Modern day apostacy - how would we know?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No I don't expect to be able to verify anything scientifically. Is that really what you thought I meant?

You used the term "objective evidence" and you couched your explanation such that it appears you want something that is statistically significant. These are the hallmarks of scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Yet, if I believe the scriptures, he has done just that repeatedly.

You just answered your own question. You did not have these experiences. There is no objective evidence that any of this is true. You take them on faith.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't think Joseph did perform any indisputable miracles, so maybe that is where my definition falls short. Maybe miracles are always subjective,though just to give one example, the miracle of the resurrection was not something Jesus came to the people at the time and asked them to take his word for. He invited them to feel the prints in his hands and feet. He ate honeycomb with some of them. I don't know. I do know that Jospeh claimed to have witnessed all kind of miraculous things. Gold plates, heavenly manifestations, visions, dreams and more. He also routinely made specific prophesies. None of that stuff is independently verifiable. I don't expect it to be and I think I have said until I am blue in the face in other threads that religion is built on faith rather than evidences anyway.

Anyway, if those things I mentioned happened to Joseph (and I recognize that the priesthood can only be restored once for example) and we don't hear the prophet say such things are happening to him nor really for the last 100 years or more, I think it is at least fair to wonder why it stopped or why we are no longer being told if it didn't stop. I hope that makes sense, I am sort of thinking out loud here in an effort to firm up what I think.

The simplest and most rational explanation for both Christ's resurrection/miracles and for the JS story is that it was all fabricated. It takes faith to believe otherwise.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What was the ancient default position to share or not to share? The scriptures would have us believe sharing was the norm, but perhaps it was so abnormal it was noted.

Again, why are we so reluctant to share? I have only simple things to share, so most would not note such simple things. If a momentous thing occurred I wonder if I would share. Probably not, but then again it hasn't happened.

An interesting consideration is how perspective will affect what is momentous and what is not.

For example, the healing of a parent may seem momentous to me, but probably won't to someone who does not know her.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

Since when has anything related to the veracity and/or efficacy of this work relied on objective evidence?

I think I have said that it doesn't rely on objective evidence. It wouldn't have made it this far if it did. I'm just trying to come up with a definition of miracle in the sentence you have quoted. And, of course, objective evidence has been provided at times though not frequently. Do you have an opinion about why, in light of evidence not really being necessary, sometimes it is provided and other times it is not?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No, I think he is making a good point there and I do appreciate you pointing that authority out. I wasn't suggesting none existed. Just that I wasn't aware of what it was. I'm sure there are lots of famous talks whose contents I don't recall.

FWIW, Dan, I thought your queries were exceptionally respectful, by normal Cougarguard standards (not that it wasn't respectful by other standards)

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Spaz

In terms of what we're told in regards to miracles performed by the Apostles, I can absolutely understand the question & pondering regarding this.

On the other hand, to discount the miracles witnessed by countless members as being inconsequential, and evidence of the church's 'state of condemnation' is simply arrogant and logically flawed.

What would make you think that is what I am doing?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Adam

Maybe he saw our day and knew that many would redefine the miracle of healing from curing the leper with a touch and healing the issue of blood by the touch of a hemline to the painful prolonging of life for an extra week after a blessing and the like. The gift of tongues would be redefined as kids learning a language after 6 months of intensive immersion study. And so on and so forth.

Maybe he saw that there would come a time when the Church would lose its miracles due to unbelief and wanted to warn against that day and point the way back.

Or maybe he was just wasting his time babbling about things that have no relevance to us.

I observe from my study of church history that the mighty miracles referred to by Moroni slowed down during the 1850s and nearly completely ceased by the 1920s. It is well documented that Heber J. Grant lamented long and hard his inability to learn Japanese (no gift of tongues there) as well as sorrow deeply that he had never had a heavenly visitation or vision.

Some say that the mighty miracles listed by Moroni are indeed happening. Then, the question is, why can't we talk about them? Why does God want people to think the age of miracles has ceased if it hasn't ceased?

Or maybe Moroni was just babbling and his warning was not needed.

Or maybe your observations of 'miracles referred to by Moroni' are clouded by your immense ego.

Again, I tell you that I have experienced the miracles referred to by Moroni. Not all of them, but several. Their veracity has been confirmed to me by the spirit.

