On November 1, 1831 Joseph Smith convened a conference of ten Mormon elders. The agenda for the meeting was to make decisions regarding the publication of Joseph’s revelations. According to an article in Mormon Times,
“Joseph said that since the Lord had given the great blessing of so many revelations, the elders should decide what testimony they were willing to attach to the book. After several present arose and said they were willing to testify to the world, Joseph prepared a statement for the witnesses to sign. The contemporaneous minutes described it as a revelation.”
However, some of the “potential witnesses” had doubts about some of the revelations. They were not prepared to testify to the truthfulness of Joseph’s revelations until God confirmed it. Before they would sign their names, they wanted a spiritual witness similar to that which had been reported by the Book of Mormon witnesses. “The conference was deadlocked.”
But then Joseph received a revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 67). Mormon Times reports,
“The Lord gave a challenge for the elders to choose the ‘least’ of Joseph’s revelations and then choose the ‘most wise among you’ to see if he can write a similar one. If he could, then their reticence over the language was justified. If not, ‘ye are under condemnation if ye do not bear record that they are true'”
Nobody was able to write a revelation on par with Joseph’s, so five elders (and later thirteen others) signed their names to the document, which read in part,
“We, the undersigners, feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the Earth and upon the islands of the sea, that God hath borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us, that these commandments are given by inspiration of God and are profitable for all men and are verily true.”
I don’t know in what manner the latter thirteen men believed God bore witness to them about the Book of Commandments, but for the initial five, it was under fascinating circumstances.
The men had doubts about some of Joseph’s revelations; nevertheless, when Joseph claimed that God, via another revelation, was granting them a test whereby they could know if Joseph’s revelations were true, they accepted it. The test was highly subjective at best. Could anyone write a revelation like Joseph? For whatever reason–whether because of scruples over falsely claiming to speak for God, or a lack of creative writing skills, or a biased judgment of the results–that group of men couldn’t do it. Hence, the only possible conclusion was that Joseph’s revelations were true. Is this really a sound test of a prophet?
Joseph was not the first man to use this argument to “prove” his position. Muhammad did the same thing.
“While Muslim apologists today tend to focus on supposed scientific evidence for Islam, Muhammad offered a very different argument. The central argument of the Qur’an may be called the ‘Argument from Literary Excellence,’ which claims that the Qur’an is so masterfully written, so brilliant and awe-inspiring in every detail, it could only have come from God. We find the basic reasoning in Surah (Chapter) 2:23-24. It reads:
“And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful. But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers. (Qur’an 2:23-24)
“According to many Muslims, no one has ever been able to meet this challenge, and the Qur’an must therefore be from God.” (David Wood, Is The Qur’an a Literary Miracle?)
Are you convinced?
The question has been asked, if the Book of Commandments was true, why did it require such extensive revision just two years later (for its publication as Doctrine and Covenants)? Maybe these revisions are part of the reason why, despite the testimony that God bore record to their souls, at least eight of the Book of Commandment witnesses later abandoned the church that is built on Joseph Smith’s revelations.
———————-
Comments within the parameters of 1 Peter 3:15 are invited.
———————-
OJ, there are numerous scholarly works providing evidence that the Bible is “true”, now whether it is from God, or reveals truth about God, that we take on faith. The Bible details ancient civilizations that actually existed, for instance, we know that there was a place called Ur in Sumaria (Chaldea) and the people who lived there worshiped idols, specifically Nanna the moon godess. What does Genesis 11 tell us about Abram? That he was called out of Ur of Chaldea. It was a physical place. We know that Eqypt was a real country/region and guess what? We can still go there today and look at historical writings that detail rulers called Pharaohs and learn of their religious worship and custom. The Bible speaks of that. We know that Babylon existed, and just like the Bible says, it has been destroyed and is no longer populated. The nations detailed in Daniel arose as the messenger of God predicted, and the theories about the late date of the writing of Daniel have been refuted. At one time historians doubted the reality of a king of Babylon named Belshazzar until records were discovered listing him as co-regent with Nabonidas, just like the Bible says. Same with the Hittites, etc.
This lends credence to the Bible, so we can trust that it is a least accurate in temporal things. When it comes to spiritual claims we see the veracity of the rest of the Bible and use that to bolster the evidences in our lives, the spiritual “witness” that we get that Christ is Lord and died for our sins. I cannot “prove” that the Bible is theopneustos, but I can prove that the BoM is not based upon historical truth. I can prove that the BoA is a fabrication. I can prove that JS was a false prophet, and I can prove that the D&C are nothing but spritual coercion and lies. Can I prove that beyond the shadow of doubt to unreasonable people? No. You are unreasonable, but reasonable people leave Smith’s church when confronted with reasonable evidence.
drumroll…
did you get your question answered OJ?
how about you answering some of the questions asked of you today?
grindael,
Very good account of how you worked your way out of Mormonism. My observation is that Mormonism relies heavily on subjective feelings as proof of the “truth”. Once you got the facts (about Mormonism) you made an informed decision that Mormonism and the claims of Smith are not only false but preposterous. So Mormons hear the Joseph Smith story and it makes them feel good. The emotional warmth convinces them that God has spoken to them. Every time they experience good feelings relative to a Mormon religious experience, it reinforces what they have accepted as true.
That’s why Mormons are taught to stay away from anything that makes them feel uncomfortable (about Mormonism). If the organization can keep the membership away from anything that would provide solid evidence that Mormonism isn’t true, they’ve kept them in the box.
Mormons learn the lines of the script as you have pointed out to one of our Mormon posters. It’s just, push the button and the canned response plays out its tune. It all makes life comfortable, secure, predictable and emotionally snug.
Olsen Jim,
Your comment to Grindael on “How do you know the
Bible is true?” ,struck me as strange since you,
as an LDS, believe it to be one of your Standard
Works and he also believes it to be the Word of
God. But I realize what you were attempting to
prove, which I found even more strange because
given your churchs’ authorataive claims,he was absolutely correct when he said that we should be
cautious concerning any would-be prophets.Not only that, but since you would claim to be a
christian then you should get your instruction
from Jesus, correct? Jesus instructs all of us
to “beware” of false prophets [Matt.7:15] His
disciples were obedient to His instructions[1 Pt
2:1 ], you claim to be a disciple don’t you?
