LDS Revelations

[SteveVH]

May I speculate a bit here? I admit, it’s pure speculation, but I have thought about this issue as well.

A lot.

I think that…all religions have truth in them, even the most outlandish (by our lights, anyway) Even if everything around this truth is offbase, the ‘truth’ is still there, and still ‘true.’

That is a very Catholic teaching.

For instance, suppose we have a Catholic, a Mormon, and a Muslim…and they all teach the 'Golden Rule." (Most religions do).

Suppose that someone, praying to know the truth of this precept, gets confirmation from the Holy Ghost that yes, treating your neighbor as you would wish to be treated is 'the way to go."

Now I think that, in many cases, the investigator will take that confirmation of that one truth…and hang all the context in which that truth is found on it. So, if the rule is true in Islam, the believer might figure that everything else about Islam is true, too. The same would go for Catholicism and Mormonism and Hinduism and, and, and…

Like finding a diamond in the dirt and deciding that the rest of the mountain is diamonds, too, without really paying attention.

I think that’s a pretty good part of it. There are a lot of other factors, too.

Well, that’s what I think, anyway.

I think what you say is true, but there is another side to this and that is the amount of error that may be present in any given faith tradition.

Now, we believe as Catholics that our dogmas and doctrines are protected from error by the Holy Spirit, who Jesus said would guide us into all truth. And, obviously, if any one varies from these truths we believe they are in error to one degree or another.

The big difference between Catholicism and Mormonism is that we don’t claim new revelation, as you know, but rather defend and guard the truth handed down to us from the Apostles themselves. So we really never have the same dilemma; do I accept this new revelation or not?

But as for depending upon the Holy Spirit to confirm a teaching as true or erroneous, we do not believe the Holy Spirit works that way. He protects the Church from teaching error and we are to listen to the Church (the pillar and foundation of truth) rather than what we might believe to be the voice of Holy Spirit. There are other voices out there as well and we can be fooled.

 

[Telstar]

Perhaps the message was for Kate Kelly to have a Coke, so she’d be inspired to sing in perfect harmony.

That was the best answer I’ve read on this forum in a long time, RebeccaJ!

 

[PaulDupre1]

Perhaps the message was for Kate Kelly to have a Coke, so she’d be inspired to sing in perfect harmony.

Brilliant!

 

[iepuras]

Perhaps the message was for Kate Kelly to have a Coke, so she’d be inspired to sing in perfect harmony.

Very funny!

I just felt that warm fuzzy feeling. It must have been a revelation!

 

[dianaiad]

Why does any of this matter? You do realize that you’re engaging in the Genetic Fallacy, don’t you? Either the information on that site is correct or incorrect and the argument made by the author is valid or invalid. His being LDS or not LDS is entirely irrelevant, and for the love of God I wish Mormons would stop arguing that only active, believing Mormons are qualified to talk about Mormonism. It makes our community look really stupid.

Also, would you care to answer LivingWaters7’s question now? He’s posted it a number of times and you’ve responded to his other posts so we know you don’t have him on ignore. You’re clearly seeing his question and deliberately side-stepping the issue.

I answered it.

The problem isn’t whether the information in any source is accurate; either it is or it isn’t. The problem is figuring out whether or not that information IS accurate.

There is a reason that there are very few teachers who will allow their students to cite Wikipedia as a source text for a paper. No college level student would dare try it.

…and yet, frequently, the information from Wikipedia is accurate.

The trouble is, however, quite often it isn’t, or it is presented in so biased a way as to be useless. It’s important, if you are going to trust information, to get that information from trustworthy places.

I am not claiming that only active believing Mormons are qualified to talk about Mormonism. Anybody who wants to can…and does…talk about Mormonism. However, if you want to learn about what Mormonism actually teaches, it would be better to go to an active believing Mormon.

Exactly like it is best, if one wishes to learn about Catholicism, one should go to an active, believing Catholic.

…and if one wants to learn about Orthodox Judaism, one should get that information from an active, believing, Orthodox Jew.

I look at it this way: if you went to, say, Jack Chick and one of his tracts said that Catholics believed this…and in order to confirm or debunk that claim, you have to go to a good Catholic to see if Chick is correct, AND it is the Catholic’s confirmation or denial of that information that settles things, why not go straight to the Catholic in the first place?

