Charity, how is LDS right and FLDS, Strangites, RLDS, wrong?

[_charity]

[quote="beastie"]
beastie said: Yes. So you do have some familiarity with the topic. Why then are you so dismissive to the power of the brain to create reality? You call it “random brain chemical events”.

charity: Because I believe in the brain/mind school of thought.
beastie said: The still small voice is a quiet experience, a thought, an idea, a question, a feeling of peace and assurance. And you, and church leaders, tell members that this experience can provide a more than adequate basis for a testimony.

Yes, because it can. I just went back to reference a talk by Elder Packer and his testimony of the Savior. In essence he said he wanted to get a spectacular witness (he was a teenager at the time) and was told in essence, "you already know it."

beastie: After defining the still small voice, are you still going to pretend that it’s simply not possible to equate these experiences with other, natural, life experiences?

charity: No. Why should I? The trick is in knowing which is which. I sometimes don'e know myself. So I have learned to go with it as an inspiration. Every once in a while when my children were babies, I would get an idea in the night tha tmaybe something was wrong with them. I would go to check. I would think to myself it was silly, why would I think I was inspired to do that? And they were always okay. Until the timeour son, a week old, stopped breathing while I was checking on him. Because I was there and could stimulate his breathing again he lived. The dr. said had I not been there, he would have been counted as a SIDS baby.

charity: I am very impressed with your testimony of the Book of Mormon. And so sorry that you no longer see it for what it was. And what ever kind of testimony or experience anyone has, one is not better than the other. And you dismissing those members of your ward who did not have the same kind of testimony of Joseph Smith as you did of the Book of Mormon is even sadder. If we had been in the same ward, I could have told you I had the same kind of testimony of Joseph as a prophet that you did of the Book of Mormon. It is very, very sad.


beastie said: Maybe it’s you who has just received “the truth you need at this time”.

charity: I am sure I have the truth I need at this time. And I am sure I will get more, if I keep asking.

charity: The condescension part is the "simply repeating what you have been told." As you knew, of course.]

[_harmony]

I doubt your bishop said that.

You'd be incorrect. But then, you alone are qualified to declare doctrine, or that at least is what you appear to believe.

1. The Light of Christ is given to all mankind. I don't know that it is identical to the conscience, but that is its function. It is not the Holy Ghost.
2.The witness of the Holy Ghost can be given to any one any time that they need a witness to the truth, a truth.
3. The gift of the Holy Ghost is a specific ordinance, and that is what is meant in the sacrament prayer when it says, "that his spirit may always be with them." (Doctrine and Covents 20:77)

Good Lord, woman. Could you at least spell it right? It's Covenants.

And you're going to have to come up with a bit more scripture. Right now, you haven't proven your point. Either the Holy Ghost cannot witness to anyone until after they've received it or it can witness to anyone at anytime about anything, and no ordinance is necessary for it to work. You can't have it both ways.

Please refer to The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. ( I think that is pretty authoritative.)

I disagree. There is no authority except the scriptures, no doctrine except the canon. Either take your argument from the scriptures or admit it's only your opinion.

[_guy sajer]

On one hand, you claim that those who compare their experiences to what they feel during a powerful movie or rock concert obviously aren't talking about what you're talking about.

Come to that, how does Charity know that what these people claim to have felt during a powerful movie or rock concert isn't the same or similar to what she has felt that she insists is the "spirit" of truth (or whatever we chose to call it)?

Charity wants to reserve for herself the privilege of issuing judgments as to the content, quality, and meaning of "spiritual experiences." She chastizes others for deigning to comment on her experiences, but she freely comments on all others'. And implied by the epistemic foundations of her belief is that HER spiritual experiences Trump all others, except for those that confirm what her spiritual experiences witness to her.

