague verses and ignoring the verses that actually address the subject or give examples of the subject? I've responded to James 1:5 and explained what I believe it's saying. Can you at least explain your interpretation of some other verses? How should we apply 1 John 4:1-3, Gal. 1:8 and Acts 3:15 to the issue of knowing what teachers to trust?

Edited September 8, 2014 by Jungler

[Traveler]

First – I do not have the time to read through all this thread.  Sorry. 

 

As a scientist and individual trained to deal with rhetorical logic as applied to empirical evidence I would add some thoughts.  I am often bewildered how individuals looking at the exact same evidence so often come up with divergent conclusions.  But the reality is that we know how this happens and have documented this occurring.  

 

The problem is that divergent results are caused by one of the following:

1.  A faulty premise – In mathematics we call this “given” parameters.

2. Flawed methodology.

 

I have observed that often individuals arriving at flawed conclusions will not appreciate corrections – regardless of how badly flawed their premise or methodology.   I believe this is most often caused by some innate predisposition or proclivity for a particular result.  In short we have our paradigm and tend to ignore anything that contradicts or seems to contradict the paradigm.   Thus we tend to assume any divergence from our paradigm contains a flaw.  This is despite the fact that we may have access to much better, or dare I say – a divine paradigm.   I submit that for this reason the Jews (being the most trusted covenant humans by G-d and the peoples through whom the scriptures came) rejected Christ the very Son of G-d.   In Luke chapter 3 we see the arch type of flawed logic as Satan tempts Jesus by quoting scripture.

 

In the Book of Mormon the prophet Alma suggests an experiment.  The ancient notion of finding the reconciliation of man with G-d through the symbolic planting of a seed which is also outlined carefully by Christ as he points out that there is more than one way to fail this experiment in the famous parable of the sower.  Not all planted seeds produce fruit.   The other great problem is that many have preconceived notions of what fruit is or ought to be. 

 

Of one thing I am quite sure – those that cannot differentiate the false or counterfeit fruit from the genuine most likely have substituted their desired counterfeit conclusion for genuine article.  The same logic applies for those that claim there is in reality only counterfeit (meaning differing copies of the genuine article) and no actual genuine article.

[Anddenex]

When the Apostles were preaching the Gospel in Acts, they didn't tell people to sincerely pray with real intent to know it was true (Acts 3:15). When Paul was responding to the false teachings in Galatians, he told them to reject any gospel that was different than the one he taught (Gal 1:8). He didn't mention using prayer to distinguish truth from error. John taught the same principle when he was responding to false teachers. If you're questioning a teacher or doctrine, compare them to the doctrine in the Bible (1 John 4:1-3). Again, prayer isn't mentioned.

 

Fine, don't trust my interpretations. But can you give me a reason to trust your interpretations? Can you show me one verse in the Bible that teaches testing teachers or doctrine with prayer? If that teaching isn't in the Bible, then the Bible doesn't support the Book of Mormon.

 

Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened up unto you, seek and ye shall find.  I love plain and simple teachings in scriptures.  Alma 32 is exactly this.  To seek, to knock and then to ask.  

 

Matthew 21: 22-- "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, ye shall receive.  Seems pretty clear to support Moroni 10: 3-5.  

 

Paul's words are great and they are spoken in truth and I know that once again the gospel which Paul is referring to is once again upon the earth.  We live in great times to once again be lead by servants of the Lord like unto Paul, like unto Peter, James and John.  

 

Pigeonholing the Lord to a personal desire for a witness will never allow a person to recognize truth.  Are you able to provide any evidence from scripture that if there isn't a likeness "of testing" (while ignoring other likenesses) of your personal interpretation as the way it should be, thus saying it is false (without your personal interpretation)?  You see how easy it is to pigeonhole an answer that can not be produced to confirm personal bias.  

 

Correct, I have no valid or good reason to trust your interpretation of the bible, and what you say should or should not be, as you are a man (arm of flesh).  Heck no, I am a man -- not God -- there is no reason for you to trust me (arm of flesh); however, you can trust God and God answers prayers as he has mine.  I expect, what any God fearing man professes to believe in -- trust God who answers prayers -- Matthew 21: 22-- "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, ye shall receive.  Seems pretty clear to support Moroni 10: 3-5.  Or maybe, like others you might pigeonhole this also by saying, well the Bible doesn't specifically say to pray about a book -- but I don't know. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Since Christ and the NT authors trusted that their scriptures were complete and accurate..

