The Alma 32 Experiment

[Anddenex]

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?

 

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.”

 

Correct, and even in context this passage of scripture supports Moroni 10: 3-5.

[estradling75]

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.

 

 

 

Exactly...  LDS interpret some scriptures differently.  Yet you seek us out to tell us we are wrong.  When I mirror your behavior back to you, you see the inherit problem.  You don't get to claim a separate set of rules and conditions for your belief and actions then try to hold us to a different set. 

 

The question becomes whose interpretation is right... and that is a question everyone has a different opinion on.  Why should we trust yours over the ones we have?  We have the same source material we have the same ability to pray and study.  The only real different becomes the opinion of men.  I'll go with what God tells me over that any day.

 

Now you asked why Alma 32 failed for you.  Some people have given their thoughts... I'll now give mine.  Any experiment requires the control of variables that effect the out come.  IE if you want the same result you have to have the control the variables in the same way.  If we have the parameters for a plant growth experiment and we decide to try to reproduce it we can only expect the same results if we control the same variables.  For example if the experiment calls for a certain amount of water and you choose to not use any water it would be clear and obvious that you will not get the same result.

 

Alma knew this.  He gave a list of variables that needed to be controlled.  One of those was don't cast the seed out because of unbelief.  I think that is exactly what you did.  Every post you have made here has shown you have already made up your mind, that for you the Book of Mormon is false.  Well guess what, that means you cast the seed out.  It doesn't matter how much you might water or tend the ground if it is barren.

 

James also backs this up requiring us to ask in faith.  Doubt and unbelief is the opposite of Faith.  The Alma 32 experiment ran as good as it could when face with your unbelief.  However you also clearly state that you have felt God moving in your life.  This means you have successfully planted other seeds and gotten them to grow.  So the Alma 32 experiment clearly does work for you when you ground is not barren on the subject.

[Traveler]

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?

 

....

 

I would answer in the same manner I would answer an empirical question by my scientific or mathematical colleagues.  And if you read my post you would realize that our divine paradigm would be derived the same as we develop an paradigm. 

 

We begin with a clear premise and initial parameters.  A couple of points I would make.  #1.  The scriptures (including records of Christ) in general would indicate failure rather than success.  An example is the parable of the sower.  The account would indicate that most planted seeds fail to produce fruit.  #2 It is the success of fruit the establishes the genuine from the counterfeit. 

 

Many think that the scriptures would indicate that #2 is the only measure of success.  This is flawed methodology.  It is only a measure of success when the initial conditions and methodology is the same.  We see this played out in actual debates between Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees in ancient times - mostly recorded in the Gospel of John.   I would point out that the Scribes and Pharisees argued tradition and unchanging scriptures - similar to your argument.  Jesus argued back with rhetorical counter point - in other words a counter example that disproves a definitive statement.

 

I would be glad to discuss this more in depth - but I have limited time and have little desire to have a hostel exchange as Jesus did with the Scribes and Pharisees.  You can have such discussions with as many on the forum as are willing.  But I would ask you - if you are interested in trying the experiment of accepting a symbolic seed?  Are you as I am - in quest of higher truth?

[Traveler]

Edited September 8, 2014 by Traveler

[Jungler]

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.

I noticed you didn't answer my question about faith. Everything comes back to faith. What exactly do you mean by 'faith?' Who or what should I have faith in?

 

Obviously, we agree I should have faith in God. But when I read verses that say God's words last forever, and have faith that God's teachings and gospel last forever, that's some how a bad faith? Should I not trust God when He said His words last forever?

 

We agree I should have faith that the apostles witnessed Christ's death and resurrection. But when I read verses about how they taught the Gospel, and have faith that those teachings show us how we're supposed to teach the Gospel, that's a bad faith?

 

Everything comes back to faith. I have no problem making a leap of faith if that faith is in God or the Bible. But if you're asking me to have faith that God hasn't protected fundamental teachings and the Apostles teachings in the Bible aren't enough, then it's basically asking me to have more faith in Joseph Smith and the BoM than in God and the Bible.

 

What else am I supposed to think? A fundamental part of LDS doctrine, testing teachers or doctrine with prayer, is absent from the Bible. There's no objective reason for believing the Apostles taught that. Why would God set up a system where following Him requires us to doubt the accuracy and/or the sufficiency of His words to us?

 

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.

Okay, how do you know James 1:5 is a milk passage?

 

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.

