Did Joseph Smith ever quote from the Book of Mormon?

[Socrates4Jesus]

In the New Testament Gospels, Christ quotes directly from the Septuagint. In the BoM, Christ quotes directly from the King James version of the Old Testament.

Incongruous at best. Plagiarism at its finest.

Thank you, Rebecca, and welcome to the discussion!

Zer and i are trying to determine how one knows what is truth. Would you care to give us your opinion?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you, Rebecca, and welcome to the discussion!

Zer and i are trying to determine how one knows what is truth. Would you care to give us your opinion?

Of what, the BoM? A plagiarized mix from a few sources, the KJV of the BIble being one of those sources.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus:

Yes, i see what you mean!

We are talking about how one comes to believe the truth, and you or i have only to look at a dictionary to see that the word believe has three common meanings:

1. • To think something might be true
   • To know something is, without a doubt, true
   • To put one’s complete trust and commitment in that which one knows, without a doubt, is true
     What i think you might be saying is this: When Jesus said the Holy Ghost revealed the truth to Peter, He meant revealed to mean that the Holy Ghost caused Peter to believe in the sense of definition (2) or definition (3).
   We are considering three examples when Peter heard or spoke the words that Jesus was the Son of God:
   
   A. When the demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8)B. When the disciples called Jesus the Son of God after he walked on water and stopped a storm (Matthew 14)C. When Jesus asked Peter who he thought He really was (Matthew 16)
   My next questions, then, are these:
   • If you had to hazard a guess, at what point (A), (B) or (C) do you think Peter believed in the sense of definition (1)?
   • At what point (A), (B) or (C) did he believe in the sense of definition (2)?
   • And at what point (A), (B) or (C) did he believe in the sense of definition (3)?

1. 
   I think that you are splitting hairs here, and your question is a bit irrelevant. The most important thing to note here is that:
   
   1. • At some point in his life Peter came to a realization, or conviction, that Jesus was the Son of God.
      • That conviction had come to him, not by “flesh and blood” (i.e. human agency), by the testimony of the Holy Ghost.
      Exactly how and when the Spirit operated on his mind to bring him to that convection is not a mater about which much is known or can be discussed. To the sceptically minded Nicodemus Jesus said:
      
      John 3:
      
      8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
      
      You are asking me to explain to you how the wind blows; and where it comes from and where it goes to! That is impossibility. Nobody can know that. The operation of the Spirit on the mind is like that. However, if you want to know how one develops faith in God, and how that faith progresses and increases, there is a passage in the Book of Mormon that attempts to explain that. It compares faith to a “seed” that one plants in his heart; and as one nourishes it, it takes root, and becomes stronger until the perfect day. You can look it up in your Book of Mormon. The reference is Alma 32:26–43.
      
      zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… To the sceptically minded Nicodemus Jesus said:

John 3:

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
You are asking me to explain to you how the wind blows; and where it comes from and where it goes to! That is impossibility. Nobody can know that. The operation of the Spirit on the mind is like that. …

Yes, Zer, and thanks again for the dialog. I’m sure you know that the Son of God goes on to say this to Nick:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
(John 3:16-18)
He appears to be showing a causal relationship between believing in him and receiving eternal life. It makes sense to me to ask what does Jesus mean by saying, “whoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life” and “he that believeth not is condemned already.”

I believe it makes a great deal of difference whether Jesus meant:

1. 
   *]whoever thinks he might exist has eternal life
   *]whoever knows he exists has eternal life
   *]whoever knows he exists and puts his complete trust in him has eternal life
   If you or i believe (1) to be the truth, but Jesus actually meant (3), then our eternal security might be in jeopardy. Rather than splitting hairs over an unimportant distinction, this might be an all-important distinction to understand.
   
