Why I am a Latter-day Saint

[_Bazooka]

It's possible to wonder if God always gives a consistent answer to questions asked God about the truthfulness of various churches, without assuming in advance that God always gives consistent answers. That's where I am right now.

Why wouldn't you assume in advance like you did with believing in God in the first place?

It would certainly be more convenient for me if God always told people that the LDS Church was true, and always told people that other churches were not true.

Yes it would, unfortunately the reverse is true but you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

I don't know if God has granted that convenience for me or not.

Yes you do, but you refuse to accept the evidence.

I'm certainly not going to tell God how God needs to answer questions people of other churches ask about their churches; that's entirely up to God, and God can tell them anything God wants to tell them.

He obviously does, but you refuse to accept the evidence.

At times I have wondered if maybe the seeming paradox is a result of God wanting me in the LDS Church but wanting other people in other churches. I don't know if that's the solution or not.

When you say 'solution' you mean, 'way to keep my testimony in tact despite the evidence'.

I still think it's a huge exaggeration to imply that people of <insert name of any other faith> ask God if <insert name of any other faith> is true and get told that it is true. For one thing, many of the faiths you're including there believe it's a mistake to ask God if their faith is true; how then can you argue that people of those faiths ask God if their faiths are true and get told their faiths are true? After all, their faiths instruct them not to ask.
If you're willing to confine your consideration to a much smaller group of faiths, then you might have more of a point.

Well, for the sake of discussion how about trimming it down to just those faiths that believe in the Book of Mormon?

Some time back someone of a faith that had broken off of the LDS Church stated that the way to find out if his faith was true was to ask God if it was. It was that case that I found worrisome; after all, how could I tell him that his faith was wrong, when he had just as much reason to believe that God endorsed his faith as I had to believe that God endorsed mine? In the end I simply told him that I had prayed about the LDS Church, and that God had told me that the LDS Church was true. Now what this man should have done was recognize that we were at an impasse, which was pretty much what I had already recognized. But he didn't. He proceeded to try to discredit the answer that I had received. Which was more believable, he asked, someone who had asked God who understood the Gospel or someone who didn't? (These weren't precisely his words, but they're as close as I remember.) It became clear very quickly that while he said that the way to find out if his faith was true was to ask God, he didn't really believe that that was the way to find out. All of a sudden I got really excited; if he didn't really believe that asking God a question was the way for someone like me to find out God's will, then maybe there was no conflict after all.

I believed asking God a question about the LDS Church and the Book of Mormon was the way for someone like me to find out God's will. Like you, I started from a basis of believing there was a God and that He would grant me an answer if I asked appropriately. I followed the guidance in the Book of Mormon and in John.

He gave me the opposite answer to the one He gave you.

Now what?

[_Themis]

I always love the argument that God is confusing and inconsistent. I suppose when you want to use subjective experiences that one cannot really know if they are self generated or not you are always going to have this problem.

Themis, first let us establish that the problem exists.

You have already established the problem by admitting you don't know if your sensation you felt was from God or not. You admit your sensation did not come you a voice speaking your language and telling you in plain English the church is true. This is not a clear message of anything. You added your own interpretation about what you wanted to believe.

I say that if someone goes to God in prayer, in pursuit of a kernel of truth s/he can use as a certain foundation for her/his own personal theology, and if this someone asks God a question ready to base the whole rest[/b' of that someone's life on [b]whatever answer God provides, that God will give that someone the kernel of truth s/he is looking for.

You say? You already admit you don't know. You cannot even say how one is supposed to know how this supposed kernel of truth is accurate. It's no better a method you have used then using the magic 8 ball. This really is the heart of the problem.

So the first step is to establish that people have gone to God as described, and have received answers that contradict the answer that I got.

Is this not also established, or do you believe you and some other Mormons are the only ones who were sincere in praying to God?

[_KevinSim]

Canpakes, i see what you're trying to say, but I've got to disagree. If I had asked God if the LDS Church was true and had gotten a negative response, it might have been difficult to leave the LDS Church, but I feel quite confident I would have done it.