No, going to anti (insert belief system here) sources for information about anything seems like a colossal waste of time…at the very least.

 

[dianaiad]

You clearly demonstrated during your last visit to CAF that you are not capable of understanding Catholic teaching even after you have read what you think is the teaching AND we try to explain it to you.

I recommend you never ever try to teach a Catholic what their Church teaches especially here on CAF. Just defend Mormonism or ask us what we believe and we will give you Catholic Answers

I do understand that is it almost impossible without bashing what you think is the Catholic Church.

The beauty of being Catholic is that I don’t have to put down Mormonism to defend Catholicism because I have science, history and reason on my side.

Then why do you?

Now you can answer Livingwater’s questions.

Well, then, here you are. would you mind telling me where I am mistaken regarding excommunication and Catholicism? Are you telling me that this quote from canon law is incorrect, or that I have misunderstood it in some way?

I am aware that some sins and actions, in Catholicism, will result in an ‘instant’ excommunication…and that excommunication isn’t a complete ‘cutting off,’…‘once a Catholic, always a Catholic’ means something.

Excommunication from the CoJCoLDS isn’t a ‘complete cutting off,’ either.

But never mind the fine points of distancing involved; the point was that the distancing HAPPENS; apostates, either through their own actions or those of the believe system they are criticizing, tend to be told to repent or leave.

It simply seems odd that a member of one group that does this would criticize another group that also does this. In fact, I don’t know any group, theist or not, that doesn’t.

The whole point of a religion or any other group is for like minded people, or people who believe in the same things, to be together in fellowship. If you don’t agree with the things the group does, you don’t belong in the group.

If I am incorrect about this, please let me know how?

And if I am incorrect about the idea behind the Catholic excommunication

Please, would you clarify this for me?

“an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication”

I am not criticizing this. Seems quite reasonable to me; not only the ‘name’ of it, but the ideas behind it. it’s a sort of philosophical recognition, I think, that an apostate, upon actually committing his apostasy, has removed himself from communion with the church; naming it simply recognizes this removal.

If I am incorrect, please clarify things for me?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Is this the Twilight Zone? :hypno:

Brandon, thank you for informing me of the genetic fallacy.

 

[Stephen168]

Did prophets like Moses, Noah, and Abraham need to have their revelations confirmed by others before they were accepted as such? Aren’t LDS prophets claimed to be prophets like them?

Now you can answer Livingwater’s questions.

Well, then, here you are. would you mind telling me where I am mistaken regarding excommunication and Catholicism? Are you telling me that this quote from canon law is incorrect, or that I have misunderstood it in some way?

I am aware that some sins and actions, in Catholicism, will result in an ‘instant’ excommunication…and that excommunication isn’t a complete ‘cutting off,’…‘once a Catholic, always a Catholic’ means something.

Excommunication from the CoJCoLDS isn’t a ‘complete cutting off,’ either.

But never mind the fine points of distancing involved; the point was that the distancing HAPPENS; apostates, either through their own actions or those of the believe system they are criticizing, tend to be told to repent or leave.

It simply seems odd that a member of one group that does this would criticize another group that also does this. In fact, I don’t know any group, theist or not, that doesn’t.

The whole point of a religion or any other group is for like minded people, or people who believe in the same things, to be together in fellowship. If you don’t agree with the things the group does, you don’t belong in the group.

If I am incorrect about this, please let me know how?

And if I am incorrect about the idea behind the Catholic excommunication

Please, would you clarify this for me?

“an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication”

I am not criticizing this. Seems quite reasonable to me; not only the ‘name’ of it, but the ideas behind it. it’s a sort of philosophical recognition, I think, that an apostate, upon actually committing his apostasy, has removed himself from communion with the church; naming it simply recognizes this removal.

If I am incorrect, please clarify things for me?

I didn’t see you attempt to answer Livingwater’s questions. But I don’t think the Old Testament Prophets had to have their revelations confirmed by others. Joseph Smith didn’t have his revelations confirmed either, he just excommunicated the quorum members who did not agreed with him.

Christ never excommunicated apostles, therefore Smith did not restore the Church of Former-Day-Saints. He invented a new religion.

 

[Stephen168]

The big difference between Catholicism and Mormonism is that we don’t claim new revelation, as you know, but rather defend and guard the truth handed down to us from the Apostles themselves. So we really never have the same dilemma; do I accept this new revelation or not?