   Do you agree?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think that you are splitting hairs here, and your question is a bit irrelevant. The most important thing to note here is that:

1. 
   *]At some point in his life Peter came to a realization, or conviction, that Jesus was the Son of God.
   *]That conviction had come to him, not by “flesh and blood” (i.e. human agency), by the testimony of the Holy Ghost.
   Exactly how and when the Spirit operated on his mind to bring him to that convection is not a mater about which much is known or can be discussed. …

1. 
   Zer:
   
   I’m sure that you agree that before Peter reached point (1) he heard several others say that Jesus is the Son of God. The idea did not first come from the Holy Ghost through Peter. He heard several make this confession before he made the same confession himself.
   
   Hence, what Jesus meant by (2) was not that the idea of the truth came only from the Holy Ghost, (because the idea came from the mouths of human beings) but something else besides the idea. Perhaps the acceptance that that truth that others told him was really true is what the Holy Ghost revealed to him?
   
   I don’t know; not yet. I’m asking you and the Holy Ghost to tell me.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, Zer, and thanks again for the dialog. I’m sure you know that the Son of God goes on to say this to Nick:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
(John 3:16-18)
He appears to be showing a causal relationship between believing in him and receiving eternal life. It makes sense to me to ask what does Jesus mean by saying, “whoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life” and “he that believeth not is condemned already.”

I believe it makes a great deal of difference whether Jesus meant:

1. 
   *]whoever thinks he might exist has eternal life
   *]whoever knows he exists has eternal life
   *]whoever knows he exists and puts his complete trust in him has eternal life
   If you or i believe (1) to be the truth, but Jesus actually meant (3), then our eternal security might be in jeopardy. Rather than splitting hairs over an unimportant distinction, this might be an all-important distinction to understand.
   
   Do you agree?

1. 
   If you think that that question is so important, why do you think that Jesus never addressed it? Why didn’t His Apostles never address it? Why did they always speak of “believing in Him” as though its meaning was a given, an understood fact?
   
   Why do you think that His audiences never asked Him that question, both those who believed as well as those who did not believe in Him? Why do you think that they all seem to understand what He was saying? Why do you think that that question is a problem for you, but it was not for them?
   
   I think that you have put your philosopher’s hat on, and are trying to look at scripture as philosopher would, rather than a visionary would. Religion is not about philosophising things; it is about “seeing” things with you spiritual eyes. It is about faith, and testimony, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. These things do not bear philosophical analysis. Jesus talked about “believing in Him” as an understood concept; and did not attempt to provide a “philosophical analysis” of that belief. Neither will I.
   
   zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Sorry, it looks like I had missed this post!

Zer:

I’m sure that you agree that before Peter reached point (1) he heard several others say that Jesus is the Son of God. The idea did not first come from the Holy Ghost through Peter. He heard several make this confession before he made the same confession himself.

Possibly. The chronology of the Gospels is a little confusing, and things may not have been narrated in the order in which they occurred.

Hence, what Jesus meant by (2) was not that the idea of the truth came only from the Holy Ghost, (because the idea came from the mouths of human beings) but something else besides the idea. Perhaps the acceptance that that truth that others told him was really true is what the Holy Ghost revealed to him?

Assuming that you are correct in your first paragraph, I would say that the assurance, conviction, or what we call testimony of its truth came to him by the Holy Ghost. Peter had spoken with conviction that Jesus was the Son of God, not merely parroting what others had said. Jesus recognized that he had spoke with conviction, and informed him that that conviction had come to him from God.

I don’t know; not yet.

You will, if you sincerely want to!

I’m asking you and the Holy Ghost to tell me.

The Holy Ghost is a better guide than me! If you put your faith and trust in that source, you will come to know the truth.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Of what, the BoM? A plagiarized mix from a few sources, the KJV of the BIble being one of those sources.

Thank you, Rebecca (beautiful name, that)!

My question is far more applicable what you think. I’m asking how do you or i know that anything we read is true – whether it be in the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, or magazine, or on a computer screen. Lets say, for example, you read in the Bible that Jesus is the Son of God and you believe it. I say i do not believe it. It cannot both be true that He is the Son of God and that He is not, so how would you convince me?