 

Since when? I defy you to prove that Christ and the NT authors believed they had "complete and accurate" scriptures.

 

No one alive today is part of the twelve tribes. So how could the "you" be referring to modern people? How does that make sense?

 

Apparently you are unaware that we also believe that there are, very much alive today, those who are part of the twelve tribes. But that is irrelevant. We read the scriptures to liken them unto ourselves. The message is for our day as much as it was for those the messages were directly given to. If not so, then what's the point in even having them. None of them were literally written to me. So I can simply disregard all therein? No. Of course not. the messages are universal.

 

This kind of response is a big part of why I started this thread. In the first post, I was asking why it sounds like the BoM is blaming someone if they don't receive a 'yes' to the prayer. People were quick to respond and assure me I was reading the text wrong, so I backed off. But now here you are blaming me for not receiving the right answer. It's a rigged experiment. God reaches out to us. He doesn't ignore our prayer if our motives don't exactly line up correctly

 

First of all, God never ignores our prayers. I'm quite positive He did not ignore yours either. Now whether we hear His answer or not...that's an entirely different matter.

 

I am telling you what I believe about my experience and about the promises of God.

 

The idea behind the experiment has been thoroughly discussed. It's very plain. You can't plant tomatoes and expect to harvest pumpkins. If you don't water the garden, it doesn't grow. If you don't weed it the weeds choke the fruit. It's not even an experiment. It's just reality. If you don't do what you need to to reap the fruit of the spirit then you won't reap the fruit of the spirit. Because your garden didn't produce the fruit you were expecting your blaming the garden. We're simply saying you did something wrong then. Try again. This time, weed the garden better. Don't forget to water it. And don't plant tomatoes if you want pumpkins. The idea that your garden didn't render any fruit is no evidence whatsoever.

 

You can believe whatever you want about me, but it won't change the fact that I have sincerely prayed and asked God. But my question was about more than me. Are you saying the LDS church is the only church with people sincerely trying to follow God? Are they part of the 'all men' that God gives wisdom to or not? It almost sounds like your whole faith system depending on the idea that Mormons are more faithful and sincere than everyone else. Do you see how that could be seen as prideful?

 

Whether you view Mormon ideology as prideful or not is irrelevant. It is also not persuasive. But this is not the position of the LDS church (or mine). There are, certainly, sincere people outside the LDS church. Sincerity is not the entire equation, however. Moreover, God's interaction with each of us is individual. He works with us according to our needs, not according to our mortal views of things. Some get answers easier than others. I don't know why. God does. I trust in Him. I also know that if you continue to seek to know if the Book of Mormon is true or not, eventually you'll know that it is. God will answer you. He has promised He will and He will. But for some it takes a greater trial of faith. That fact does not render the experiment false. And when you receive the answer, if you continue to seek for it, you'll know I'm right.

 

Again, why do you insist on quoting from a few vague verses and ignoring the verses that actually address the subject or give examples of the subject? I've responded to James 1:5 and explained what I believe it's saying. Can you at least explain your interpretation of some other verses? How should we apply 1 John 4:1-3, Gal. 1:8 and Acts 3:15 to the issue of knowing what teachers to trust?

 

Hmm...I wasn't aware I was being challenged to explain my interpretations of other verses. You asked for supporting Biblical scriptures concerning praying for answers to test scripture. I (and others) gave you James 1:5 as one of those. But...okay...

 

1 John 4:1-3

I agree. Any spirit that confesses not Jesus Christ is anti-Christ. How is this relevant to praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true?

 

Gal 1:8

Clearly we have a fundamental difference as to our ideas of what gospel is being taught that is contrary to what was being preached.

 

Acts 3:15

Um..."And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from thedead; whereof we are witnesses." ???

[The Folk Prophet]

One other point on the Alma 32 experiment in general. It was not an experiment given to test the validity of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon didn't exist. It was a general experiment given to validate the word of God. This includes, most definately, the Bible.

 

So I have to ask you Jungler. How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? Seriously. By what means are you positive that the Bible is true and not made up, rambling philosophies of men? Did you not experiment upon it? Did you not feel the fruit of it grow within you? Were you able to assess, therefore, that the word was good, and should not be cast aside, but nourished? And as you nourished it, were you not then able to partake of the fruit and know of it's goodness, and thereby declare, "This is God's word"?