For you to discount those miracles, and those of all the people who, like me, have observed them, simply demonstrates your arrogance and marginalizes your opinions and posts.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

What would make you think that is what I am doing?

I didn't mean to imply you were doing so. It was probably bad form on my part, including a comment meant for Adam specifically & everyone generally, in a specific response to your post.

I apologize.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You used the term "objective evidence" and you couched your explanation such that it appears you want something that is statistically significant. These are the hallmarks of scientific evidence.

I see what you mean. In hindsight, that is a weakness of the definition I was working on there. What I was trying to highlight is that much of what is sighted as miraculous is completely in the eye of the beholder. I was trying to get to the idea that sometimes there are evidents that are more objective, but maybe there aren't. What do you think?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You just answered your own question. You did not have these experiences. There is no objective evidence that any of this is true. You take them on faith.

Another fair point, but I haven't met anyone who claimed to have had an experience that was of the non-subjective variety. That doesn't mean I discount it. But somehow I think there is a difference between someone telling me that they miraculously, and inexplicably, got better when they were very sick and someone telling me they heard the voice of God or saw an angel. With the former, a well intentioned person could simply be mistake as to the cause. With the later, there is no mistake unless the person is crazy. Maybe there is no difference here, and yet there seems to be one that I haven't been able to adequately articulate yet.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The simplest and most rational explanation for both Christ's resurrection/miracles and for the JS story is that it was all fabricated. It takes faith to believe otherwise.

Again, this is true. It takes faith in what others are telling you. Certainly it takes faith to believe what the scriptures say. And yet, and I don't want to overstate this, but isn't one of the benefits of having a prophet the idea that we can look to him to affirm this to us? Isn't the power of Joseph's testimony not that he told people that he had studied the scriptures and felt inspired they were true, but rather than he said I have seen, I have heard, I have touched. Trust me, I know. Maybe a Joseph only comes along once in a dispensation. I certainly haven't heard those claims lately. I'm just groping (cue Goatnapper to join the discussion) with the idea that the manifestations are more direct at sometimes that others. This seems apparent. Just thinking about why that is.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Adam

I happened to turn to Moroni 10 and was browsing it during lunch.

Moroni, when he is finishing up the book of Mormon (the small book, not the whole thing) he goes on and on about miracles and their disappearing in the last days as a sign of apostasy (not capital Apostacy but widespread personal apostasy).

Then as he finishes up his one book of Moroni, he returns to the same theme.

Just as he referred to the "mighty miracles" of Jesus and listed some of those miracles in Mormon chapter 9, he returns to a listing of the miraculous manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit in Moroni chapter 10.

Then he says this in Moroni 10:19:

"all these gifts of which I have spoken, which are spiritual, never will be done away, even as long as the world shall stand, only according to the unbelief of the children of men."

So I would ask you why Moroni, who saw our day, who was writing for us and us alone, who was scratching the last inscriptions into the plates, why would he return multiple times to the theme of miracles and their loss due to the unfaithfulness of the members of the church?

Maybe he saw our day and knew that many would redefine the miracle of healing from curing the leper with a touch and healing the issue of blood by the touch of a hemline to the painful prolonging of life for an extra week after a blessing and the like. The gift of tongues would be redefined as kids learning a language after 6 months of intensive immersion study. And so on and so forth.

Maybe he saw that there would come a time when the Church would lose its miracles due to unbelief and wanted to warn against that day and point the way back.

Or maybe he was just wasting his time babbling about things that have no relevance to us.

I observe from my study of church history that the mighty miracles referred to by Moroni slowed down during the 1850s and nearly completely ceased by the 1920s. It is well documented that Heber J. Grant lamented long and hard his inability to learn Japanese (no gift of tongues there) as well as sorrow deeply that he had never had a heavenly visitation or vision.

Some say that the mighty miracles listed by Moroni are indeed happening. Then, the question is, why can't we talk about them? Why does God want people to think the age of miracles has ceased if it hasn't ceased?

Or maybe Moroni was just babbling and his warning was not needed.

When there is so much written I tend to speed read. Could you highlight the part that shows he was talking to the members of the church in regards to their unrighteousness.

[Indy Coug]

I get this feeling like the line is being straddled between denying that miracles happen and seeking after signs.