It seems that “continuing revelation” in Mormonism is what has got them in the pickle that makes them now claim that a revelation has to be confirmed, so they can disavow all the contrary revelations of the past.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I answered it.

Could you please tell me the post number that corresponds to the answer? I’m having trouble finding it. So that we’re clear, LivingWaters7’s question was:

How do we know when the LDS prophets give talks “as prophets of God”? Are General Conference talks in that category?

The problem isn’t whether the information in any source is accurate; either it is or it isn’t. The problem is figuring out whether or not that information IS accurate.

There is a reason that there are very few teachers who will allow their students to cite Wikipedia as a source text for a paper. No college level student would dare try it.

…and yet, frequently, the information from Wikipedia is accurate.

The trouble is, however, quite often it isn’t, or it is presented in so biased a way as to be useless. It’s important, if you are going to trust information, to get that information from trustworthy places.

As a retired university professor I disagree. The reason I wouldn’t accept Wikipedia as a proper citation is because Wikipedia isn’t primary research. Wikipedia’s content is a hodgepodge of primary research, commentary, periodicals, and sometimes (as you pointed out) incorrect information. Wikipedia isn’t a source any more than “Google” is a source, or “my bookshelf” is a source. Wiki pages do contain appropriate information with corresponding citations and it only takes an extra five minutes for a student to click a link on Wikipedia to get to the proper citation, and possibly an extra fifteen minutes to look for corroboration at other venues in order to make sure the information is accurate.

I am not claiming that only active believing Mormons are qualified to talk about Mormonism. Anybody who wants to can…and does…talk about Mormonism. However, if you want to learn about what Mormonism actually teaches, it would be better to go to an active believing Mormon.

The posts LivingWaters7 linked us to were not intended to be expositions on Mormon doctrine! They were persuasive arguments claiming that modern LDS prophets, seers, and revelators neither prophesy, see, nor reveal. By all means, you want to know what the LDS Church teaches and believes? LDS sources are your best bet. Once you know what the LDS belief is (in this case that there are modern prophets, seers, and revelators on the planet) you may be curious if such a belief is worthy of belief. Limiting your sources again to only LDS ones will obviously render only one conclusion! You’re shifting the goal posts here by equivocating an explanation of Mormon doctrine with a critique of Mormon doctrine.

Let’s use a political example. If I desire to learn what the Democratic Party platform is, I’d do well to consult Democratic sources exclusively (or at least primarily). If I desire to learn whether the Democratic Party platform, or some part of it, is ideal I wouldn’t dismiss out of hand any source that isn’t from a Democrat. It would be imperative that I seek out critics and their reasons for disagreement lest I be entirely ignorant of an alternative conclusion.

Now, this author may very well not understand LDS Mormonism sufficiently to speak against it, but we cannot just assume so simply because he isn’t LDS. If he is a poor source and shouldn’t be taken seriously then you should critique his actual argument and demonstrate to us why he is not trustworthy.

 

[TexanKnight]

Dianad still seems incapable of answering a simple question:

Would God allow a tue prophet to give facts about God Himself that would confuse God’s People? Like Adam-God, etc?

It seems that too many LDS prophets speak about God, or about what God thinks, and the LDS people KNOW that the Prophet speaks with God, so the prophet SHOULD know these things…yet, later, it was just opinion…

 

[dianaiad]

Could you please tell me the post number that corresponds to the answer?

That would be post #61.

As a retired university professor I disagree. The reason I wouldn’t accept Wikipedia as a proper citation is because Wikipedia isn’t primary research. …snip to here

You are, of course, correct about Wikipedia. OK, let’s try another example: Someone who gets all his political information from EITHER the Huffington Post OR Rush Limbaugh, or someone who gets all his information about the world from “Signs of the Times.net” (which just announced that some doctors in Canada have cured cancer with something extracted from avocados, I think) yes, some of the information is good…but how do we know which information is good? What is there about this source that makes it more trustworthy than another? As a university professor, you are aware that the source of the information is important. The truth/information doesn’t change, certainly…but how do we know that the information IS true?

The source is important. It’s why I never go to any source but that of the ‘true believers’ to find out what any religion teaches. Ever. Only they can be trusted to present their own beliefs accurately.

