Life's as good as you make it

Papa²Goyo ¦ #Faith+#Tech+#Photo ¦ #SQLServer #DBA Performance @3M HIS ¦ @Ch_JesusChrist ¦ #Spain mission ¦ #espanol ¦ #soccer ¦ opinions my own

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

@robbystarbuck Satan's objective: make humans and their experience more miserable than him and his condition. Be kind, serve others, repent and seek out Jesus.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

@AdamKinzinger Fake.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

That's fair. I wasn't trying to address every archaeological or historical claim in a social media comment. Those discussions can take books, not posts.

What I was trying to address was what I see as the underlying question.

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that every archaeological objection were resolved tomorrow. Would that lead you to conclude that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is scripture?

If the answer is no, then archaeology may not be the foundational issue.

Likewise, if I could show examples where critics have overstated claims about horses, steel, writing systems, genetics, or geography, that still wouldn't prove the Book of Mormon true.

The reason I'm interested in the deeper question is that I think the real divide between us is not ultimately archaeology. It seems to be whether God continued revealing scripture and authority after the New Testament, or whether revelation effectively closed and the Church continued uninterrupted.

That's the question I'm most interested in because if God still reveals truth, then additional scripture is at least possible. If He does not, then no amount of evidence would ever be enough.

So I'm genuinely curious: what do you see as the foundational issue?

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I genuinely respect your devotion to Christ, your commitment to prayer, and your love of scripture. I don't doubt your sincerity or your experiences.

What strikes me is that our disagreement doesn't seem to be about whether God answers prayers or whether Christ is active in our lives. We both appear to believe those things.

It seems the real question is whether God continues to reveal additional truth and whether the scriptures themselves anticipated a period of apostasy that would make a restoration necessary.

One of the things that drew me to the Restoration is the belief that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He revealed truth through prophets in the Old Testament, through apostles in the New Testament, and I believe He continues to do so today.

When I read the New Testament, I see repeated warnings that there would be a falling away from the faith. Paul spoke of a great apostasy, and other apostles warned of false teachers and corruption entering the Church. From that perspective, a widespread departure from original doctrine and authority was not unexpected—it was something the scriptures said would occur.

If that apostasy took place, then the continuation of Christ's original Church in its fullness would not be inevitable. Rather, a restoration would be necessary for God to reestablish priesthood authority and restore truths that had been lost or obscured over time.

The Bible itself is a record of continuing revelation. Moses received truths Abraham did not have. Isaiah received truths Moses did not have. Peter received truths Isaiah did not have. New revelation didn't invalidate prior revelation—it built upon it.

That's how I view the Book of Mormon. Not as a sequel to the Bible, but as another witness of Jesus Christ and another testament of God's willingness to speak to His children.

I also think one of the hardest things for any sincere believer—myself included—is remaining open to additional light. The truth can be demanding because it sometimes asks us to reconsider things we've held for a long time.

So the question I continue to ponder is not only whether God still speaks, but also whether He fulfilled His promises by restoring what had been lost after the apostasy, and whether we are willing to receive more if He does. Thx for the fun discussion.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

@harryjsisson Speak for yourself. You're getting really annoying.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

I appreciate that you've actually read the Book of Mormon and examined the evidence. That's more than many people do.

My sincere question is this: what would constitute sufficient evidence for you? If a destroyed civilization's records were intentionally hidden and only a small portion preserved for a future generation, what level of archaeological evidence would you reasonably expect to survive?

I'm not asking as a gotcha. I'm genuinely interested because I find that people often have different assumptions about what evidence should remain before they even begin evaluating the claims.

I also wonder if part of the disagreement is that many people view the Book of Mormon as a sequel to the Bible, when that's not really the claim it makes about itself. Latter-day Saints don't see it as "Bible Part 2" or a replacement for the Bible. We see it as another witness of Jesus Christ, much like another Gospel account or another prophetic record.