Furthermore, your very own apostles and prophets
have repeatedly told you to test for false
prophets by using the scriptures as a measuring
rod, a criteria you seem to feel is frivolous.
So lets recap. You have Jesus’ instructions and
you also have your leaders instructions.Do not let your personal revelation leave these behind.
It’s kind of ironic, but even Brigham Young
would agree with Grindael here.
” Take up the Bible, compare the religion of
the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if
it will stand the test…” [J.of D. v.16p46] p
Olsen Jim is concerned that nobody appears to answer his question
…so, as a fully qualified “nobody”, I’ll give my answer.
There’s a large amount of archaeological and historic evidence that broadly supports the Biblical narrative; cities, people, languages cultures etc. In fact, the more I find out about these evidences, the more “three dimensional” my Bible reading becomes (e.g. the origins of the Samaritans and Jesus’ encounter with one in John 4). This is worth mentioning in contrast with the BoM.
But, that may not be the point. To me, the Word of God is partly about looking at the stories, and partly about what we should make of them (see Jeremiah 1).
So, to me, the question parses into whether I believe the Bible’s accounts are “true”, or at least “truthful”, and whether the rendering of the accounts reflects “The Truth”, or God’s perspective. I believe that the Bible is “true” in both departments, but that is a decision I have made. That is why, when I say “I believe the Bible to be the Word of God”, I can say so with a clear conscience.
Regarding this decision, the statement “I believe the Bible to be the Word of God” also means “I take the Bible to be the thing that guides me in my beliefs and in my living”. The rest, they say, is history, but I can testify with countless generations of Christians that the Bible brings life and liberation. I struggle to explain how, but it does.
My major objection to the LDS movement is that it advances its 8AOF (“We believe the Bible to be the Word of God…”) without a clear conscience; fundamentally because it does not listen to what the Bible teaches (e.g. how many “gods”?).
I feel that when the question is put by OJ and his fellow LDS, they are being hypocritical. The one and only reason behind the question is to get the Christian to doubt the Bible, so that LDS can substitute it with their own “revelations”
Is the question, “Is the Bible true?” or is the question, “Is the Bible accurate?”. Am I splitting hairs here? I don’t think so. Ask the same questions about the BoM and you will get a “No’ answer to both questions. We’ve been over this countless times but for some reason (which I think I know pretty well) our Mormon friends don’t get it.
Actually we’re dealing with a favorite Mormon tactic here which is basically, “When the BoM is called into question, attack the Bible.” It’s the same tactic that is used when the veracity of Joseph Smith is called into question. That is, try to find a person in the Bible that had some short comings and equate Joseph Smith’s character with that person.
Actually I thought that Mormons believed the Bible is true so why is the question regarding its truthfulness even being asked? The fact of the matter is that the BoM is a fantasy woven out of whole cloth by a very creative guy who used several different sources to spin his fable. His “witnesses” “saw” the golden plates with “spiritual eyes”. It’s called second sight vision and was a common trick Smith borrowed from his occult experiences.
I would suggest that if our Mormon poster wants to know if the Bible is true and accurate, that he actually do the scholarly work of studying the Bible. He could start with “A General Introduction to the Bible” by Geisler and Nix. The four main sections are divided into: part one, Inspiration of the Bible, part two Canonization of the Bible, part three, Transmission of the Bible, and part four, Translation of the Bible.
In the general conclusion to their book, Geissler and Nix state the following:
“The general purpose of this book has been twofold; historical and theological. Historically and critically, it has been an attempt to answer the question as to whether the Bible of the twentieth century, based as it is on the critical Hebrew and Greek texts, is a faithful reproduction of the books produced by its original authors. The answer is by now obvious, and it is this: No book from antiquity comes to the modern world with greater evidence for its authenticity than does the Bible. Both the kind and the amount of evidence that supports the fidelity of the present critical text are greater than for any other book from the ancient world.
Directly related to this historical conclusion is a theological one. For if there is overwhelming evidence that the biblical documents are genuine and authentic-that they stem from alleged periods and authors-then one must face seriously their persistent claim to divine inspiration. When these claims are thoroughly examined and honestly faced, one can but conclude that the Bible as a whole claims to be the Word of God, and the evidence confirms that claim.”
Mormons face a real dilemma because in order for Mormonism to be true, then Christianity must be proven false. Hence the Bible needs to be down-graded and all sorts of wild conspiracy theories must be developed so that Mormon “revelation” can coopt God’s revealed Word. But then that’s how we get to men becoming gods, and gods having goddess wives, and perpetual procreation in the after-life and all sorts of dubious claims that only the truly deceived and thoroughly indoctrinated Mormon can believe.
Where did Olsen Jim go?
Was on a trip away from computers. Will respond soon.
Grindael,
The way a person comes to know the BOM is true is the same way a person comes to know the Bible is true- you are absolutely right.
People can talk about archeology and historical correlations all day. But if their testimony of the Bible is primarily based on those things, their testimony is anemic and shallow.
After all- I could argue that the religion of ancient Egypt is THE true religion because we have tons of physical proof that their civilization existed- pyramids, tombs, hieroglyphics, mummies, etc. (hear me liv4jc?).
Although many here do not seem to understand my point (they think I am “bashing” the Bible), I am attempting to show the idiocy of claiming historical or archeological evidences are the appropriate criteria for determining if the Bible or the BOM is true. That is why I point to ancient prophets such as Moses, Enoch, and Noah. How were the people to whom those prophets preached supposed to determine if those great men were true prophets? Historical evidence? Archeology?
Were the Israelites expected to “test” the revelations given through Moses with previous revelations? Were they supposed to compare the tablets to something? There certainly were no previous precedents for these new revelations through Moses, yet they were expected to follow without historical evidences, etc. (prior to the exodus).
Martin- recognizing fulfilled prophecy is certainly one reasonable consideration in determining if scripture is true- not necessarily the best (because we may not always understand or perceive when they have been fulfilled), but an appropriate consideration. The most important prophecies found in the BOM have either already been fulfilled or are beginning to be fulfilled.
In short, true religion has always been based on personal revelation. A religion based on anything else is no religion at all. The thought that a person needs to consult “A General Introduction to the Bible” by Geisler and Nix” (note to falcon) or any other man-made “authority” in order to gain a testimony is as ridiculous a claim as any I have heard. Such a requirement would leave 99.999% of mankind out in the cold- not having the tools needed to know what is true or who to believe.
