Another Anti-Mormon Who Just Doesn't Get It

[_Scottie]

None whatsoever except by the grace of God. Strong impetus to be humble.

Great. So I humble myself. I'm still no better at receiving and recognizing revelation than the Prophets are. And they suck at it.

[_The Nehor]

None whatsoever except by the grace of God. Strong impetus to be humble.

Great. So I humble myself. I'm still no better at receiving and recognizing revelation than the Prophets are. And they suck at it.

No, they're actually quite good at it. It's impossible to receive it from them unless you're in the same spirit they are.

2 Peter 1:20-21 have been clarified by the Prophets to state that the only way to understand prophecy is to have the same spirit of prophecy. Why should that apply less to modern prophets? In other words, by our own doctrine secular study of our teachings is bound to be fruitless.

This is probably why both sides think the other side is made up of either idiots or at least very, very wrong thinkers. I admit I find the actions of critics to show that prophets are often wrong and untrustworthy laughable. It's never been clearer though that from the other perspective I must seem a simplistically naïve, easily persuaded, desperate to defend my beliefs in any way moron.

I guess I never took that talk about the gulf between us that seriously.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but integrity has more to do with being true to yourself than it does propping up some sense of morality.

I disagree here. Being true to myself at one point could have meant being a sociopath.

I find it completely plausible that you being true to yourself would mean being a sociopath.

And yes, I already said you were entitled to your opinion.

I really haven't noticed any flipping on my part. I honestly talk to God.

Yeah, you've been consistent about that. Delusional, to be sure, but consistent.

What you were inconsistent about was the "it's fun to hurl insults"/"I mean my insults"/"insulting doesn't show integrity" flopping you've been doing. Perhaps you think you've been consistent on this, but it doesn't appear that way to me... unless what you're really saying is that you think you lack integrity.

That's true. Funny how many Mormons are insulted when we criticize their church, huh?

Saying that only an absolute moron could believe in my faith (your usual approach) is insulting. It does not qualify as criticism. Sorry.

My usual approach? God, your comprehension skills suck ass (by the way, for your benefit, that's both a criticism and an insult).

We've been down this road before, Nehor. It just goes to show that when I criticize, you are insulted. Again, show me where I've said, "only an absolute moron could believe in [your] faith."

Oh wait, you've done that (or at least, you chose passages you thought meant that), and you also refused to acknowledge what I meant in favor of what you want it to mean to fulfill whatever idea you have about me. We don't have to do it again, if you don't want to, but I'm willing if you are.

[_wenglund]

The bolded statement is where I believe most of our disagreement comes from.

You seem to be saying that the unreliable nature of revelation in the LDS church is of low importance and shouldn't be of any concern to any of us. I suspect that most, if not all critics contend that this problem is one of the most important and core problems with the LDS church. If the Prophets, the men who are supposed to have a direct line of communication to God, can't even recognize a revelation, then what chance does someone like me have of correctly interpreting one?

I'm not quite sure how you can say that this issue is of low importance? It seems to me as if it puts one of the foundational claims of Mormonism, Moroni's test, on trial. That seems to be of great importance.

As previously explained, while certainly of great importance at the BEGINNING of the process of growth in faith, the importance of the Moroni promise, of necessity, becomes decreasingly important as one progresses in faith, and for good reason. Again, when one has advanced in faith, it seems unreasonable for one to continue to ask for ostensive confirmation (Moroni 10) of things that have long been experiencially confirmed (Alma 32). And even if one does unreasonably ask for ostensive confirmation in the advanced stages of spiritual development, one's not getting an answer may be God's way of helping one to progress--elevating one from a dependant ostensive mode of faith to a more interdependant experientail level of faith.

To bring things most sharply into focus, let's look at who does or does not perceive revelation to be "unreliable". It is typically not the investigator who has received a Moroni 10 confirmation. They consider such revelations to be reliable enough to warrant joining the Church and entering onto the path of growth to Christ.

Nor is it your typical member who continues focused on becoming like Christ, and who is using the growth process as it is designed to be used. They deem revelation (both of a Moroni 10 and an Alma 32 kind) to be quite reliable for their purpose.

