President Monson, President Eyring, President Uchtdorf

[_Who Knows]

Just like you can't really tell how well your teachingts have gone over with your kids if they only do what you want when you are standing over them, we have to show God we will do what He wants when we don't realize He is standing right over us.

That analogy doesn't make sense at all. Who says they need god 'standing over us' 24/7. All I'd want, and I'm sure most other people would want, is an occasional visit every now and then - you know, like a good parent would do. I don't hover over my kids 24/7, but I'm there when they need me. Likewise, I wouldn't expect god (if there is one) to hover over me 24/7. However, if he is there, I'd expect a visit every now and then.

Again, what's so great about faith? What makes believing based on faith, better than believing based on facts?

[_Canucklehead]

The prophet is really chosen at the time a man is called to be an apostle. Then after that, the Lord controls because He is the one who determines when you die.

Actually, if the recent account of the CaEMS is to be believed, then the apostles themselves get to decide when they die. I guess that's why you see a gerontocracy running the church ... everyone trying to outwait the others for their shot at the top job. I wonder at what point they decide that they don't have enough patience to outlast the others.

Kinda seems like one of those challenges on Survivor for the immunity idol.

[_charity]

Just like you can't really tell how well your teachingts have gone over with your kids if they only do what you want when you are standing over them, we have to show God we will do what He wants when we don't realize He is standing right over us.

That analogy doesn't make sense at all. Who says they need god 'standing over us' 24/7. All I'd want, and I'm sure most other people would want, is an occasional visit every now and then - you know, like a good parent would do. I don't hover over my kids 24/7, but I'm there when they need me. Likewise, I wouldn't expect god (if there is one) to hover over me 24/7. However, if he is there, I'd expect a visit every now and then.

Again, what's so great about faith? What makes believing based on faith, better than believing based on facts?

I did not explain myself well, evidently.

You tell your children you don't want them to eat cookies before supper. You stay with them in the room where the cookies are until suppertime and they didn't eat any cookies. Was it because they were obedient to you because they chose to be obedient? Or was it because they knew they would be in trouble because you would see them and know they had done it?

So, to know if your kids will really obey you, you leave the room. Then with the possiblity of "not getting caught" do they still stay out of the cookie jar? So the one who says, "No, I won't take a cookie, because Dad said not to" is more obedient than the one who says, "He'll never know" and sneaks a cookie behind your back.

That is what the mortal life and test is all about.

And God is showing you He is near you. You just aren't noticing. And that is part of the test, too.

And again, what about facts? You need to weed out the pertinent facts from the irrelevant ones. Geology and archeology aren't relevant. The relevant facts are your life facts. Your family. Who you are and what you choose to do. And archeology doesn't change any of that.

[_Jason Bourne]

explain why Packer should be overlooked?

Why??? There is no reason to suppose he was a shoe in for this. Many senior members have not been called to the FP. Benson never was till called as President. Same for Kimball

I see no reason, unless Church is ready to unload/discard some some fundamental doctrines?

There seems to be some disconnect. Explain how Packer being called or not called to the FP impacts this one bit.

Or is this just another one of your disjointed rants?

[_Sethbag]

Exactly. It is all about faith. I have heard the idea expressed, (I don't know that I believe it, necessarily, however,) That there will never be archeological proof of the Book of Mormon discovered because then the book would not have to be taken on faith. And that is the whole point.

Since when is that the whole point? Since when? This whole "... never be archeological proof of the Book of Mormon because then we wouldn't have to have faith." crap is only even brought up at all because there's no archeological proof of the Book of Mormon.

And check out FARMS. They seem to really want to demonstrate proof that the Book of Mormon is true. What's with the whole NHM thing, if they aren't trying to discover and demonstrate such proof? What's with any of it? Why bother with NHM instead of just standing up and bearing testimony, if it's all really just about having faith, and not actually having evidence?

But seriously, since when is the whole point of the Book of Mormon having faith, such that it's necessary, in order to support this aim, for archeological proof never to be discovered?

Did the people described in the Book of Mormon actually exist, or didn't they?

Did Zarahemla exist, or didn't it?

Were the ancient American peoples (at least some significant chunk of them) between ~600 BC and ~400 AD actually Christian, or weren't they?

Did the ancient American peoples (at least some signficiant chunk of them) have steel, chariots, horses, barley, wheat, elephants, etc., or didn't they?