I was asking if I should expect a 'yes' answer. Is that what Moroni is saying? Is expecting a 'yes' answer part of sincerity, humility and faith in Christ?

 

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.

Again, everything comes back to faith. The question is who or what the faith is in. If having faith means doubting my faith in God and the Bible, then I don't understand what you mean by 'faith.' Where do you get your faith?

 

Did the founder or Islam or Hinduism die for their claims and then come back to life? The difference is Christ came back to life. Yes, there's substantial objective evidence that the historical figure known as Jesus died about 2000 years ago and came back to life. Reading Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace is a good place to start.

 

Correct, and even in context this passage of scripture supports Moroni 10: 3-5.

I took the time to explain my understanding of Matt. 21 and how it has nothing to do with Moroni 10. Could you at least write a few sentences so I know what you're talking about?

 

Exactly...  LDS interpret some scriptures differently.  Yet you seek us out to tell us we are wrong.  When I mirror your behavior back to you, you see the inherit problem.  You don't get to claim a separate set of rules and conditions for your belief and actions then try to hold us to a different set.

I've made it clear I disagree with your interpretations. But I never tried to claim you don't even believe in a passage. There's a big difference.

 

The question becomes whose interpretation is right... and that is a question everyone has a different opinion on.  Why should we trust yours over the ones we have?  We have the same source material we have the same ability to pray and study.  The only real different becomes the opinion of men.  I'll go with what God tells me over that any day.

Interpretations are not equal. If one person looks at a verse and says what they feel it means while another person looks at the context, cultural history and original language of the verse, which person has a better chance to figure out what the verse actually means?

 

Now you asked why Alma 32 failed for you.  Some people have given their thoughts... I'll now give mine.  Any experiment requires the control of variables that effect the out come.  IE if you want the same result you have to have the control the variables in the same way.  If we have the parameters for a plant growth experiment and we decide to try to reproduce it we can only expect the same results if we control the same variables.  For example if the experiment calls for a certain amount of water and you choose to not use any water it would be clear and obvious that you will not get the same result.

 

Alma knew this.  He gave a list of variables that needed to be controlled.  One of those was don't cast the seed out because of unbelief.  I think that is exactly what you did.  Every post you have made here has shown you have already made up your mind, that for you the Book of Mormon is false.  Well guess what, that means you cast the seed out.  It doesn't matter how much you might water or tend the ground if it is barren.

 

James also backs this up requiring us to ask in faith.  Doubt and unbelief is the opposite of Faith.  The Alma 32 experiment ran as good as it could when face with your unbelief.  However you also clearly state that you have felt God moving in your life.  This means you have successfully planted other seeds and gotten them to grow.  So the Alma 32 experiment clearly does work for you when you ground is not barren on the subject.

I don't understand. I thought the purpose of the Alma 32 and Moroni 10 process is to let us know we can trust the Book of Mormon. Are you saying I need to trust it before I even get an answer?

 

I prayed and ask God if the Book of Mormon is true or not. I asked Him to open my eyes and show me if there was anything else he wanted to reveal. Was that not enough? Should I have been expecting the Book of Mormon to be true?

[The Folk Prophet]

Jungler,

 

Faith in God. That is what counts. Faith in other things, is by, through, and for God. The fact that I have faith that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that the Book of Mormon is true is directly according to my faith in God...that Joseph Smith was His prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is His word. My faith in the Bible is, likewise, dependent of God. All faith is in God. And God stands revealed, or we cannot know Him.

 

If you have faith that the Book of Mormon is false, then you simply do not have faith in God's word. That's not a crime. You can't have faith in it without it being revealed to you. But it is factual nonetheless. You would say the same to someone who did not believe the Bible was the word of God. The difference being that you simply choose to believe the Bible, whereas I have the Bible and the Book of Mormon revealed to me as truth.

 

How can you exercise faith in anything without God revealing it to you first? Your faith is meaningless if it's willy-nilly. We can throw faith at anything. Have faith in the Great Toad of Eastbrook. Or, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That was popular amongst the anti-God crowd for a while, right? Why have faith in any of these things though? Including God? Once more, I have to ask you, wherein do you have faith in the Bible if it has not been revealed to you as the word of God?

 

Without revelation, your faith is as meaningless as someone having faith they'll win the lottery someday or that there Area 51 exists. Or that there actually is a flying ball of spaghetti out there. It's all fine and dandy to have random faith. But without revelation, it doesn't amount to much.