Edited September 8, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

Whoa, slow down. I never said anything like 'James was wrong' or 'I dislike James' or 'James can't be trusted.' Can you respond to what I've actually said about James?

 

 

Because the only time I have ever seen anyone decline the plan and simple saring you in the face words as written, is when they did not believe or otherwise doubt.  That is when they feel the need to justify a different reading or interpretation of the plain text meanings.

 

We simply accept that James means exactly what it says.  In fact it could easily be read as a commandment.

 

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God."  Seriously it is a very simple and easily to understand command.  A command the LDS follow but you are twisting very hard to try to get out of or not do.

[Jungler]

Thus we tend to assume any divergence from our paradigm contains a flaw.  This is despite the fact that we may have access to much better, or dare I say – a divine paradigm.

Agreed. The issue is where we get that divine paradigm. What does the Bible say that paradigm should be? What direction does the Bible give us on how to tell the difference between true and false teachers?

 

Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened up unto you, seek and ye shall find.  I love plain and simple teachings in scriptures.  Alma 32 is exactly this.  To seek, to knock and then to ask.  

 

Matthew 21: 22-- "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, ye shall receive.  Seems pretty clear to support Moroni 10: 3-5.  

 

Paul's words are great and they are spoken in truth and I know that once again the gospel which Paul is referring to is once again upon the earth.  We live in great times to once again be lead by servants of the Lord like unto Paul, like unto Peter, James and John.  

As always, we need to look at the verse in context.

 

Matt. 21

¹⁸ In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry. ¹⁹ And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once.

²⁰ When the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” ²¹ And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. ²² And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”

 

Basically, Jesus performed a miracle and the disciples asked how He did it. Jesus says if they have faith, they could even throw a mountain into the sea. If they ask for something in prayer, they will receive it. So the passage is talking about how God can do miracles through us if we have faith. If someone gets to the point of miracles, I think it's safe to say they already have the right Gospel. There's nothing in this passage that suggests anything about praying to test teachers or doctrine.

 

So my question still stands. Can you show me one verse in the Bible that teaches testing teachers or doctrine with prayer? If that teaching isn't in the Bible, then the Bible doesn't support the Book of Mormon.

 

Since when? I defy you to prove that Christ and the NT authors believed they had "complete and accurate" scriptures.

Just think of all the times the Christ and the NT authors quoted from their scriptures. Did they ever add any books or passages of scripture that had been lost? Did they ever correct any of the current manuscripts of scripture at the time? Did they ever restore scripture like Joseph Smith started to do with with the JST? If they doubted the accuracy of the scriptures at all, they certainly didn't act like it.

 

There are also quite verses that say God preserves His words. Can you give any reason I should doubt those and not take them at face value?

 

Apparently you are unaware that we also believe that there are, very much alive today, those who are part of the twelve tribes. But that is irrelevant. We read the scriptures to liken them unto ourselves. The message is for our day as much as it was for those the messages were directly given to. If not so, then what's the point in even having them. None of them were literally written to me. So I can simply disregard all therein? No. Of course not. the messages are universal.

Okay, I'll ask this a different way. Can we agree that there are milk passages and meat passages in scripture? There are passages useful for sharing your faith with non-believers and there are passages that are written more to believers who already have faith. So how do we know what's a milk passage and what's meat? 

 

The idea behind the experiment has been thoroughly discussed. It's very plain. You can't plant tomatoes and expect to harvest pumpkins. If you don't water the garden, it doesn't grow. If you don't weed it the weeds choke the fruit. It's not even an experiment. It's just reality. If you don't do what you need to to reap the fruit of the spirit then you won't reap the fruit of the spirit. Because your garden didn't produce the fruit you were expecting your blaming the garden. We're simply saying you did something wrong then. Try again. This time, weed the garden better. Don't forget to water it. And don't plant tomatoes if you want pumpkins. The idea that your garden didn't render any fruit is no evidence whatsoever.

I don't think I was expecting anything, at least not consciously. Should I be expecting something while I pray? Moroni 10 is a little unclear on if we're supposed to expect a specific response or not. What do you mean by weeding and watering?

 

But for some it takes a greater trial of faith. That fact does not render the experiment false.

I've heard responses like that before and I don't understand what it means. What do you mean by 'faith'? Faith in who or what? I already have faith in God and the Bible. What good does it do to tell someone they need to have faith when they already have faith?