My point is that you would not have received a negative response. You could only have received no response or something that you interpreted as a positive response. It was the latter because the existence of God was assumed by you prior to asking, God's nature was assumed by you before asking, the nature of the response was determined by you to be correct regardless, and your interpretation of the response as being of God was assumed correct.

Wrap all of that up within the only theological environment that you've ever experienced, and there is only one possible outcome that you would allow.

Why do you think so? Why do you think that "there is only one possible outcome that" I would have allowed? If it were to turn out that God exists, do you really think that God would be incapable of giving me a response that I would have taken as "no"? That God is of necessity a bad communicator?

[_KevinSim]

It's possible to wonder if God always gives a consistent answer to questions asked God about the truthfulness of various churches, without assuming in advance that God always gives consistent answers. That's where I am right now.

Why wouldn't you assume in advance like you did with believing in God in the first place?

The more things one assumes, the higher the chance that one is going to turn out to be wrong. So I've tried to assume as few things as I can and still live a conscientious life.

It would certainly be more convenient for me if God always told people that the LDS Church was true, and always told people that other churches were not true.

Yes it would, unfortunately the reverse is true but you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Bazooka, you have yet to demonstrate that it is a fact. All you have done is state that every existing faith uses the same means to find out if it is true. You have most definitely not explained to anyone why one should believe that every existing faith uses that same means. Why should I acknowledge as fact something that you have stated but haven't given any convincing arguments for? And that I have in fact given arguments against that you have not responded to yet?

I don't know if God has granted that convenience for me or not.

Yes you do, but you refuse to accept the evidence.

What evidence?

At times I have wondered if maybe the seeming paradox is a result of God wanting me in the LDS Church but wanting other people in other churches. I don't know if that's the solution or not.

When you say 'solution' you mean, 'way to keep my testimony in tact despite the evidence'.

Yes, that's precisely what I mean, though perhaps not in the way you think. If for some reason I demanded that God always give everybody the same answer, and I were to discover that someone else had asked God the same question and had gotten a different answer, then that would be a pretty convincing argument that God does not exist. So, quite simply, I am more convinced that God exists than I am convinced that God must give everyone consistent answers.

I still think it's a huge exaggeration to imply that people of <insert name of any other faith> ask God if <insert name of any other faith> is true and get told that it is true. For one thing, many of the faiths you're including there believe it's a mistake to ask God if their faith is true; how then can you argue that people of those faiths ask God if their faiths are true and get told their faiths are true? After all, their faiths instruct them not to ask.
If you're willing to confine your consideration to a much smaller group of faiths, then you might have more of a point.

Well, for the sake of discussion how about trimming it down to just those faiths that believe in the Book of Mormon?

Oh, come on; just admit that you were wrong. It doesn't hurt. I do it all the time.

Some time back someone of a faith that had broken off of the LDS Church stated that the way to find out if his faith was true was to ask God if it was. It was that case that I found worrisome; after all, how could I tell him that his faith was wrong, when he had just as much reason to believe that God endorsed his faith as I had to believe that God endorsed mine? In the end I simply told him that I had prayed about the LDS Church, and that God had told me that the LDS Church was true. Now what this man should have done was recognize that we were at an impasse, which was pretty much what I had already recognized. But he didn't. He proceeded to try to discredit the answer that I had received. Which was more believable, he asked, someone who had asked God who understood the Gospel or someone who didn't? (These weren't precisely his words, but they're as close as I remember.) It became clear very quickly that while he said that the way to find out if his faith was true was to ask God, he didn't really believe that that was the way to find out. All of a sudden I got really excited; if he didn't really believe that asking God a question was the way for someone like me to find out God's will, then maybe there was no conflict after all.

I believed asking God a question about the LDS Church and the Book of Mormon was the way for someone like me to find out God's will. Like you, I started from a basis of believing there was a God and that He would grant me an answer if I asked appropriately. I followed the guidance in the Book of Mormon and in John.

He gave me the opposite answer to the one He gave you.

Now what?

That's easy. This is precisely where we left off when we were discussing this matter before. I attempted to find out if you really had asked God the same question I had, in the same way that I had. You got offended at my line of questioning and declared that you weren't going to engage with me any more. I wasn't calling you a liar. I was convinced that you genuinely thought you had asked the same question as I did, and in the same way. That doesn't mean you did.

