In answer to both of these, let me say this. There is not a ex member on this board that has not stated that they have felt the Holy Ghost. Everyone here says they have felt the Holy Ghost, but they go on to say that it was just some strange feeling, it didn't rally mean anything, it was just some form of delusion/ self hypnosis/ cog dis. whatever.
---Did you even read my post?
The Holy Ghosts entire purpose is to bear testimony to the truthfulness of spiritual things. The more we seek after the writings of teachers of truth, be they the scriptures or the writings of modern prophets, th emore we become accustomed to the promptings and guidance the spirit guides and directs us with. We feel him more strongly when he is there, and we feel his departure more accutely when he is forced to flee from us.
---Gaz friend- let's try an experiment. Let's try to have a critical discussion, where you listen to me, and I listen to you, and we respond to each other's questions and points.
What do you say?
You seem interested in engaging, so what would you say to the particular points in my original post, and to my subsequent question to you?
Note to Ray A:
I sympathize with your ongoing struggle to understand many of the posts on here, including this one of mine...In light of past experience, I regretfully doubt that including simplified synopses for you would really help you that much. Perhaps you and Gaz could start a reading comprehension support group for each other...?
In answer to both of these, let me say this. There is not a ex member on this board that has not stated that they have felt the Holy Ghost. Everyone here says they have felt the Holy Ghost, but they go on to say that it was just some strange feeling, it didn't rally mean anything, it was just some form of delusion/ self hypnosis/ cog dis. whatever.
---Did you even read my post?
The Holy Ghosts entire purpose is to bear testimony to the truthfulness of spiritual things. The more we seek after the writings of teachers of truth, be they the scriptures or the writings of modern prophets, th emore we become accustomed to the promptings and guidance the spirit guides and directs us with. We feel him more strongly when he is there, and we feel his departure more accutely when he is forced to flee from us.
---Gaz - let's try an experiment. Let's try to have a critical discussion, where you listen to me, and I listen to you, and we respond to each other's questions and points.
What do you say?
You seem interested in engaging, so what would you say to the particular points in my original post, and to my subsequent question to you?
Note to Ray A:
I sympathize with your ongoing struggle to try to understand many of the posts on here, including this one of mine, and past experience has left me doubtful that including simplified synopses for you would really help you as much as you hope. Perhaps you and a few other MD contributors with the same difficulty could start a reading comprehension support group for each other...?
I sympathize with your ongoing struggle to understand many of the posts on here, including this one of mine...In light of past experience, I regretfully doubt that including simplified synopses for you would really help you that much. Perhaps you and Gaz could start a reading comprehension support group for each other...? [/color][/size]
It's not quite that, Tal. More like reading a telephone book, or the fine print on a chocolate wrapper. I'm past my philosophical musings on Mormonism, or much else for that matter. But I understand you're only a novice at this. Like Crockett and Schryver, it's time to leave peripatetic rumblings to those who need some kind of intellectual purging. Or whatever. Let me know when you find yourself.
After re-reading the opening post I see that I only responded to the opening, not taking in what you were saying in the closing.
The answer is this. All religions in th eworld have a creation story. If there was indeed a creation, then obviously someone somewhere along the line broke away, this pattern continueing along the line, just as we have seen the Catholic church fracture into the various protestant sects.
It is a simple thing to pick apart the protestant sects in showing that none of them have the authority to act in the name of God. All so called Christian faiths are divisions from the mother/catholic church. if they are an unauthorized branch, then they carry no authority to act in the name of God.
This takes us to the Catholic vs jew debate. Either the Christians are right in that Jesus was the Christ, or the Jews were correct and the authority to act in the name of God resides with the Jews as it has historically. From here you can look at ther Muslims, Buddhists, whatever.
Coupling religious history with the testimonies of the ancient prophets is a simple matter. Viewing these events and facts with the accompanying Spirit of the Holy Ghost will reveal what is right and wrong.
The Koran is an obvious falsehood. The buddhist view of the Spirit, as well as those of eastern religions, is in no way edifying or expressive of the true nature of the Human Spirit.
Jesus Christ was the exalted Son of the Father. he was the one who taught Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Joseph Smith. Through Joseph Smith he restored the Gospel that was lost before the Catholic Church ever even formed. The Holy Ghost testifies of all of this.
Your next question would be, how do you know if its the Holy Ghost. For that I would send you to my lengthy post above from our conversation thread.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
What in the hell are you talking about?! lol How bizarre.
What say we forget about that critical discussion idea...?
Ray A - I know how daunting it can be to read over 1300 words IN A ROW. That's like - what - TWO newspaper op-ed pieces BACK TO BACK!!! Plus, reading that many words can take up to FOUR OR FIVE MINUTES!