 

Hmm...I wasn't aware I was being challenged to explain my interpretations of other verses. You asked for supporting Biblical scriptures concerning praying for answers to test scripture. I (and others) gave you James 1:5 as one of those. But...okay...

 

1 John 4:1-3

I agree. Any spirit that confesses not Jesus Christ is anti-Christ. How is this relevant to praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true?

 

Gal 1:8

Clearly we have a fundamental difference as to our ideas of what gospel is being taught that is contrary to what was being preached.

 

Acts 3:15

Um..."And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from thedead; whereof we are witnesses." ???

1 John 4:1-3

The point is John didn't tell them to pray to test the spirits. He said they were supposed to test them by comparing the teachings with other doctrine. Verses 2-3 mention a specific doctrine because he was responding to a specific false teaching. But verse 1 also makes it clear it can be used as a general model to test teachers or doctrine. If there is some doubt whether something is from God, compare it to the doctrine we already have from God, like the Bible. Again, it doesn't mention prayer. John's method of testing doctrine is completely different from the method taught in the BoM.

 

Gal. 1:8

Firstly, it's key that Paul puts himself and every other apostle under the authority of the gospel. No one, not even an apostle or an angel has the authority to teach a different gospel.

 

Secondly, Paul makes it clear we should reject anyone who teaches a gospel different than the one Paul taught. Again, prayer isn't part of the process. Just like with John's model, we compare a teaching with the doctrine we already have from God. Yes, we don't have the text of what Paul originally taught the Galatians. But Paul spent the rest of the book reviewing in depth the gospel, so it's safe to say we have the text of what he taught, and prayer was not part of the process to know it was true.

 

Acts 3:15

This is one of many examples from Acts. Look at how the Apostles taught the gospel. They told people Christ died and came back to life. This was a bold claim, but they simply expected people to trust them as eyewitnesses. They didn't ask people to pray to know it was true.

 

That's how the Apostles taught the gospel. So what are we supposed to do when someone shows up claiming to be a modern prophet, but preaches the gospel in a way that none of the apostles preached? Why should we trust anything that "prophet" says when he asks us to do something that none of the apostles asked people to do? The apostles did not tell people to pray to test teachers or doctrine. Please, explain where you got the idea.

 

So I have to ask you Jungler. How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? Seriously. By what means are you positive that the Bible is true and not made up, rambling philosophies of men? Did you not experiment upon it? Did you not feel the fruit of it grow within you? Were you able to assess, therefore, that the word was good, and should not be cast aside, but nourished? And as you nourished it, were you not then able to partake of the fruit and know of it's goodness, and thereby declare, "This is God's word"?

I've grown up going to church for as long as I can remember. When I was younger, I just assumed it was true because most of the people in my life said it was. Since then, I've read articles and books on the reliability of the Bible. I've seen how God has worked in my life and the lives around me.

[Jungler]

Because the only time I have ever seen anyone decline the plan and simple saring you in the face words as written, is when they did not believe or otherwise doubt.  That is when they feel the need to justify a different reading or interpretation of the plain text meanings.

 

We simply accept that James means exactly what it says.  In fact it could easily be read as a commandment.

 

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God."  Seriously it is a very simple and easily to understand command.  A command the LDS follow but you are twisting very hard to try to get out of or not do.

Isn't it possible for someone to interpret a passage different than you without believing the passage is wrong? There are plenty of protestants who disagree with you on various passages, but they don't assume those authors were wrong.

 

We're talking about a letter that was written almost 2000 years ago in a different language to a very different culture. How can you expect to understand what it means just by reading the text?

 

Can we agree that there are milk passages and meat passages in scripture? There are passages useful for sharing your faith with non-believers and there are passages that are written more to believers who already have faith. So how do we know what's a milk passage and what's meat?

Edited September 8, 2014 by Jungler

[The Folk Prophet]

Jungler, you can't prove anything by absence. Absence of something does not prove it. Clearly, and very obviously, not every teaching ever given by every apostle and even by the Savior Himself was recorded. We simply don't have a day to day record of everything they ever said. Moreover, as indicated, the LDS stance is very firm that there are missing teachings and doctrines from the Bible. So your saying, repeatedly, that something or another is not in the Bible doesn't hold much sway. We agree. It's not all in the Bible. Where we disagree is in your thinking that the Bible was maintained with all the core, important doctrines that God intended us to have. We also disagree on how God preserves His word and the meaning of those passages in the Bible. The Book of Mormon is, in our view, an answer to how God does just that.