The Bible is a record of God's dealings with covenant peoples in the Old World. The Book of Mormon claims to be a record of His dealings with another branch of the House of Israel in the New World. That's why Ezekiel's prophecy of the stick of Judah and the stick of Joseph becoming one is meaningful to us, and why Christ's statement, "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold," resonates so strongly.

So perhaps the more fundamental question is not whether the Book of Mormon is a sequel, but whether God is capable of speaking to more than one covenant people and preserving more than one witness of Jesus Christ.

And if He is, what kind of evidence would we reasonably expect to remain after two thousand years, especially if the record itself claims the civilization was destroyed and the sacred records were intentionally preserved for a future generation?

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

Honestly, I still have questions myself. Not everything is answered to my satisfaction, and I don't expect it will be in mortality.

But I've found that unanswered questions don't necessarily mean something is false. Sometimes they simply mean I don't yet have enough information.

What keeps me engaged is that I'm willing to put the scriptures to the test. That's what Alma taught, that's what James 1:5 invites us to do, and that's what Joseph Smith did.

I've noticed that many of the most important things in life require us to act before we have every answer. Marriage, family, careers, education, even friendships all involve stepping forward without complete certainty.

So my question isn't whether there are unanswered questions. There are.

My question is: what would it take for you to continue the investigation rather than conclude it's impossible?

Because I've found that some of the greatest truths I've learned came after I pushed past the first objection and kept looking.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

Genuine question: if the gold plates were available for examination today, and if archaeological evidence continued to accumulate in favor of the Book of Mormon, would you then accept it as authentic?

If the answer is no, then archaeology may not be the real issue.

I'm not asking sarcastically. I'm genuinely curious what your foundational objection is. Is it Joseph Smith? Additional scripture? Modern revelation? Angels? Miracles? Or the idea that God would speak to people after the Bible?

I'm asking because I've found that the deepest disagreements are often several layers beneath the first objection we raise.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

I think you're raising fair questions, and I agree that archaeology matters. But I have a genuine question.

If God intended the Book of Mormon to be known primarily through archaeology, why does the book itself repeatedly point readers toward study, pondering, and seeking wisdom from God?

The Bible contains many things that cannot be proven archaeologically—God speaking to prophets, angels appearing, the Resurrection, miracles, and revelation. Most Christians don't believe those things because an artifact was found; they believe them because they trust the witnesses and the message.

So my question is: what standard should we apply to the Book of Mormon?

Should we require it to meet a higher burden than we apply to the Bible? Or should we examine it the same way we examine other truth claims—by considering the text, its teachings, its fruits, its witnesses, and whether living its principles produces the results it claims?

I don't think archaeology is irrelevant. I just don't think archaeology was ever intended to be the primary test of the Book of Mormon. The book itself claims to have been preserved for the latter days and invites readers to seek wisdom, not merely artifacts.

At the very least, shouldn't we remain open to the possibility that absence of evidence today is not the same thing as evidence of absence?

I would also add that the Book of Mormon does not present itself as a replacement for the Bible. It presents itself as a second witness of Jesus Christ. Ezekiel spoke of the stick of Judah and the stick of Joseph becoming one in God's hand (Ezekiel 37). Christ Himself said, "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold" (John 10:16). Latter-day Saints see the Bible as the record of God's dealings with one branch of the House of Israel in the Old World and the Book of Mormon as His dealings with another branch in the New World.

If God spoke to one covenant people and preserved their record, is it really unreasonable that He might have spoken to another covenant people and preserved their record as well? Rather than competing with the Bible, the Book of Mormon claims to stand beside it as an additional witness that Jesus is the Christ.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

@Eve_Priya_Ariel @ThoughtfulSaint Asking for someone's sincere curiosity, what is the prophets test?

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

If the process didn’t produce a confirming answer for you, it may be because the intent wasn’t truly to discover whether it’s from God, but rather to test or disprove it.

