Why I am a Latter-day Saint

[Guest]

There are a lot of ifs in that second quote. When did you lose your certainty that there is a God, or that those feelings you "interpreted as answers were in actual fact" from God, or that you'd interpreted those answers correctly?

There are a lot of ifs in your testimony too, you just don't see them.
I merely recognise that my assumptions are just that, assumptions, regardless of how much faith (hope) I have that God exists.
I lost my certainty in God when I realised He wasn't at the helm of the Church.

[_canpakes]

Have you asked God whether what church you're in is relevant to any eternal progression?

KevinSim, why would any particular Church's failure to posit that you will 'eternally progress' have any effect on any plan of God for your eternal progression post-mortal death?

Consider that there is no 'LDS Church' in the afterlife; there cannot be because that would be paradoxical, given that the nature of 'the LDS Church' as you interpret it is based entirely on mortal, earthly existence, occurrences and experiences. Same for other churches.

If you give credence to GA teachings and accept the concept of 'eternal progression' as an essential part of LDS doctrine then it follows that EP has always existed and will occur at any heavenly level. It would extend to virtually every soul regardless of whatever church they were in during their mortal existence. Brigham Young asserts this:

"...There is no such thing as principle, power, wisdom, knowledge, life, position, or anything that can be imagined, that remains stationary - they must increase or decrease" - Journal of Discourses 1:350

The only noted differences between 'progression' privileges in any of the defined kingdoms is that the Church claims that the Celestial Kingdom members - and only in the upper third subdivision of the Celestial Kingdom - get to 'continue marriage and family life'. Interestingly, this isn't a 'progression' so much as a maintenance of your mortal status quo post-mortal death. Yet even that's paradoxical as the scheme cannot be maintained unless 'continuing family life' means a limited family experience for upper-level Celestial Kingdom participants where they are shut off from anyone else not in the same Celestial Kingdom subdivision even if they are 'family'.

Of course, you may have a different interpretation of how all of this plays out, in which case it would make for a good conversation, but probably at the expense of hijacking the thread. oooops, my bad for facilitating this...

In any event, within any LDS framework for which you recognize the existence of God, Bazooka's 'eternal progression' is covered no matter what church he's in... or even if in no church at all.

[_Nightlion]

God could show up in person. God could send an angel to communicate with a sincere inquirer. This would be a clear and objective answer, unlike the many sensations people get and interpret in so many different ways.

Tell that to the Jews. How come they were not clear about the objective reality that God was among them?

Perhaps hell is the struggle of the skeptic to keep his skepticism.

[_Bazooka]

How come they were not clear about the objective reality that God was among them?

They were, but they understood that God needed them to crucify Jesus to fulfil the plan. They were just doing what God wanted them to do, just like Eve taking that fruit.

[_Bazooka]

“I have known that when there is a problem, if there is nothing else to do but begin to move, we start to move, and if we are heading in the wrong direction, we will hear about it from the Spirit. If you know that, you will not make any mistake dealing with the members, with the Church, with the administration, with anything else, because you are ordained now to have that power with you. “

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... .html?pg=2

It seems that silence on the part of the Spirit is affirmation that what you are doing is right.

[_Nightlion]

Things are becoming more clear these days. The LDS leadership have the mistaken notion that a calling and ordination in the priesthood thereof constitute spiritual validation and gifts. (Of course church history regarding the ordination of the original Twelve refutes this.)

So it matters nothing that they each failed to repent and come unto Christ with full purpose of heart to be born of God, getting sanctification from the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost as Christ commanded and as he recognizes as his Church. Their callings alone sanctify them and empower them. How very convenient.

I read recently where a GA visited an apostate serving bishop and affirmed he (the GA) was a SPECIAL WITNESS......not that he had received any special witness, just that he was called and ordained to BE and therefore IS 'a special witness'.

What a bucket load of crap! You cannot spell hypocrisy any better. Or cultification for that matter.

You can deconstruct the Church from this: vs, the prophet is a prophet because he was called and ordained a prophet.....EOS, truly the end of the matter.

In the referred to news article Boyd K. Packer affirm this notion twice:

The gospel will go forth unto the nations quicker and easier if it goes forth “with a quiet knowledge and the Spirit that we are called to carry.”

That same Spirit, he said, should reside in the home.

“If you want to establish the Church, the place to begin is in the home with the father and the mother and the children,” he said. “Respect them for who they are and what they have. You will be blessed, and they will be blessed, and the Church will grow.”

President Packer assured the new mission presidents and their wives that the Spirit will be their guide and protector.

“I have known that when there is a problem, if there is nothing else to do but begin to move, we start to move, and if we are heading in the wrong direction, we will hear about it from the Spirit. If you know that, you will not make any mistake dealing with the members, with the Church, with the administration, with anything else, because you are ordained now to have that power with you. “

In closing, President Packer invoked blessings of peace and confidence upon the newly called mission leaders. He added that their children and families would also be blessed during their time of service.

