Posted on 10/08/2007 7:49:32 AM PDT by colorcountry
Not only is Mormonism a Christian faith, it is the truest form of Christianity, said speaker after speaker on the first day of the 177th Semiannual LDS General Conference. LDS authorities were responding to the allegation that Mormonism isn't part of Christianity. Made by different mainline Protestant and Catholic churches and repeated constantly during coverage of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, the claim is based on Mormonism's beliefs about God, its rejection of ancient ideas about the Trinity still widely accepted, and the LDS Church's extra-biblical scriptures. "It is not our purpose to demean any person's belief nor the doctrine of any religion," said Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland in the afternoon session. "But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first [Christians], many of whom were eye-witnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?"
{snip}
The day's sermons included many familiar themes, including the importance of faith, the need for pure thoughts and actions, avoiding pornography reaching out to neighbors and eliminating spiritual procrastination. Hinckley talked about the destructive nature of anger in marriages, on the road, and in life, urging Mormons to "control your tempers, to put a smile upon your faces, which will erase anger; speak with words of love and peace, appreciation and respect."
True, but what has that to do with it?
To me, this whole JST thing reminds me of countless courtroom scenes, where one attorney will blurt out a bunch of stuff that he wants to influence the jury with, and the other side jumps up and says, “Your Honor; we object!!!”, and the judge says, “Objection noted. The jury will disregard what was just said.”
Just a bit TOO late, I think.
(I’ve always wondered why none of the OTHER Living Prophets has even gotten info from GOD to COMPLETE the project!)
Then RATIONALIZE how you have man-made doctrines controlling the things you do in your Temple Rites.
What do you mean?
“And here’s the curse upon those adding to or taking away from that Book”
But restoring what was there originally and lost is not a problem.
“And how do you KNOW it was the same as Peter and the Apostles
instead of how Reverend Sun Myung Moon knows he is the Christ, or how the polygamist Jeffords knows he is a mormon
prophet of God???”
If it was the same as what Reverend Sun Myung Moon claimed, or Jeffords it would have testified of them.
You can keep pushing these kind of questions all you want, either you get to the point where you question the existence of all reality vs. some kind of illusion as in The Matrix (which boils down to concluding there is no truth of any kind that can be known) or you have to at some point say ‘By my own experience I know it to be true.’
I don’t care what you think of it, I’m the one who is going to answer to God for my life. Why do you think the Bible would tell people to seek wisdom and knowledge by prayer if there was no way for prayer to impart wisdom and knowledge? Why would God ask people to do that if they would be unable to tell if they got an answer, or if their answer really came from God. You can choose to either exercise faith an apply the promise and find out for yourself, or you can sit there on the outside asking pointless questions and refusing to find out the way Christ instructed you to.
see post 487
And from what manuscript did your prophet ‘translate’ this added/’restored’ material in Revelations?
The same one he ‘found’ the translation of the Egyptian funerary materials on?
It's a catch phrase for followers of Joseph Smith to identify their reasoning (or lack of) for believing all the "revelations" their prophet fed to the world. It also serves some well as a conversation stopper when the debate isn't going their way.
There are as many testimonies as there are faithful, no two alike. You are trying to catch shadows.
The failure of anyone to objectively define “testimony of the Holy Ghost” has frustrated any attempts to do so, much to discredit in my eyes those who refer to it.
You wrote:
It's a catch phrase for followers of Joseph Smith to identify their reasoning (or lack of) for believing all the "revelations" their prophet fed to the world. It also serves some well as a conversation stopper when the debate isn't going their way. . . . There are as many testimonies as there are faithful, no two alike. You are trying to catch shadows.
I tried to answer dangus's question in Post #487. Apparently, dangus thought my answer sufficient (see Post #489). Did you miss my post? Or did you find it deficient in some way?
And, my statements in #510 stand. When the factual statements posted disagree with the beliefs of some, there is often a "bearing of testimony", with the intimation THAT should be accepted as the last word, and the debate considered won.
I doubt you would argue with my last two statements, "There are as many testimonies as there are faithful, no two alike. You are trying to catch shadows."
No, I found it was the sort of answer I was looking for. I thanked you for it, and haven’t asked for it to be answered since.
If that is so, then you have your answer. Keep in mind that others have arrived at the opposite conclusion. God will judge.
That said, your experience seems rather incomplete. You say that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, from which you conclude that the LDS Church must be false. However, you do not say which church (if any) is true. Did the still, small voice tell you which church to join?
And, my statements in #510 stand. When the factual statements posted disagree with the beliefs of some, there is often a "bearing of testimony", with the intimation THAT should be accepted as the last word, and the debate considered won.
