Mr. Wallace is pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City. Dr. Tanner is an LDS apologist who has contributed to the FARMS Review of Books and The Encyclopedia of Mormonism. He hosts KSL Radios Religion Today.
Location: University of Utah
University of Utah, Orson Spencer Hall Auditorium
Took place Friday, November 7, 2008
Sorry, I know the audio could be better. I’ll work on getting better audio next time.
I think Wallace did a good job. One minor disagreement I have with him (or at least with what I think he meant in passing) was over the JST. The JST represents Joseph Smith's effort to safeguard strict monotheism (which he believed in at the time), not polytheism or cosmic henotheism.
Facts are stubborn things. No one can dispute the fact that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon in some manner or another. And a third grader certainly could not write in the manner that the Book of Mormon is written in without divine guidance. Let alone the other surrounding facts regarding witnesses and other historical phenomenon.
aaron, i've tried signing in to use the new features, but it says my password is invalid..and it has yet to send the password to my email…??
Can I just say that I don't like it (the new commenting system). I'm trying, but I just don't like it. It makes the comments more confusing to me, especially how some recent ones are in the middle of ones posted days ago. I also preferred the dating (ie November 17th, 2008) to "3 days ago". That makes me have to think! 😉
Give the commenting system a try, guys!
Amanda,
This is the identical argument that Muslims use for the Quran, well Mohammad was illiterate so there is no way that he could have dreamed up the Quran. According to this standard then both books are equally valid, and true.
As for a third grader being unable to write in the manner of the Book of Mormon, if the main text book of that third grader was the KJV Bible would it not seem probable that any writing said third grader would do would seem to reflect the KJV? What we write flows from the style of literature that we read.
Lautensack
P.S. I have to agree with Andrea about the new comment system.
hmmm…I don't know too much about Mohammad…however his life is far removed from ours, is it not? I mean, Joseph Smith was just in the last 100 years or so…it's easier to validate my point based on that alone.
I was referring to the point that Dr. What's his name was making (sorry but i can't scroll up for some reason to get my names straight) about literary functions only discovered in the 1950's that were present in both the bible and book of mormon. I seriously doubt Joseph Smith could anticipate a literary discovery of this magnitude and employ it in his "writing".
Regardless, no, I do not believe that a 3rd grader could write in this "manner" that would move 13 million to believe on its' words and spiritually impress generations time and time again. He was too simple-minded making the Book of Mormon simply miraculous!
My wife and I attended this debate. The problem with the debate was that the topic (Book of Mormon vs. the Bible) was not focused and therefore the two debaters were often addressing separate subjects. Future debates would benefit if there is a debatable topic (ie. "Be it resolved that the Book f Mormon is scripture") where there is a definite pro and con that will allow fr a clash of ideas.
Dr. Tanner gave a good presentation of some of the internal and external evidences for the Book of Mormon and gave out some very useful handouts covering his material. In contrast, Pastor Wallace, like a broken record, spouted the usual evangelical malarky criticizing Mormonism.
You should have said hi! I was the one video taping it.
You should have said hi! I was the one video taping it.
Spouting malarky? If Malarky is empty rhetoric, then I'd have to disagree. I disagree with Tanner's positions, but I wouldn't characterize his presentation as empty rhetoric either. Both put forth falsifiable, important propositions.
You should have said hi! I was the one video taping it.
Spouting malarky? If malarky is empty rhetoric, then I'd have to disagree. I disagree with Tanner's positions, but I wouldn't characterize his presentation as empty rhetoric either. Both put forth falsifiable, important propositions.
You should have said hi! I was the one video taping it.
Spouting malarky? If malarky is empty rhetoric, then I'd have to disagree. I disagree with Tanner's positions, but I wouldn't characterize his presentation as empty rhetoric either. Both put forth falsifiable, important propositions.
Amanda,
Is your argument against Mohammad that we are simply to far removed to have an accurate history of his life? Interesting, one must wonder how Joseph Smith will fare in at later dates according to these standards. However it's hard to believe that he [Mohammad] being illiterate could write in this "manner" that would move 1.8 billion to believe on its' words and spiritually impress generations time and time again. He was too simple-minded making the Quran simply miraculous! If your argument is valid then so is this one, and Islam is as true as Mormonism.