Why should a person not also consult an atheist’s book on the topic? How does a person discriminate and navigate through such floods of intellectual data?
Falcon and others like to say that after an LDS gets “all the information” they quickly leave the church. But this is clearly not true. I have studied all the same topics (and more) than those who make such claims, yet am convinced that Joseph was a prophet. Because I disagree with you, I am “unreasonable.”
I believe many EVs actually have testimonies of the Bible through the Holy Ghost. They may not recognize that fact or admit it in their discussions with LDS. But that is what I believe (or at least hope). And this is a huge double standard- expecting a different standard or criteria for the BOM.
Thanks to Paul for warning us about “man-made” doctrines perpetuated by the likes of smith:
“I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and PREACHES A JESUS OTHER THAN THE JESUS WE PREACHED, or if you receive a DIFFERENT SPIRIT from the one you received, or a DIFFERENT GOSPEL from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.”
“And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be CONSIDERED EQUAL with us in the things they boast about. For such men are FALSE APOSTLES, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for SATAN HIMSELF MASQUERADES AS AN ANGEL OF LIGHT. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”
Thank God for the simple gospel of Jesus as taught by HIS apostles. The cult seeks to masque itself so well as to deceive the very elect. And they do, and will continue to do so.
OJ wrote
Yes, the Israelites were supposed to test the prophets, for example Deut 13:1-5
No, the test criteria does not relate to archeaological evidence and the like, but it does relate to the introduction of “strange” gods, whom Israel “did not know”. Smith’s “revelation” that God is an exalted man, lives on a planet near a star called Kolob and busies himself impregnating his countless wives certainly fits into this category.
…ctd…
Also (from OJ) Were they supposed to compare the tablets to something? There certainly were no previous precedents for these new revelations through Moses, yet they were expected to follow without historical evidences, etc. (prior to the exodus).
There were, however, precedents for Suzerain Treaties to be written on tablets of stone. Whereas these treaties were between greater earthly Kings and lesser vassal states, Moses’ “revelation” initiated such a treaty between the Creator of the Universe and a rag-tag bunch of escaped slaves.
But OJ misses an important point. The “preamble” to this treaty refers to God’s majesterial actions in the past, to which Israel was commanded to look. Here it is from Ex 19:3-6 (which leads into the 10 commandments in Ex 20)
Though there are a very few exceptions, the God of the Bible normally appeals to His people to consider their past history as He deals with them and reminds them whom He is. Consider the Babylonian exile, and the amount of scripture that was written around this period. Also consider how Stephen defends his faith before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7.
So, the Bible places a great deal of emphasis on looking to His past actions when considering current “revelations”.
That’s why Biblical history is important.
The appeal to personal revelation is an exercise in avoiding the revealed truth that contradicts the heretical teachings of a line of false prophets that began with JS. Throughout the centuries, the Holy Spirit (Who has always been with humanity since Pentecost–He didn’t go anywhere like the Mormons claim) has illumined Truth through a broken and fallen humanity who struggle to navigate through a broken and fallen world, asking questions about God and our relationship to Him. This is called theology, and we are all theologians because we all ask questions pertaining to God. Throughout the past two thousand years, orthodox theology has been hammered out and expressed in what are called creeds by men who worked from within the parameters of the biblical text. JS worked from outside these parameters, which is why his teachings are considered heretical. One such Spirit-filled and Spirit-led man taught what we know as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. I am speaking about John Wesley, and his quadrilateral was designed to help us understand the proper balance between scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Of the latter three, none of them outweigh scripture in value. Ultimately, tradition, reason, and experience must be measured against the Bible because it is God-breathed and authoritative. Again, Mormonism being backward, it relegates the Bible to a subordinate role in this matrix, elevating personal “revelation” to the standard against which everything else is tested. Such an approach invites false spirits to lead astray otherwise intelligent people.
Blessings
OJ, I don’t think you even read what I posted. I clearly stated that we use the correctness of the Bible in temporal things to authenticate the spiritual witness we have to it’s truth. Nobody can prove that the text was inspired by God, although prophecy points to its supernatural origin. I can’t prove that Jesus actually performed any of the miracles that authenticated His message that He was sent from God, but I trust that the eyewitnesses to those miracles, and those who interviewed them (in the case of Luke and Paul) faithfully recorded the events.
When I was converted I had hardly read the Bible at all, and I barely understood what I did read. My conversion was a supernatural event. I have revealed in my posts before that I had no love for God and loved my sinful lifestyle. The last thing I wanted was to become a Christian. But after my conversion I instantly loved God and my Lord Jesus Christ and believed that I was a sinner in need of God’s grace.
I read the BoM and about Joseph Smith after my conversion and realized how ridiculous the account was. My testimony is that I know the truth as revealed to me by God through the Holy Spirit and His revealed word in the Bible, which I also believe is “true” by faith, and accurate by history and archaelogy, etc. I know that the teachings of the BoM are fanciful, based in a world that never existed, and there is no proof for them. I know that Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
liv4jc,
Thank you for your honesty. I completely agree with you when you say “my conversion was a supernatural event.” That is my whole point. It was not the physical evidences that changed your life or made you believe in God and want to follow Him. It was a spiritual miracle. I think most people here would say the same thing if honest.
All the evidences are nice and nifty- they may confirm your faith and the things you experienced spiritually. But they are not the basis for your faith or belief. Am I right?
There are people on both sides of the Bible question- those who say it is a fairy tail with contradictions. They appeal to what they consider convincing scientific evidence that proves it is false. On the other side, there are those who see evidences for the Bible in science and throughout the natural world.
The same is true of the BOM. There are arguments against it, and arguments that support it. Both sides appeal to logic, reason, and evidences. I myself cannot understand how anybody who has made an honest study of the BOM can not see the overwhelming evidence for its authenticity.
But I realize that such an understanding is based on spiritual events and miracles, just like the Bible. The perspective of confirmatory evidences comes AFTER the supernatural. And this is the double standard that non-LDS Christian critics of the BOM will not own up to.
I am arguing that if what EVs are saying is true that their testimonies of the Bible are based on physical evidences, their faith is shallow and weak and is subject to every wave of the scientific sea.