What i’m asking is what standard of truth should you or i use to determine whether anything the Bible or Book of Mormon says is true or not. Now, there are many ways to measure truth. If i gave you $5.00 to buy me a Whopper at Burger King and you brought be mack a dime and i claimed you shortchanged me, you and i might settle the dispute by using a calculator. If i told you my wife lost nine pounds the first two weeks she was on the South Beach Diet and you did not believe me, we might put her on a scale. If we had an argument about whether Cleveland, Ohio or Chicago, Illinois was closer to my home, we might get in our cars, leave my driveway, and drive in opposite directions. When you got to Cleveland and i arrived at Chicago, we might then call each other on our cell phones and compare the miles on our odometers. (You might shout for victory if Cleveland was closer, but i’d likely laugh and say i’d still have twice as much fun in Chicago.)



To measure a difference, we use a calculator. To measure weight, we use a scale. To measure distance, we use an odometer. Once the measurements are made, you or i have no more call for disagreement. What, then, is the method you or i might use to measure the truth of something we read about Jesus in the Bible or in the Book of Mormon?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I think that you have put your philosopher’s hat on, and are trying to look at scripture as philosopher would, rather than a visionary would. Religion is not about philosophising things; it is about “seeing” things with you spiritual eyes. It is about faith, and testimony, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. These things do not bear philosophical analysis. Jesus talked about “believing in Him” as an understood concept; and did not attempt to provide a “philosophical analysis” of that belief. Neither will I.

zerinus

Zer:

Thank you for the compliment!

The word philosopher originally meant, “One of Wisdom’s lovers” or “a lover of wisdom, truth and virtue.” If you are accusing me of loving wisdom, truth and virtue, i should hope God would find me guilty as charged!

Do Latter Day Saints not love wisdom, truth and virtue? If you are one who does, then why chastise me for desiring the same?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you think that that question is so important, why do you think that Jesus never addressed it? Why didn’t His Apostles never address it? Why did they always speak of “believing in Him” as though its meaning was a given, an ***understood fact? ***…

Zer:

Good question! I believe Jesus does address it. Please consider Jesus’ words in context:

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. *(John 3)*It seems obvious to me, yet i was asking if it is as obvious to you. The context shows that Jesus could not possibly mean this:

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever thinks He exists shall not perish but have eternal life.
The reason for this is found in the rest of what He says to Nick:

19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."(John 3)
A person might think it possible that Jesus still exists and even that Jesus is the Son of God, but still not let this belief change his attitude and behavior.

Jesus could also not have meant this:

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever knows He exists shall not perish but have eternal life.The reason this cannot be Jesus’ meaning is the same: A person who knows the truth is without a doubt the truth, might not let this truth change his life at all. I’m sure you have meant people who call themselves Christians and yet live like the devil. Their acknowledgement that Jesus is who He claimed to be does not change their thoughts and behavior.

That leaves you and i with only one possibility. Jesus meant:

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever completely trusts Him shall not perish but have eternal life.This makes sense to me, for how can a person sincerely say he trusts that Jesus died to save him from his sin if he continues to love that sin more than Him?

You asked why did Jesus and His the followers of Jesus not teach this, and my answer is that they certainly did. Here are some examples:

He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.– Jesus (Luke 24)

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out… .– Peter (Acts 3)

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.– Paul (Acts 20)

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.– Paul (2 Corinthians 7:10)

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. – Peter (2 Peter 3)
I’d say that they are all in agreement that repentance and saving faith (or trust) are like two sides of the same coin: One cannot have one without the other.

What do you say, my friend Zer?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Assuming that you are correct in your first paragraph, I would say that the assurance, conviction, or what we call testimony of its truth came to him by the Holy Ghost. Peter had spoken with conviction that Jesus was the Son of God, not merely parroting what others had said. Jesus recognized that he had spoke with conviction, and informed him that that conviction had come to him from God. …

Yes, absolutely he did!

The question (and please forgive me if i sound as if i’m repeating myself!) is this: On what did he base his conviction? I mean, did he base his confidence in the fact that Jesus is his God on some feeling that the Holy Ghost gave him, or on some other evidence, or both?