As for Dr. Tanners statements about Chiasmus found in the BOM, a topic nearly beaten to death on the "The Book of Mormon: True or False?" thread, as well as other literary forms found in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, again we write as we read, if one reads a lot of C.S. Lewis they will tend to imitate his writing style, and how much more will they try to appear like him if they are seeking to accredit it to him? If I am trying to write something that sounds religious I am pretty sure I will use the religious language of the time.
Finally we must remember that a while educated to the point of a third grader, in a classical sense not a Dewey sense, he was over twenty when he dictated the book to men who did have more education. We should at least hope that if he could not articulate with the written word that he could at least do so with the tongue. I know plenty of children with less than a third grade education who can do that.
Lautensack
So you were the one with the snarky chuckles when Pastor Wallace spouted the usual evangelical malarky?
You talking to me or Steve? I am an evangelical.
Aaron,
Now, thanks to your picture, I know what you look like. I will say hello to you in the future – providing that we are still on speaking terms.
Iamse7en,
I may guffaw, snort. or chortle – but I do not make snarky chuckles. However, I did notice that there were some people in the audience that evening who definitely did chuckle in a conspicuously snarky manner.
I enjoyed watching the debate, but thought it might have been nice if there would have been a stricter moderator that didn't allow them to get off topic quite as much. I like debates that force the participants to answer the questions asked instead of trying to weasel out of them. Not to mention any names of course…(Dr. Tanner)
Anyway, I'm getting used to the new commenting system. For those who don't know, I'm the commenter formerly known as poetchick.
I don't believe I have learned anything about trying to achieve an emotional euphoria- Now, epiphanies are almost always the result of the Holy Ghost…is THAT what you are callously referring to, in our teachings? Yes we believe in the Holy Ghost, in the spirit of God. I have no desire to apologize for this teaching. I have felt the influence of the Holy Ghost many times in my life. I honestly feel bad that you have not felt this. If you had, then you probably wouldn't poke fun at its' influence. You are starting to sound like a very worldy person, Aaron.
I appreciate your faith in God- and am grateful for it.
Blind faith? Sure. God has given us many important, viable testaments of Him…scripture, prophets, and the influence of His spirit: the Holy Ghost. If you are suggesting that somehow your faith requires no blind faith, and mine does- may I just bring it to your attention that your brand of Christianity produces equal amounts of doubt (if not more since you seem to deny the power of the Holy Ghost). Reasonable minds, which is why this website is so popular and well-trafficked, can disagree.
My grandmother, who knows her scriptures (a blessing in my life) very well, made a great point-one that I intend to verify through more study of the NT. The NT (testament) is a solid and moving testimony of God the Father through His son, Jesus Christ.
Not sure if you're the same Steve I'm thinking of, but I don't enjoy entertaining conversations when my fellow interlocutor is using text to communicate the idea that text is fundamentally unable to communicate meaning between two minds. But that doesn't mean you can't say hi!
There is no doubt that Joseph Smith failed as a man in many circumstances. However, it is glaringly obvious that YOU fail to give him credit where he deserves. I refuse to read your negative accounts of Joseph Smith because you do not at least balance your information with all of the overwhelmingly positive and humbling accounts of his life- this lack of respect for clearly, a good man, is not becoming of you as a Christian.
But if your point is simply that Joseph Smith doesn't compare to the Savior..of COURSE!
Lautensack,
I will have to concede that my reasoning was weak. Thank heavens I don't place my faith in this analogy or I would be a complete fake. I will say though, that it's a strong enough analogy to at least represent the strength in the restored gospel as a viable religion. Oftentimes many on this site erroneously play the gospel down as if it is just a silly cult- this is oftentimes a convenient picture to draw for evangelicals. But I admit, my analogy accomplishes nothing more.
Yes, I agree that what we read, can oftentimes be seen in the aesthetic of our writing, speaking etc. This reasoning is a rabbit hole. It's silly really, all this avoiding testimony stuff…we must prove it through man-made parameters! Please, let us not deny the power of God to testify through His spirit. I don't deny your authentic spiritual experiences…see, that is where you are wrong. You are also responsible for your actions, not me. God knows your heart, not me. And I believe you are capable of finding truth, just like me. This is why I would encourage anyone to find out for themselves, the truth of the book of Mormon. I would never encourage anyone to take anyone's word for it. We are all responsible to seek Him for ourselves. So I'm at peace if you say you feel differently about the Book of Mormon because I know for myself. It can be discouraging, yes, but such is the nature of agency in the lives of people around you.