The posts LivingWaters7 linked us to were not intended to be expositions on Mormon doctrine! They were persuasive arguments claiming that modern LDS prophets, seers, and revelators neither prophesy, see, nor reveal. By all means, you want to know what the LDS Church teaches and believes? LDS sources are your best bet. Once you know what the LDS belief is (in this case that there are modern prophets, seers, and revelators on the planet) you may be curious if such a belief is worthy of belief. Limiting your sources again to only LDS ones will obviously render only one conclusion! You’re shifting the goal posts here by equivocating an explanation of Mormon doctrine with a critique of Mormon doctrine.

Let’s turn this around. Substitute “Catholicism” for every place you have “Mormon” in the bolded section in the above paragraph and see if you agree, still, with the conclusion.

The problem is, and it’s something I’ve found everywhere and with every viewpoint, that the non-member ‘critique’ of religion is almost always a strawman. They claim a viewpoint, or a doctrine, for the target system and attack that, and nine times out of ten they are attacking something that is either misrepresented or downright wrong.

Now…why should anybody have to defend positions they don’t actually hold? Because that’s what happens: there are all these attacks against beliefs and positions that aren’t actually a part of the belief system. The conversation generally goes “we ACTUALLY believe this…” “NO you don’t, You believe THAT and it’s evil/apostate/wrong!”…at which point the conversation goes downhill. The other option is that the reader, seeing the strawman, simply refuses to participate and the critic will crow “you aren’t answering…see, I’m right and I win!”

I don’t see a real upside to things for the apologist, when the critic gets his information from an untrustworthy source.

…and yes, I would call an LDS source claiming to teach the doctrines of another faith ‘untrustworthy.’

Let’s use a political example. If I desire to learn what the Democratic Party platform is, I’d do well to consult Democratic sources exclusively (or at least primarily). If I desire to learn whether the Democratic Party platform, or some part of it, is ideal I wouldn’t dismiss out of hand any source that isn’t from a Democrat. It would be imperative that I seek out critics and their reasons for disagreement lest I be entirely ignorant of an alternative conclusion.

And you’d get yourself in a lot of trouble that way. You remember the old advertisement about the Republicans 'throwing Granny off the cliff?" THAT was the Democrat party giving you information about the Republicans. I have seen Republican ads that make Democrats look like evil incarnate.

I would go to the Democrats to find out what their platform is, go to the Republicans to fins out what there platform is, and not ask either one about the ‘platform’ of the other.
Of course, politics isn’t an exact match here, because political parties are supposed to be contending with each other for power. Religions aren’t supposed to be doing that. As well, with religion, it’s not really a case of finding new information about a new situation, politically, and choosing sides. Everybody already HAS ‘a side’ in religion; his own. Even if that ‘side’ is pretty nebulous, everybody already has an opinion about deity and religion.

…and everybody is quite capable of comparing what a belief system has to say for itself with his own beliefs, and making up his own mind.

 

[dianaiad]

Now, this author may very well not understand LDS Mormonism sufficiently to speak against it, but we cannot just assume so simply because he isn’t LDS. If he is a poor source and shouldn’t be taken seriously then you should critique his actual argument and demonstrate to us why he is not trustworthy.

I used to do that. I used to do that a lot, actually. Then I realized that I was wasting time…and I no longer have time to waste. This isn’t just about Mormonism. It’s about all religion for me. It’s one of my ‘rules,’ now. I do not go to, read, or use any non-member source for information about any religion. Not Mormon, not Catholic, not anybody. If I am going to be a critic of a religion, I’ll use sources from the religion. If I am going to comment about Catholic law or doctrine, I will go to canon law or the catechism; I won’t go to a third party to have it tell me where to look.

If I want to talk about anything Catholic, you can be assured that I will have taken my information from a Catholic…and I will not talk about Catholicism with anybody but a Catholic…and if that Catholic corrects me on a point of doctrine, I’ll accept it.

 

[TexanKnight]

That would be post #61.

No…that was debunked a long time ago…starting with 62…

The problem is, and it’s something I’ve found everywhere and with every viewpoint, that the non-member ‘critique’ of religion is almost always a strawman. They claim a viewpoint, or a doctrine, for the target system and attack that, and nine times out of ten they are attacking something that is either misrepresented or downright wrong.