Consider what he says when he preaches in Jerusalem not long after Christ’s resurrection:

12When Peter saw this, he said to them: "Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? 13The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.(Acts 3)
Please tell me, good Zer, what reason does Peter give for repenting and putting one’s trust in Jesus?

 

[why_me]

Zer:

Do Latter Day Saints not love wisdom, truth and virtue?

Latter Day Saints do believe that wisdom comes from God. I believe that Zer was applying the word philosopher to a learned man or woman who is seeking truth not through god but through book wisdom.

 

[why_me]

I believe that Zer is referring to these verses from the book of mormon: Moroni 10: 4-5

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things

Now what many mormons miss is that this manifestation can take many forms and not necessarily a burning in the bosom. This is why some exmormons can claim, ‘I never had that burning in the bosom’. And likewise when some mormons leave the faith, they equate the burning feeling to a warm fuzzy as a downplay to what they felt at one time.

There are many manifestations without the burning feeling.

 

[zerinus]

Zer:

Thank you for the compliment!

The word philosopher originally meant, “One of Wisdom’s lovers” or “a lover of wisdom, truth and virtue.” If you are accusing me of loving wisdom, truth and virtue, i should hope God would find me guilty as charged!

Do Latter Day Saints not love wisdom, truth and virtue? If you are one who does, then why chastise me for desiring the same?

The Apostle Paul has answered that for you:

1 Corinthians 3:

18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Corinthians 1:

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom * knew not God,* it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom [philosophy]:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The Book of Mormon also has an answer for that:

2 Nephi 9:

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Zer:

Good question! I believe Jesus does address it. Please consider Jesus’ words in context:

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. *(John 3)*It seems obvious to me, yet i was asking if it is as obvious to you. The context shows that Jesus could not possibly mean this:

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever thinks He exists shall not perish but have eternal life.
The reason for this is found in the rest of what He says to Nick:

19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."(John 3)
A person might think it possible that Jesus still exists and even that Jesus is the Son of God, but still not let this belief change his attitude and behavior.

Jesus could also not have meant this:

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever knows He exists shall not perish but have eternal life.The reason this cannot be Jesus’ meaning is the same: A person who knows the truth is without a doubt the truth, might not let this truth change his life at all. I’m sure you have meant people who call themselves Christians and yet live like the devil. Their acknowledgement that Jesus is who He claimed to be does not change their thoughts and behavior.

That leaves you and i with only one possibility. Jesus meant:

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever completely trusts Him shall not perish but have eternal life.This makes sense to me, for how can a person sincerely say he trusts that Jesus died to save him from his sin if he continues to love that sin more than Him?

You asked why did Jesus and His the followers of Jesus not teach this, and my answer is that they certainly did. Here are some examples:

He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.– Jesus (Luke 24)

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out… .– Peter (Acts 3)

I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.– Paul (Acts 20)

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.– Paul (2 Corinthians 7:10)

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. – Peter (2 Peter 3)
I’d say that they are all in agreement that repentance and saving faith (or trust) are like two sides of the same coin: One cannot have one without the other.

What do you say, my friend Zer?

Thank you. After all is said and done, my answer remains the same: I know that the Book of Mormon is true because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true. If you have difficulty believing, accepting, or understanding that, then I am afraid I have nothing further to say to you. We will have to leave it at that.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Yes, absolutely he did!

Actually, He did not.

The question (and please forgive me if i sound as if i’m repeating myself!) is this: On what did he base his conviction? I mean, did he base his confidence in the fact that Jesus is his God on some feeling that the Holy Ghost gave him, or on some other evidence, or both?