 

Why are you okay making a leap of faith in the Bible? Just because others have? Peer pressure is it? You say you're okay in that. I ask Why? Why are you okay taking a leap of faith in God? How do you know God even exists? Without revelation you cannot. So why are you wiling? Just on the off chance that your random coin toss may land where you've staked your claim?

 

You can repeat it again and again that the test of prayer (meaning revelation, for what else is it that we pray for if it is not revelation?) is absent from the Bible. I deny that. But even if we accepted your extremely limited, skewered logic approach and acquiesced, it still does not matter, for as I have said as well, we believe the Bible to be the word of God only as it has been translated correctly, and we believe that many great and precious things have been removed from it. I'm afraid you are not going to gain much traction convincing us by using the Bible as your proof text. It's hard to get around our view in that regard. Even if you could point to a specific passage that said, "You should not pray to test if someone's words are of God" then we'd still claim it a mistranslation, purposeful corruption, or otherwise, and we would still hold to our view.

 

Moreover, and this is even harder to get around. I have received direct revelation from God on the matter. I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God because God told me so through the Holy Spirit. So I don't much care what Bible text you think proves it wrong, or for your, "it's not in the Bible so it must be false" theory. I know better, and you can't get around that. Whereas you do not believe in revelation as a proof concept, you are missing this aspect of understanding, and therefore your opinion on it holds no sway. At least if you could say you got revelation from God that the Book of Mormon was false you'd have a leg to stand on that was toe-to-toe in principal. That would, at least, put us at an honest impasse. As it is, the impasse is merely your unwillingness to look past your biased interpretation of things, in spite of the fact that you have no concrete reasons to hold the view you do. You read some books based on some man's reasoning that directly contradict other men's reasoning, and you've randomly thrown your part in with one ideology and now claim it infallible. I'm sorry...that ain't gonna stand up against my direct revelation card buddy.

___

 

James 1:5 is a meat passage! No question. Full on meat of the gospel. Important. Key. Critical. As per my prior explanation, it is given so by modern prophets and apostles, not the least of which was Joseph Smith himself, who was inspired by it to seek revelation in the first place, which led to the entire restoration of the gospel in these latter-days. So, yeah. Meat -- per the LDS view.

___

 

I don't know that you should expect a yes answer. I do know that you should, without doubt, expect an answer. For God has promised us, (even Biblically) that He will not leave us hanging when we seek for answers.

___

 

No one has ever, nor would we ever, ask you to doubt your faith in God or the Bible. We have faith in God and the Bible. Why would we be persuading you to doubt that. Now your specific view of all the meanings and translations of the words therein? Yeah, that I'd ask you to question -- clearly...as I view and translate them differently -- mine based on revelation and the words and teaching of prophets (who I know are prophets because it has been revealed to me that they are).

 

Therein is where I get my faith. It is not a guess. It's not based solely on what I was taught, what my friends and family believed, on some book(s) I read, or on any man. It is from God. It is revealed to me directly through the power of the Holy Spirit.

____

 

Substantial, objective, empirical evidence that Jesus came back to life? I don't think so. You are clearly biased, and clearly basing your beliefs on the bias of others.

 

I, on the other hand, though perhaps seemingly as biased, at least can claim that my evidence is securely from God himself, and not just from some scholar doing backbends to support an un-provable thesis.

[SpiritDragon]

Jungler,

 

I honestly don't know if you are actually seeking any kind of understanding or if you are just here to argue with moving targets and the oft mentioned circular logic, but I will engage in this discussion again in the hope that you are sincere and I am not wasting my time trying to help a fellow soul out.

 

It seems that the biggest premise of your arguments is based on the misguided idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. You claim that there cannot be degrees of glory, because there is no Bible passage that explicitly says so, and you will argue to the death any reference that actually supports the idea. You claim that prayer is not taught as a method to receive revelation concerning truth, and again contend that any such reference is taken out of context and is not explicitly pointing to testing a teacher or doctrine. I feel for you trying to solve a puzzle with missing pieces, and yet I acknowledge that the bible gives a solid blueprint for understanding how to know God.

 

John 16:13

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 

 

John 14:

26 But the Comforter , which is the Holy Ghost , whom the Father will send in my name , he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

1 Corinthians 12:

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord , but by the Holy Ghost .