“I bless you with safety and wisdom and inspiration and bless you with power,“ he said. ”To the mission presidents,“ he declared, ”There is great power in the priesthood that you hold. It is the consummate power on this earth. Use it well, and the world will be blessed because you accepted this call.”

This:

if we are heading in the wrong direction, we will hear about it from the Spirit

means God will not permit the leaders to lead astray. Tell that to the leaders in Isaiah's Old Testament who caused the people to err. And to the Jews whom Christ called blind guides. Did not Christ say that they did indeed sit in Moses seat. Did he not honor Caiaphas, standing in his court. So they were called and still blind and did mislead nations.

[_KevinSim]

There are a lot of ifs in that second quote. When did you lose your certainty that there is a God, or that those feelings you "interpreted as answers were in actual fact" from God, or that you'd interpreted those answers correctly?

There are a lot of ifs in your testimony too, you just don't see them.

Fair enough. I have certainly stated enough that I don't strictly know that God exists.

I merely recognise that my assumptions are just that, assumptions, regardless of how much faith (hope) I have that God exists.
I lost my certainty in God when I realised He wasn't at the helm of the Church.

Faith and hope are close together, but they're not identical. But I'm glad to hear that you have one or the other, regarding the existence of God.

What about devotion to God? I have made it clear that I'm very devoted to God. I have put all my eggs in the God basket. I have gambled everything I have, and am determined to keep gambling all that I have, on the existence of a good God, who wants us to know Her/His will, and who has the capacity to answer prayer. I would guess that you had this devotion too, when you were certain that God existed. Did you also lose that devotion when you lost your certainty in God, when you "realized He wasn't at the helm of the" LDS Church? And was that when you got the answer that the LDS Church wasn't true, after you asked God if the LDS Church was true?

[_KevinSim]

Have you asked God whether what church you're in is relevant to any eternal progression?

KevinSim, why would any particular Church's failure to posit that you will 'eternally progress' have any effect on any plan of God for your eternal progression post-mortal death?

I was simply responding to what Bazooka clearly was treating as a statement of fact; I was trying to find out how he had concluded that it was fact.

Consider that there is no 'LDS Church' in the afterlife; there cannot be because that would be paradoxical, given that the nature of 'the LDS Church' as you interpret it is based entirely on mortal, earthly existence, occurrences and experiences.

There may not be any "'LDS Church' in the afterlife" in its current form, but I believe quite strongly that it exists there in some form. How have you come to the conclusion that the LDS Church "is based entirely on mortal, earthly existence, occurrences and experiences"? The LDS Church is based on giving service to others, and the vast majority of its members expect that when they die, they will simply go on giving service to others. I expect many of the institutions of the LDS Church, like home teaching and visiting teaching, for instance, will continue unabated in the next life.

Yet even that's paradoxical as the scheme cannot be maintained unless 'continuing family life' means a limited family experience for upper-level Celestial Kingdom participants where they are shut off from anyone else not in the same Celestial Kingdom subdivision even if they are 'family'.

I think it will be premature to call something paradoxical until God explains what precisely it is. I don't think we have all the data on the Celestial Kingdom yet.

[_KevinSim]

How is giving someone a positive feeling for a yes answer or, alternately, a negative feeling for a no answer, any worse a job of communicating than spelling the answer "across the sky in iridescent firecracker-like explosions"?

I presume that you are gainfully employed, so let's pose the question in a real-world work environment.

I am gainfully employed.

1. You ask your boss for a raise. He says and does nothing, but you feel an incredible rush within wherein you feel that you will be granted the raise. You leave his office with that assumption and eagerly await your next paycheck.

2. You are the pilot of an aircraft. It's stormy outside; you are being driven by the wind and tossed to and fro but the tailwinds have allowed you to arrive 17 minutes ahead of schedule. You wonder if you can land now instead of waiting. You experience only a rush of emotion as you consider your situation. You decide to land now as you believe that the emotional rush tells you that doing so conflicts with no other aircraft.

Where was the clear communication from anyone aside from yourself and your own interpretation in either of those situations? What confirms that you are correct?

There was no "clear communication from anyone aside from" myself and my own interpretation in either of those situations. But neither my boss nor the air traffic controllers are God. Nor do they have the same purposes as God does. What my boss and the air traffic controllers do as their normal everyday work depends heavily on objectively-verifiable means of communication. If God did that, then we'd all know by now that God was actively involved in the lives of humans. We don't know that, so we must assume either (1) that there isn't any God, (2) that God simply doesn't have the capacity to communicate with everybody objectively, or (3) that for some reason God's purposes don't require Her/Him to communicate with everybody objectively. I don't see much point in seriously considering (1); my current belief is in some combination of (2) and (3).

Maybe the fact that God has to communicate with seven billion people has something to do with it. If you had to communicate with people, and all you knew was that those people were one of those seven billion, and when the possibility existed that you might need to communicate with hundreds or thousands simultaneously, would you use natural language to do it?