The Bible contains objective truth – it claims things that happened outside of me and are true rather I believe them or not. The atonement is an objective event – either it happened or it didn’t, whether I believe it or not. I absolutely believe the testimony of Scripture is objectively true apart from anything I may think or feel about it. If it could be shown to be demonstrably false, then I would say give it up, throw in the towel, walk away – it’s a fraud. Hypothetically, if the archeology did not support the Scriptures, if evidence mounted that Martin Luther wrote many of the books in the Bible with no historical documents attesting to historical roots could be found I would toss those books and RUN away from them. The BOM fails the historical test – it was written thousands of years after the face purporting to tell the history of a people unsupported by ANY other evidence. Likewise, the Koran fails the historical test – it was written about 600 years after the face, purporting to tell the truth about Jesus. Mohammad wasn’t there. Joseph Smith wasn’t Both the Koran and the BOM must be discarded as true historical documents. If Christianity is not objectively true outside of any feelings, testimony, or subjective feeling then it should be discarded as well. However, the Scriptures do hold up to the historical tests and warrant our trust and faith in the One True God.
mobaby,
What were the folks to do who lived before the objective archeologic evidence supporting the Bible was available? Throw away the scriptures due to lack of physical evidence?
And your claim that the BOM has no objective proof is simply false. It is just that in the instance of the BOM, you take the side of the skeptic, just as many people do with the Bible. You simply do not accept the available data that would suggest the BOM is what it claims to be. Plenty of people do the same thing with the evidence supporting the Bible. What is the difference? There is none.
Why do you not believe the ancient religion of the Pharoahs? There is even more archeological evidence to support their civilization. What is the difference?????
Olsen Jim said: “I myself cannot understand how anybody who has made an honest study of the BOM can not see the overwhelming evidence for its authenticity.”
Sadly, the evidence is really absent. I used to run around and tell people the BOM was true. But, there is no evidence for it except to make an appeal to a “feeling” that the Holy Ghost revealed its veracity. The thing about the BOM is that D&C contradicts even it. JS just couldn’t get his theology straight. The BOM says today is the day for man to prepare to meet God, meaning this life. JS teaches a universal salvation, and then adds exaltation because he was so special he needed to tell the world that he and anyone else who believed his heretical teachings could become God.
When reading the BOM, there is really an absence of grace in the purported character of God. The BOM portrays God as a heavy-handed law giver at the expense of grace. JS continues this line of teaching with the WOW. Now, we have a God who will keep us out of His presence if we drink coffee or smoke cigarettes–all outward behaviors that have nothing to do with the condition of our hearts. There will be Mormons who will try to argue that drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes won’t keep anyone out of God’s presence. If they do, they are either lying or don’t really grasp the correlation between the temple recommend and being in God’s presence. To believe that JS was used to usher in the “fulness” of the gospel is to deny that Jesus Christ IS the fulness of the gospel. And, therein lies the difference between Christianity and a cult.
Blessings…
Olsen Jim,
Big difference: The resurrection trumps anything the Pharoahs or their gods did. Do I believe the Pharoahs existed? yes, I do. The Bible tells of Egypt and the Pharoahs and so does non-Biblical evidence. The attestation to the reality of the Egyptian world is there in ruins, writings, land mass – Nile River etc., and culture. The Bible tells of Egypt as a source of deliverance by Joseph and as a source of confrontation. Again and again the Bible has been shown to be an accurate testimony of rulers, societies, lands, people etc. Again and again. Are there things in the Bible that are not attested to in other ways – of course – but I will stand on the side of Scripture every time as it has been accurate over and over, deflating theories of Bultmann and the higher critics. Events and people the higher critics have claimed the Bible “got wrong,” over and over have proven out the trustworthiness of Scripture. The world now has entire copies of the Bible COMPILED BEFORE Bultmann said they were even WRITTEN (300AD). We have sections of the NT that date to 50AD and 70AD. Rulers the critics have said did not exist, we now have tablets inscribed with their names.
We do have archeological discoveries in the Americas that tell of societies and people – none of it correlates with the BOM.
The Bible has never been without historical and archeological evidence. Certainly we have evidence now that at some point was lost and has now been recovered – but it has never been without evidence.
In contrast, the BOM stands alone, devoid of evidence, written nearly 2000 years after Christ, and the Book of Abraham tells a story supposedly from Abraham’s time FOUR THOUSAND YEARS after the fact. No other ancient documents or evidence support the stories these books tell – both books fail the historical test. Both Muhammad’s Koran and Joseph Smith’s BOM and BOA do not stand up to basic historical tests.
That there are verifiable historic and geographic content in the Bible is not disputed, but have you ever heard of the style of literature called ‘historic fiction’? It is using historical people, events and places to make a story and has been a technique used since about 1100 BC. This date includes the Bible manuscripts we have today. So yes, there could be many people, events and places that match up with history, but this does not prove the Bible to be true. Look at the movies ‘Enigma’, ‘Pearl Harbour’, ‘Saving Private Ryan’, ‘Titanic’ and ‘Forrest Gump’ – they have many things that are historically correct, but they are fiction. Even ‘The 3 Musketeers’ is based on historical characters, places and events but is still fiction. What about the controversial ‘Da Vinci Code’ or ‘Holy Blood, Holy Grail’? The former admits to being fiction but has many historic and geographic congruencies – the latter actually tries to be non-fiction but is also historically and geographically correct.
According to many shows I have seen and books I have read, when it comes to the ‘important’ people of the Bible, eg Abraham, Noah, Isaac, Moses, King David and King Solomon, there is no evidence of their existence. There is very little evidence of any of the Israelite/Hebrew importance found in the Bible until around the era of King Ahab. So there goes the historically accurate argument – if the main world events are referred to but the main characters cannot be found in history.
I know the Bible is true, and I have received that knowledge by the Holy Ghost – what more evidence do I need? It is nice to have some physical evidence, but that is not what faith is all about (Matt 12:39; Hebrews 11:1). The same goes with the BoM – Besides the spiritual witness I have of it, I also have found other, external evidences indicating to me that it is true.
mobaby,
Do you understand I am arguing that the historical, archeological evidences in no way prove the spiritual claims of the Bible. That is why I ask if you believe in the religion of the Pharoahs. Historical evidences alone do not translate into testimony of spiritual truth- it must come from some other source.
