Sacred Timing of the First Vision

Spring Equinox Events

The book binding was finished, ready for sale on March 26, 1830. This spring equinox season monumental event was ten years after Joseph’s First Vision—not a coincidence, but by divine design.

Ultimate Questions

Ultimate Questions

It seems are those that are answered by a Testimony.

Natural Morality

Try to imagine a totally different morality

The very fact that the two people in Lewis’s example are quarreling suggests that they do more or less agree on the common standard.  Otherwise, they would just fight about the matter, as animals often do.  When they quarrel, each is trying to show the other that he or she is wrong.  But if there is a Wrong, and if there is a Right, there must be some standard behind those identifications.  There would be no point in calling a foul on a basketball player if there were actually no rules defining what a foul is.

The Spirit is Experienced Through Spiritual Means

Michael Augros:

Should the trait of immortality be encoded somewhere in your genome?  Of course not.  Yet such are the tools and terms of biology.  And they are quite excellent for their purposes, too.  Only, they don’t function very well as detectors of immortality, or finders of souls, whether such things exist or not.  To the degree that biology restricts itself to terminology that is fully reducible to that of chemistry and physics, of course its methods will be inept for determining whether you have a soul and what its nature might be.

With Christianity, nature's 'fine-tuning' makes sense

This:

"In crossing a heath," wrote William Paley at the beginning of his famous 1802 book "Natural Theology," "suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there."

"Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz., that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose … This mechanism being observed … the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use."