mms wrote:No TBMs willing to weigh in on this one, eh? I know it presents a bit of a challenge because it has for me, but certainly somebody has something to say???
If you are looking for a TBM, I am guilty as charged.
This discussion parallels the one I think on "The Spirit and Feelings" here on this forum in which I have posted several times with no response- so between these two threads perhaps we can get a good discussion going, since the subject I think is a crucial one since I see no problem with what you have said so far, and yet obviously this is a major stumbling block for critics.
The only problem is that I am super busy this week.
But for a short answer, let me say that if one truly believes in PERSONAL revelation, as I do, the only possible conclusion is that those spiritual answers would be PERSONAL, ie: tailored for the individual to move that INDIVIDUAL forward on the path to finding God. This means that if that individual needs to be Buddhist to find God, that individual could receive a "true" revelation from God to become Buddhist or whatever else works for that person.
What critics seem to not understand is that this is actually part of LDS doctrine. We believe that there is truth in all "churches" (paths to God) but that ours is the "best" path in that it contains more "truth" than any other path. The entire doctrine of redemption of the dead presupposes that a seeking individual, having more information available on the other side, will see the wisdom of the "true" path and follow it, and eventually "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess... etc."
I have found that critics often have a very very narrow, fundamentalistic, and stilted, strict, and to me unrealistic view of LDS doctrine, which perhaps arises primarily from their upbringing which to me does not represent at all the richness of what is possible in Mormonism. I find many of the arguments on this board laughable for this reason. Mormonism can be very dynamic - the whole notion of continuing revelation is revolutionary in a Christian construct, but all the critics see are historic changes in doctrine for example, with a view that there is only ONE way to see all this.
But this life is about learning which paths work and which don't, and I don't see how you can find the truth without taking a few twists and turns. I myself have been Catholic atheist and Buddhist and am now LDS - and have been for 30 years- and this is where I am staying because I have tried those other paths and found this to be the "best" which encompasses all the other paths I have taken. And trust me, I know enough about the way the church works to know all the negatives too. ALL the negatives.
Most who respond will probably follow the line "but that's not what Mormons believe" and we will continue the discussion battling their hidebound caricatures of the gospel- that's what my crystal ball says-- but that is also why you haven't had any TBM's willing to take on this unending same discussion one more time.
To reduce my point to it's most basic and obvious example, if you take a drunk on skid row who wants to change his life, would God give him a "genuine" revelation to join the Salvation Army if they were the only ones who paid attention to him and brought him to Christ?
Of course he would!
Would any TBM argue with that point?
The other examples are just more subtle variations on the same theme.
And to Truth Dancer's latest post-truth dancer wrote:And, of course, it could very well be that I am in the grips of the adversary. ;-) (Yes, I have heard this...smile).
Anybody who says that to you just doesn't understand the gospel.
I don't doubt for a second that people say those things, but they just don't get it. THAT is not doctrine.
Now I suppose the rest of the thread will be devoted to what is and is not doctrine. Oh well. If that's the way it goes, I will tell you in advance it's not worth my time to participate.