I don't believe anyone possess religious or eternal "truth" per se, and I am highly skeptical of so-called spiritual experiences telling this or that person that this or that religion or sect is exclusively "true." I apply that across the board. I think we now know enough of the human brain, human emotions, human psyche to explain so-called spiritual experiences in scientific terms. Plus, the millions of different people all claiming to possess truth using similar epistomological processes indicates to me that spiritual witness is a highly questionable source of "truth." I claim no insight or special knowledge into eternal truths. I only claim to be skeptical of such claims made by others.

On the other hand, here's Charity proclaiming that she is one of an elite group representing around .001 of the world's population who claim that they and they alone possess religious truth and that only their spiritual experiences (to the extent they testify of religious truth) are valid (the others may have elements of validity in them, but they lack the complete validity of Charity's). More, if we fail to come to the same realization of truth as she has, God will punish us forever for it.

Now, which one of us is the arrogant one?

[_Gazelam]

The Holy Ghost can be recognized because what he bears testimony to Edifys.

[_guy sajer]

Question #1. Because I don't think people are looking for truth on a message board. You can see from the posts here what a lot of people are up to. And I don't see "finding truth" very high up on the list. I think pretty much everyone who comes here has their minds made up. I doubt if there will be very many "aha" moments. But I suppose there could an off chance that one will occur now and again.

I think this is generally true. But I think it also occurs more than you give credit. It was on another message board, for example, (The Foyer) that the debate on same-sex marriage caused me to reconsider and later change my view on the topic. I found the arguments and evidence for it persuasive and my own arguments and evidence against it lacking. This occured as recently as a year or so ago.

I think also that there is much for the true believers and apologists to learn about how other people have experienced Mormonism and life in general. They appear to have a hard time grasping the very simple fact that people have a variety of experiences that lead them to conclusions different than their own. Case in point, the recent debate about "object lessons," such as the licked cupcake. I think that if they were amenable to listening, many would have found that there is a lot going on out there in the Church that does not conform to their experience. Perhaps if they listened more, it might make them more reflective and empathetic (alas, I see little evidence of this).

On the other hand, we apostates have largely been where the apologists and true believers (such as even Charity) are today. We understand them all too well. My guess is that a few years ago, several of us would be making the same kinds of arguments that Charity is making today. We can still learn from them, but we understand them far better than they understand us, because we have been where they are and can easily empathize, whereas the reverse is much less likely to be true. Despite whatever else Charity may say, it is clear that she is fundamentally incapable or unwilling to put herself in our place. The same is true of, say, DCP, which is surprising given the amount of time they spend interacting with apostates and skeptics.

[Guest]

the road to hana: As I recall from a discussion on FAIR some time ago (when it was still FAIR and before I was kicked off), Charity believes that all ex-mormons are inherently untrustworthy, as evidenced by their unfaithfulness to the church. She certainly wouldn't ever expect to learn any sort of truth from any of us.

charity: you don't recall correctly. I said that people who violate sacred covenants and publish temple ceremonies are not trustworthy. And people who lie to get a temple recommend so they can secretly vido tape the temple ceremony. I have seen those behaviors defended. I don't know that you did. But that is what I was referring to. Like the man who makes a vow of love and fidelity to his wife, and then changes his mind later,and decides he isn't in love with her. He doesn't have permission to break his vows.

You might want to check your quotes above, Charity. The statement you've attributed to me was never written by me. It would help if you'd go back and correct it, and attribute it to the rightful poster (Lucretia MacEvil).

[_charity]

And you're going to have to come up with a bit more scripture. Right now, you haven't proven your point. Either the Holy Ghost cannot witness to anyone until after they've received it or it can witness to anyone at anytime about anything, and no ordinance is necessary for it to work. You can't have it both ways.

Please refer to The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. ( I think that is pretty authoritative.)

I disagree. There is no authority except the scriptures, no doctrine except the canon. Either take your argument from the scriptures or admit it's only your opinion.

My opinion only? I am glad to share Joseph Smith's "opinion." Harmony, you have said you are LDS. Then as a Saint, you believe that Joseph was a prophet. You accept his teachings on various gospel subjects.