 

The bible makes it clear that one primary mission of the Holy Ghost is to bear witness of Christ. This is the spirit of revelation. While you may choose to ignore the plain teachings about prayer being a great catalyst for personal revelation to take place, and that this involves ALL truth (obviously the spirit will not testify to false teachings), the fact remains that the bible is not only clear that prayer is useful in this endeavour, but that revelation through the power of the Holy Ghost is the only way any one can know that Jesus is Lord. Do you at least agree that revelation is required to know Christ? If you do agree to such, does this not clearly make personal revelation the most fundamental of all principles of discerning truth from error... I mean you can't honestly say that Jesus is Lord without it as per the verse directly above. Once this point is established does it not also follow that the same spirit that testifies of all truth and bears witness of Christ would not also be helpful to determine true doctrine.

[estradling75]

I've made it clear I disagree with your interpretations. But I never tried to claim you don't even believe in a passage. There's a big difference.

 

Interpretations are not equal. If one person looks at a verse and says what they feel it means while another person looks at the context, cultural history and original language of the verse, which person has a better chance to figure out what the verse actually means?

 

Which simply moves the target from the Word of God as found in the scriptures to the word of men assuming they properly understand the context of documents nearly 2000 years old. You simply change the target.

 

But yes we do agree that context is important, for example both the Old Testament and the New Testament clearly show that people quickly corrupted and went astray from God's word.  The bulk of the writings we have are from Prophets (and apostles) showing and correcting error to get them back on the right way, and then the struggles to keep them there.  Paul is the perfect example of it happening after Christ as well, and he is proof of the continuation of the pattern after Christ.

 

Yet you are making the claim that in spite of the clear and established means contextualized in the scripture. That prophets and apostles are no longer needed (even though they clearly needed them right after Christ).  That our current bible which we don't have all the original sources for, and was complied in a very politically charged process, is somehow going to be enough.   In spite of the fact that the Bible clearly shows the records by themselves have never been enough.  Not surprisingly I find your claims to superior understanding of context  on one or more passages to rather unimportant, when you miss the over all picture.

 

 

As for your Alma 32 experiment I clearly can't know the thoughts and intents of your heart while you are doing it.  I can only work backwards from what you present here.  Thus I have no other choice but to guess.

 

Lets read Alma again

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

 

Given your reaction on this forum I guess you failed the bolded portion of the setup. I think you never got to the point were you desired to believe.  I would guess you went into it with the no desire to believe, and thus your prayers were without faith and void on the matter.  But that is simply a guess.  Other people have give other potentially good guesses but only you and God can know for sure.

[Anddenex]

I am unable to explain to someone what they are unwilling to see; however, unfortunately, here we go again.

 

First, Moroni 10: 3-5 is not in reference to "testing" the Lord but seeking wisdom from his hand which correlates with James 1:5 -- already discussed.

 

The context of Matthew doesn't negate application as you are suggesting and pigeonholing the verse.  Indeed the verse speaks about miracles, and also speaks about moving mountains, and then gives wisdom -- anything we ask, we will receive an answer.  This isn't specific to miracles, but anything we ask the Lord for.

 

If you have a difficult time understanding how this supports Moroni 10: 3-5, then I am reminded of this verse in the Book of Mormon: Jacob 4: 14, because of the simpleness of the way the Jews did look beyond the mark and disregarded plainness as it was given unto them.

 

At this point, I leave you to your understanding.

[Jungler]

I was going to write a response earlier today, but it doesn't seem like there's much point. For me, believing many of the LDS claims would still require me to have more faith in Joseph Smith than in God. I don't see a way around it. I don't see how having faith in God is compatible with the ideas that God failed to protect His church while people were still sincerely trying to follow Him or that God would let so many fundamental teachings get lost. I simply don't see how that is faith in God. Even if an angel showed up at my door preaching this gospel, that doesn't mean I should doubt God or trust that the angel is actually from heaven.

 

Regardless, thank you all for answering my questions.

 

On a related note, I also find it hard to take the BoM seriously after I noticed 3 Nephi 2:15 while reading through the book.

 

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

 

Say what you will about slavery verses in the Old Testament, but the Bible never says skin color has anything to do with sin. It certainly never says anything even close to people having lighter skin when they start following God. I had seen discussions before on the church's history with race issues, but I never knew it was this bad. I was seriously shocked when I read that in the passage. It's disgusting.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Jungler

[estradling75]

 

I was going to write a response earlier today, but it doesn't seem like there's much point. For me, believing many of the LDS claims would still require me to have more faith in Joseph Smith than in God. I don't see a way around it. I don't see how having faith in God is compatible with the ideas that God failed to protect His church while people were still sincerely trying to follow Him or that God would let so many fundamental teachings get lost. I simply don't see how that is faith in God. Even if an angel showed up at my door preaching this gospel, that doesn't mean I should doubt God or trust that the angel is actually from heaven.

