Do they know it's not true?

[_harmony]

And it is that you are now so firmly backed into the corner of defending your loss of testimony that you will not even admit that your understanding might be wrong.

And when, pray tell, are you going to admit that your understanding might be wrong?

I can't count high enough to log the number of times I've seen critics admit they might be wrong. I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen apologists do that.

[_Wintersfootsteps]

And it is that you are now so firmly backed into the corner of defending your loss of testimony that you will not even admit that your understanding might be wrong.

And when, pray tell, are you going to admit that your understanding might be wrong?

I can't count high enough to log the number of times I've seen critics admit they might be wrong. I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen apologists do that.

I have only posted 10 times and I already agree with that statement.

[_JAK]

And it is that you are now so firmly backed into the corner of defending your loss of testimony that you will not even admit that your understanding might be wrong.

And when, pray tell, are you going to admit that your understanding might be wrong?

I can't count high enough to log the number of times I've seen critics admit they might be wrong. I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen apologists do that.

Harmony,

It’s a characteristic difference between those who imagine truth by assertion and those who recognize that skeptical review of position is wise.

Science uses the latter. Science reaches tentative conclusions and leaves open the possibility and even the probability that new information may come to light and require modification of a previous view.

That is a fundamental difference between religious pundits and research scholars.

JAK

[_harmony]

And it is that you are now so firmly backed into the corner of defending your loss of testimony that you will not even admit that your understanding might be wrong.

And when, pray tell, are you going to admit that your understanding might be wrong?

I can't count high enough to log the number of times I've seen critics admit they might be wrong. I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen apologists do that.

Harmony,

It’s a characteristic difference between those who imagine truth by assertion and those who recognize that skeptical review of position is wise.

Science uses the latter. Science reaches tentative conclusions and leaves open the possibility and even the probability that new information may come to light and require modification of a previous view.

That is a fundamental difference between religious pundits and research scholars.

JAK

Well, we're mostly religious pundits here, JAK. In case you haven't noticed. No wonder you can't argue from our worldview. You aren't absolute enough to be a religious pundit.

[_Gadianton]

I've heard apologists claim that speaking with Jesus is a very sacred thing, and to talk about it on national television would be casting pearls before swine.

I really do get sick of hearing that.

It doesn't seem to have stopped Joseph Smith.

Isn't it curious that the last LDS Prophet willing to talk about Heavenly visitations was also the last Prophet to realize they were made up?

Neither did it stop the Apostle Paul. In fact, it's even a matter of LDS doctrine that the apostles as special witnesses are such because they've "seen him", specifically testifying to the bodily resurrection. So basically, the role of apostle is to "cast pearls before swine", to the entire world, and testify of their perfect knowledge of Christ's resurrection through physically seeing him, feeling wounds in hands etc.

[_Sethbag]

I've heard apologists claim that speaking with Jesus is a very sacred thing, and to talk about it on national television would be casting pearls before swine.

I really do get sick of hearing that.

It doesn't seem to have stopped Joseph Smith.

Isn't it curious that the last LDS Prophet willing to talk about Heavenly visitations was also the last Prophet to realize they were made up?

Neither did it stop the Apostle Paul. In fact, it's even a matter of LDS doctrine that the apostles as special witnesses are such because they've "seen him", specifically testifying to the bodily resurrection. So basically, the role of apostle is to "cast pearls before swine", to the entire world, and testify of their perfect knowledge of Christ's resurrection through physically seeing him, feeling wounds in hands etc.

I couldn't possibly agree more. DCP and others talk so strongly of the power of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. How about those who should be able to bear witness today, in 2008, of what they've seen and handled? Why are not today's Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ able to bear public and powerful testimony of having seen and felt the wounds in the living Savior? Would it take away the need for faith - one of the most common LDS excuses for lack of Divine manifestations? I should hardly think so. One would still have to hear their witness and "know" through the Spirit that they told the truth.

Imagine if the LDS church really were true. Imagine if God really did exist, and Jesus Christ really did exist as a currently living, resurrected being. Imagine if the LDS Prophet and the Twelve Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ bore powerful testimony in public that they had seen him and knew that he existed, and had conversed with him face to face, and handled his wounds, and could stand as witnesses to the whole world of Christ and his mission and Godhood. Would that not be a very powerful testimony? Would that not be a testimony people would take notice of, and have to take seriously in some way? Would that sort of powerful and continuing witness by actual Apostles of the real and actual, current existence of Jesus Christ have real power and influence?