However, the people who tend to think revelation is unreliable are those good people, like yourself, who have experienced a loss of faith or who have completely lost faith, and this presumably because they have been distracted from the process of becoming like Christ. In other words, they find revelation to be unreliable because they aren't using the process of growth in faith as the process is designed. In their advanced stages of spiritual development, instead of continuing on with the process of growth as before, they incorrectly employ a method more germane to someone at the BEGINNING of the process, and when they don't receive an answer, instead of recognizing it as an opportunity for growth from dependance to interdependance (as the process is designed), they mistakenly view revelation as "unreliable", and may completely lose faith as a result thereof. So, it is not revelation that is "unreliable", but the people who are "unreliably" using the process of growth in faith in ways contrary to its design.

Does that help?

This point becomes all the more poignant when discussions move from personal revelation to discussions like determining whether the words of a prophet are revelation or opinion (which is the issue of discussion that Beastie first raised and to which I proffered my hypothesis--meaning that my hypothesis has less application to matters of personal revelation and more to matters of historical irrelevancies and meaningless disputes over what is official doctrine or not).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tator]

No. Obvously. At the point that Joseph prayed he was at the BEGINNING of the process of faith. His prayer wasn't precipitated by a LOSS of faith over concerns with irrelevant historical matter (which is what I am talking about). Rather, it was prompted by the desire to learn which is truly the path of God--essentially which processes of growth in faith is the one that God has established and will best enable mankind to become like Christ.

For some reason, the former believers keep confusing the BEGINNING of the process of GAINING faith, with my comments about the MIDDLE of the process and LOSS of faith.

You are making artificial distinctions that God, in his scriptures, never made. God didn’t say “you can pay attention to historical problems or doctrinal issues at the BEGINNING of the process of faith, but not in the MIDDLE.” He didn’t say “you can pray to receive affirming revelation at the BEGINNING of the process of faith, but not in the MIDDLE.”

You affirm this artificial distinction here:

In her diminished state of faith she may not have realized that the process of faith, at least in the MIDDLE of the process, is not necessarily designed to work that way. As intimated earlier, as with most any epistemology, at the BEGINNING of the process, when a person has little or no faith or understanding, the Moroni 10 kinds of ostensive confirmations are somewhat necessary. But, as one continues to grow in faith, the Alma 32 experiencial type of confirmations and learning begin to predominate, and for good reason.

This artificial distinction is entirely of your own creation. Moroni 10 never specifies that this process is intended only for the BEGINNING of the process. It is offered as a manner by which “you may know the truth of ALL THING”. ALL THINGS, Wade. ALL THINGS obviously cannot be limited to some artificial timeline.

In addition, your artificial distinction would seem to disallow Moroni's promise to life-long members of the church, who supposedly have been growing in faith since childhood. Yet, they are still encouraged to ask God to see if "these things are true".

Let's start at the BEGINNING. From what Beastie has told us, she prayed to know if the Book of Mormon is true, and received affirming confirmation (as per Moroni 10). Thus the seed of faith was planted.

However, at that time she also prayed to know if the Church was true, but felt she didn't receive an answer to that specific prayer. Typically, though, when investigators, being taught by representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pray about the verity of the Book of Mormon or Joseph as a prophet or whatever, when they receive an affirming answer, they rationally interpret that more generally as indicating that what the missionaries have taught them is true, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church. At the very least, Beastie's sister came to that rational conclusion. But, evidently, Beastie thought otherwise.

Ah, now we get down to it. So your answer is the old favorite: When God told beastie the Book of Mormon was the word of God, he was also telling her the church is true. Any rational person would recognize this.

It is hard for me to believe that Wade, or all the other proponents of this theory, really and truly do not see any difference between these two propositions:

1) The Book of Mormon is the word of God.
2) The LDS church is the one true church.

It almost stuns me into silence – almost – that someone could genuinely not recognize that these are two very different assertions. And yet Wade clearly insinuates that only irrational people would not recognize that these two assertions are actually identical.

Throughout the history of the church, believers have recognized that these are two different assertions. Some of the early Book of Mormon witnesses certainly made the distinction, as they wavered back and forth on whether to follow Brigham Young or one of the other offshoot sects. Any member of the RLDS or other offshoot sects today will clearly recognize that these are two different assertions.

Even more striking, the author of the original Book of Commandments recognized that these are two different assertions.

The current D&C reads as follows:

D&C 5:4 — And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.

The original revelation, in the Book of Commandments, read as follows:

BC 4:2, p. 10 — and he has a gift to translate the book [of Mormon], and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

Here’s even more context:

1833 Book of Commandments
Chapter IV

1 A Revelation given to Joseph and Martin, in Harmony, Pennsylvania, March, 1829, when Martin desired of the Lord to know whether Joseph had, in his possession, the record of the Nephites.