 

Okay, I'll ask this a different way. Can we agree that there are milk passages and meat passages in scripture? There are passages useful for sharing your faith with non-believers and there are passages that are written more to believers who already have faith. So how do we know what's a milk passage and what's meat? 

 

Apparently, it's according to Protestant interpretation. :)

 

How do we know what's milk and meat according to LDS teachings. By the words of supporting witnesses, both in the form of additional scripture and living prophets and apostles.

 

I don't think I was expecting anything, at least not consciously. Should I be expecting something while I pray? Moroni 10 is a little unclear on if we're supposed to expect a specific response or not. What do you mean by weeding and watering?

 

Why would you not expect an answer when you pray? I'm not sure how it's unclear. "...and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." Does this not imply that we should expect a specific response from the Holy Ghost?

 

By weeding and watering I am only making an analogy. Specifically, humility and sincerity. Remembering God's mercy. Trusting Him implicitly. Letting go of ourselves, our own wills, our own biases and perceptions and giving ourselves entirely over to Him and His will and His guidance, with absolute intent that we will follow what we are given.

 

1 John 4:1-3

The point is John didn't tell them to pray to test the spirits. He said they were supposed to test them by comparing the teachings with other doctrine. Verses 2-3 mention a specific doctrine because he was responding to a specific false teaching. But verse 1 also makes it clear it can be used as a general model to test teachers or doctrine. If there is some doubt whether something is from God, compare it to the doctrine we already have from God, like the Bible. Again, it doesn't mention prayer. John's method of testing doctrine is completely different from the method taught in the BoM.

 

Gal. 1:8

Firstly, it's key that Paul puts himself and every other apostle under the authority of the gospel. No one, not even an apostle or an angel has the authority to teach a different gospel.

 

Secondly, Paul makes it clear we should reject anyone who teaches a gospel different than the one Paul taught. Again, prayer isn't part of the process. Just like with John's model, we compare a teaching with the doctrine we already have from God. Yes, we don't have the text of what Paul originally taught the Galatians. But Paul spent the rest of the book reviewing in depth the gospel, so it's safe to say we have the text of what he taught, and prayer was not part of the process to know it was true.

 

Acts 3:15

This is one of many examples from Acts. Look at how the Apostles taught the gospel. They told people Christ died and came back to life. This was a bold claim, but they simply expected people to trust them as eyewitnesses. They didn't ask people to pray to know it was true.

 

I started with this, but absence of something proves nothing. The fact that prayer as a test was not specifically mentioned in these instances doesn't prove it a false concept.

 

The entire comparison to other doctrines model makes no logical sense at all. Talk about a weak test. You'll know this is true because it matches this other thing. But what about this other thing? How do you know it's true? Oh...it matches the first. Circular logic anyone? Without a source validation, I'm afraid, I can't even accept the Bible, not to mention the Book of Mormon. Just because some guy who claimed to be a prophet said something and then some other guy believed him and so he said the same thing...sorry, that is not proof. I don't disagree with the idea entirely. The doctrines must support Christ. If they don't, they are anti-Christ. But even the knowledge that Christ is Christ needs to come from something more substantial than that some book written thousands of years ago says so, and then it was parroted by others again and again. A bunch of people saying something does not render truth. Not in the least.

 

Without prayer, how can I know the Bible is true? Pretend I'm a Muslim or Hindu. How are you going to convince me that the Bible isn't a bunch of made up stories without prayer? I'm curious how you think you could possibly do this.

 

I've grown up going to church for as long as I can remember. When I was younger, I just assumed it was true because most of the people in my life said it was.

 

Ah...yes...assumption. That's a valid test of truth. 

 

Since then, I've read articles and books on the reliability of the Bible.

 

You've read books showing, reliably, that Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, raised people from the dead, and was resurrected Himself? What reliable evidence did they give for these facts? Moreover, what evidence did they have that proved what He taught was true. Reliable evidence that a man existed doesn't prove his words true. There's plenty of reliable evidence that Joseph Smith lived. Does that make the teaching in the Doctrine and Covenants true? There's evidence Muhammad lived too. Does that make the Qur'an, true?

 

How many books have you read on the foolishness of the Bible? You know it has talking donkeys, right?

 

I've seen how God has worked in my life and the lives around me.

 

Oh...wait...you've seen how God worked in your life. Wait a minute...isn't that the Alma 32 experiment at play?

Edited September 8, 2014 by The Folk Prophet