You are free to base your testimony of the Bible on what you perceive as physical and historical evidences. That is fine. I just think an objective religious person will take you less seriously because such a foundation does not result in saving faith.
You say:
“We do have archeological discoveries in the Americas that tell of societies and people – none of it correlates with the BOM.”
You are on the wrong side of that claim. The best-informed critics insist on a higher level of evidence than correlations because they know the correlations between the BOM and ancient MesoAmerica are big and numerous. They insist on finding proper names and manuscripts of the BOM in tombs, etc.
You also say-
“the Book of Abraham tells a story supposedly from Abraham’s time….. No other ancient documents or evidence support the stories these books tell.”
Are you serious? You are truly demonstrating how behind the typical BOA critic is with the available data. There are numerous extra-biblical, ancient writings that corroborate most of the stories in the BOA. You ignore data just as the atheist who insists the Bible is a fairy-tale.
Martin- Deuteronomy 13 CAME FROM MOSES- IT WAS A NEW REVELATION. You are claiming that something from Joseph Smith was inconsistent with that revelation. That is fine. But I am asking, how were those Israelites supposed to know that Moses was a true prophet IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I don’t expect EVs to agree with my testmony, I just want them to understand my point about the source of spiritual truth. And that ain’t happenin’ here.
OJ asked
I’m time-limited at present, but here’s a thought (and I may be corrected); the “signs” that Moses did to establish his credibility were for Pharoah’s benefit, not the Israelites.
If this were the case, then the Israelites could be defined by their belief that Moses was a true prophet. In other words, believe that Moses was a prophet and you follow him out of Egypt with the rest of Israel; believe he wasn’t and you stand condemned with the rest of Eqypt. (Its a “justification by faith” thing, not a “justification by being born into the right family” thing)
Is your question the wrong way around? You believe Joseph Smith, so you follow him. I believe in Jesus Christ so I follow him. You cannot serve both masters; it just can’t be done.
Am I fully convinced in my heart that Jesus is a true prophet, and the Bible is true? To be absolutely honest, on some days I feel better about it than on others. Does that worry me? Well, the Bible is far more concerned about what I do about it than how I feel about it. After all, I still need to decide to put one foot in front of the other to follow the Prophet, even if my heart has some doubts (which is more frequent than I’d like).
What I can “know”, however, is what I have decided. If I have decided that the Bible is the Word of God (and hang the consequences), then I can “know” I have made that decision, even if I allow the possibility that it is wrong. In doing so, I have identified myself with the “Tribe of Christians” (as Josephus calls them), and I travel with them where they are travelling.
My objection to the LDS 8AoF is that it falsely advances the idea that LDS have made the decision to follow the Word of God (a decision that they must “know” in the fullest sense of the word), when, in fact, they have decided to follow an entirely different “revelation”.
Olsen Jim,
I am interested to see the ancient manuscripts of the BOA. But I know they don’t exist. Likewise, the BOM. The Bible is attested to by thousands of Scriptures in many different places. We know it is a book of antiquity. Where is the textual trail to the BOM and the BOA? There is none, because it came from the testimony of one man, just as the Koran did. There is just as much evidence for the Koran as for the BOM. The internal evidence and external evidence for both books reveals both are frauds. By your standard, one should simply pray about the Koran and if it is revealed to be true, follow. Apparently there are millions who agree and are following Islam. How do you differ from them?
The books you hold to be true are not historical documents by definition. No true historian would say these books are what they purport to be. Whether one accepts the spiritual message of the Bible or not, it is most definitely a historical document. Before you can trust the spiritual premise of a book, it must first show itself to be an accurate representation of reality.
Evidence for the Scriptures from the Savior – Jesus often referred to what we know as the Old Testament. Not once did He ever question the validity or reliability of Scripture He quoted. He always quoted it favorably. Jesus claimed to be God in flesh and rose from the dead validating that claim. His view of the Scriptures should carry some weight.
Concerning Ralphs objection to lack of supporting evidence for characters in the Bible: As I said, again and again Scripture has been proven out (against the claims of critics) with solid historical and archeological evidence. The Bible has been found to be an accurate representation of reality. I have seen the British Museum display showing a huge relief sculpture of the Assyrians battle with the Israelites and King Hezekiah (produced by the Assyrians in that time period). There are weapons from the battle on display.
My question would be: when does the Bible become an ancient historical document worthy of your trust? When does it pass the scrutiny level and move beyond mere personal testimony, to a reliable source for historical information? How many times do the facts, names, events, etc. it records need to be proven out for the Scriptures to become a primary source, something you would look to as an accurate representation of facts due to it’s amazing reliability? If any of the Scriptures failed in these tests – I would say toss it out. If Christ could be shown to not be resurrected, then abandon the faith and turn back from Christianity. But that is not the case. Scripture has been shown to be a reliable historical document. I trust the spiritual message it brings, and believe that it is the very word of Jesus to us today. When the scripture is read or preached, it is attested to by the Holy Spirit and is the very voice of Christ to us today. The Scriptures call us to repent, trust in Christ alone through grace alone for salvation. As we hear Christ preached through the Holy Scriptures, God builds faith in our hearts to believe and trust. “Believe on the the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, both you and your household.” (Acts 16:31) – not maybe, not possibly, not if you do all the right things, etc. It says “YOU WILL be saved.” Believe and be saved. God gives us His means of grace – the preaching of the Scripture, baptism and communion to further build up that faith in our hearts. Through baptism we identify with Christ’s death and resurrection and put to death the old sin nature/Adam. Through communion we participate in the sacrifice of Christ for our sins. God has given us these great gifts to build faith in our hearts to trust Christ alone for salvation.
Olsen,
If the BOM is true as you say…and a huge battle with millions dead took place at Cumorah, then were is the archeological evidence? There is nothing there, nothing. I’ve been there more than once. No one has found a thing.
Can you answer this one question? Your track record is so bad, I don’t expect it. You claim there are numerous confirmations of the BOM authenticity, but you list none. You have no evidence to back it up.
On the other hand, the Bible has mountains of evidence to back it up.
BOM or Bible? I’ll take the true book over the fairytale every time.