Perhaps that is the problem. You think in terms of a debate to be won, while we Mormons tend to think in terms of declaring the truth.
I doubt you would argue with my last two statements, "There are as many testimonies as there are faithful, no two alike.
Yes.
You are trying to catch shadows."
Not so. The experiences that we talk about are real, even if they vary from person to person. Anyone who wants to know firsthand merely has to apply the test.
“If it was the same as what Reverend Sun Myung Moon claimed, or Jeffords it would have testified of them.”
Yet, if I asked Rev. Moon, who claims to be Christ, or if
I asked Mr. Jeffords, who claims to be the Prophet over the
other mormon group, they would both tell me exactly what you
said! Their testimony left your mormon truth out. Surely, if
you were right, their personal truth would have validated
it.
Their standard for knowing truth is your standard - personal experience. What makes your personal experience valid and their personal experience invalid?
You and other mormons who post here and ones I have spoken
with in person, frequently and almost exclusively resort back
to the burning experience as the basis of truth - subjective,
personal experience that trumps objective sources of truth...
and as demonstrated by illustration above, invalid.
If you are going to claim it is the foundation of all, I would
think you could explain these obvious discrepancies.
ampu
That is the wrong question. There is no point asking whether another person's personal experience is valid: I cannot directly know anything about his mental or emotional state.
A better question would be, How do you know what is true?
You and other mormons who post here and ones I have spoken with in person, frequently and almost exclusively resort back to the burning experience as the basis of truth - subjective, personal experience that trumps objective sources of truth... and as demonstrated by illustration above, invalid.
Note that subjective does not mean "false" or "invalid." Subjective knowledge is that which is private. It could be argued that most if not all that we know is based on our personal experience, which is inherently private and therefore subjective.
Likewise, objective does not mean "true" or "valid." Objective knowledge is supposed to be publicly demonstrable.
You refer to "objective sources of truth." I am curious: Just what "objective" sources of religious truth do you have in mind?
“Yet, if I asked Rev. Moon, who claims to be Christ, or if
I asked Mr. Jeffords, who claims to be the Prophet over the
other mormon group, they would both tell me exactly what you
said! Their testimony left your mormon truth out. Surely, if
you were right, their personal truth would have validated
it.”
Hence you should not just take someone’s word for it when they claim such a thing. Put some faith into what the scriptures say and do it and find out for yourself.
I will stand before God and account for my life to him, not you or Jeffords or anyone else. Likewise each of them will also have to stand before God and account for their life. The fact that some people make claims contrary to what I have experienced means nothing to me. If someone says the sky is green and the grass is blue I’m not going to pay it any attention.
You could just as easily ask, how did Moses know when he saw the burning bush and heard the voice that it was from God? How did John know when he wrote Revelation that his vision was from God? How do you know that those events were of God too?
“personal experience valid and their personal experience invalid”
I didn’t have their experience, I can’t judge their mental state or honesty, I don’t know if they had been using any mind altering substances, I don’t know if they actually experienced the fruits of the spirit durring their claimed event or if they misunderstood it or what. The only experience I am in a position to judge is my own.
“You and other mormons who post here and ones I have spoken
with in person, frequently and almost exclusively resort back
to the burning experience as the basis of truth”
And what vision or revelation in the Bible is not a subjective experience?
“subjective, personal experience that trumps objective sources of truth...
and as demonstrated by illustration above, invalid.”
You’ve only demonstrated that different people make contradictory claims. You have not established that those people all had in fact the same kind of experience, that their accounts are honest, and accurate. God is perfectly capable of communicating with us in many different ways, and what God reveals is true even when it appears to conflict with what men think to be true.
If you are unwilling to trust the promises in the scriptures and use prayer to increase your understanding, there is nothing else that will be a suitable substitute. If you are going to resist any manner of divine communication unless it forces itself on you and comes with scientifically verifiable proof then you lack faith. If you are just looking for an excuse to avoid trying it, then ask yourself why should a Christian avoid praying about something so important?’ There is no good answer, Satan teaches a man to not pray, not God.
You can either do it and find out or remain frustrated in the dark. Your choice.
Wow, I'm wondering how you could type that and still keep a straight face. We have been called non-Christian so many times on these threads my head is spinning. How can you say we are commended in such a thing when it's contrary to practically every cultish, non-Christian, heretical and other name calling darts thrown at us on these threads.
I’d be happy to have such a discussion. Are you then willing to talk about all the references to obeying the commandments and the necessity of works, righteousness, doing the will of God, etc?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.