My insert – note the specific topic – the question is about the Book of Mormon, as is the response

Behold, I say unto you, that my servant Martin has desired a witness from my hand, that my servant Joseph has got the things of which he has testified, and borne record that he has received of me.

2 And now, behold, this shall you say unto him: I the Lord am God, and I have given these things unto my servant Joseph, and I have commanded him that he should stand as a witness of these things, nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a covenant with me, that he should not show them except I command him, and he has no power over them except I grant it unto him; and he has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.

My insert – it is clear that “these things” are referring to the record of the Nephites, because that was the question asked.

3 And verily I say unto you, that wo shall come unto the inhabitants of the earth, if they will not hearken unto my words, for, behold, if they will not believe my words, they would not believe my servant Joseph, if it were possible that he could show them all things. O ye unbelieving, ye stiffnecked generation, mine anger is kindled against you!
4 Behold, verily I say, I have reserved the things of which I have spoken, which I have intrusted to my servant, for a wise purpose in me, and it shall be made known unto future generations; But this generation shall have my words, yea and the testimony of three of my servants shall go forth with my words unto this generation; yea, three shall know of a surety that these things are true, for I will give them power, that they may behold and view these things as they are, and to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony of three witnesses will Is end forth and my word, and behold, whosoever believeth in my word, them will I visit with the manifestation of my Spirit, and they shall be born of me, and their testimony shall also go forth.

My insert: it is still clear that the Book of Mormon is being referred to. The three witnesses are specifically mentioned.

5 And thus, if the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them, and I will put down all lyings, and decievings, and priestcrafts, and envyings, and strifes, and idolatries, and sorceries, and all manner of iniquities, and I will establish my church, like unto the church which was taught by my disciples in the days of old.

My insert – this is the first time the discussion turns from solely discussing the Book of Mormon to discussing a “reformation”. Again, no clear “restoration” is mentioned, and Joseph is not named as any instrument in the reformation, other than to bring forth the Book of Mormon, through which the Spirit will be manifested.

6 And now if this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto satan, for he reigneth and hath much power at this time, for he hath got great hold upon the hearts of the people of this generation; and not far from the iniquities of Sodom and Gomorrah, do they come at this time: and behold the sword of justice hangeth over their heads, and if they persist in the hardness of their hearts, the time cometh that it must fall upon them. Behold I tell you these things even as I also told the people of the destruction of Jerusalem, and my word shall be verified at this time as it hath hitherto been verified.
7 And now I command my servant Joseph to repent, and walk more uprightly before me, and yield to the persuasions of men no more; and that he be firm in keeping the commandments wherewith I have commanded him; and if he doeth this, behold I grant unto eternal life, even if he should be slain.
8 And now I speak again concerning the man that desireth a witness: behold I say unto him, he exalteth himself and doth not humble himself sufficiently before me, but if he will go out and bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desireth to know” and then he shall say, I have seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the power of God.
9 And these are the words which he shall say – But if he deny this, he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold he is condemned. And now except he humble himself and acknowledge unto me the things that he has done, which are wrong, and covenant with me that he will keep my commandments, and exercise faith in me, behold I say unto him, he shall have no such views, for I will grant unto him no views of the things which I have spoken., And if this be the case, I command him that he shall do no more, nor trouble me any more concerning this matter.

My insert – again, the topic reverts to the primary focus of the entire revelation – the Book of Mormon. I do find it odd that God commanded Martin Harris to only say the exact words provided, and commanded him to have no other view on the matter, but that is a topic for a different thread.

10 And if this be the case, behold I say unto you, Joseph, when thou hast translated a few more pages, thou shalt stop for a season, even until I command thee again: then thou mayest translate again. And except thou do this, behold thou shalt have no more gift, and I will take away the things which I have intrusted thee.
11 And now, because I foresee the lying in wait to destroy thee: Yea, I foresee that if my servant humbleth not himself, and receive a witness from my hand, that he will fall into transgression; and there are many that lie in wait to destroy thee from off the face of the earth: And for this cause, that thy days may be prolonged, I have given unto thee these commandments; yea, for this cause I have said, stop and stand until I command thee, and I will provide means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee; and if thou art faithful in keeping my commandments, thou shalt be lifted up at the last day: Amen.

This verse makes it clear that "the gift" that has been referenced in this revelation is the gift to translate the Book of Mormon. God was clear, in the original, that this was the only gift Joseph would have.



by the way, Wade and I have had this conversation before. He’s heard this before. It still hasn’t registered.