So if I do that now, again, attempt to find out if you asked God the same question I did, in the same way I did, are you going to get offended again and once again bring the discussion to an end?

And while we're at it, what did John say that was relevant for finding out the truth about God?

[_Themis]

If it were to turn out that God exists, do you really think that God would be incapable of giving me a response that I would have taken as "no"? That God is of necessity a bad communicator?

How would God communicate a clear message of NO? Would he say nothing and hope you interpret this as a NO. I know many members who do just that. How about what we might view as negative feelings or events. Does it need to happen right after we ask the question, or can it come hours, days, months after? How would you determine it is from God anymore then your positive feelings or events? I don't know how anyone could not realize this would not be a good way to communicate. It would leave it so subjective people would make up what ever they like, just as it would if God did not exist.

A person can't. There is no way to objectively verify it. So what? Communication with God is subjective thing. It would be nice if there was an objective way to communicate with God, but unless you can think of one we're stuck with the subjective means.

This is your admission to what I say above. by the way can you have been an active member of the church your whole life and not think of a clear way God could communicate objectively to sincere inquirers, or is this what you need to think to maintain belief? I can think of how easy it would be for a God to communicate with us in a clear and objective way.

[_Bazooka]

Now what?

That's easy. This is precisely where we left off when we were discussing this matter before. I attempted to find out if you really had asked God the same question I had, in the same way that I had. You got offended at my line of questioning and declared that you weren't going to engage with me any more. I wasn't calling you a liar. I was convinced that you genuinely thought you had asked the same question as I did, and in the same way. That doesn't mean you did.

So if I do that now, again, attempt to find out if you asked God the same question I did, in the same way I did, are you going to get offended again and once again bring the discussion to an end?

So, here's what I did.
1. I had faith that God existed.
2. I studied the Book of Mormon and gave it thoughtful consideration.
3. I listened with my heart for the whisperings of the Holy Spirit to confirm that what I was reading was true.
4. I prayed sincerely for an answer, whilst having faith that an answer would be granted.
5. I lived completely within the worthiness guidance of the Church.
6. I did this for an extended period of time, 2 years.
7. I did get an answer, but it was the opposite to the one you got.

Now what?


P.S. I note from another thread that your job requires that you are a temple recommend holding Latter Day Saint.
Are you sure the answer to the question "Why I am a Latter-day Saint?' isn't "Because I'd get fired if I wasn't."?

[_canpakes]

My point is that you would not have received a negative response. You could only have received no response or something that you interpreted as a positive response. It was the latter because the existence of God was assumed by you prior to asking, God's nature was assumed by you before asking, the nature of the response was determined by you to be correct regardless, and your interpretation of the response as being of God was assumed correct.

Wrap all of that up within the only theological environment that you've ever experienced, and there is only one possible outcome that you would allow.

Why do you think so? Why do you think that "there is only one possible outcome that" I would have allowed? If it were to turn out that God exists, do you really think that God would be incapable of giving me a response that I would have taken as "no"? That God is of necessity a bad communicator?

You explain 'why' in your response... twice.

1. "... that I would have taken as 'no'... "
2. "Is God of necessity a bad communicator?"

The fact that you need to 'take' (i.e., interpret) God's answer as 'yes' actually bolsters the argument that God is, indeed, a bad communicator, since God otherwise would have the power to explicitly and sufficiently display and make clear the answer to you - be it via a loud, bright and resounding 'YES', spelled out across the sky in iridescent firecracker-like explosions, or any other of a number of significantly less-flashy means.

Why are you interpreting anything God would tell you? Are you and I 'interpreting' each other here in this thread, or are we plainly communicating using an undeniably clear medium of information exchange? Why could God not do the same?

Even if we ignore the other aspects of this discussion (such as how you choose that God exists regardless) and concentrate just on God's answer, for any other conclusion to be reached as regards the circular nature of your argument and self-affirmation of having chosen the correct faith a much more convincing argument will need to be made about God's communication to you other than your 'interpretation' of it. I'm not saying that the standard of proof requires that after your inquiry to God you subsequently cough up a golden plate or anything, but the details that you are giving now lack the substance to assist in moving your argument past its circular nature.