The Book of Mormon is another testament of Him. This book exists. Many disagree on how it came about, but it is a physical testament of Jesus Christ…Christians who deny the power of it are walking on shaky ground because they are denying a testimony of the very Christ they claim to have Faith in (spare me the "we believe in a different Jesus" stuff because that is counterfeit reasoning). Regardless, if the Book of Mormon is simply a work of fiction by Joseph Smith, it is still a powerful testimony of Christ. Anyone who says otherwise, simply has not read it with the directive found in James: a humble heart.
Lautensack,
I will have to concede that my reasoning was weak. Thank heavens I don't place my faith in this analogy or I would be a complete fake. I will say though, that it's a strong enough analogy to at least represent the strength in the restored gospel as a viable religion. Oftentimes many on this site erroneously play the gospel down as if it is just a silly cult- this is oftentimes a convenient picture to draw for evangelicals. But I admit, my analogy accomplishes nothing more.
Yes, I agree that what we read, can oftentimes be seen in the aesthetic of our writing, speaking etc. This reasoning is a rabbit hole. It's silly really, all this avoiding testimony stuff…we must prove it through man-made parameters! Please, let us not deny the power of God to testify through His spirit. I don't deny your authentic spiritual experiences…see, that is where you are wrong. You are also responsible for your actions, not me. God knows your heart, not me. And I believe you are capable of finding truth, just like me. This is why I would encourage anyone to find out for themselves, the truth of the book of Mormon. I would never encourage anyone to take anyone's word for it. We are all responsible to seek Him for ourselves. So I'm at peace if you say you feel differently about the Book of Mormon because I know for myself. It can be discouraging, yes, but such is the nature of agency in the lives of people around you.
The Book of Mormon is another testament of Him. This book exists. Many disagree on how it came about, but it is a physical testament of Jesus Christ…Christians who deny the power of it are walking on shaky ground because they are denying a testimony of the very Christ they claim to have Faith in (spare me the "we believe in a different Jesus" stuff because that is counterfeit reasoning- and I should know a little bit about that, right Lautensack?). Regardless, if the Book of Mormon is simply a work of fiction by Joseph Smith, it is still a powerful testimony of Christ. Anyone who says otherwise, simply has not read it with the directive found in James: a humble heart.
Amanda, I think perhaps you are reading more attitude in my posts that I intend.
Our disagreement, of course, is over whether the Holy Ghost's revelation to us is dance between objectivity and subjectivity. I would encourage you to check out our relevant videos on this:
God is Not Honored by Blind Faith
Christianity is Objectivity Dancing with Subjecti…
Have a good Sunday,
Aaron
Amanda, I think perhaps you are reading more attitude in my posts that I intend.
Our disagreement, of course, is over whether the Holy Ghost's revelation to us is dance between objectivity and subjectivity. I would encourage you to check out our relevant videos on this:
God is Not Honored by Blind Faith
Christianity is Objectivity Dancing with Subjecti…
Have a good Sunday,
Aaron
Amanda, I think perhaps you are reading more attitude in my posts that I intend.
Our disagreement, of course, is over whether the Holy Ghost's revelation to us is dance between objectivity and subjectivity, or fundamentally a subjective, emotional epiphany. I would encourage you to check out our relevant videos on this:
God is Not Honored by Blind Faith
Christianity is Objectivity Dancing with Subjecti…
Have a good Sunday,
Aaron
Amanda, I think perhaps you are reading more attitude in my posts that I intend.
Our disagreement, of course, is over whether the Holy Ghost's revelation to us is dance between objectivity and subjectivity, or fundamentally a subjective, emotional epiphany. I would encourage you to check out our relevant videos on this:
God is Not Honored by Blind Faith
Christianity is Objectivity Dancing with Subjecti…
Have a good Sunday,
Aaron
Amanda, I think perhaps you read more attitude in my post that I intend.
Our disagreement, of course, is over whether the Holy Ghost's revelation to us is dance between objectivity and subjectivity, or fundamentally a subjective, emotional epiphany. I would encourage you to check out our relevant videos on this:
God is Not Honored by Blind Faith
Christianity is Objectivity Dancing with Subjecti…
Have a good Sunday,
Aaron
Amanda, I think perhaps you read more attitude in my post that I intended.