Aside from the painfully obvious fact that these two assertions are obviously different:

1) The Book of Mormon is the word of God
2) The LDS church is the one true church

this entire conversation, once again, emphasizes my whole point:

Revelation is unreliable.

This is true even if Wade’s illogical assertions are correct. How so? Because if when God told me that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, He was really telling me “the LDS church is the one true church”, God didn’t convey that information in a manner clear enough for me – a sincere and sane person – to understand that is what God was saying all along.

When LDS defenders of the faith are asked how it is that members of other faiths experience spiritual feelings, those defenders normally say that other religions have SOME truth, and the spirit will naturally testify to those particular “truths”, but that doesn’t mean the entire religion and all its claims are “true”.

Yet this is exactly what Wade is proposing one accept for the LDS church. If LDS have spiritual experiences, that means THE CHURCH IS THE ONE TRUE CHURCH. It couldn’t possibly mean that the LDS church, like other religions, have SOME truth, and the spirit will naturally testify to those particular truths, but that doesn’t mean the entire religion and all its claims are true. Naw, just not possible. No rational person would think otherwise.

I never felt the “peace of Christ” when I was Mormon, despite the fact that I did my utmost to follow the teachings of the church. By Wade’s own formula, that means the church isn’t true.

[_beastie]

I clearly remember the day I finally was able to accept that the answer to my prayer – is the LDS church the one true church – was “no”. I’d been in spiritual and emotional agony about this for a long time. It was a long, tiring journey. I kept trying to think of different ways to be able to get a “yes” answer from God. Maybe if I prayed one more time. Maybe if I fasted. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Nothing worked.

Then one day I was out running, and, as usual, in my heart I was pleading to God to answer my prayer. Suddenly the thought came to me clearly: you already know the answer.

And I did. I knew the church wasn’t true. I just could not accept it. But at that moment, I accepted the answer. And at that moment, I felt a huge, glorious release. I felt joy and peace. I felt as if the world had suddenly been lifted off my shoulders.

Of course, I still grieved for the church. I still struggled to figure out just what I did believe. Leaving the church was frightening. But I was never again in that emotional and spiritual agony.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Wade, from your post: (I'm in UL)

However, I am not sure you are understanding what I mean by growth process. RM: Quite possible... I am not suggesting that people can't be some what Christ-like during this life. Quite the contrary. In fact, I explicitly state that the process[u][u] RM: What "process?"[/u][/u] enables us to become increasingly more like Christ. We wont, though, ultimately become like Christ until we are perfected as was Christ, and that by being resurrected. RM:My understanding is that everyone will be resurrected. Is that what you mean: "...perfected...as was Christ by being resurrected..."???

Also, while Christ epitomized charity, he still felt need to comply with ordinances like baptism so as to fulfill all righteousness. RM:This is believed by the bulk of Christendom. In so doing is their faith & obedience in vain? If he, who was sinless felt that need, then how much more do we who are sinful have need thereof? RM: So Baptism, entered into by obedience, and in faith by the millions of Christ aspirants through the ages--they "...get it..." (from the thread's title)???

Wade, I don't want to discourage your noble quest to be Christ-like. It is a worthy pursuit for us all. It's in-the-book, "by their fruits they (the Christ-like) will be known." To this point in time there doesn't seem to have been enough to have made a very significant orchard...

Greed, envy, hate, self-indulgence, prejudice, pride, dishonesty, fear, suspicion, discrimination, wars & all things unChristian still, 2,000+ years from Christ's teaching of the contrary, we continue to create our heros, celebrities, places-of-worship and shoppng-malls--generally speaking--by displaying the wrong fruits. You describe yourself as a behaviouralist(?) Do you have an explaination as to why, "we just don't get it?"
Roger
*
*

[_The Nehor]

I find it completely plausible that you being true to yourself would mean being a sociopath.

Thanks, do you think I should show my integrity by living out my fantasies from my 'hate the world' goth phase?

What you were inconsistent about was the "it's fun to hurl insults"/"I mean my insults"/"insulting doesn't show integrity" flopping you've been doing. Perhaps you think you've been consistent on this, but it doesn't appear that way to me... unless what you're really saying is that you think you lack integrity.

I don't see any inconsistency. I hold that insulting someone does not show integrity (whether you mean them or not).

That's true. Funny how many Mormons are insulted when we criticize their church, huh?

We've been down this road before, Nehor. It just goes to show that when I criticize, you are insulted. Again, show me where I've said, "only an absolute moron could believe in [your] faith."