The responses to my questions have been very revealing (no pun intended). They help prove my point about what people rely upon as sources of truth.
Martin- Thank you for actually addressing the questions I have brought up instead of incessently spouting off the same old points of contention about lack of evidences, etc. Your point is a good one about Moses- he certainly did provide some good evidence (Rather God did) of God’s power. But was this the ultimate determinant of whether he was from God. After all, didn’t the priest of Pharoah come up with some pretty good miracles of their own?
But immediately after describing Israel’s following Moses you turn around and ask “Is your question the wrong way around? You believe Joseph Smith, so you follow him. I believe in Jesus Christ so I follow him.”
Were the Israelites not following God when they followed Moses? Could I not claim just such a thing with Joseph Smith? Consistency…
I give you credit for understanding the issue and trying to address it though.
mobaby- with all respect, I don’t think you are following my argument. You are still arguing that the physical and historical evidences of the BOM and BOA are not adequate. Although I could argue you are wrong, that IS NOT THE POINT OF MY POSTS.
What evidence is there for Adam and Eve and the history in Genesis? Seriously. Why don’t we consult the Smithsonian about the garden of eden? Is “objective science” the appropriate means of determining if that book is true?
Grindael- I could go down that trail as has been done so many times- the result is always the same- we end up seeing the debate exactly opposite. Did you know that the massive military force of Attilla the Hun possessed millions of horses. It was said that each of his soldiers had 10 horses. But archeologists and researchers are baffled as to why they have uncovered only a few horse remains in that region. Crazy.
I think the Community of Christ Mormon sect has pretty much run-up the white flag on the BoM. Their members have a couple of different options regarding this tome, giving their people the choice of electing to see the BoM as a “spiritual” book. So in other words, it’s not an actual history of anything.
I’m wondering, are there any nonMormons scholars out there in the world that believe the BoM reflects actual history? I doubt it! Because to come to that conclusion, a person has to have a “feeling” that it’s true.
There are all kinds of books written on the historic and archeological basis of the Bible. Our poor Mormon posters are stuck with an emotional attachment to a book that has zero basis in reality. Defending the BoM as a real history would be like trying to make the same claim about “Harry Potter”.
OJ,
Why would anyone follow Moses, after seeing…
his staff eat the staffs of the Egyptians,
the plagues on Egypt,
that they didn’t die when they applied blood to their doorposts,
the sea open up so they could cross and then swallow the Egyptians,
manna and quail provided in the desert…
On the other hand, we have the Egyptian mystery religions… what, again, is it that they promise that is any good? Why do you like them better? (and before you say you don’t, since Mormonism is related to them through freemasonry, yes, you do)
As for your other argument, doesn’t one really need to consider the “whole ball of wax”?
Shouldn’t a TRUE Faith/religion/gospel have not just one part, but ALL of the parts?
Meaning:
1 – miracles and prophecies (and prophets who are confirmed by them) that show the omnipotence and omniscience of the God being promoted,
2 – Archeological or historical or philosophical or whatever other kind of EVIDENTIAL BACKING
3 – Realistic/Practical help for life’s biggest problems
4 – An absolute, unchanging, standard of morality
5 – Spirit confirmation
??
Shouldn’t the TRUTH be true no matter where you look, and when?
Olsen Jim,
Your attempt to push the arguement back to a time
generations before Moses as a way to prove that
since they supposedly did’nt have an objective
standard available to evaluate false prophets,
that is our same predictament today, so we must
rely on feelings to be our standard. Is this
really the issue for us today? Jim, TODAY we have
a standard.TODAY we are told to apply the Word
of God in order to test any would-be prophet’s
teachings[Ex.18:18-20; Gal.1:8-9].Even your own
leaders admit this.
Neither Jesus nor those He discipled to carry on
His instructions in reguard to truth applied your
reasoning in evaluating prophets.Have you forgotten how your leaders dealt with Brian
Mitchell? Did they just rely on a inner feeling
that he was a false teacher/prophet or did they
apply the criteria found in the Bible in testing
him? Their answer for his excommunication was
” for activity promoting bizarre teachings….
far afield from the principles and DOCTRINES of
the Church.”
A lot of “what if’s” on your part merely deflects
the issue. Today, we have a solid standard to
test any prophet.I’m thinking that the rational
you espouse is for a reason.Perhaps LDS don’t
want to measure their beliefs by the Bible is
because they realize the Bible does’nt clearly
proclaim the doctrines that are unique to
Mormonism.
Setfree,
The points you make are exactly what I am getting at – a book cannot be trusted for spiritual truth if you can’t trust it in any other area. The BOM fails on this account, while the Bible has proven over and over to be an accurate historical text. The BOM fails as a historical document – it was written nearly 2000 years after Jesus life and there is no evidence it’s account can be dated prior to the 1830s. This leads to the conclusion that the BOM was the creation of Joseph Smith and was not based on any ancient text divinely received or otherwise (other than the large sections pulled from the KJV Bible).
Olsen Jim,
What separates you from a Muslim who believes the Koran is an accurate accounting of the life of Christ and a guide for proper spiritual life? What are the historical texts containing the BOM and BOA to which you allude?
On Adam and Eve – as I said not everything in the Bible is confirmed elsewhere, however, those things that can be tested have revealed the Scriptures to be accurate. Internally within Scripture, the NT does speak of Adam as being the one man through whom sin entered the world, and Christ being the second Adam took sin away and conquered death. If Adam and Eve are discounted, then you must discount Jesus for He believed the Old Testament and spoke positively of it.
OJ, you always want to talk about belief and faith – without a foundation in truth belief and faith are useless. I have a claim to truth, you have a claim to truth, the Muslim has a claim to truth, etc. on and on it goes. My assertion is that if your faith is not objectively true then it is worthless. No subjective feeling or experience is enough. I also contend the BOM is NOT a historical document and can be shown to be a creation of the early 19th Century – completely divorced from the subject it claims to give a historical account of. There is not one shred of textual history supporting the BOM. It is a fraud and can be easily seen to be such.
Ralph,
One sure way to spot historical fiction – they always slip up – there are numerous details that don’t align with reality, that fail to pass the muster. Inevitably, no matter how good the author, there will be anachronisms, historical mistakes, errors. I submit that all of these problems are found in the BOM.