Many people have approached the same invitation with genuine sincerity and humility—and have received clear spiritual confirmation as a result. The difference isn’t in the process itself; it’s in the condition of the heart and mind of the person seeking.

You’ll probably point out that people who read the Satanic Bible or other opposing texts can also feel they’ve received confirmation. That raises a fair question about how we distinguish truth from deception. From a believing perspective, God does not deceive. He invites us to come to Him with real faith and humility. At the same time, Scripture warns against “casting pearls before swine”—meaning God generally withholds deeper spiritual understanding from those who approach with a closed, adversarial, or mocking heart rather than a sincere desire to know.Until someone is willing to set aside the desire to find a flaw or use any answer to reinforce a negative conclusion, it’s very difficult to receive genuine spiritual confirmation. The shift has to come from a place of humility and openness, not from demanding a sign on our own terms.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

Nonsensical. It is not dishonest to address this, and it's also very simple... Jesus said to judge prophets (and their claims) by their fruits: if the fruits of a prophet’s labors are good, then the prophet is good and from God. By the exact same standard, if the source of the Book of Mormon is demonic, then its fruit—the doctrines, the church it produced, and its spiritual results—must also be demonic or deceptive. You cannot affirm the “good fruit = good source” test in one direction while denying the reverse when the source is declared demonic. The two go together.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

"I don't know you at all, but I think you're dumb."

Now, before anyone gets defensive — hear me out. That's exactly the kind of strong claim we're talking about. If I made that statement about you with zero (or reading only 30% of your comments) or any real knowledge of who you are, most people would immediately recognize it as a bad premise. You'd probably want to debate or correct it, and rightly so.

The same logic applies here. Calling the Book of Mormon "demonically inspired" (or demonic) is an extremely strong statement. When someone admits they've only read about 30% of it, that claim rests on very limited exposure to the actual text. The premise itself becomes shaky, regardless of what the debate topic was titled.

You don't need to have read every page to notice the issue with his approach.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

@BowieTheus @ThoughtfulSaint Yes, esp if it's "demonic". And have a reasonable set of points for debate. Under what reasoning would you not!?

Especially when the book is identified as having great importance, and there are a large degree of reasonable people that have read it and say it's of God.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

@RyanBea64600306 @ThoughtfulSaint There is a lot more evidence that proves otherwise than what you're offering, so we'll let it all slide.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

Yeah, not a chance. Do you define the beliefs FOR us? Nope.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christians. Hopefully this was an oversight on your part. Read our 13 Articles of Faith. It dictates our beliefs. This needs to be categorized properly. Please and thank you.

[Rep. Mike Kennedy, M.D. @RepMikeKennedy]

I’m a Latter-day Saint, and I am a Christian.

Christ’s name is on our Church for a reason.

This must be corrected.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

@JaneBond462 @Pio_Cat @SenJohnCurtis I'm not sure your definition of 'Christian' is baked into this logic. How exactly does the idea of meritocracy (degrees of glory based on faithfulness) take away from Christianity? Jesus himself taught varying rewards in heaven.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I’m a Christian and proud of it. I’m not sure how our beliefs somehow declare that we’re not.

The Trinity doctrine, as traditionally taught, feels like an incomplete concept to us. It doesn’t define anything tangible and doesn’t reflect the distinct, individual nature of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Think of it like the CEO, CTO, and CFO of a company: they are not the same person, but they are completely one in purpose for the good of the company. That’s how we see the Godhead—three separate beings, perfectly united in will and love.

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

@miguelifornia @SenJohnCurtis You're not correct on this. Christ is the focus of the doctrine and as a member of this church I can't fathom what information you have received to persuade you to believe that way. I hope you find the right info to show you the joy I've had in my life knowing the Gospel.🙏

[Life's as good as you make it @SnapJag]

Fortunately, each person can know for themselves through research and prayer and doesn't have to listen to or depend on your opinion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church of God and Christ. It bears His name and the living prophets in this dispensation have given their lives to bear witness and testimony.