Youtube Testimony

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Scott C.

So far, I would say that history has neither proven nor disproven the Book of Mormon. I'm aware of much of the evidence cited by those who want to prove it and by those who want to disprove it. I'm not an expert in the field by any stretch. My personal witness of the Book of Mormon is sound.

I appreciate your candor. I really do. But the question is whether your personal witness of the BoM is sound. You're profoundly convinced, but that doesn't mean that you're not deceived about it. Hence the need for the public test. You don't need to be an expert in archeology to assess the claims of the BoM. A couple of good, mainstream texts should give you the equipment you need. The question, really, is whether you have the time or inclination to get that equipment.

The strength and depth of one's spiritual witness and personal conversion varies from person to person within my church. Some memebers have tender faith and others have a perfect knowledge, surpassing belief, which came through spiritual experiences of the magnitude of the revelations of God to Moses.

I don't think any alleged historical or scientific evidence to the contrary, would have convinced Moses that he was wrong about his revelations. Members who are less certain might doubt their faith the first time they read anything from someone who's trying to refute the Book of Mormon.

Well, Moses didn't simply have an internal prompting about the truth of his revelations. He had public (very public) miracles to vindicate his claims. There was at his initial commissioning the burning bush, his rod changing to a snake and back again, and his hand becoming leprous and then normal. During the exodus, there were of course the ten (very public) plagues and crossing of the Red Sea. The people of Israel retained these events in their very blood by recounting the stories and embedding them into the ceremonies of their lives (like passover).

So I hope you can see the substantial difference between Moses' case and yours. In your case, you have come to believe in the veracity of the BoM through a personal feeling. I've pointed out that that feeling can't be sufficient, especially when what verifies history is history, and the BoM, among other things, claims to be an at least approximately true history of ancient Central America. To history the LDS appeals; to history it shall go.

Just a reminder: I'm not trying to cast doubt on your convictions. Rather, I'm recommending that you submit those convictions to a true test. The true test of historical convictions is historical method. Apply those to the BoM and see what shakes out. If the BoM is divine, it'll pass muster, for God's not in the habit of peddling falsehood, yeah?

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

The true test of historical convictions is historical method. Apply those to the BoM and see what shakes out. If the BoM is divine, it'll pass muster, for God's not in the habit of peddling falsehood, yeah?

I don't want to get pulled into a debate on archeology, dna, or something along those lines. There are a number of these debates already on RF. Some LDS here do a great job with that. I don't want to take the time to research and debate point by point on these issues.

But, like I said earlier, I am familiar with many of the arguments, as I've done some reading in the area.

Time will validate the Book of Mormon in the acamedic circles.

The way I study my faith is to more fully immerse myself in the scriptures, and to enjoy the journey, as the Lord makes impressions on my mind and provides answers and guidance to life's perplexing issues. It has worked and continues to work very well for me.

[trinity2359]

Haven't read all the posts yet...

- You figure the guy has got a camera so why didn't he do more takes so he wasn't stumbling so much over his words. A little distracting

Anyways. Having been a Mormon for the better part of 4 years before truly calling it quits, I never got the warm fuzzies but did believe for a time that the Book of Mormon was scripture. Listening to the cadence of it in audio was really nice actually. There are so many beautiful passages about faith and Christ and have quite well-marked up scriptures. The LDS faith satisfied so many things in my life: community, sense of belonging, activity (I loved my callings), study, etc. Didn't really observe the Sabbath like I was supposed to and snuck in an unapproved beverage occassionally. But overall, I loved/love the Mormon Church. However, I can't say I ever truly believed that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Studying the LDS faith led me to study Christian history and I came to the conclusion that no great apostacy took place and therefore must look elsewehere for the keys.
Well, I have found them in the Catholic Church. Let me bear my testimony of the truthfulness of this timeless Church. Here, while in Mass before Jesus Christ himself I have felt the Spirit as never before, almost as a physical presence in my soul. Never has a fast and testimony meeting, General Conference talk, or even my own baptism in the Mormon Faith made me feel such love to and from God as I have in the Catholic faith. Do I understand or even agree with it all, no - but I trust that God is with me.
To be honest, my only regret in LDS was not ever going through the temple. I would have really liked to have experienced that just to say I had, if that makes any sense.
Thanks for listening (reading)

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I have NEVER denied that revelation plays a role. I have denied that we cannot rely upon it alone. God certainly helped Peter to believe, but why did Peter believe on Jesus of Nazareth but not on the 20-odd other Messianic pretenders we know something about 100 years either side of Jesus? Might it be that they hadn't performed the miracles (i.e., didn't have the history) that Jesus did? In other words, Peter was able to see that Jesus was the Christ by God's help. Yet it was also the fact that Jesus did what he did that made that conclusion even possible for Peter.