Olsen,
As usual, you use a lame argument to bolster the fradulent claims of the BOM. Horse BONES? Attila the Hun? Come On. There is too much wrong with that to even address it.
The Hill Cumorah has no evidence, not an arrowhead, sword (according to smith they had plenty of those)or anything else. There were millions of em running around central New York and no one has ever discovered one iota of evidence to support ANY BOM claim. All the LDS apologists do is SPECULATE. It’s been proven that the ruins in Central America have nothing to do with the BOM.
I love the little maps they sell with all the places listed around all the Maya and Inca ruins..It is so misleading and phony.. Is that all you have?
How about my post above on Smith’s false prophecy about the return of the ten tribes and Zion being built before everyone died that was living at the time of smith…He even prefaced it with ‘by the authority of Jesus Christ’ … that right there shows he was a false prophet and the BOM not even worth considering…
I never see you defending smith or rebutting anything, just asking lame questions about the authenticity of the Bible. Is that how they teach you now to defend smith’s cult?
Duck and Run J. Duck and Run.
I get a kick out of our Mormon friends thinking they are hearing from God. What is God telling them? Well He’s telling them that He isn’t who He says He is in the Bible. BTW, does God reveal Himself in the BoM. Why yes He does and guess what? He’s amazingly similar to the God of the Bible. So when did God decide that He wasn’t the One, Only and eternal God? Beats me! Joseph Smith got a follow-up revelation and wouldn’t you know it, a brand new god. Only this god is a whole lot different than Smith’s previous revelation.
Other sects of Mormonism, especially the Temple Lot folks figured the whole deal out and said that Joe went way off the tracks.
Joseph Smith, some say, started out right on the money and then fell (as a prophet). His sexual exploits were only a part of the evidence the rest being his aberrant evolving theology. Our Mormon posters don’t get it. Fortunately a whole bunch of Mormons do and are making the decision to leave. Mormonism is bleeding members and of those who are left, few practice the religion with any real enthusiasm. Before it’s said that this is opinion, how many of the men have risen to the full priesthood? How many pay the full tithe?
No this is a religion that with the advent of the internet, cannot hide anymore.
this is a religion just like all the other ones that circumvent the problem of owing God everything by doing good works
Setfree,
Do you remember your BoM? How does this sound
I know you don’t see the BoM as God’s word for you, but this quote from it is what we LDS believe and it shows that we LDS believe exactly the opposite to what you just stated.
At the risk of getting flamed by some of the Evs here, I’ll admit to having some tolerance for the LDS’ argument about lack of archaeological evidence. Yes, there is much in the Bible that is supported by archaeological evidence, but there are some parts that aren’t (the early chapters of Genesis, for example).
I could debate this with more “literalist” Christians, but I see this debate confined to an agenda that says “we accept that the Bible is the reliable Word of God, but how do we understand it within its historic context?”.
This is entirely different from the debate that starts with “we believe the Bible to be unreliable because it does not support our prophet’s revelations”.
In my debate, I’d even accept a “ceasefire” on some issues because they might not be ultimately proven one way or the other. However, this would exclude stand-out issues like there being only One God, or the full deity of Christ, or justification by faith, or the importance of truthfulness.
So, I’ll accept that there will be some things about the Bible that we might not “know” for sure, which is a roundabout way of answering OJ’s previous question about how we “know” that the Bible is true.
Personally (another confession), I want the Bible to be true, and I gravitate to those friends and resources that affirm my feelings in this direction. This gives me some sympathy for those in other religions who behave in the same way. Its a very human behavior, and it takes a great deal of courage to follow one’s convictions if they lead away from that environment.
If LDS believe the Bible to be the Word of God, will they have the courage to listen to it, trust it and follow it, wherever it leads; especially when it calls them “out of Egypt” (out of the LDS movement)?
Ralph, the passage is in your Book of Mormon, just like several passages are in your scriptures that say that there is only one God.
Do you faithfully live by those passages as well?
I hope you’ll answer my above question, but let me present a little clearer answer to yours.
It is just as possible to avoid Jesus and the cross by keeping the commandments as by breaking them. What I mean by this, is, if you accept God’s FREE FORGIVENESS, instead of EARNING YOUR FORGIVENESS, then you find yourself in the position of being in total debt to God. You feel as though He can now ask anything of you, including your life, marriage, religion, friends, whatever, because you owe Him EVERYTHING for having bailed you out without charge.
You, Ralph, are still pushing Him away by working for what He freely offers you. The same can be said of Mormonism as a whole
Martin,
My point is Christianity stands or falls on the reliability of Scripture, while Mormonism stands or falls on the reliability of the BOM. The Bible, whether you believe the spiritual message or not is a historical text. The BOM is not a historical document. That is the high level view of what I am arguing and that argument can most certainly be won.
Everyone comes into their religious faith by a spiritual conversion of some kind (family, friend, evangelism, etc.)- very few have studied the evidence for their faith at that point, but are instead relying on the testimony of those who brought them to the faith. Once you are in, and you discover that things don’t add up – this book about which you prayed and received a testimony doesn’t pass basic historical reliability 101, then you have to question what have I placed my faith in? I am not denying the spiritual reality of the Holy Spirit drawing people to faith in Christ alone through the preaching of His Word. But if one finds that their religious foundation is as flimsy and riddled with holes as the BOM, then the most logical avenue is to abandon it and come to the true Christ of the Bible. And at this point in the conversation, Mormons usually start questioning the reliability of the Bible, it is their default position – “well, yes, the BOM might be unreliable, but so is the Bible” – I think this teaching of Mormons is what makes so many become agnostics or atheists when the weight of Joseph Smith’s many falsehoods becomes too great to bear and they abandon Mormonism. The well has already been poisoned against Scripture – “the Bible is unreliable.” They never examine for themselves the evidence for the reliability of Scripture. In reality, Christians have nothing to fear in examining the evidence concerning the Bible. I am confident that Scripture is reliable and true whether I or anyone else believes it or not. Not everything can be proven, but enough can.
Martin,
One more thing personal thing – do you consider yourself an Ev or Evangelical? Given the state of modern ‘Evangelicalism’ I do not consider myself an Evangelical, although I do try to be evangelical! I think we need another Reformation and a return to Word and Sacrament – preaching God’s Word and administering His sacraments – basically getting back to Christ centered worship that focuses not on us, but on Jesus, the Cross, and the gifts He has given us. Your comment above made me think that perhaps you do not identify yourself as an ‘Ev’ either?