Our disagreement, of course, is over whether the Holy Ghost's revelation to us is dance between objectivity and subjectivity, or fundamentally a subjective, emotional epiphany. I would encourage you to check out our relevant videos on this:
God is Not Honored by Blind Faith
Christianity is Objectivity Dancing with Subjecti…
Have a good Sunday,
Aaron
Lautensack,
A major difference between the quran and the book of mormon/bible is Jesus Christs purpose on the earth. So that obscures your comparison a little bit.
I do see your point, however I never weighed in on the validity of Mohammad's teachings.
I simply do not have an opinion on the religion of Islam because I have not read or studied the Quran. I'm not exactly sure how that disproves or takes away from my original point, though. I believe it is you who has a specific feelings about both the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and Islam. I certainly do not believe that their traditions are completely void of goodness and truth.
The Chiasmus (thank you for spelling that out for me), however beaten to death it might be, is not at all put to rest with your counterpoints. After 4 years of college- (I even majored in a form of writing), I would find it very difficult to mimic C.S. Lewis' writings. Are you serious? Perhaps a passage or two…but a complete book with parallel literary functions when those functions were not even discovered by intellectuals of Joseph Smith's time? That is a stretch that might even fit over my thighs. But I welcome you to prove me wrong on this…if you want to attempt what you say would be so simple- I'd like to see it.
In addition, the facts add up: The solid testimonies of three witnesses that they saw the plates, and knew they were revealed scripture–saw angels…etc. What did they stand to gain? You mention his dictating to educated men. This is true. These educated men were witnesses who NEVER recanted.
Now, there is always room to doubt, Lautensack. You might be able to find those reasons. And that is certainly your choice. The Book of Mormon was brought about in these latter days through God's plan for His children. It is scripture, and will lead those who humbly follow its' teachings, to Christ. That is MY testimony, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
I like the commenting system…it is much easier for LDS to respond to those who pose questions directly at them…whereas the older system made it very difficult to address them. Thanks!
hey! it's been awhile!
As Dan Vogel writes, “If the printed testimony were all that was available, one would assume that the three witnesses saw the angel and the plates together in a single vision” (American Apocrypha, “The Validity of the Witnesses Testimony,” p.82). Unfortunately, the weight of the three witnesses is considerably lessened when learns the context of their visionary, not plain, experience.
Unfortunately, the weight of the three witnesses is considerably lessened when learns the context of their visionary, not plain, experience.
One thing is for certain, their testimonies are not the kind of "solid testimony" that would be helpful in a court of law.
Aaron,
I do not believe God will condemn unbelievers through a "court of Law", rather, a court on high. Something suitable for a court of law? Are you serious, Aaron? Their words will either condemn them, or you at the last days unless the party who needs repenting actually repents. A court of law can't deliver the truth at all times, and in best cases can only deliver parts of the truth. Litmus test: court of law? Isn't that how Christ was condemned?
The sin of the Jews was not in putting Christ through a court, but in rather putting him there on false charges and not giving him a fair trial. But that seems besides my main point.
A testimony of a supernatural vision can be helpful. But even Paul's visionary experience seem dwarfed by the historical significance of the plain eye-witness testimony of the 11 apostles of the resurrected Christ. Plain eye-witnesses corroborating the swoon theory, if they really had existed, would for me discount the supernatural visionary experiences of hundreds. And if Christ had not had any plain eye-witnesses of his resurrected body, I would dismiss the visionary experiences of people like Paul.
And the end of the day, many Mormons put a lot of value in what they assume was a plain eye-witness testimony of the three, when in reality even Mormon apologists today admit that it was only a visionary experience. Only the eight are argued to have had a plain experience, but even that is questionable on multiple fronts.
The sin of the Jews was not in putting Christ through a court, but in rather putting him there on false charges and not giving him a fair trial. But that seems besides my main point.
A testimony of a supernatural vision can be helpful. But even Paul's visionary experience seems dwarfed by the historical significance of the plain eye-witness testimony of the 11 apostles of the resurrected Christ. Plain eye-witnesses corroborating the swoon theory, if they really had existed, would for me discount the supernatural visionary experiences of hundreds. And if Christ had not had any plain eye-witnesses of his resurrected body, I would dismiss the visionary experiences of people like Paul.
And the end of the day, many Mormons put a lot of value in what they assume was a plain eye-witness testimony of the three, when in reality even Mormon apologists today admit that it was only a visionary experience. Only the eight are argued to have had a plain experience, but even that is questionable on multiple fronts.