Or you are no longer a Saint, except maybe in name. I don't know why you would want to continue to maintain an affiliation with an organization you no longer believe in. I know I wouldn't.

[_harmony]

My opinion only? I am glad to share Joseph Smith's "opinion." Harmony, you have said you are LDS. Then as a Saint, you believe that Joseph was a prophet. You accept his teachings on various gospel subjects.

No, the only thing I accept regarding Joseph being a prophet is that somehow he brought forth the Book of Mormon. I am required to believe the gospel was restored.I am not required to believe the man who did it was a prophet when he died. I am of the opinion that he lost whatever part of the prophet mantle he had the instant he got into bed with Fanny (that would be around 1831). Anthing that comes after that is suspect. And there's a lot that comes after that.

The canon is the only authority I recognize. I realize that is a problem for you and other apologists, but I am on firm ground there, since, when all's said and done, the canon is the only authority there is. When a leader, even Joseph Smith, disagrees with the canon, the leader is wrong.

Or you are no longer a Saint, except maybe in name. I don't know why you would want to continue to maintain an affiliation with an organization you no longer believe in. I know I wouldn't.

My TR is current. My tithing is current. I hold two callings and take the sacrament weekly with a clear conscience. What you would do is of little to no interest to me, since you don't wear my skin and you aren't loved by the people who love me.

[_charity]

My opinion only? I am glad to share Joseph Smith's "opinion." Harmony, you have said you are LDS. Then as a Saint, you believe that Joseph was a prophet. You accept his teachings on various gospel subjects.

No, the only thing I accept regarding Joseph being a prophet is that somehow he brought forth the Book of Mormon. I am required to believe the gospel was restored.I am not required to believe the man who did it was a prophet when he died. I am of the opinion that he lost whatever part of the prophet mantle he had the instant he got into bed with Fanny (that would be around 1831). Anthing that comes after that is suspect. And there's a lot that comes after that.

The canon is the only authority I recognize. I realize that is a problem for you and other apologists, but I am on firm ground there, since, when all's said and done, the canon is the only authority there is. When a leader, even Joseph Smith, disagrees with the canon, the leader is wrong.

Or you are no longer a Saint, except maybe in name. I don't know why you would want to continue to maintain an affiliation with an organization you no longer believe in. I know I wouldn't.

My TR is current. My tithing is current. I hold two callings and take the sacrament weekly with a clear conscience. What you would do is of little to no interest to me, since you don't wear my skin and you aren't loved by the people who love me.

Ok. I am sure you can apololgize to Joseph when you see him in the Celestial Kingdom.

[_Trinity]

My opinion only? I am glad to share Joseph Smith's "opinion." Harmony, you have said you are LDS. Then as a Saint, you believe that Joseph was a prophet. You accept his teachings on various gospel subjects.

No, the only thing I accept regarding Joseph being a prophet is that somehow he brought forth the Book of Mormon. I am required to believe the gospel was restored.I am not required to believe the man who did it was a prophet when he died. I am of the opinion that he lost whatever part of the prophet mantle he had the instant he got into bed with Fanny (that would be around 1831). Anthing that comes after that is suspect. And there's a lot that comes after that.

The canon is the only authority I recognize. I realize that is a problem for you and other apologists, but I am on firm ground there, since, when all's said and done, the canon is the only authority there is. When a leader, even Joseph Smith, disagrees with the canon, the leader is wrong.

Or you are no longer a Saint, except maybe in name. I don't know why you would want to continue to maintain an affiliation with an organization you no longer believe in. I know I wouldn't.

My TR is current. My tithing is current. I hold two callings and take the sacrament weekly with a clear conscience. What you would do is of little to no interest to me, since you don't wear my skin and you aren't loved by the people who love me.

Ok. I am sure you can apololgize to Joseph when you see him in the Celestial Kingdom.

**Snickers***

Oh, I'm sure Harmony will do that. And right after she apologizes, she's going to ask to be one of his wives!