Grindael,
Did I attempt in the slightest to prove the BOM? No. I merely pointed out the fact that scientific evidence does not always explain things we know, such as Attilla and his boys having lots of horses.
You overstate the merits of your side of the argument to such a degree that it can be difficult to take such arguments seriously. For example, “It’s been proven that the ruins in Central America have nothing to do with the BOM.” I really don’t know where to start with that. That is such an unrealistic perspective on the issue, evidence, and the limitations of archeology.
Again- I emphasize that my whole point is to show that EV have a double standard when comparing the Bible and BOM. (I AM NOT ATTEMPTING TO PROVE THE BOM) Either the witness of the Holy Spirit is fundamental to their faith in the Bible (maintaining a double standard when considering their approach to the BOM), or they have no foundation worthy of devotion to the Bible.
If historicity of records is your foundation, you cannot rationally explain why you do not also follow other religions with historical records. That is my point.
By the way- most folks who actually study the BOM believe it took place 3,000 miles from New York.
Martin- thank you for being honest about the Bible. I respect that. Accepting the Bible on faith and through the witness of the spirit does not lessen it in the slightest. Such a witness is the foundation of true, meaningful personal religion. But realize I have a reasonable, Biblical explanation and interpretation for every contradiction you see between the Bible and my religion. Everything in my faith is Biblical. We simply have a different interpretation of the same verses and passages.
Olsen,
You are not trying to prove the BOM because you cant. There is no confirmation at all in ANY scientific paper, ruin, dig, temple, of any central american site bearing one iota of evidence to support the BOM.
I dont follow other religions with historical records because their religions are based on fraudulent claims. (Though I am very well read on most of them) The HISTORY of the Bible bears out it’s truthfulness. We are not living in times when there was no evidence available. We are living in 2009, when all the technology in the world can be used to bear out truth or expose falsehood. Your conjecture is juvenile, and a total side step of the issue. What if, what if, what if will not change the fact that there is no evidence to support the BOM and you cant produce any. Total 180 for the Bible.
By the way, read your church history. I have. Most MODERN mormons believe the BOM took place down in central America because the ruins are there. That was not the case in the early days of your church. You can’t fool me, and you cant lie to me, and I wont play your games of what if speculation. Just answer plain questions, which you have not done as long as I’ve been posting on this site.
I’ve asked many, and you have not answer any. Shows you have nothing to back up what you say.
OJ, can I beg a favor of you
Will you try to answer one of the hard questions grindael has posed, or I put on the other thread, without using any double speak or sidestepping. jUst one question, answered straight forwardly
Ralph, your passage from Mosiah reveals several problems. It is obvious from his writings that smith did not have an understanding of God’s covenant with national Israel verses His covenant with believers. The above quote speaks of prosperity in the land if God’s commandments are kept. This is the same quid-pro-quo covenant God made with national Israel beginning in Exodus 19 and continuing throughout the OT. But personal salvation has never been a quid-pro-quo covenant based upon the necessity of continuing works to keep salvation. Faith is the standard of personal salvation and it is from God. Since Christ paid the penalty for the believer’s sin, they are saved by that propitiatory sacrifice, not by external works that they do. The payment for personal sin is what buys salvation, and you can offer no work or sacrifice to pay for you sin. Only Christ, the God-Man, could pay that enormous price, and the Holy Spirit is the One who opens the heart to see the need for forgiveness through faith in Christ. Apart from His work in the heart no man can even see the Kingdom of God (John 3).
So we see smith mixing New Covenant promises of salvation through belief in Jesus Christ with Old Coventant promises to national Israel (or Nephites), thus turning personal salvation into a faith plus works formula. We see this NC theology imported into OC Israel early on in 1 Nephi (1 Nephi 11), when belief in the Son of God becomes part of the means for national prosperity when it is combined with the keeping of the commandments. This anachronism proves that smith used his understanding of the New Testament to aid in his creation of the BoM.
Ralph,
How would a mormon go about finding out if evolution was true?
The major reason for most Christians disinterest in the BOM is that it truly is not needed as an “additional witness to Jesus.”
The major reason for the BOM coming forth from smith is that he needed an avenue to promote his other blasphemous teachings. It was smith’s “in” to start his own church and kingdom, with him as president, king and then ruler of the entire world.
The Bible has the words of Jesus, and all one needs to come to him. Without the BOM there would be no convenient way for the cult of smith to convert new members. Christians see it for what it is, and though it may have the words of the Bible Prophets and Jesus in it, why would anyone need a shadow copy of the original?
smith’s claim that it came from God as the most perfect book on earth doesn’t pan out when you see so many major changes in it as the years went by.
History does not support it, as it does the Bible, and as with the BOM, the same technique was used for many of smith’s other revelations.
If God gave it to him word for word, as smith and others claim, and if a word was wrong and would not go away (in the stone in the hat) until the scribe got it right, then God himself made all the mis-spellings and all the doctrinal mistakes. This very idea is flawed, as flawed as the real author of the book, smith.
No Christian has ever claimed the Bible to be the most CORRECT book on earth, but it has all the things one needs to come to Jesus and be saved. The BOM is not needed to come to Jesus, and never will be.
Concerning Gordon B. Hinckley’s interview in Time Magazine, and his being less than forthright about the Mormon belief that God the Father was once a man. This was a classic example of Mormon PR at work. The following are Hinckley’s comments followed with ” the rest of the story” in parenthesis, ie the part he wouldn’t tell to a “gentile” audience:
Hinckley: ” I don’t know that we teach it”. (“Actually we have taught it for generations”)
Hinckley: “I don’t know that we emphasize it”.
(“The reason that we are de-emphasizing it is that we can sell our religion to others easier”).
Hinckley: ” I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.”
(“Actually I do know a lot about it as one day I hope to become a God and a celestrial Father just as our heavenly Father is now. Other Mormon leaders such as myself, knew a lot about it and taught it.”)
I guess Mr Hinckley could have given more information than he did but this seems to be the M.O. when Mormons speak to a “gentile” audience.
The above comment of mine should have been on the “Mormon’s — divided sense of self” thread. Sorry