Instead, what do we have? A bunch of faith-promoting rumors that cause much of the LDS church membership to believe that the Apostles have probably seen Jesus, but nobody knows for sure, and when they do talk about their interactions with the Divine, it's always just about the still small voice, the impression in their heart, etc. I think it's a great big cop out.

[_charity]

I couldn't possibly agree more. DCP and others talk so strongly of the power of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. How about those who should be able to bear witness today, in 2008, of what they've seen and handled? Why are not today's Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ able to bear public and powerful testimony of having seen and felt the wounds in the living Savior? Would it take away the need for faith - one of the most common LDS excuses for lack of Divine manifestations? I should hardly think so. One would still have to hear their witness and "know" through the Spirit that they told the truth.

Imagine if the LDS church really were true. Imagine if God really did exist, and Jesus Christ really did exist as a currently living, resurrected being. Imagine if the LDS Prophet and the Twelve Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ bore powerful testimony in public that they had seen him and knew that he existed, and had conversed with him face to face, and handled his wounds, and could stand as witnesses to the whole world of Christ and his mission and Godhood. Would that not be a very powerful testimony? Would that not be a testimony people would take notice of, and have to take seriously in some way? Would that sort of powerful and continuing witness by actual Apostles of the real and actual, current existence of Jesus Christ have real power and influence?

Instead, what do we have? A bunch of faith-promoting rumors that cause much of the LDS church membership to believe that the Apostles have probably seen Jesus, but nobody knows for sure, and when they do talk about their interactions with the Divine, it's always just about the still small voice, the impression in their heart, etc. I think it's a great big cop out.

So lets examine the record. Joseph Smith bore bold testimony of the appearance to him of the resurrected Christ and the resurrected Moroni, and others. Did everyone who heard his powerful testimony take notice and join? No, most of them took notice and then became hostile, even to the point of violence.

Be honest about it, sethbag. If President Hinckly had, or the next prophet were to say in conference that he had personally seen the Savior, would you run right back to the Church? No, you would think he was lying. So, just knock of the "if only they would. . . ."

[_Runtu]

So lets examine the record. Joseph Smith bore bold testimony of the appearance to him of the resurrected Christ and the resurrected Moroni, and others. Did everyone who heard his powerful testimony take notice and join? No, most of them took notice and then became hostile, even to the point of violence.

Be honest about it, sethbag. If President Hinckly had, or the next prophet were to say in conference that he had personally seen the Savior, would you run right back to the Church? No, you would think he was lying. So, just knock of the "if only they would. . . ."

At least we'd have a better idea that they actually believe what they say they are: prophets, seers, and revelators. We don't even that, just some elderly men who feel the still, small voice like the rest of us.

[_BishopRic]

So lets examine the record. Joseph Smith bore bold testimony of the appearance to him of the resurrected Christ and the resurrected Moroni, and others.

...or wait, was it Nephi? Oh, I don't know, but it was a resurrected somebody.

It was! It was! It was!

[_Sethbag]

I didn't say I'd run right back to church Charity. I said that then the Apostles would be real Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ.

The reason I don't run right back to church is the same reason, however, that these faux Apostles don't testify of having seen Jesus Christ. Because they haven't, and the reason is that it's not true. The church isn't really the authorized organization of a God who actually exists. It's manmade, and mansustained, and nothing more.

If God really did exist, and Jesus Christ really did exist as a resurrected being, and the LDS church really were his authorized and empowered organization on Earth to propagate news of him to the rest of humankind, I'd run right back to it. If the church were really true I'd want to be a part of it. Indeed, I wanted to be a part of it, and was, and enthusiastically so, when I believed that it actually was true.

You kid yourself, Charity, when you make excuses for why the LDS Prophet and Apostles don't testify of seeing the true and living God.

They don't testify of having seen and visited with Jesus Christ face to face for one reason and one reason only - because they haven't seen and visited with Jesus Christ at all. Ever. And they never will, either.

As an aside, you offered no coherent reason why the Apostles ought not to testify of personal visitations with a resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. I need hardly explain that "if they did, you still wouldn't run back to church" isn't really a reason for them not to so testify.

If the Apostles have seen Jesus then that's by far the most important thing they could possibly have to say to the rest of the world. If Jesus Christ actually exists, and these 15 men can stand before the world and testify that they know this because they've seen him, handled his wounds, and talked with him as one man talks with another, that is one of the most important things the world could possibly hear. What more important message can the world possibly need to hear? That they haven't got their 72 hour kits ready yet? Or that they ought not to wear more than one set of earrings, unless they're men, in which case they ought not wear any at all? Or perhaps the most important message the world could possibly hear from the Special Witnesses and Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ is that they should be more faithful in their home teaching? Or attend the temple more often?

Really, Charity. How weak.