These are all questions of fact, Charity. They either are fact, or they are fiction. If they are fact, then the Nephites and Lamanites would have left evidence around, just like every other race and people on the face of the earth. There will be ruins and artifacts from them, just as there are from all the other civilizations and peoples. There's not a reason in the world that the Book of Mormon peoples, cities, races, civilizations shouldn't be provable by the same means that existence of so many other past civilizations and peoples is verified - by find their evidence.

The only contradiction to this is that maybe God actually hid all the evidence, specifically to thwart us finding them, so that we, as you suggest, are required to "have faith" in the Book of Mormon rather than actually have physical evidence back up the claims.

Do you think God actually hid up the entire civilizations of the Book of Mormon for this reason, Charity? You would have to believe that God left evidence in the Earth of evolution, of an ancient Earth, of no Noah's Ark having happened, of human beings existing on the face of the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years past the earliest Biblical timeline for Adam and Eve, and all sorts of troublesome and pesky things, but he wiped out, erased, or hid the evidence that would back up the Book of Mormon events having been real? Does this actually make sense to you? Is this really, in your heart of hearts, reasonable to you, that God should act this way?

This life is a test. Remember that? Do you believe or do you not believe? I can't imagine the following testimony on fast day. "I know the Book of Mormon is true because Dr. Digalot has just found Zarahemla."

You know, it's entirely possible that the only reason that F&T meeting is necessary at all right now is to keep people repeating the mantras, so that they keep believing what otherwise appears not to be true. Maybe F&T meeting would even be needed anymore if Dr. Digalot really did find Zarahemla, and what exactly would be wrong with that? What exactly is wrong with people believing things that actually appear, from the historical record, to be true?

Why is it that religious apologists like to fall back on this absurd notion that in order to be authentic, faith must be in things that, scientifically, or archeologically, actually appear to be in serious trouble? What kind of God gives us all a very logical, capable, rational mind, and then only will reward those who figure out how to circumvent all the mental and rational safeguards and learn to believe things even though they actually appear, on the evidence, not really to be true?

Sorry, Charity, but if God exists, he gave me the rational mind that looks at the evidence that the Church is apparently not true and takes that seriously. I'm sure he'd understand.

[_Who Knows]

I did not explain myself well, evidently.

You tell your children you don't want them to eat cookies before supper. You stay with them in the room where the cookies are until suppertime and they didn't eat any cookies. Was it because they were obedient to you because they chose to be obedient? Or was it because they knew they would be in trouble because you would see them and know they had done it?

So, to know if your kids will really obey you, you leave the room. Then with the possiblity of "not getting caught" do they still stay out of the cookie jar? So the one who says, "No, I won't take a cookie, because Dad said not to" is more obedient than the one who says, "He'll never know" and sneaks a cookie behind your back.

I understand what you're saying, but again, is completely irrelevant; it's not analogous at all.

And God is showing you He is near you. You just aren't noticing. And that is part of the test, too.

I know what i've experienced. god has not shown himself to me. i have not seen any sort of evidence that he's shown himself to anyone ever. that is precisely why i question his existence.

And again, what about facts? You need to weed out the pertinent facts from the irrelevant ones. Geology and archeology aren't relevant. The relevant facts are your life facts. Your family. Who you are and what you choose to do. And archeology doesn't change any of that.

Again, you're telling me what i've experience, and what i've done? Believe me, I know what's relevant, and what isn't. Who are you to tell me what's relevant to me?

Again, what's so great about faith? What makes believing based on faith, better than believing based on facts? (charity - hint - if you don't know, or can't answer why, it's ok to say so...)

[_Sethbag]

So, in your world, Jesus should just show up right now, and convince us all. So why doesn't He?

And "prove all things" mean by the Spirit, not by archeolgoical shovels.

He doesn't just show up right now and convince us all, because he doesn't exist. He's a figment of your imagination.

You seem to think that God looks the most approvingly on people who have the ability to suspend the rational functioning of their brains and believe on something that doesn't actually appear to be true, purely on faith. But of course there are billions of people who do precisely that, only they're having faith in something other than the Truth According to Mormonism. Kind of funny how that works.

[_Who Knows]

You seem to think that God looks the most approvingly on people who have the ability to suspend the rational functioning of their brains and believe on something that doesn't actually appear to be true, purely on faith.

This is exactly what I keep asking charity to explain. I don't get it.

[_charity]

Since this is a long post, and the quote feature will bet majorly in the way, I will add my responses on bold.

Since when is that the whole point? Since when? This whole "... never be archeological proof of the Book of Mormon because then we wouldn't have to have faith." crap is only even brought up at all because there's no archeological proof of the Book of Mormon.