Why not? Why couldn't God simultaneously talk to 7 billion people in 7 billion different native tongues or dialects? That seems like child's play for an entity that has, according to some, created an incomprehensibly massive universe bound within the paradox of infinite continuance.

Seriously, why would this be a limitation of God?

God, as Latter-day Saints understand Her/Him, always works within natural law. Latter-day Saints also believe that God didn't create the universe out of nothing. I believe that while God found a way to bring the universe into existence using natural law, it is entirely possible that simultaneously broadcasting individual messages in audio to even a _million_ people at one time might simply be something that nobody can do, regardless of whether there's ten dialects or ten thousand.

You've talked enough about "the circular nature of" my argument, but you've never actually pointed out how it's circular. All you've said is that I assume there is a God at the beginning of my argument, and I assume there is a God at the end of my argument. That's not enough to establish a circular argument. In order to have a circular argument you need a line of inferences that start and end with the same assertion, and there is no such line of inferences in my arguments.

Hold on there, you left out some other assertions. According to you:

- You can determine, with absolute certainty, that God has answered you by your interpretation of a sensation,
- You can determine, with absolute certainty, the meaning of that sensation,
- You can determine, with absolute certainty, that the sensation that you received would have come from God, and only from God.

This is not a line of inferences that start and end with the same assertion! As just one example of how it's not, I've never used the first statement to argue the truth of the second one. So how can you claim that I'm using circular logic? Furthermore, I've never said that you "can determine, with absolute certainty," any of those three things. They're all contingent on the existence of God, and I've admitted over and over that I don't strictly know that God exists. So why do you assert that I have asserted that you "can determine, with absolute certainty" any of those three things?

Canpakes, do you consider Euclid's geometric proofs to be circular arguments? He also started with axioms he assumed to be true, and at the end of his arguments he still assumed those axioms to be true. There's no essential difference between my reasoning and Euclid's; the only difference is the axioms we started with.

The essential difference between your reasoning and Euclid's is that Euclid's proofs can be reproduced by anyone using the same set of tools, with exactly the same result. In contrast, your reasoning does nothing of the sort.

Once again establishing that my arguments are not circular.

[_KevinSim]

Why should we consider certain positive and negative sensations that look to be more connected to some religious event from God and not the simplest explanation of self generated? Can the body create an experience based on what we may want?

The "explanation of self generated" does quite simply explain how one got the positive or negative sensation, but it does not explain why God did not answer us, but left us to be deceived by our self-generated sensations. In my case it would be around ten years before I realized that the sensation I got could be self generated, so I went ten years thinking that sensation had to be externally generated. Why would God let me be deceived like that?

Of course the simplest explanation of the whole situation is that God simply doesn't exist. But I really see no point spending a lot of time considering that possibility.

It doesn't need to happen right after we ask the question. It could come hours, days, months, or years afterwards, as long as there's some way to connect the answer to the question.

It's bad enough to interpret a sensation as an answer from God right after you ask the question since it could be self generated, but days or months is much worse.

Can you provide an example of something that would be a clear answer days or months after one asks?

In all honesty no. I just didn't want to limit God to answering in one way and one way only when I didn't actually know God was so limited.

If you ask God a question and get two different answers, then you've got a problem; you have to determine which answer came from God and which did not.

That did not answer the question of how you know an answer came from God. You could get just one answer and you still have the same problem of how you know it is from God and not yourself.

If it's from yourself and not God, then what exactly is God doing while you've gotten that self-generated answer? Ignoring you?

How does one "make up" the rushing sensation that coursed through my entire body in 1976?

Bio-chemistry. What you eat, drugs, lack of sleep, lack of food or water, etc. Can you show that your mind is not capable of creating a rushing sensation? Do we not create feelings just by thinking. I know many get certain types of rushing sensations throughout their bodies when they see a very hot person come up and flirt with them. All kinds of things just by thinking about them cause many kinds of sensations and degrees of sensation. This looks to be evidence the mind is capable of producing these experiences. Especially if we really want them.

Well, then, let me know what I can do to produce such an experience, because I do "really want them." Drugs are out, though; I was taking no drugs in the month prior to my 1976 experience, and had taken no drugs except prescription medications in the 17 years prior. There was no lack of food or water in the month prior to the experience. A "very hot person" coming up and flirting with me is out too, since I'm married.

Great; tell us how God could "communicate with us in a clear and objective way."

God could show up in person. God could send an angel to communicate with a sincere inquirer. This would be a clear and objective answer, unlike the many sensations people get and interpret in so many different ways.

If God did "show up in person," how would the person to be communicated with know that it was the good God who controls the universe, and wasn't instead an evil or amoral impostor impersonating God? Similarly, if God did "send an angel to communicate with a sincere inquirer," how would the inquirer know whether the angel had come from the good God that controls the universe, and not some other source? There's an implicit assumption here that only good beings can appear to the "sincere inquirer" and claim to be God or sent from God, and I don't see how that assumption is warranted.