 

Regardless, thank you all for answering my questions.

 

On a related note, I also find it hard to take the BoM seriously after I noticed 3 Nephi 2:15 while reading through the book.

 

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

 

Say what you will about slavery verses in the Old Testament, but the Bible never says skin color has anything to do with sin. It certainly never says anything even close to people having lighter skin when they start following God. I had seen discussions before on the church's history with race issues, but I never knew it was this bad. I was seriously shocked when I read that in the passage. It's disgusting.

 

 

 

You must not like the Old Testament much then either...  Its all about how people rebel from God and how he needs restore his teachings and laws.  Repeatedly.  It also has God making rules for is people having slaves and killing off people who oppose the plan.

 

You can of course try to force God to fit in the mold of modern sensibility...  But by so doing you are not following the God that the scripture teach us about.

 

Anyway good luck with whatever the future holds for you

[Jungler]

My Bible study group is almost done with our study on Judges and we've loved it. Israel got so bad that they were trying to walk away from God and basically become Philistines, but God wouldn't let it happen. He used Samson's addiction to sex and danger to drive a wedge between Israel and the Philistines. One of the main themes is God faithfully protects His people, especially when they call out to Him. I fully agree that they rebelled many times. But they never had to wait anywhere near 1700 years to be restored.

 

The Old Testament prophets also didn't "restore" God's teachings. Israel had the law. Their problem was they often ignored it. The pattern of prophets in the OT was them pointing back to the scriptures God's people already had. They didn't show up and restore lost or corrupted scripture. LDS prophets haven't really followed the pattern of OT prophets.

 

Yes, like I said, I've heard the slavery verses in the OT already. But those verses didn't say anything even close to slavery being based on sinful, dark skin. And there certainly aren't any verses that mention skin color changing.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Jungler

[estradling75]

 

Yes, like I said, I've heard the slavery verses in the OT already. But those verses didn't say anything even close to slavery being based on sinful, dark skin. And there certainly aren't any verses that mention skin color changing.

 

 

If that is what you think the Book of Mormon is saying about race you so did not understand the message or you are so wrapped up in what you want to see you are blind.

 

As for God waiting and not needed to restore things...  Then why do we have more then the words of Moses... Or Adam or whomever you think God first gave it to?  According to you God should have given it once and never ever need to give it a again.  But the simple fact is that the Bible is a testimony about God continuing to talk to people not a once and then done you are trying to force it into.

[Anddenex]

 

Say what you will about slavery verses in the Old Testament, but the Bible never says skin color has anything to do with sin. It certainly never says anything even close to people having lighter skin when they start following God. I had seen discussions before on the church's history with race issues, but I never knew it was this bad. I was seriously shocked when I read that in the passage. It's disgusting.

 

 

I always find it interesting when a Christian uses the same type of argument an Athiest uses to confirm their disbelief in the God of the Old Testament -- Jehovah, and which gives them evidence to be an Athiest -- Slavery.

 

This is the same argument Athiest use to confirm that Jehovah is in no way a loving God, and could not be perfect, thus could not be God since he supported slavery AT ALL.  Instead of using the word "disgusting" they say "it's vile".   Well let's actually put the words correctly, as specified by Christopher Hitchens,

 

“The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.”

 

The God of the Old Testament, which is the same God we worship today, committed genocide among specific nations -- yet somehow you are bothered by this verse -- 15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

 

Oh the irony.  What one will accept to confirm their bias, while ignoring more atrocious decisions made by our God.  Yet, in the light of the gospel, when our minds are further enlightened, we begin to understand -- when our heart is open to the spirit of the Lord which teaches and confirms all truth.  

Edited September 9, 2014 by Anddenex

[The Folk Prophet]

For me, believing many of the LDS claims would still require me to have more faith in Joseph Smith than in God. I don't see a way around it.

 

That's like saying to believe the teachings in Exodus one would have to have more faith in Moses than in God.

 

Your logic is truly baffling.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think I can't, I think I can't .... choo choo!

 

If you can't stand it and can't believe it and can't have faith in it, why are you posting on this forum?   There is some other motive.