[_KevinSim]

That's easy. This is precisely where we left off when we were discussing this matter before. I attempted to find out if you really had asked God the same question I had, in the same way that I had. You got offended at my line of questioning and declared that you weren't going to engage with me any more. I wasn't calling you a liar. I was convinced that you genuinely thought you had asked the same question as I did, and in the same way. That doesn't mean you did.

So if I do that now, again, attempt to find out if you asked God the same question I did, in the same way I did, are you going to get offended again and once again bring the discussion to an end?

So, here's what I did.
1. I had faith that God existed.
2. I studied the Book of Mormon and gave it thoughtful consideration.
3. I listened with my heart for the whisperings of the Holy Spirit to confirm that what I was reading was true.
4. I prayed sincerely for an answer, whilst having faith that an answer would be granted.
5. I lived completely within the worthiness guidance of the Church.
6. I did this for an extended period of time, 2 years.
7. I did get an answer, but it was the opposite to the one you got.

Now what?

Bazooka, you didn't answer my question. If I "attempt to find out if you asked God the same question I did, in the same way I did, are you going to get offended again and once again bring the discussion to an end"?

P.S. I note from another thread that your job requires that you are a temple recommend holding Latter Day Saint.
Are you sure the answer to the question "Why I am a Latter-day Saint?' isn't "Because I'd get fired if I wasn't."?

My devotion to God is greater than my desire to keep my current job. If I were to discover that God wanted me out of the LDS Church, I would quit my job, leave the Church, and find another job.

[_KevinSim]

If it were to turn out that God exists, do you really think that God would be incapable of giving me a response that I would have taken as "no"? That God is of necessity a bad communicator?

How would God communicate a clear message of NO? Would he say nothing and hope you interpret this as a NO. I know many members who do just that. How about what we might view as negative feelings or events.

You've got it right there, negative feelings.

Does it need to happen right after we ask the question, or can it come hours, days, months after?

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.

How would you determine it is from God anymore then your positive feelings or events?

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. I asked my question in 1976 and got an immediate answer in 1976, and then I got something else that could have been an answer in 2002. I struggled with that for a while before I finally went to God and told God that I was going to act on my 2002 answer unless God let me know God didn't want me to. God did let me know He didn't want me to, so I went back to the 1976 answer. So I guess I would say that if you have two potential answers, let God know you don't know which one came from Her/Him, and ask God to help you find out which one is.

I don't know how anyone could not realize this would not be a good way to communicate. It would leave it so subjective people would make up what ever they like, just as it would if God did not exist.

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

A person can't. There is no way to objectively verify it. So what? Communication with God is subjective thing. It would be nice if there was an objective way to communicate with God, but unless you can think of one we're stuck with the subjective means.

This is your admission to what I say above. by the way can you have been an active member of the church your whole life and not think of a clear way God could communicate objectively to sincere inquirers, or is this what you need to think to maintain belief? I can think of how easy it would be for a God to communicate with us in a clear and objective way.

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

[_KevinSim]

Why do you think so? Why do you think that "there is only one possible outcome that" I would have allowed? If it were to turn out that God exists, do you really think that God would be incapable of giving me a response that I would have taken as "no"? That God is of necessity a bad communicator?

You explain 'why' in your response... twice.

1. "... that I would have taken as 'no'... "
2. "Is God of necessity a bad communicator?"

The fact that you need to 'take' (i.e., interpret) God's answer as 'yes' actually bolsters the argument that God is, indeed, a bad communicator, since God otherwise would have the power to explicitly and sufficiently display and make clear the answer to you - be it via a loud, bright and resounding 'YES', spelled out across the sky in iridescent firecracker-like explosions, or any other of a number of significantly less-flashy means.

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"?

Why are you interpreting anything God would tell you? Are you and I 'interpreting' each other here in this thread, or are we plainly communicating using an undeniably clear medium of information exchange? Why could God not do the same?

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?

Even if we ignore the other aspects of this discussion (such as how you choose that God exists regardless) and concentrate just on God's answer, for any other conclusion to be reached as regards the circular nature of your argument and self-affirmation of having chosen the correct faith a much more convincing argument will need to be made about God's communication to you other than your 'interpretation' of it.

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.

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.