The sin of the Jews was not in putting Christ through a court, but in rather putting him there on false charges and not giving him a fair trial. But that seems besides my main point.
A testimony of a supernatural vision can be helpful. But even Paul's visionary experience seems dwarfed by the historical significance of the plain eye-witness testimony of the 11 apostles of the resurrected Christ. Plain eye-witnesses corroborating the swoon theory, if they really had existed, would for me discount the alleged supernatural visionary experiences of hundreds. And if Christ had not had any plain eye-witnesses of his resurrected body, I would dismiss the visionary experiences of people like Paul.
And the end of the day, many Mormons put a lot of value in what they assume was a plain eye-witness testimony of the three, when in reality even Mormon apologists today admit that it was only a visionary experience. Only the eight are argued to have had a plain experience, but even that is questionable on multiple fronts.
The sin of the Jews was not in putting Christ through a court, but in rather putting him there on false charges and not giving him a fair trial. But that seems besides my main point.
A testimony of a supernatural vision can be helpful. But even Paul's visionary experience seems dwarfed by the historical significance of the plain eye-witness testimony of the 11 apostles of the resurrected Christ. Plain eye-witnesses corroborating the swoon theory, if they really had existed, would for me discount the alleged supernatural visionary experiences of hundreds. And if Christ had not had any plain eye-witnesses of his resurrected body, I would dismiss the visionary experiences of people like Paul.
And the end of the day, many Mormons put a lot of value in what they assume was a plain eye-witness testimony of the three, when in reality even Mormon apologists today admit that it was only a visionary experience. Only the eight are argued to have had a plain experience, but even that is questionable on multiple fronts.
The sin of the Jews was not in putting Christ through a court, but rather in putting him there on false charges and not giving him a fair trial. But that seems besides my main point.
A testimony of a supernatural vision can be helpful. But even Paul's visionary experience seems dwarfed by the historical significance of the plain eye-witness testimony of the 11 apostles of the resurrected Christ. Plain eye-witnesses corroborating the swoon theory, if they really had existed, would for me discount the alleged supernatural visionary experiences of hundreds. And if Christ had not had any plain eye-witnesses of his resurrected body, I would dismiss the visionary experiences of people like Paul.
And the end of the day, many Mormons put a lot of value in what they assume was a plain eye-witness testimony of the three, when in reality even Mormon apologists today admit that it was only a visionary experience. Only the eight are argued to have had a plain experience, but even that is questionable on multiple fronts.
Aaron,
Beside your point? No, I believe you made the point clearly that somehow because their testimony wouldn't hold up in a court of law that somehow it is invalid to us. I was trying to place their testimony in a more appropriate context. But I suppose you really have no feasible argument, which is why you apparently side-stepped.
I am a bit shocked. Perhaps I am just learning of the vast differences in which we come about spiritual truths. Are you truly that willing to set aside your testimony of Christ if no eye-witness accounts were accounted for (operative phrase: accounted for)??? Have you no life experience and personal relationship with Christ that would make any unaccounted for circumstances irrelevant? You are opening my eyes to a totally different Christianity. A Christianity based on facts solely produced by men? Well, I guess we come about our faith differently on this matter. I believe testimony in God comes through experimenting on His word, not simply being able to point to man-approved proof. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. If not, I certainly learned something today.
Furthermore I should note, using your own words:
"The sin of the Jews was not in putting Christ through a court, but rather in putting him there on false charges and not giving him a fair trial."
Hmmm…interesting. Joseph Smith would probably laugh at that comment you just made. Well, maybe not, but I'm laughing at the irony of it, myself.
The only Christ we have is the one the apostles gave us. And Jesus told the apostles, "Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me." (Matthew 10:40) The basic message that Paul outlines in 1 Corinthians 15 regards the OT prophecies pointing to Christ, the eye-witness testimony concerning the resurrected Christ, and I think the moral beauty and striking nature of person of Christ himself exhibited through his words and actions. There is simply nothing in the NT that encourages a prayer for a private emotional epiphany or euphoria. The NT gospel message gives us an important collection of reasons to regard Christ as the trustworthy messiah who is indeed God himself. All those are important to me, and I praise God that he hasn't demanded blind faith.