Ah…what a common defense! Instead of addressing the issue, you make a comment that tries to indicate that the questions you do not answer are because the positions are wrong or misrepresented. The problem here is, that is simply false. Every claim has been backed up. The real reason you do not answer is because you know we are correct and you have no good answer.

Now…why should anybody have to defend positions they don’t actually hold? Because that’s what happens: there are all these attacks against beliefs and positions that aren’t actually a part of the belief system. The conversation generally goes “we ACTUALLY believe this…” “NO you don’t, You believe THAT and it’s evil/apostate/wrong!”…at which point the conversation goes downhill. The other option is that the reader, seeing the strawman, simply refuses to participate and the critic will crow “you aren’t answering…see, I’m right and I win!”

Again, your problem is, you say you do not hold a position that we have presented. Fine. So we show you where the position we post WAS actually taught by a PROPHET. Now you are stuck. Was your prophet wrong? Why do you choose not to follow your prophets? Because, as with every Mormon we have confronted, you now pick and choose the teachings of your prophets that you want to follow. Makes it hard for you

 

[Stephen168]

Ah…what a common defense! Instead of addressing the issue, you make a comment that tries to indicate that the questions you do not answer are because the positions are wrong or misrepresented. The problem here is, that is simply false. Every claim has been backed up. The real reason you do not answer is because you know we are correct and you have no good answer.

Yes, because Mormonism can’t be defending by science, history or reason. So she never tries to defend it and has just admitted she will never try.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, because Mormonism can’t be defending by science, history or reason. So she never tries to defend it and has just admitted she will never try.

No?

Yet I am here.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Dianaid,

I think it gets back down to ‘Who is like unto God!’.

God is the Unmoved Mover who does not change, the only Constant in this changing world, the only point of stability that does not need growth or change or development, because He alone is the Creator, the Cause, we the Effect.

We have to get back to what is the nature of God.

How I understand Mormonism is that there are premortals who have free will and it is up to them if they want to come to this oftentimes hell hole of an existence for the majority of people in this world. I think of the vast majority of poor and powerless people who simply want to eke out an existence day by day and are the collateral damage of conflicts between the powerful.

Unless a premortal wants to come in as a powerful person…There is too much choice and self will in deciding one wants to go into another type of existence…America would be a good place to come to as it has been the most desired place for immigration.

Otherwise, there is the plan of salvation history that begins with Abraham, his descendents, mankind needing salvation and redemption from sin. This is a non issue to premortals.

Only God can forgive sin. What is most pleasing to God is that we love our neighbors as our own brothers and sisters, and avoid offending God. Christ alone can atone for sin.

And Christ said He is ‘Truth’ in answering Pilate before His crucifixion. Christ does not lie, Christ fulfills salvation history, salvation and redemption.

So we are looking at two very different views of Who God is, what He does and His purpose for us vs the concepts of Mormonism. We go out into different directions and practice.

 

[dianaiad]

Hi Dianaid,

I think it gets back down to ‘Who is like unto God!’.

God is the Unmoved Mover who does not change, the only Constant in this changing world, the only point of stability that does not need growth or change or development, because He alone is the Creator, the Cause, we the Effect.

We believe that God is the Creator of all things, as well.

We have to get back to what is the nature of God.

How I understand Mormonism is that there are premortals who have free will and it is up to them if they want to come to this oftentimes hell hole of an existence for the majority of people in this world. I think of the vast majority of poor and powerless people who simply want to eke out an existence day by day and are the collateral damage of conflicts between the powerful.

Unless a premortal wants to come in as a powerful person…There is too much choice and self will in deciding one wants to go into another type of existence…America would be a good place to come to as it has been the most desired place for immigration.

You are confusing me a bit here, and presenting our ideas a bit ‘off.’ Not terribly, but I am forcibly reminded here of some atheist arguments against God; the ‘problem of evil.’ You have simply extended it a bit here to fit into the idea of premortal spirits. Why, I think you are asking, would anybody want to come here?

Well, it’s just not that long that we are here on earth, compared to eternity: a blink. We can handle anything for a ‘blink’ of time.