I said it didn't necessarily follow that line of thinking.

And check out FARMS. They seem to really want to demonstrate proof that the Book of Mormon is true. What's with the whole NHM thing, if they aren't trying to discover and demonstrate such proof? What's with any of it? Why bother with NHM instead of just standing up and bearing testimony, if it's all really just about having faith, and not actually having evidence?

Because people are curious. If the Church felt it imperative for there to be proof of the sites, etc. the Prophet could very easily get up an expedition, tell them exactly where to dig. The Church doesn't do that. FARMS is not the Church.

But seriously, since when is the whole point of the Book of Mormon having faith, such that it's necessary, in order to support this aim, for archeological proof never to be discovered?

If I recall correclty Moroni tells us to seek for a confirmation from the Spirit. I don't recall him every giving directions to archeolgoical digs.

Did the people described in the Book of Mormon actually exist, or didn't they? Yes.

Did Zarahemla exist, or didn't it? Yes.

Were the ancient American peoples (at least some significant chunk of them) between ~600 BC and ~400 AD actually Christian, or weren't they? Yes.

Did the ancient American peoples (at least some signficiant chunk of them) have steel, chariots, horses, barley, wheat, elephants, etc., or didn't they? I don't verify the literalness of the translation, but yes.

These are all questions of fact, Charity. They either are fact, or they are fiction. If they are fact, then the Nephites and Lamanites would have left evidence around, just like every other race and people on the face of the earth. There will be ruins and artifacts from them, just as there are from all the other civilizations and peoples. There's not a reason in the world that the Book of Mormon peoples, cities, races, civilizations shouldn't be provable by the same means that existence of so many other past civilizations and peoples is verified - by find their evidence.

They are and will be. Just maybe not on the time line you demand.

Do you think God actually hid up the entire civilizations of the Book of Mormon for this reason, Charity?

No.
You would have to believe that God left evidence in the Earth of evolution, of an ancient Earth, of no Noah's Ark having happened, of human beings existing on the face of the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years past the earliest Biblical timeline for Adam and Eve, and all sorts of troublesome and pesky things, but he wiped out, erased, or hid the evidence that would back up the Book of Mormon events having been real? Does this actually make sense to you? Is this really, in your heart of hearts, reasonable to you, that God should act this way?

I think it is there. Just not discovered yet, or not undestood to be what it really is.

This life is a test. Remember that? Do you believe or do you not believe? I can't imagine the following testimony on fast day. "I know the Book of Mormon is true because Dr. Digalot has just found Zarahemla."

You know, it's entirely possible that the only reason that F&T meeting is necessary at all right now is to keep people repeating the mantras, so that they keep believing what otherwise appears not to be true. Maybe F&T meeting would even be needed anymore if Dr. Digalot really did find Zarahemla, and what exactly would be wrong with that? What exactly is wrong with people believing things that actually appear, from the historical record, to be true?

That is certainly not the reason I attend Fast and Testimony meeting, nor what I get out of it. What a limitied view!

Why is it that religious apologists like to fall back on this absurd notion that in order to be authentic, faith must be in things that, scientifically, or archeologically, actually appear to be in serious trouble? What kind of God gives us all a very logical, capable, rational mind, and then only will reward those who figure out how to circumvent all the mental and rational safeguards and learn to believe things even though they actually appear, on the evidence, not really to be true?

We have minds because that is an eternal attribute. We are supposed to think and learn. But we are supposed to be able to think and use our minds not to puff ourselves up in pride and haughtiness, but in humility. To be able to undestand that what we can learn and use our minds for doesn't amount to much in the vast amount of knowledge there is to learn. You can't think your way to heaven.

Sorry, Charity, but if God exists, he gave me the rational mind that looks at the evidence that the Church is apparently not true and takes that seriously. I'm sure he'd understand.

He will know exactly how you think. He will also know exactly what witnesses of the Spirit you were given. You will judged not on what you knew, but what you could have known if you had chosen to do so.

[_the road to hana]

Some probably thought Jesus would never let Thomas feel the nail prints in his hands and feet, either.

Let's see, what is that scripture? "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

Something like that.

So, in your world, Jesus should just show up right now, and convince us all. So why doesn't He?

And "prove all things" mean by the Spirit, not by archeolgoical shovels.

No, I'm just saying that your conjecture that God isn't ever going to offer proof of the Book of Mormon for the reasons you stated is flawed based on scriptural precedent (if you believe the New Testament scripture, that is, which I assume you do).