He based his conviction on the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

zerinus

 

[Jerusha]

Here is some more burning bousom stuff:

Helamon 16: 21-22:

“And they will, by the cunning and the mysterious arts of the evil one, work some great mystery which we cannot understand, which will keep us down to be servants to their words, and also servants unto them for we depend upon them to teach us the word; and thus will they keep us in ignorance if we will yield ourselves unto them, all the days of our lives. And many more things did the people imagine up in their hearts, which were foolish and vain; and they were much disturbed, for Satan did stir them up to do iniquity continually; yea, he did go about spreading rumors and contentions upon all the face of the land, that he might harden the hearts of the people against that which was good and that which should come.”

I love it when I find anti-Mormonism in the BOM!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

There are many things that we consider truths that are intangible and unprovable. How do I measure the love I have for someone or they for me? How do I measure the effect that anything I have said, done or not said or not done? How do I measure that anything matters at all?

I can’t. So there has to be faith on my part. That love exists. That some things matter. Otherwise, there is nothing.

There are things that are easily proven as false. The BoM is one of those things. I mean the way in which it came to exist. It is all BS. Does the BoM contain truths? If it does, it contains truths in the same way that a magazine or a newspaper does. Truths, gathered from here and there, matched to a preconceived POV of a group of men. Many mormons continue to do this today. Gathering a certain version of truths, things that match their POV, and often twisting truths from here and there in order to make them fit into their version of truth. To me, this is not the sort of truth I am looking for. I can make that sort of truth out of anything.

For me, the Bible and it’s teaching about Christ are completely opposite of mormonism. Rather than being born of power, greed, and control, and a twisting of everything to make it resemble truth, it is one of giving, sacrifice, love and a perfection that is hard to describe as anything but the ultimate truth.

I see the OT is a relating of human sinfulness, a sort of confession of failure almost. With God constantly guiding, correcting, patiently leading. Showing the way out of sinfulness and human failings.

The NT is the culmination of God’s Love. His Word in the midst of human sinfulness and failure. The ultimate truth.

Human agendas tend to lean towards those things behind the BoM, and found in the stories of the OT. Greed, hunger for power, sinful desires.

The NT shows us the human failure of the Apostles, the Jewish leaders of the time, the Roman government, and every day people. In contrast, Jesus shows us the perfect truth of God’s Love. That is where Paul found his faith, his belief. And that too is where I look.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Latter Day Saints do believe that wisdom comes from God. I believe that Zer was applying the word philosopher to a learned man or woman who is seeking truth not through god but through book wisdom.

Thanks, Whyme! Yes, i think i understand what Zer believes. What i’m trying to understand is why he believes. I’m then comparing why he believes to why Peter, Paul and the other followers of Jesus believed to see if his method of belief is the same.

If you care to consider this with me, please read Paul’s words to the ancient Roman saints:

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? **
15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? ** 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
(Romans 10)

Please correct me if i’m wrong, but it appears to me that Paul is saying the reason people believe is that they have the evidence of eyewitness accounts of those who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead (verse 14) and written accounts, such as the prophecies about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ written hundreds of years before his birth (verse 17).

I’m not discounting the significance of an unspoken conviction given to a convert by the Holy Ghost. I’m simply saying, to use the words of an old Boston song, faith “is more than a feeling.” Do Latter Day Saints put no stock at all in the Old Testament predictions of Jesus Christ that were fulfilled by him? Should not faith, at least in part, be based on objective evidence outside one’s own personal subjective experience?

Please consider Peter’s words. He writes that the early saints should believe:

1. because of the eyewitness testimonies of people who knew Jesus:

16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
(2 Peter 1)

and

1. because of the **prophecies **of the Old Testament that He fulfilled:
   
   19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
   (2 Peter 1)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… The Book of Mormon also has an answer for that:

2 Nephi 9:

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

Zer:

Please try to understand that i’m a follower of Jesus first, and a follower of Socrates second. Socrates was put to death for his religious belief in a God greater than all the Greek gods and goddesses whom he taught was the source of all wisdom and truth. He was put to death for his search for the truth and wisdom of this God he adored, yet admitted he hardly knew.

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6). Socratic philosophy is a search for truth. Jesus says He was the truth. Hence, i’m seeking to know him. Isn’t this what Latter Day Saints seek as well?