I had a bone marrow biopsy awhile back (actually, I’ve had a couple) and it is…let’s put it this way. It’s not an experience that anybody would want to volunteer for. It’s incredibly painful. At least, I found it so. Others who have had one didn’t mind it so much. Some had more problems than I did; nerve damage, swelling, literally days and weeks of pain and inability to sleep as a result. I was lucky: the pain of the procedure was sufficient…a little bruising, and that’s it.

Fifteen minutes of pain that I’ve not ever felt before, even when giving birth. I imagine that the most efficient torturers in history aimed for that level of pain. And I have done it twice now, and will have to do it again, many times before I die. (Of course, I have already informed my docs that I won’t do it again unless they put me OUT first, but let’s not let my cowardice mess with the analogy).

The problem is, like my bone marrow biopsy, life is necessary, pain or not, uncomfortable circumstances or not, wealth or not, comfort or not…and it’s temporary. Yes, life can be nasty, brutish and short; but we are judged, not by the circumstances in which we live, but by how we deal with them.

Don’t be like the the atheists who argue that God is evil because people have lousy lives and die. Remember that life is short and eternity is very long. Mortal life is vital to our eternal futures, but it is still short.

…and if the circumstances of others worry us, part of our purpose in this life is to help those others by making their circumstances less nasty.

Otherwise, there is the plan of salvation history that begins with Abraham, his descendents, mankind needing salvation and redemption from sin. This is a non issue to premortals.

Only God can forgive sin.

Well, actually, only Jesus Christ can, but whatever.

What is most pleasing to God is that we love our neighbors as our own brothers and sisters, and avoid offending God.

I agree.

Christ alone can atone for sin.

Oh, that’s a loaded statement. Are you talking about our individual sins, or ‘original sin?’ You do remember that Mormons don’t believe in original sin, right? Or rather, that we didn’t inherit the guilt for Adam’s transgression. I might well agree with your statement, above, if I knew precisely what you meant by it.

And Christ said He is ‘Truth’ in answering Pilate before His crucifixion. Christ does not lie, Christ fulfills salvation history, salvation and redemption.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Could you give me the reference, and expand on what you are saying?

So we are looking at two very different views of Who God is, what He does and His purpose for us vs the concepts of Mormonism. We go out into different directions and practice.

In many ways, yes. In some ways, no. I have no problem with honest disagreement with beliefs we actually hold. I have a problem with strawman arguments. I would prefer to talk about what our beliefs actually are, y’know?

Odd of me, I realize, but there it is.

 

[Stephen168]

Dianad still seems incapable of answering a simple question:

Would God allow a tue prophet to give facts about God Himself that would confuse God’s People? Like Adam-God, etc?

It seems that too many LDS prophets speak about God, or about what God thinks, and the LDS people KNOW that the Prophet speaks with God, so the prophet SHOULD know these things…yet, later, it was just opinion…

Yet I am here.

I was thinking about another Mormon on CAF, who claimed he converted to Mormonism because of the truth of the Book of Mormon. TexanKnight started a thread asking him to support his claim. After 229 posts, he makes his first post saying, “better late than never” He never once ever attempted to defend his belief in the Book of Mormon but he was there and Dianaiad is here.

 

[dianaiad]

I was thinking about another Mormon on CAF, who claimed he converted to Mormonism because of the truth of the Book of Mormon. TexanKnight started a thread asking him to support his claim. After 229 posts, he makes his first post saying, “better late than never” He never once ever attempted to defend his belief in the Book of Mormon but he was there and Dianaiad is here.

I believe because I have read the book, have studied my beliefs, and have prayed about them. I have received what I believe to be confirmation of their truths. That’s why I’m still a Mormon. I am not about to try to defend the truth of Mormonism here. Can’t do it, don’t intend to try. Only God can convert, or convict, anybody. Religious belief is very personal, very subjective, and not a bit logical.

Oh, it’s internally logical, usually, but the premise almost never is.

But that’s fine. If we could prove that God exists, and He is precisely ‘this’ way, empirically, there would be no excuse for everybody not believing precisely the same thing.

I don’t have a problem with a subjective approach to religious belief; that’s the way it is supposed to be. God reaches us through our hearts and our spirits…through our prayers.

I am here for two reasons: to correct misinformation about WHAT my beliefs are, and to have civil conversations with those who believe differently. That’s it.

If you want someone to prove to you that the Book of Mormon is ‘true,’ you have absolutely come to the wrong lady.