The only Christ we have is the one the apostles gave us. And Jesus told the apostles, "Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me." (Matthew 10:40) The basic message that Paul outlines in 1 Corinthians 15 regards the OT prophecies pointing to Christ, the eye-witness testimony concerning the resurrected Christ, and I think the moral beauty and striking nature of person of Christ himself exhibited through his words and actions. There is simply nothing in the NT that encourages a prayer for a private emotional epiphany or euphoria. The NT gospel message gives us an important collection of reasons to regard Christ as the trustworthy messiah who is indeed God himself. All those are important to me, and I praise God that he hasn't demanded blind faith. But if you remove just the OT prophecies, or just the eye-witness testimony, or just the striking moral beauty, the whole package falls apart.
Amanda,
I whole heartedly agree that there are major differences between the Quran, the Book of Mormon, and the Bible, not the least of which is the reason Jesus came to die. Now we could get into what each says about who Jesus is and His purpose for coming to this earth, I would love such a discussion. This specific thread is not the place for that. You have my email if you would like to discuss that more or perhaps a mod could post such a blog. *wink* However the point of my post was that the LDS are not the only ones to claim inspiration via ignorance or even inspiration via pragmatism. That is "he only had "x" education so there is no way he could have written the book unless inspired" or "well there is no way someone of his education level could write something so inspirational as to fool x million/billion people." Which were, as it appears your two basic arguments, I was simply noting that they were not exclusive to the LDS position, therefore if we are to accept the Book of Mormon or Mormonism on the basis of such 'evidence' then we must also accept the Quran and Islam as holding the same, or even greater, validity.
As for Chiasmus, I would refer you to the conversation between Mantis Mutu, FaithofFathers, and myself on the Book of Mormon True or False thread but the new comment system seemed to mess it us so it would be difficult to follow, however we find with the main example of Chiasmus that the Literary structure must be destroyed or the categories made so general that almost any writing could fit into it.
As for writing like C.S. Lewis of course it would take great skill to fool a learned linguistic into thinking that Lewis actually wrote something you forged. However that was not my argument, rather that what we read is reflected in our writings, thus if I read religious books in an older style of English then try to write in a religious book it will probably appear in an older style of English. I may also pick up some other things from the texts I am reading consciously or subconsciously and incorporate them into the text.
Of course there is room for doubt. There is room for doubt in every belief system, for none of us have exhaustive knowledge. However that does not mean falsehood cannot be known. You can certainly reject your Creator, yet rejecting Him does not mean He does not exist.
You appeal finally to testimony, I agree a spiritual witness can be a wonderful thing however what makes your subjective spiritual experience any more authentic than mine? That the Bible is God’s inerrant, authoritative, sufficient revelation to man, and is in no need of supplements on matters of faith and practice? That there is but one true and eternal God, unchangeable, unique, all-powerful, who created all things; there is nothing that exists anywhere that He did not bring into existence? That man is the creation of God, and God should not be thought of as an exalted man?
Lautensack
At least Jesus went face-first into the mess he knew he would die in. He set his face toward Jerusalem (cf. Luke 9) and "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross" (Hebrews 12:2). In contrast, Joseph Smith crossed the Mississippi river going West, fleeing, and it took the goading reproof of his wife to get him to be a man and turn back. If Smith was like a lamb led to the slaughter, he was like a lamb with a Smith and Wesson firearm bucking the whole way to the shears.
Amanda,
First, Christians do not place their trust in their reasoning powers, rather we trust in God's Christ, and that he is sovereign enough to keep His word. We don't place our trust in a good who goes oops…
You seem to think I have not read or prayed about the Book of Mormon and am perhaps unread in the rest of the LDS canon and unlearned in LDS "prophetic" literature. You know me better than that. As for the "avoiding testimony stuff" if two people have different "testimonies" what should we do? I submit that we should also love God with all our mind, (Mark 12:29-30) and seek out the revealed things. (Deuteronomy 29:29 cf. Proverbs 25:2) Thus under the Lordship of Christ we test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21) by searching the scriptures (Acts 17:11) this includes those who claim to be a prophet. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:15-22) If you choose to rebel against God in this aspect of your life that is fine, however you will be accountable for suppressing the Truth about God and exchanging it for the lie and serving and worshiping the creature rather than the Creator who is forever blessed. Amen.
Finally you say that Christians who deny the power of the Book of Mormon are walking on shaky ground. I concede the Book of Mormon is powerful, it is a powerful weapon of Satan to deceive people and draw them away from the presents of His glorious grace. As for the "different Jesus" seriously; your own prophets claimed this, and I am sure you do not worship what Joseph Smith Jr. called a Monster. (Though I would ague that he didn't understand the Doctrine of the Trinity since he missed it twice [Modalism and Polytheism].)