Therefore, as I've said before in this thread, personal revelation is important. But you can't get around the fact that personal revelations lead in many different directions. So if you want to establish whether a group is authentically hearing from God, you need to subject that group to a public sort of test. In Christianity's case, we appeal to the resurrection of Jesus and other aspects of Christian history. The LDS church ought to do the same. In the case of Christianity, the truth of the public event of the resurrection authenticates (or not) its truth. In the case of the LDS church, the public truth of the events portrayed in the BoM does the same.

Tell me, what if it were true that archaeology proved that the events of the BoM didn't happen? Would you abandon your faith? Or would your personal revelation suffice to keep you within the fold?

In many ways I agree with you and this is something I've only recently realized.
We LDS often DO lean too heavily upon personal revelation. You are right that history is important, and as it sounds to me, you mean history to be a study of the Bible? A study of the events that happened? This is so true.

We are under commandment from God to study the scriptures. We face condemnation if we don't. Why? Because the scriptures teach us about God. We've all heard that 'to talk to God, we pray'. 'To hear his answer, we read the scriptures'. As LDS we sometimes get lazy and just want God to reveal his answer to us without putting in the time and effort to find his answer in his written words.

Personal revelation is vital because this is the medium through which the Holy Ghost works. Study of gospel history through the words of the ancient prophets, is vital. And we LDS add to that -- revelation through our prophet today. All are vital. They all work together, one fails w/o the others.

If I may respond to your last question. You might ask this of any Christian. If archeology completely disproved the Bible, or if science totally proved that resurrection is not possible, would you cease to believe?

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Starfish

In many ways I agree with you and this is somethine I've only recently realized.
We LDS often DO lean too heavily upon personal revelation. You are right that history is important, and as it sounds to me, you mean history to be a study of the Bible? A study of the events that happened? This is so true.

Almost, but not quite. I don't mean to study the bible in a devotional way. I mean to treat it as what it is -- an ancient text that purports to describe historical events. Then, see if that text passes muster by the normal canons of historical research.

Taking the LDS case, we might ask whether the societies mentioned in the BoM actually existed. Is there archaeological evidence to support the case? If not, are there sufficient internal evidences that show a connection between these societies and the one from which they putatively branched off? And so forth. If we find the answers to be "no" and "no", we might seriously question whether the BoM is divine. Heck, if it can't even tell the truth about history, why should we take it as truthful elsewhere?

Taking the biblical case, it's more or less the same. The event upon which the whole Christian project depends is the resurrection. So, let's test these here gospels and see how they stack up against other ancient historical literature. There are internal and external tests of authenticity we might apply to the text to give us an idea of their trustworthiness.

Of course, such a project takes time, and not everyone is up to it (for good reasons of time, training, and interest). But I'd say it's worth it. It's just scandalous to me to see that critical thinking takes a back seat to personal revelation, especially when personal revelation is so, well, personal and untestable.

We are under commandment from God to study the scriptures. We face condemnation if we don't. Why? Because the scriptures teach us about God. We've all heard that 'to talk to God, we pray'. 'To hear his answer, we read the scriptures'. As LDS we sometimes get lazy and just want God to reveal his answer to us without putting in the time and effort to find his answer in his written words.

That's the way of it for all fundamentalists.

Personal revelation is vital because this is the medium through which the Holy Ghost works. Study of gospel history through the words of the ancient prophets, is vital. And we LDS add to that -- revelation through our prophet today. All are vital. They all work together, one fails w/o the others.

The Holy Ghost works through other media as well, including reason and critical reflection on evidence. The Holy Ghost's job is to provide conviction and assurance of the truth; but this isn't always (or even primarily) in response to mere prayer and bible study (although those play their roles as well).

If I may respond to your last question. You might ask this of any Christian. If archeology completely disproved the Bible, or if science totally proved that resurrection is not possible, would you cease to believe?

Yep. But I'll make it even easier. The person need not prove that the resurrection is impossible. Who could prove that? All the person would have to do is demonstrate that the resurrection of Jesus didn't in fact happen.

[Starfish]

The Holy Ghost testifies of truth. Wherever you find truth, whether in a book, in conversation, or anywhere, the Spirit can testify of the truth to you. This is personal revelation. So yes, after reason and critical thinking, the Spirit can tell you it is true. This is exactly how it's supposed to work. You do the homework, study it, and then decide for yourself. At that point you go to the Lord and ask him if you have decided correctly. His answer, through the Spirit or Holy Ghost, is personal revelation.

"Behold you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right."
"But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong;" Doctrine and Covenants 9: 7-9

The confirmation by the Holy Ghost comes in different ways, and not just in the way described above. I've experienced it and it is very real.