It's a paraphrase.

Oh wait, you've done that (or at least, you chose passages you thought meant that), and you also refused to acknowledge what I meant in favor of what you want it to mean to fulfill whatever idea you have about me. We don't have to do it again, if you don't want to, but I'm willing if you are.

Nah, I'll pass. Sounds like too much work.

Have a good day.

[_wenglund]

If one has doubts whether the process of growth in faith has a BEGINNING, MIDDLE, and END, and whether these distinctions are artificial or scriptural, may I suggest that rather than uncritically taking the baseless and contrarian opinion of someone who eventually failed the process of growth in faith, instead open the topical guide for the scriptures and search words like gate, enter, strait, baptism, path, way, plan, endure, end, final judgement, salvation, exaltation, etc.

If one doubts whether the process of growth in faith entails ostensive (Moroni 10) mode of faith early on in the process and transitioning more to experiencial (Alma 32) mode of faith as one advances, if one's own personal experience doesn't suffice, and if Beasties own experience doesn't suffice, then ask yourself why there are these two modes of confirmation. Ask what the chance are that Joseph Smith, after translating the Book of Mormon and having progressed in faith, would think to offer the pray he did in the sacred grove. Ask yourself how many members you knonw, who have been progressing in faith for years, would think to ask the same prayer they offerred as an investigator. Ask yourself whether or not faith is to be tested so as to be strengthened, and if so, how is faith tested, and how is one strengthened thereby. Most importantly, ask yourself how a person can grow to spiritual maturity and become like Christ if instead of being increasingly encouraged to figure things out on our own through experience, we are ostensively told everything? How can we grow if we continue to be dependantly reliant upon ostensive revelation (Mormoni 10) and don't become interdependant upon experiential revelation.

And, if that doesn't suffice, perhaps I can provide links that describe epistemics in general (secular and religious) and the educational process entailed therein, noting the different modes of instruction used with children (pedagogy), which is heavily ostensive in nature, as contrasted with that used in teach adults (andragogy), which is heavily experiencial in nature. the very nature of growth screams out the so-called artificial distinction.

Finally, while the following propositions are obviously different--i.e. "Is the Book of Mormon true" and "Is the Church is true", I trust that the rational reader will understand that context is important, and will likely be aware that context establishes relationships that lend themselves to strong inductive correlations between the propositions, and as such you will not be stunned by the reasonable suggestion, which Beastie's sister came to and most every convert I am aware of as well, that confirmation of one proposition is tacit confirmation of the other proposition--particularly when it is understood that the confirmations are more seeds of faith than conveyance of certainty of knowledge.

But, evidently, Beastie thinks otherwise, which explains why she lost faith, while those of us who correctly understand the process of faith, and use it as it is designed, continue to grow therein, thus confirming in part, my hypothesis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Scottie]

As previously explained, while certainly of great importance at the BEGINNING of the process of growth in faith, the importance of the Moroni promise, of necessity, becomes decreasingly important as one progresses in faith, and for good reason. Again, when one has advanced in faith, it seems unreasonable for one to continue to ask for ostensive confirmation (Moroni 10) of things that have long been experiencially confirmed (Alma 32). And even if one does unreasonably ask for ostensive confirmation in the advanced stages of spiritual development, one's not getting an answer may be God's way of helping one to progress--elevating one from a dependant ostensive mode of faith to a more interdependant experientail level of faith.

I can agree with your statement here, but that isn't what I was saying. Most critics will argue that regardless of which stage you pray to know the truthfulness of the church, you are still a much spiritually weaker person than the prophet. If the prophet can get revelation wrong, then how can we possibly know if we are receiving revelation??

To bring things most sharply into focus, let's look at who does or does not perceive revelation to be "unreliable". It is typically not the investigator who has received a Moroni 10 confirmation. They consider such revelations to be reliable enough to warrant joining the Church and entering onto the path of growth to Christ.

Many do, yes.

Nor is it your typical member who continues focused on becoming like Christ, and who is using the growth process as it is designed to be used. They deem revelation (both of a Moroni 10 and an Alma 32 kind) to be quite reliable for their purpose.

Well, yes and no. When it comes to their own personal revelation, why there is NO WAY it could have been anything but the spirit. When it comes to past prophets... welllllll... maybe it was the spirit, but probably not. How could THEY possibly know??

Then there are the billions of others who believe they have received spiritual witness for their religion. How do you categorize these people?