As for it being a powerful testimony of Christ I am pretty sure you wouldn't suggest that Awake! [Watchtower publication] or Science & Health [Christian Science Scripture] are powerful testimonies of Christ, thought both groups would affirm such. Error is error, heresy is heresy and should be rejected as such.(Galatians 1:8) Thus "we destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Lautensack
The sin of the Jews was not in putting Christ through a court, but rather in putting him there on false charges and not giving him a fair trial. But that seems besides my main point.
A testimony of a supernatural vision can be helpful. But even Paul's visionary experience seems dwarfed by the historical significance of the plain eye-witness testimony of the 11 apostles of the resurrected Christ. Plain eye-witnesses corroborating the swoon theory, if they really had existed, would for me discount the alleged supernatural visionary experiences of hundreds. And if Christ had not had any plain eye-witnesses of his resurrected body, I would dismiss the visionary experiences of people like Paul.
And the end of the day, many Mormons put a lot of value in what they assume was a plain eye-witness testimony of the alleged three witnesses, when in reality even Mormon apologists today admit that it was only a visionary experience. Only the eight are argued to have had a plain experience, but even that is questionable on multiple fronts.
At least Jesus went face-first into the mess he knew he would die in. He set his face toward Jerusalem (cf. Luke 9) and "for the joy that was set before him endured the cross" (Hebrews 12:2). In contrast, Joseph Smith crossed the Mississippi river going West, fleeing, and it took the goading reproof of his wife to get him to be a man and turn back. If Smith was like a lamb led to the slaughter, he was like a lamb with a Smith and Wesson firearm bucking his way to the shears.
Amanda, I think perhaps you read more attitude in my post than I have.
Our disagreement, of course, is over whether the Holy Ghost's revelation to us is dance between objectivity and subjectivity, or fundamentally a subjective, emotional epiphany that constitutes blind faith—something that requires no corroborating objective evidence. I would encourage you to check out our relevant videos on this:
God is Not Honored by Blind Faith
Christianity is Objectivity Dancing with Subjecti…
Have a good Sunday,
Aaron
LDS believe in a finite God? Hmmm…I missed THAT one in Sunday school. The simple truth is that we believe in an Almighty infinite and omniscient God. That's it. I also believe in the sufficiency of scripture, and whatever God wants to throw my direction- that's called humility. What part of the bible disagrees with the Book of Mormon? I certainly agree that your interpretation of the bible disagrees with your interpretation of the Book of Mormon. God is authority. The bible is HIS tool. But oftentimes it seems as though the bible is more authoritative to evangelicals than God's hand in modern times, and His plan for His children. That is at the meat of those scriptures I posted. What about the Book of mormon flatters men? I could easily turn that logic around on your own position, Lautensack.
2 Ne. 4: 34
34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.
Is THAT flattering to men? Lautensack, I respect your point of view. It is clear that you seek the Lord. For that, I am sincerely grateful. We need people like you as neighbors and friends. Thank you for your Faith.
Firstly, I want to clarify that I never said that you hadn't read the Book of Mormon or informed yourself etc…not sure why you feel that way.
Heresy is heresy. Yea. Error is Error. Yea. But you assume that all religions either encapsulate complete and total error, or complete and total truth…there is nothing in between? I think truth is found in many places. I would add to that, however, and state boldly that His gospel in its' entirety has been restored! Bits and pieces of it…even large chunks of it are found in many places. That is why I cannot reject any person as an individual based on their religion. If you reject someone's entire cultural surroundings and beliefs, they will likely reject your message because they know truth- any good person knows and accepts many forms of truth. This is why your approach of "you are a heretic and are damned to everlasting hell and damnation unless you see things the way I do" is not only ineffective, but heresy in itself.
John 3: 17, 19
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
• • •
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Notice the word *deeds in verse 19. People are not condemned based on their religious affiliations, but based on their sin and wickedness. You err in attributing Satan's designs to the most benign, and in my case, good and noble cases- if you are really suggesting that the restored gospel is a tool of the Devil, then I honestly have to laugh at all of your "studying" because it hasn't made you any wiser. If you still insist this is the case then it would be blatantly and painfully obvious you don't know what your talking about, or are just deceiving yourself on this point- or ironically, allowing Satan to deceive you.