Science or Spirit?

[_Inconceivable]

I wondered if apologists have ever received a witness from the HG that they were indeed in accord with truth.

Hi TD,

When I was struggling with the new information I discovered about the church, I began to read FARMs and the like in order to redeem my faith in the doctrines I had received witnesses of and had been nurished with all of my life.

However, my first (and last impression) of apologists in general is that they are apostates - doubters. Themselves struggling with each and every issue because they can't just ask God and get definitive answers amidst the mounds of evidences that screams "lie" and just accept the whisper.

I think they swagger to the beat of their own drum. I think they are inspired by self- importance and the at-a-boy's amongst themselves.

No Holy Spirit here, just lots of junk logic mingled with a little scripture, ancestral conviction, elitism, FPM's and deceipt.

-----

I, on the other hand, had witnesses all of my life that God directed His true church by a prophet - continuous revelation I could count upon explicitly, forgiveness, being born again, a literal resurrection, Christ visit to the 'ites in America, the literal Book of Mormon, PoGP, the First Vision, MY Mission, MY Marriage, My Family, Tithing, Priesthood healing, Sabbath day observance - you name it. I had personal witnesses concerning all of these things and more.

I didn't need apologists because my faith was intact.

When my faith was being destroyed, they (apologists) only confirmed that the Holy Spirit is not what it seems.

[_bcspace]

So, here is the dilemma, do believing members go with science or with the Spirit?

They are one and the same. John 16:13

[_Roger Morrison]

So, here is the dilemma, do believing members go with science or with the Spirit?

They are one and the same. John 16:13

J-16-13, I "can" go with that, when I interpret it in a Liberal way: i.e. Jesus is speaking to ALL "hearers," (now "readers"): "...the spirit of truth will guide YOU into ALL truth..."

Is the "spirit of truth" the Holy-spirit, the Holy-ghost, or something outside of the religious realm, and if outside, knows no prejudice or discrimination? Such as other "God" given sustainers of life through the natural science of photosynthesis, for example??

I think TD's question can lead to understanding that might possibly break down barriers between the two communities of believers & non-believers??

De-mystifying "Spirit" will go a long way in secularizing religious sectarianism and its ersrwhile limitations... What think ye???

Roger

[_squawkeye]

and Mark Hoffmans father had the confirmation of the Holy Ghost that his son was innocent and a victim, not a perpetrator.
Seldom trust the blatherings of those who get their information this way as most (allowance for some who may actually be inspired) get all the inspiration they need by wanting something to be true. Just as young men get the confirmation by the blood flowing hot and fast.
Inspiration and desperation are closely related much of the time.

[_bcspace]

Is the "spirit of truth" the Holy-spirit, the Holy-ghost,

Yes.

or something outside of the religious realm, and if outside, knows no prejudice or discrimination?

All things are spiritual.

Such as other "God" given sustainers of life through the natural science of photosynthesis, for example??

No. These are just truths to be revealed.

I think TD's question can lead to understanding that might possibly break down barriers between the two communities of believers & non-believers??

Only to the extent non believers begin to believe.

De-mystifying "Spirit" will go a long way in secularizing religious sectarianism and its ersrwhile limitations... What think ye???

That God is the antithesis of ecumenism. Any religion that teaches such is false as logically (assuming a God that does not lie and is not a respector of persons) there can only be one God-authorized religion/philosophy.

[_Maxrep]

So, here is the dilemma, do believing members go with science or with the Spirit?

[/i] ;-)

I think believing members would say they go with the spirit. Really though, I think their enjoyment of modern day conveniences, reliance on medical advancements, etc, shows that science wins the day.

Members probably go out of there way to find instances to give credit to the spirit, whether or not it is anything other than coincidence, and don't mind short changing the science in the process.

Maybe its like a dance, where science always leads, and spirit has no other option but to follow its lead if it wants any sort of visibility out on the dance floor. I think the church bends over backward to accommodate science, and to contort its position to the will of science, begging the privilege of not being completely trampled out by rational thought. Science rightfully takes what is hers, and religion has no other option but to show gratitude for the leftover scraps.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi BCS, you said:

Quote:
De-mystifying "Spirit" will go a long way in secularizing religious sectarianism and its ersrwhile limitations... What think ye??? (My original statement)


That God is the antithesis of ecumenism. Any religion that teaches such is false as logically (assuming a God that does not lie and is not a respector of persons) there can only be one God-authorized religion/philosophy.

I understand "Ecumenism" to mean, all together, bi-partisan, world-wide, nondenominational...
To me that is what a "God" that is not a "respector of persons" would require??? Or, are you steadfast in the belief that,

"Mormonism IS THE ONE GOD-AUTHORIZED RELIGION/PHILOSOPHY"??

If I picked up correctly from an above statement, you put all of the onus to compromise on the "unbeliever"... Don't you think some "believers" have things to unlearn/un-believe??

Do you think, religion as it is commonly practised/ritualized is necessary for our world to run orderly, as it does? Probably I should have said, "for humanity to be humane and deal justly with each other?" Please elaborate your answer.

Roger

[_bcspace]

I understand "Ecumenism" to mean, all together, bi-partisan, world-wide, nondenominational...

Sure.

To me that is what a "God" that is not a "respector of persons" would require???

The reason God is not ecumenical is because one has to compromise/strip away/make up doctrines to come to that point. Where did God ever authorize/reveal such a thing?

Or, are you steadfast in the belief that,

"Mormonism IS THE ONE GOD-AUTHORIZED RELIGION/PHILOSOPHY"??

Yes and logically there can only be one (as per the caveats I listed above). Consider:

If God reveals doctrine about His nature and requirements for salvation to one group of people and a different doctrine for the same to a different group of people then either:

God is a liar because both can't be right.

OR

God is a respector of persons because He requires different things from different people.

[_ludwigm]

... then either:

God is a liar because both can't be right.

OR

God is a respector of persons because He requires different things from different people.

OR

God (that more-or-less defined object) doesn't exist. His/her/its requirements are man-made.

[_Roger Morrison]

BCS said:

The reason God is not ecumenical is because one has to compromise/strip away/make up doctrines to come to that point. Where did God ever authorize/reveal such a thing?

Oh, why to you conclude that? Where did/does "God" state "HE" does not want "HIS" children to live in harmony/as-one?

Quote:
Or, are you steadfast in the belief that,

"Mormonism IS THE ONE GOD-AUTHORIZED RELIGION/PHILOSOPHY"??


Yes and logically there can only be one (as per the caveats I listed above). Consider:

If God reveals doctrine about His nature and requirements for salvation to one group of people and a different doctrine for the same to a different group of people then either:

God is a liar because both can't be right.

OR

God is a respector of persons because He requires different things from different people.

Too simplistic IMSCO. How about: "God" 'talks' to everyone, BUT everyone doesn't hear. Those who do apply "God's" laws/principles, generally planting good-seeds from which they reap good harvests; by which they are known. An ancient teacher, so taught.

That same teacher taught THE basic premise upon which all 'good' depends: "Love/respect/abide "God" AND your neighbor as yourself."

I respectfully suggest, that the "God" referred to is not known, generally, by the Religious Institutions (churches) nor many folks who claim to represent/follow "Him". Actually, that teacher told those mis-reps in his time, "you don't know "God"!" The same today!?

I'm not sure where your idea that, "...He requires different things from different people." comes from? Other than it being a Staw-man to divert serious thought? Which does seem to be lacking, generally, as religious tendency is defensive, rather than exploritory, as is science...

As I have discovered :-) Roger