Elder B. H. Roberts wrote in 1909:

“[The Holy Ghost] must ever be the chief source of evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary to this, the primary and infallible. No arrangement of evidence, however skilfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take [the] place [of the Holy Ghost]. …
(New Witnesses for God, Salt Lake City, Deseret News, 1909, pp. vi–vii)
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=cd0b6e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

members/investigators are told that what they feel is the holy ghost, then you can't deny it (we know what happens to people who deny the holy ghost!), and it trumps everything else.

its actually quite an odd, authoritative statement coming from only the church historian. i wonder if he was quoting joseph smith from an earlier source? anyone know?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/29/2010 09:49AM by Nick Humphrey.

The belief that every good feeling about church is a witness of the Holy Ghost is a trap.

I knew that because of my good feelings the church was true. Feeling bad meant it was from satan.

Feeling bad happened when reading contradictions in the Book of Commandments and D&C. The bad came when reading the Journal of Discourses or the original 1832 First Vision. Yet the good came from reading the official First Vision which can be challenged on every point.

And so I was very very confused.

The answer came when the First Presidency warned us to study and seek advice when making financial decisions. They warned us not to rely on feelings. Utah was the fraud capitol. People are deceived all the time by their feelings.

Within a couple weeks. Elder Oaks said in conference that we must not scientifically study the questions of the church to gain a testimony of the truth, but to rely on feelings. Only feelings can tell you if it is true.

And that was the key.

In short, feeling bad when reading church history doesn't mean you are deceived by Satan, it means that the history is true, and it should make you feel bad.

JoD3:360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The answer came when the First Presidency warned
> us to study and seek advice when making financial
> decisions. They warned us not to rely on feelings.
> Utah was the fraud capitol. People are deceived
> all the time by their feelings.
>
> Within a couple weeks. Elder Oaks said in
> conference that we must not scientifically study
> the questions of the church to gain a testimony of
> the truth, but to rely on feelings. Only feelings
> can tell you if it is true.

do you have a link or reference to these 2 points? i would love to get those in writing =)

Elder Oaks was in April General conference 2008-probably the May 2008 Ensign.

The 1st Prez letter was read over the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting.

Everything they told me was bad didn't "feel" bad.

I am going to be very clear I did not leave the church so I could sin.

But I did move out from my parents home when I was 17, because I respected them too much to sin while I was dependent on them. I was a very good Molly. I had no problem not sinning, I still have no big desire for what the church identifies as sin. I was more curious than influenced by peer pressure.

I had seen a whole lot of hypocracy in church members who would say one thing and do another. I did not wish to be hypocritical, but I felt the need to put the church to the test. To do this I meticulously separated myself from family and friends and made friends outside the church.

I suspected that my "feelings" about the "truth" were more related to pleasing my family and social group than actual communication from the "Holy Ghost".

I experiemented with drinking alcohol and found it was fun to party, but I did not enjoy drinking enough to justify drinking till getting sick or hung over. It did not make me feel sad or guilty.

I experimented with sex. WOW! That was fun. I never felt bad or guilty.... but I did have a twisted mormon thought kink, that lead to me getting pregnant. My (then boyfriend) never mo ex husband wanted to use protection. In my twisted brain using protection was a worse sin because it showed you intended to have sex. Pre meditated sex had to be a bigger sin than just falling victim to the moment. It's funny to recall that thought now. I do not regret my son.

I tried to feel bad for my sins. But that was just too much work. I never got the sense that God was disappointed with me, but my parents were. I found dweeling in sadness and guilt to be self imposed damnation. It is better to keep moving forward. I can relate to the message of Jesus being about not getting hung up in guilt, fear and self loathing. Just keep moving forward and do as much good as you can. And I have it on good feelings that if there is a God and Jesus they are pleased with my take on things.

“[The Holy Ghost] must ever be the chief source of evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary to this, the primary and infallible. No arrangement of evidence, however skilfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take [the] place [of the Holy Ghost]. …"


So nothing can EVER disprove the B of M. Wow. What's weird is that people buy into this. Just because somebody says.

It's so weird now reading stuff like that. An invisible, silent being trumps evidence and brainpower. In fact, he goes so far as to call it "infallible". REALLY? He thinks feelings are infallible?

I wonder how many women HE knows who got revelation about who they would marry, made life-changing decisions based on those feelings . . . and then never ever even DATED those men? Or how many women he knows who felt like they had a witness of who they should marry, married them and then he ended up being an abusive jerk? I wonder if he knows anyone who prayed about an investment scheme and then lost their home because of it? I know people like that, people who relied on prayer and the Holy Ghost to guide their lives, and made bad decisions because of it.

I also know plenty of people who feel like they KNOW the church is true because of the feelings they have. What about the people who have the same feelings about the Catholic church? Or Scientology? Are their feelings ALSO a witness of the Holy Ghost? How would a person know the difference? Ultimately, to find out if those feelings are accurate guides, one would have to test those feelings to see if they align themselves with reality. But Mormons try to limit a person's ability to fact check the accuracy of their "inspiration". If things turn out badly, they blame themselves for not being righteous enough or inspired enough or in the case of evidence against the church they discount source of information or the facts altogether when they find something that doesn't confirm their faith. Their feelings blind them to reality.

All I can say is that I was one of the lucky ones. I never COULD tell when I was feeling my own feelings or the "promptings of the spirit". And those feelings always shifted, depending on what aspect of a decision I was thinking of. It left me indecisive, and wondering what was wrong with me spiritually, but at least I didn't feel an assurance that I should NOT have felt.

I had to use my brain instead. And it hasn't let me down. Here I am, out of the church, and it's because I finally decided to PROVE the church was true with study and research . . . didn't turn out the way I expected, but I'll take it.

About the original quote:

BH Roberts tried long and hard to find evidence for the B of M, and he didn't find it. All he came up with were a lot of questions and problems without good answers. So it makes sense that he would try to discount the value of evidence if he wanted to ignore it.

three little letters

NLP

explains it all, really

Just because somebody says it does not make it true.
Just because intelligent people believe it does not make it true.
Only if the hypothesis is backed by confirmable evidence can we then make the assumption that it MIGHT be true.