Lucky for you there aren't any long, boring, anachronism-filled, transparently fraudulent, 275,000 word, "most correct books on earth!" out there you're under religious obligation to read all the time. (Whew!)
Is this really as good as the Mormon responses get on here?
What in the hell are you talking about?! lol How bizarre.
What say we forget about that critical discussion idea...?
Ray A - I know how daunting it can be to read over 1300 words IN A ROW. That's like - what - TWO newspaper op-ed pieces BACK TO BACK!!! Plus, reading that many words can take up to FOUR OR FIVE MINUTES!
Lucky for you there aren't any long, boring, anachronism-filled, transparently fraudulent, 275,000 word, "most correct books on earth!" out there you're under religious obligation to read all the time. (Whew!)
Is this really as good as the Mormon responses get on here?
Hi Tal, is that as good as you can do to respond to "Mormon responses...here"? Since you don't disclose anything on your "Profile" how about a-bit-a-bio? Maybe, more-to-come ;-) Warm regards, Roger
The question of this thread is one that philosphers have grappled over for several centuries, to no complete concensus. In fact, these grapplings have given rise to the field of Epistemology.
And, while the question at hand has certainly proved of interest to philosophers, I wonder what utility there may be to the non-philosophers--or, in other words, what value there may be to the "average Joe" and their day-to-day living in seeking out an answer to this question.
To me, the farmer isn't conserned if the local weather report qualifies as "knowledge" or not. He or she simply wants the best weather information possible so as to hopefully make wise and fruitful agricultural decisions.
I think in large part the same applies to religion. I don't know if many religionists are all that concerned whether the word "know" technically applies in matters of faith or not. Rather, I suspect that to them, and certainly to me, it is the underlining notion (i.e. the strength of their conviction) that is of significance, and not so much the absolute accuracy of the terminology used to convey that notion. In other words, they are less concerned with the preciseness of terminology usage, and more concerned with the functionality of the same. For example, if a member testifies that they "know the Church is true", and others understand that to mean that the member has an unwaivering conviction of the verity of the Church, then the word "know" has been functional in conveying the member's meaning, regardless whether philosophers think the usage of the term in this instance is accurate or not.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Last edited by Gadianton on Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The "utility" such questions might have to some people is this:
Let's just say - I know this will sound positively outlandish - but let's just say that some people are devoting their lives to a religion based on their belief that that religion is all it claims to be, when in fact, there is no possible way it could be what it claims to be; and let's just say, that some of those people would wish to know if their belief was wrong.
They might wish to know that because, let's say, they have unique, extraordinary talents which cannot find full expression without transgressing some religious policy or doctrine or something. Let's say, for example, that a man might be a wonderful father, and do much good for the world in that capacity, but he remains celibate because he mistakenly, though with best intentions, believed Roman Catholicism was "the only true religion in the world", and that the highest service to God was to be a priest.
Or, let's take the opposite - people who should NEVER be parents, who instinctively rather dislike children even, but who wind up having children, and sometimes even a lot of children, simply because a man they think is a genuine prophet told them that God wanted them to.
Or, let's say a man or woman is attracted sexually primarily to members of his/her own sex; and they spend years thinking they have to "repair" themselves, years praying and fasting and struggling with feelings of self-reproach or discouragement, perhaps even years just struggling to not admit to themselves that they are gay. And perhaps, while they might not ever have wanted a sexually active life anyway for some reason, they might have been spared an awful lot of tears and heartache and counseling and fraudulent "priesthood blessings", etc. In that case, knowing that there is no good reason to regard homosexual inclination as a "spiritual defect" would have quite a bit of utility, I should think.
There are hundreds of hypothetical cases one can think of, which illustrate the utility of being able to distinguish TRUTH from FALSEHOOD; and you, Wade, ought to be ashamed of yourself for coming on here to in effect suggest otherwise. It says more about you than anyone else on here ever could - and it says something which, if you had any healthy sense of shame, you should be mortified by. In this regard, I really don't understand guys like you and "A Light In The Darkness" and "Dr. Peterson" - there is no sense of shame, no sense of embarrassment over what to 99% of normal people in the world, would be totally freaking mortifying. What has to happen to a guy, I wonder, for them to be missing that part of the self? Is it the religion? Would they have been like that anyway? I really don't know. All I know is, it surprises me everytime I come across it on here.
PS Your farmer example actually buttresses the argument for the utility of knowing the difference, for what a farmer needs are the most reliable weather forecasts possible, as opposed to some stupid folk magic prediction based on cat guts or a spun penny or astrology. That illustrates in the most forceful way the utility of being able to distinguish cheap tricks from reality.